Epistle of S. Leo but there is not a word in it of those he quotes Sect. 5. 41. He quotes Scotus as declaring that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not 42. To the same purpose he quotes Occham but I can finde no such thing in him 43. To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he saith no such thing 44. To prove that the Decree of the Lateran Council was but a pretended one he quotes Platina Many thing 's indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed leaving out the next words giving the reason of it which shewed that he meant not of Decrees of Faith but of raising Force to send to the Holy Land against the Saracens which was the cause of calling that Council The Pope when he saw the power of the Saracens to encrease in Asia called a Council c. Many things came then in consultation but nothing could be fitly decreed because both the Pisans and Genowayes by Sea and the Cisalpins by Land were at war among themselves c. 45. To prove that our own men have affirmed that Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture he quotes Suarez That Cajetan affirmed that the Article of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture when Suarez saith no such thing but onely this But of Catholiques Cajetan alone taught that secluding the authority of the Church those words This is my body sufficed not to confirm this truth 46. To the same purpose he quotes Canus who saith not that it is not expressed but not so express i.e. not plainly or clearly and ranks it with the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead and in his next Chapter passeth to things which belong to Christian Faith which are neither clearly nor obscurely in Scripture Not all things which pertain to Christian Doctrine are expressed in holy Writ For the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son the equality of three Persons in one substance and their distinction by relative proprieties you shall not finde so express in the Canonical Books wherefore as the Article of the Resurrection was contained in that I am the God of Abraham c. which afterward Christ expounded to the less intelligent so the Church by the Spirit of truth hath explicated some things which are had obscure in the holy Scriptures 47. He saith Henriquez affirms that Scotus saith Transubstantiation was not ancient when Henriquez saith no such thing 48. To prove that in Peter Lombards time Transubstantiation was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholique Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no and after Peter Lombard had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd he could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no he quotes these words If it be enquired what kinde of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kinde I am not able to define it Onely I know that it is not formall because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is changed into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former authorities seem to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted c. And saith they are a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was new not the Doctrine of the Church Which is a notable falsifying of that Author and the Doctor if he read him could not chuse but know he quoted him directly against his meaning For there were two Questions one whether the substance of the Elements be converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and this question alone pertains to what we believe in the point of Transubstantiation And this question Peter Lombard had treated of afore and resolved positively 1. That it is undoubtedly to be held that under the visible species the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us is received by the wicked and the contrary he counted a Heresie The next Section he entitles De Haeresi aliorum c. Of the Heresie of others who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in sign And thus he speaks of it There are other transcending the madness of the former Hereticks who measuring the power of God by the model of natural things do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth affirming that in the Altar is not the Body or Blood of Christ nor the substance of Bread and Wine converted into the substance of Flesh and Blood who take occasion of erring from the words of truth whence began the first Heresie against this truth among Christs Disciples It is the Spirit that quickens c. And they cite those words of S. Augustin Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. And there are other sayings also ministring fomitem to their madness The poor ye have alwayes with you but me not These and other sayings the aforesaid Hereticks use in maintenance of their Error Then he sets down his Proofs to the contrary which were the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article which having set down he concludes thus By these and other more it is manifest that the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of the Body and the substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood Having thus dispatched that first question in the next Section which is that which the Doctor quotes he comes to a second which is a meer School nicety touching the manner of this substantial change whether it be formal or substantial or of some other kinde And touching that he useth the words quoted by the Doctor I am not able to define it c. Nay and even in that too he quotes him fraudulently to abuse the Reader For these words which he sets down as Peter Lombards argument against the modus substantialis were onely set down as an Objection to which he there gives an answer which the Doctor conceals To which may be answered in this manner that the Body of Christ is not said to be made in that sense as if the Body which was form'd in the Virgins womb were form'd again but because the substance of Bread or Wine which afore was not the Body or Blood of Christ is by the celestial Word made his Body and Blood And a little after Therefore after Consecration there is not the substance of Bread or wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain And to one that should object against this how this can be he answers briefly A mystery of Faith may salubriter be
believed but may not salubriter be searcht into 48. To the same purpose he quotes Durandus as even after the Lateran Council maintaining That even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained which Durandus maintains not but the contrary for his first conclusion there is The substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood And in the very next words the Doctor himself saith that Durandus saith That by reason of the authority of the Church it is not to be held How then did he hold it All that he there maintain'd was the possibility of it supposing it were true which he saith it is not 49. To the same purpose he quotes Alphonsus de Castro fraudulently as if he had meant of the thing or Doctrine of Transubstantiation Rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio when he meant it onely of the name Of the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ there is rare mention in ancient Writers Of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son much rarer c. yet who but an Heretick will dare to deny these because in ancient Writers they are not mentioned under these names 50. Against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he quotes Justin Martyr The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ commanded to do c. when Justin Martyr saith no such thing but onely that the oblation of a Cake in the old Law was a figure of our Eucharist Truly the Oblation also of the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical Bread which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to do or make in remembrance of his Passion 51. To the same purpose he quotes Eusebius Demonstrat Evang. l. 1. c. 1. when the first three Chapters of that Book are not extant 52. To the same purpose he quotes another saying of Eusebius The Apostles received a command according of the constitution of the New Testament to make a memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table by the Symbols of his body and healthful blood when he saith not so but thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this Sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful blood as is the institute of the New Testament 53. To the same purpose he quotes S. Macarius In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood when Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary Bread and Wine exhibiting the exemplar or antitype his Flesh and Blood 54. To the same purpose he quotes S. Augustin as denying a real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but in figure onely when he denied not that but onely the eating it in that gross carnal or sensible manner as the Capernaites conceived as would have appeared had the Doctor set down the words before which he fraudulently suppressed Durum illis c. It seemed hard to them what he said Except ye eat the flesh c. they took it foolishly they understood it carnally and thought that our Lord would cut off some gobbets of his body and give them c. But he instructed the twelve c. understand spiritually what I speak You are not to eat this body which you see c. 55. To the same purpose he quotes S. Augustin lib. 10. cont Faustum as saying That which by all men is called a Sacrifice is the sign of the true Sacrifice c. when S. Aug. hath no such words in that book Sect. 6. 56 57 58. In citing the Decree of the Council of Constance against Communion in both kindes to make it fit his purpose and render it more odious to the Protestant Reader he commits three gross Falsifications and which unless he took not the words out of the Decree himself but upon trust could not but be wilfull For 1. Whereas the Decree recites three Errors and Innovations as the causes of it viz. 1. The maintaining it necessary to communicate the people under both kindes and the practice of that innovation 2. The maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be given after supper 3. Or otherwise to people that were not fasting Whereas in some Countreys some temerariously presume to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kindes and do ordinarily communicate the Lay people under the species of wine also affirm that the people ought to be communicated after supper or otherwise not fasting c. He recites it as made against the first onely concealing the other two fraudulently under a line of pricks Whereas in certain parts of the world some temerariously affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kindes of Bread and Wine and do every where communicate the Laity not onely in Bread but in Wine also ... Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although c. 2. That he sets down the Decree as containing an express and direct opposition to the institution of Christ and practice of the Primitive Church for communicating the people under both kindes The Council decrees and defines against this error of giving the Chalice to the Laity that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kindes yet this notwithstanding ... And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kindes Here is the acknowledgement both of Christs Institution in both kindes and Christs ministring it in both kindes and the practice of the Primitive Church to give it in both kindes yet the conclusion from these premises is We command that no Priest communicate the people under both kindes The opposition is plain c. Thus far he Whereas in the Decree there is no such thing for these are the words of it Although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples under both kindes yet this notwithstanding the laudable authority of holy Canons and the approved custom of the Church observes that this Sacrament ought not to be Consecrated after supper nor received of the faithful not fasting unless in case of the Article of death And as this custom was reasonably introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals that although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received under both kindes afterward it came to be received under the species of Bread onely by the Laity it is to be had for a Law which is not lawful to reject or alter without authority of the Church 3. That he sets down these as the words of the Decree We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kindes whereas in the Decree are no such words for this is all it saith Wherefore to say that it is sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this custom or
those sometimes unwritten c. But if our Lord be faithful in all his words c. without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity either to detract from the things that are written or to introduce any thing that is not written seeing our Lord hath said My sheep c. wherefore we also as heretofore we have ever had that determined in our mindes to avoid all voice or speech contrary to the Doctrine of our Lord so at this time c. But in all his discourse he hath no such words as the Dr. quotes for his to adde any thing to the Faith that is not there found 3. To the same purpose he quotes Theophilus Alexandrinus It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in Scripture when he spake likewise onely of a particular Heresie that Origen had devised of his own proud head against express Scripture viz. that Christ was at one time or other to lose his Kingdom I cannot know with what temerity Origen feigning such things and following not the authority of Scriptures but his own error c. But being ignorant that it is an instinct of a devilish spirit to follow the sophismes of humane mindes which words the Dr. craftily left out and to think any thing Divine extra Scripturarum authoritatem without the Scriptures authority 4. To the same purpose he quotes S. Athanasius The Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being immodestiae vecordia to speak those things which are not written when he spake it likewise onely of a particular Heresie contrary to Scripture viz. That Christs flesh was consubstantial to the Godhead If therefore ye be Disciples of the Gospels speak not against God iniquity but walk by the Scriptures But if ye will prate things dissonant from the Scripture why do ye contend with us who endure not either to speak or hear any thing beside what is written What is therefore the madness of your immodesty that ye speak things which are not written and think things that are dissonant from piety which words likewise the Dr. craftily left out as who presume to say that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial to the Deity 5. Against our veneration of the Images of Christ and his B. Mother and Heavenly Saints he quotes Lactantius Without all peradventure whereever an Image is meaning for worship there is no Religion when he knew Lactantius spake onely of worshipping with Divine honour the Idols of the Heathen Gods as his whole discourse afore and after manifests which it would be too long to set down 6. To the same purpose and in the same fraudulent manner he quotes Origen We ought rather to dye then pollute our Faith with such impieties when Origen spake onely of the worshipping of Idols of the Heathen Gods But the Christians not onely shun the Temples Altars and Idols of the Gods but go more readily to death lest with any excess or impiety they should altogether pollute that which they most rightly believe of God the Creator of all things 7. Against our giving the Communion in one kinde he saith The Primitive Church did Excommunicate them that did not receive the Sacrament in both kindes and quotes for it the Canon Comperimus when the Canon spake not of receiving the Sacrament by the Communicants but of the consummating of the Sacrifice by the Priest as appears by the reason given Because the division of one and the same Mystery or Sacrifice cannot be without great Sacriledge and by the title of the Canon The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without his Blood 8. To the same purpose he quotes S. Ambrose He who receives the Mystery otherwayes then Christ appointed that is saith the Doctor in one kinde when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord c. where to wrest it to his purpose he first corrupts the words for S. Ambrose saith not who Receives but who Celebrates it plainly meaning the Priest alone nor doth he say otherwayes then Christ appointed but otherwayes then it was given by him 2. He corrupts the sense with his ridiculous gloss devised out of his own brain without any least colour of ground for it in the place nay S. Ambrose gives another reason for it Quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt c. They who come without the discipline of tradition and conversation are guilty c. In his 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 9. To prove that all who believe the unity of substance and Trinity of persons in the Godhead are Catholiques he quotes the Imperial Law All who believe this Doctrine that is in the Father Son and holy Ghost c. are Christians and Catholiques when he could not but know that that Law meant not that they were Catholiques absolutely but onely as to those points for after that Law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Unity of the Godhead 10. To prove that in the Church of Rome there is a pretence made to a Power not onely to Declare but to Make new Articles of faith and new Creeds he quotes the Bull of Pope Leo X. condemning this Article of Luther It is not in the power of the Pope to constitute Articles of faith when Luthers word was not constituere but statuere i.e. to decide declare determine or settle Articles of Faith which may be without making them such 11. To the same purpose he quotes Turrecremata l. 2. c. 203. where he hath no such words as he is quoted for but cap. 107. he hath but then the words say not that the Pope hath power to make Articles of Faith nor do they mean any more but as the title of the Chapter proposeth to prove that to him belongs to declare or determine matters of Faith nor do they say absolutely as the quotes them The Pope is the measure and rule c. but onely that because the Pope is primus maximus Praelatorum ad eum maximè pertinebit c. To him most or above any other it will pertain to be the measure c. 12. To the same purpose he quotes Augustinus Triumphus who saith no such thing as he quotes him for viz. that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith or new Creeds nor did he mean that he could multiply any new Articles or put them into the Creed that were not alwayes of Faith and implicitely at least contained in holy Scripture as is manifest 1. from the reason given by him For in the Creed are put those things which universally pertain to Christian Faith which words are fradulently left out by the Doctor 2. From his express Doctrine in his Resolvendum There hath been one Faith of the
answer'd this in contempt of the authority of the Fathers urged by Nilus against the Pope's Supremacy when there was no such thing For the objection of Nilus there urged was not from Fathers but from Reason and it was onely to prove that the Pope ought to be subject to the Canons of holy Fathers because he had his Dignity from the Fathers and Popes themselves had made divers Canons and he were unworthy to be honoured as a Father if he contemn'd the Fathers To which reasons Bellarmin answer'd That the Pope had not his Dignity from the Fathers and that if he made Canons he could not binde himself and that if he be honoured as a Father by all he hath no Fathers in the Church but all Children and therefore he cannot be subject to them and that he contemns not the Fathers c. 125. He saith this speech of S. Cyprian in the Council of Carthage None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by tyramical power drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obediance c. was spoken and intended against Pope Stephen to reprehend him for his Lording it over God's Heritage and excommunicating his brethren and this his chastising of Pope Stephen for this usurpation was also approved in him by S. Augustin when S. Augustin in the place quoted saith no such thing nor understood it as spoken against Pope Stephen but as spoken modestly and humbly to encourage the Bishops to deliver their Sentence without fear of excommunication and he interprets the words not to mean as if the Bishops were exempted absolutely from being judged by their Superiors but onely in such cases as that which were undetermined by the Church None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops c. What more meek what more humble Certes no authority should deterre us from inquiring what is true Since every Bishop c. I suppose he means in those questions which have not yet been discussed by the most eliquate perspection For he knew how great a profundity of Sacrament then the whole Church did by various disputation discuss and he made free the choice of enquiring that by examination the truth might be manifested For he did not lye or desire to catch his more simple Colleagues in their words that when they had discovered themselves to hold contrary to him he should censure them to be excommunicate This was it he approved in S. Cyprians speech and this was all he approved 126. Against S. Peters Primacy he quotes S. Chrysostom He did all things with the common consent nothing by special authority or principality when in that very place he most strongly asserted S. Peters Primacy as would have appear'd had the Doctor set down the words before and after Peter arising up in the midst of the Disciples said c. How fervent is he How doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ How is he Prince in the Chair and ever first begins to speak Now consider that also how he doth act all things by the common vote of the Disciples nothing by his own authority nor did he simply say we set up this man in the place of Judas And although he had a right equal to all of constituting him yet out of vertue or modesty congruently he did it not But deservedly doth he first exercise authority in the business as who had them all in his hand for to him Christ said Confirm thy Brethren 127. He saith Canus confesses That there is in Scripture no revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his special authority But Canus saith not all out so but that it is not indeed per se there revealed And in the next words he saith That it is had out of the Gospel that the Pastor substituted by Christ in the Church after Peter hath all the ordinary power of Peter and all other priviledges granted to Peter for the Churches sake 128 129 130 131. He saith it is confessed by Cusanus Soto Driedo and Canus that this succession of Peter's Chair was not addicted to any particular Church nor can be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church which last is not confessed by any out of them and for the first Driedo saith to the contrary in the very place quoted Not rashly therefore but with pious faith we believe with the Fathers our predecessors that the Faith and Primacy of the Church and the Chair of Peter are inseparable from the Roman Diocess Sect. 11. 132 133 134 135. He quotes four Canons as shewing that private Mass is against the Doctrine and practice of the ancient Church of Rome and the Tradition of the Apostles and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication when not one of them hath any such thing nor forbids the Priest to celebrate without Communicants but onely enjoyns the Deacons or people at due times to communicate with the Priest So C. Peracta When Consecration is done that is when the Priest hath consummated let all Communicate that will not be excluded from the Church for so the Apostles have appointed and so holds the holy Roman Church Which Canon yet meant not of the Lay-people who as appears by another Canon made within twenty years after were obliged to Communicate onely three times a year Christmas Easter and Whitsuntide when yet the Priests said Mass every day but onely of the Deacons who assisted at Mass. For so declares the Title of it Let the Minister who after Consecration contemns to Communicate be excluded from entring into the Church And so the Gloss Let all Communicate that is all who minister the body and blood So C. in coena Upon Maundy Thursday the receiving of the Eucharist is by some neglected which that it is to be received on that day by all the faithful except those to whom for great crimes it is prohibited the use of the Church demonstrates seeing even Penitents are on that day reconciled to receive the Sacraments of our Lords body and blood So C. Si quis If any one come into the Church and hears the sacred Scriptures and out of wantonness averts himself from receiving the Sacrament and in observing the Mysteries declines from the constituted rule of Discipline we decree such a one to be cast out of the Church So C. omnes fideles All the faithful who come to the Church in the sacred Solemnities of Easter Christmas c. let them hear the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Gospels but they that persevere not in Prayer whilst Mass is finished nor receive the holy Communion it is fit they be deprived of Communion as raising disturbances of the Church Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 136. He saith It is taught by Navar that though the Church calls upon sinners to repent on Holy-Dayes and at Easter yet by the Law of God they are not tyed to so much but onely to repent in the Article or danger of