they had received the Sacrament it followeth that neither the one nor the other in S. Austines judgement received Christs true flesh which whosoever eateth shall live for ever Againe it followeth that the true flesh of Christ cannot be eaten but by faith only and doth not this make much for the Knight Yea but saith the Iesuite with due reverence bee it spoken to S. Austines authoritie Maldonat his interpretation is more sutable to the text and discourse of our Saviour in the whole chapter then that of S. Austines And with due reverence bee it spoken here Flood and Maldonat two Iesuites like Mules in the Latine proverbe Mutuum scabunt scratch and claw one the other But let any man examine the interpretation of Maldonat and that other of S. Austins and apply them both to the words of Christ and his maine scope and drift in that sixt Chapter and hee will find S. Austins discourse in that tractate to bee pure gold and Maldonate his glosse to be drosse or Alcumie stuffe which will not indure the fire To the sixteenth Gregorie de Valentia concludeth not roundly with heretiques Greg. de Val. de trans l. 2 c. 7. minimè mirum est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui è veteribus minimè consideratè rectè hac de re senserint as Flood speaketh but dealeth very squarely confessing in effect that Gelasius and Theodoret are against Transubstantiation Yea but saith Flood Bellarmine Suarez and Valentia himselfe bring other substantiall answers to those Fathers Very substantiall answers indeed that by substance are understood accidents like to the glosse in the Canon law statuimus id est abrogamus quo magis id est quo minùs The words of Theodoret are that the mysticall signes after Consecration doe not goe out of their proper nature but continue in their former substance shape and figure and may be seene and felt as before How doth the Iesuite thinke you expound these words P. 175. Theodoret speaketh not saith he of the substance of bread as if that did remaine but hee only saith that the accidents remaine in their owne substance that is their owne entitie nature or being which to them is not accidentall and therefore may be tearmed their substance for it is plaine that accidents have a certaine being of their owne different from that of their subject wherein they inhere or rest I grant that it is plaine they have but it is as plaine or rather plainer that Theodoret in that place by sabstantia understandeth no such thing For in this very Dialogue hee exactly distinguisheth betweene substance and accidents and telleth us that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or substance hee meanes not accidents but substance properly so taken saying Theod. Dial. 2. c. 22. wee call a body a substance but health and sicknesse an accident Besides that which hee here calleth signum mysticum hee in this very Dialogue tearmeth donum oblatum the gift offered eibum ex seminibus bread made of seeds and afterwards a thing visible and tangible but who ever heard of accidents without a subject offered to God for a gift or that dimensions or colours or figures are a nourishment made of seeds or that accidents without a subject can bee felt Againe it is evident and confessed by all that accidents properly so called have not shape or figure For that implies thrt the accidents should bee one thing and shape and figure another whereas shape and figure are meere accidents themselves Lastly if Theodoret had thought that the substance of bread and wine ceaseth and is changed into the very body and bloud of Christ and that the accidents thereof only remained Theodoret ahd not taken the heretique in his owne net by retorting a similitude drawne from the Sacrament upon him but the Heretique had taken Theodoret after this manner It is granted by us both that the body of Christ after his ascension is so changed as the sacred Symbolls after Consecration but the sacred Symbolls are so changed that in the Eucharist there remaineth only the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance therefore Christs body after his Ascension is so changed that the shape and forme of flesh remaineth and not the very nature and substance Of this see more in the Romish Fisher held in his owne net P. 144. Yea but saith Flood Theodoret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by Consecration and which is understood and adored What is this that is made here not the accidents for they remaine the same not the substance of the bread for that was before neither is that said to bee heleeved much lesse adored I answer briefly of bread that was before common a holy Sacrament of Christs body and bloud is made and beleeved and reverenced as a most sacred mysterie as when Waxe is made a seale or bullion the Kings coyne or money Theâ—d ibid non mutans 〈◊〉 rum sed â—â—â—urae adijceers graetiam the substance is not changed but the use significancie or efficacie so in the Sacrament according to the mind of Theodoret there is a change made but accidentall only not substantiall To the seventeenth Cardinall Cusanus is not produced by the Knight as a witnesse speaking plaine against Transubstantiation but as lisping something to that purpose not as maintaining professedly Consubstantiation for that had not beene safe for him the Roman Church from whom hee held his Cardinals hat determining the contrarie Excit lib. 6. si quis intelligeret panem non transubstantiari sed supervestiri nobiliori substaÌ„tiaÌ„ Prout guidam veteres Theologi intellexisse reperiuntur but yet secretly favouring that opinion his words are that some ancient Divines are found to have understood by the words This is my body the Bread not to bee transubstantiated but to be over clothed with a more noble substance Had he held Transubstantiation an article of faith he would have branded those who held the contrarie with a note of heresie and not said some ancient Divines but some old heretiques thought that the words This is my body implyed not Transubstantiation but rather a kind of Consubstantiation As for that errour of the Printer in the marginall quotation at which the Iesuite glanceth as if the Knight had mistaken libros excitationum for exercitiorum or exercitationum I answer the errour is as happy as that in the Colen edition of S. Cyprian cessat error Romanus for error humanus and that in Platina nisi qui duarum partium ex Carnalibus integra suffragia tulerit Plat. in vit Clement Sander l. 1. de scbism Aug. Or in Garnets Apologie by Eud. Iohann rebustioribus est proponendus hic cibus Olidus for Cibus Solidus for Cardinalibus or that of the Printer of Ingolstade Wolfeum conatu summo nixum esse primam toties ecclesiae sedem occupare vanitatis sacerdotalis fastigium conscendere for unitatis
alledgeth is falsly translated Ecclesiasticus 3.11 he should have rendred the Greeke thus A Mother in dishonour or defamed is a reproach to her children such a Mother wee grant the Church to be a reproach to all her children To the fourth The number of Sacraments we prove two manner of wayes first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first by demonstrating our two secondly by refuting the five they adde there unto Howsoever the Iesuit here as also Baylie the antagonist of Rivet insult upon us as if it were unpossible to prove the precisenumber of two Sacraments and no more because neither the name nor the number of Sacraments is any where set downe in terminis in Scripture yet they shall find that wee faile not in proofes of this point but they in their answers For to reserve the refutation of their five to the next Paragraph we demonstrate our two by arguments drawne first from the name secondly from the definition of Sacraments thirdly from the example of Christ fourthly from the end of the Sacraments fiftly from the testimonies of the ancient Doctours of the Church 1. From the name Sacramentum is derived from the verbe sacrare to consecrate and signifieth a holy thing a holy Rite whereby wee are consecrated unto God Now it is evident that by Baptisme wee give our names to Christ wee take our militare sacramentum to fight under his banner and that thereby wee are sanctified and consecrated to his service the like wee may observe in the Lords Supper wherein wee offer our bodies and soules as a holy and lively sacrifice unto God we are incorporated into Christs body and made one bread and one body because wee partake of one bread the bread which we breake Is it not the Communion of the body of Christ the Cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ In the rest which our Adversaries tearme Sacraments there cannot bee given the like reason of the name For by them wee neither put on Christ as in Baptisme nor are made members of his mysticall Body as by the Lords Supper 2. From the definition of Sacraments every Sacrament of the New Testament is a seale of the new Covenant Rom. 4.11 Now it is agreed on all parts that he only hath authoritie to seale the charter in whose authoritie it is to grant it But wee find that Christ in the New Testament set only two seales Baptisme the Institution whereof wee have Teach all nations baptizing them Math. 28.19 in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost and the Lords Supper the institution whereof wee have bee tooke bread and brake it saying Luk 22.19 this is my Body doe this in remembrance of mee In these Sacraments wee have all the conditions required first an outward and visible sign in Baptisme water in the Eucharist bread and wine Secondly an Analogie or correspondencie betweene the signe and the thing signified betweene Water which washeth the body and the spirit which washeth the soule betweene bread and wine which nourisheth the body and Christs body and bloud which nourisheth the soule Thirdly a promise of sanctifying and saving grace to all that use the outward rite according to our Lords institution the promise annexed to Baptisme wee find Mar. 16.16 Mtch. 26.28 Hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved to the Eucharist wee find this is the bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you Iohn 6.51 and for many for the remission of sinnes and if any one eate of this bread hee shall live for ever When our adversaries shall prove in each of their five supernumerarie sacraments these three conditions wee will subscribe to their whole number of seven till then wee content ourselves with our two 3. From the example of Christ Christ our head consecrated in his owne person all those holy rites which hee instituted for his owne members Mat. 3.15 This Christ himselfe intimateth when being repelled by S. Iohn from his baptisme saying I had need to bee baptized of thee and commest thou to mee He answered Suffer it to bee so now for thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righteousnesse And S. Austine saith therefore Christ would bee baptized Serm. de Epiph baptizari voluit quia voluit facere quod faciendum omnibus imperabat ut bor us magister doctrinam suam non tam verbis insinuaret quam actibus exerceret because hee would doe that which hee commanded all others to doe that as a good master hee might not so much insinuate his Doctrine by words as exhibit it by acts But this our good Master exhibited by acts the doctrine of two Sacraments only whereof hee participated himselfe of Baptisme Math. 3.16 And Iesus when he was baptized went up straight way out of the water of the Eucharift Matth. 26.29 I will not drinke hence-forth of this fruit of the vine untill the day when I drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome Which words necessarily imply that before hee uttered them hee had drunke of the cup which hee gave to them saying Drinke yee all of this 4. From the end of the Sacraments We need but two things to instate us in grace remission of our sinnes and ablution no more to maintaine us in our christian life but birth apparell food and physick but all these are sufficiently represented and effectually conveied unto us by two Sacraments For we receive ablution by the one absolution by the other wee are bred by the one wee are fed by the other wee are clothed by the one wee are healed by the other 5. From the testimonies of the ancient Doctours of the Church S. Anstine L. 2. de Symb. ad catechumenos c. 6. percussum est latus ut Evangelium loquitur statim manavit sanguis aqua quae sunt ccclesiae gemina Sacramenta aqua in quâ sponsa est purificata sanguis ex quo invenitur esse dotata I sid l. Origin sunt autam Sacramenta baptismus Chrisma corpus sanguis Christi Rupert de vict verb. l. 12. c. 11. quae quot sunt praecipua salut is nostrae sacramenta Sacrū baptisma sancta corporis ejus sanguinis Eucharistia geminum spiritus sancti datum Pasc l. de coena dom sacramenta Christianae Ecclesiae Catholicae sunt baptismus corpus sanguis Domini Fulbert ep 1. lib. part Tom 3. tertium est noscere in quo duo vitae sacramenta continentur Christs side was strucken as the Gospell speaketh and presently there issued out of it water and bloud which are the two twin Sacraments of the Church water whereby the Spouse is purified and bloud wherewith shee is endowed S. Isidore the Sacraments are Baptisme and Chrisme the body and bloud of Christ Rupertus which and how many are the chiefe Sacraments of our salvation Hee answers two holy
Baptisme and the holy Eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ the double gift of the holy Ghost Paschasius the Catholique Sacraments of the Christian Church are Baptisme and the body and bloud of Christ Fulbertus the way of Christian religion is to beleeve the Trinitie and veritie of the Deitie and to know the cause of his Baptisme and in whom the two Sacraments of our life are contained Of all these arguments brought by Protestants the Iesuit could not be ignorant Yet hee glaunceth only at one of them to wit the second which he would make us beleeve to bee an absurd begging the point in question How can saith he Sacraments bee Seales to give us assurance of his Word when all the assurance we have of a Sacrament is his Word This is idem per idem or a fallacie called petitio Principij As S. Austine spake of the Pharisees Quid aliud eructarent quà m quo pleni erant What other things should these Pharisees belch out then that wherewith they were full wee may in like manner aske what could wee expect for the Iesuit to belch out against the Knight then that which he is full of himselfe sophismes and fallacies That which hee pretends to find in the Knights argument every man may see in his to wit a beggarly fallacie called homonymia For the Word may be taken either largely for the whole Scripture and in that sense wee grant the Sacraments are confirmed by the Word or particularly for the word of promise and the Word in this sense is sealed to us by the Sacrament and this wee prove out of the Apostle against whom I trust the Iesuit dare not argue what Circumcision was to Abraham and the Iewes that Baptisme succeeding in the place thereof is to vs but Circuncision was a Seale to them of the righteousnesse of faith promised to Abraham and his posteritie Rom. 4.11 therefore in like manner Baptisme is a seale unto us of the like promise What Bellarmine urgeth against our definition of a Sacrament to whom the Iesuit sendeth us is refuted at large by Molineus Daneus Rivetus Willet and Chamier to whom in like manner I remand the Iesuit who here desiring as it seemed to bee catechised asketh what promises are sealed by the Sacraments I answer of regeneration and communion with Christ His second quaere is what need more seales then one or if more why not seven as well as two I answer Christ might adde as many Seales as hee pleased but in the new Testament hee hath put but two neither need wee any more the first sealeth unto us our new birth the second our growth in Christ If I should put the like question to the Iesuit concerning the King what need he more Seales then one or if he would have more why not seven as well as two I know how hee would answer that the King might affix as many seales to his patents and other grants as hee pleaseth but quia frustra fit per plur a quod fieri potest per pauciora because two seales are sufficient the Privie seale and the broad seale therefore his Majestie useth no other Which answer of his cuts the wind-pipe of his owne objection His last question is a blind one how may wee see saith he the promises of God in the Sacraments S. Ambrose and S. Austine will tell him by the eye of faith Magis videtur saith S. Ambrose quod non videtur that is more or better seene which is not seene with bodily eyes Sacraments saith S. Austine are visible words because what words represent to the eares that Sacraments represent to their eyes which are anointed with the eye-salve of the spirit In the Word we heare the bloud of Christ clenseth us from our sinnes in the Sacrament of Baptisme we see it after a sort in the washing of our body with water in the Word wee heare Christs bloud was shed for us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after a sort we see it by the effusion of the Wine out of the flagon into the Chalice and drinking it In the Word wee heare that Christ is the bread of life which nourisheth our soules to eternall life In the Sacrament after a sort wee see it by feeding on the Consecrated elements of Bread and Wine whereby our body is nourished and our temporall life maintained and preserved To the fift In the former Paragraph we handled those Arguments which the Logicians tearme Dicticall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this we are to make good our Elencticall in the former we proved positively two Sacraments in this privatively we are to exclude and casheere all that the Church of Rome hath added to these two which deviseth Sacraments upon so weake grounds and detorteth Scripture in such sort for the maintenance of them that a learned Divine wisheth that as for the remedie of other sinnes so there were a Sacrament instituted as a speciall remedie against audacious inventions in this kind and depravations of holy Scripture to convince them For of an Epiphonema this is a great mysterie Ephes 5.32 they have made a Sacrament the sacrament of Matrimonie of a promise whose sinnes yee remit Iohn 20.23 they are remitted they have made a second Sacrament the sacrament of Penance of an enumeration of the Governours and Ministers of the Church Ephes 4.11 And hee gave some Apostles some Prophets some Pastours some Evangelists some teachers a third Sacrament the sacrament of Order of a relation what the Apostles did Acts 8.17 In laying hands on them who received the gift of tongues a fourth Sacrament the sacrament of Confirmation Of a Miracle in restoring the sick to their former health by anoynting them with oyle in the name of the Lord a fift Sacrament the sacrament of Extreame Vnction A child cannot be bishopped a single partie contracted a Priest or Deacon ordained a penitent reconciled a dying man dismissed in peace without a sacrament the sacrament of Extreame Vnction If they take Sacrament in a large sense for every divine Mysterie holy Ordinance or sacred Rite they may find as well seventeene as seven Sacraments in the Scriptures if they they take the Word in the strict sense for such a sacred Rite as is instituted in the New Testament by Christ with a visible signe or element representing and applying unto us some invisible sanctifying and saving grace I wish the Iesuit might but practise one of their Sacraments that is doe penance so long till hee found in Scripture that and the other foure Sacraments which they have added to the two Instituted by Christ To begin with them in order and give Order the first place wee acknowledge the ordination of Priests and Deacons by Bishops to be de jure divino and we beleeve where they are done according to Christs Institution that grace is ordinarily given to the party ordained but not sacramentall grace not gratia gratum faciens but gratia gratis data a ghostly power
1100 de Gratiano Aiph advers haereses l. 1. c. 2. in fine Ad transmarina qui putaverint appellandum a nullo infra Africam in Communione suscipiatur Bin. in Concil Milevit Cā 22 Codex Can. Eccl. Afric Can. 28. v. Nisi forte ad Apostolican sedem appellaverint Grat. causa 2. quest 6. Placuit fol. Mibi 153. Haec exceptio non videtur quadrare Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 24. notwithstanding hee professeth the worke was purged and restored to his integrity by most learned men by the command of Gregory the 13. in the yeare 1580. Your Alphonsus à Castro tells us that this shamefull errour ought to be made knowne to all men lest others by this abuse take occasion to erre in like manner as namely Johannes de Turrecremata and Cardinall Cajetan who both cited this place out of Gratian for the Romish faith and the Popes Supremacie and yet no such thing is to be found in St. Austin The Councel of Milevis alias the African Councell is falsified by Gratian for the Popes Supremacie The words of the Councell are these Those that offer to appeale beyond the Seas let none within Africa receive them to Communion Gratian observing that this was a strong evidence and barre to the Popes Supremacie according to his custome hath thrust in these words into the Canon Except it bee to the Apostolike See of Rome Now what saith Bellarmine to this falsification He confesseth that some say This exception doth not seem to square with the Councell I know not how the squares goe with your men at Rome but I finde that amongst your partie there is no rule without an exception especially if it make against your doctrine St. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria is purged in the Text it selfe and is forged by Aquinas for two principal points of faith viz. Transubstantiation and the Popes Supremacie Touching the first he saith That we might not feele horrour Aquin. in Catena in illud Luc. 22 Accepto pane c. seeing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altar the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmities doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit Bread and Wine converting them into the verity of his owneflesh that the body of life as it were a quickening seed might be found in us Here is a faire Evidence or rather a foule falsification for your carnall presence But what saith your owne Vasques the Jesuit Citatur Cyrillus Alex. in Epistola ad Casyrium quae inter ejus opera non habetur illius tamen testimonium citat S. Thomas in Catena Cyrils testimony is eyted by Thomas but there is no such Tract to be found in all his workes Againe touching the Popes Supremacie hee brings in St. Cyrill saying As Christ received power of his Father over every power a power most full and ample that all things should bowe to him so hee did commit it most fully and amply Aquinas in opusculo contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum quartum Pontificem maximum both to Peter and his Successors and Christ gave his owne to none else save to Peter fully but to him be gave it And the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every doctrine Peter and his Church to bee instead of God And to him even to Peter all doe bowe their head by the law of God and the Princes of the world are obedient to him even as to the Lord Jesus And we as being members must cleave unto our head the Pope and the Apostolike See That it is our duty to seeke and enquire what is to be beleeved what to bee thought what to be held because it is the right of the Pope alone to reprove to correct to rebuke to confirme to dispose to loose and binde Here is a large and ample testimony cited in the name of an ancient Father for the honour and power of the universall Bishop This passage is alledged out of Cyrils worke intituled The Treasurie against Heretiques Thesaurus adversus haeticos Tom. 2. p. 1. but whereas there are 14. Bookes written by him of that Title there are no such words to be found in the whole Tract But observe the proceedings of your good Saint hee conceived the authoritie of one Father though rightly cited was not a sufficient proofe for an Article of faith and thereupon to make good his former Assertion hee summons 630. Bishops who saith hee with one voice and consent made this generall acclamation in the Councell of Chalcedon Aquinas in opusculo ut supra God grant long life to Leo the most holy Apostolike and universall Patriarch of the whole World He tels us further it was decreed by the same Councell If any Bishop be accused let him appeale to the Pope of Rome because we have Peter for a rocke of refuge and he alone hath right with freedome of power in stead of God to judge and try the cause of a Bishop accused according to the keyes which the Lord did give him Without doubt this decree was a good inducement for the Church of England to subscribe to the Popes Supremacie if you could make good this proofe out of the Councell of Chalcedon for it is one of the first foure generall Councels which we subscribe unto by our Acts of Parliament An. 1. Elizab. But where are those words to bee found in that Councell Your Pope Zozimus falsified a Canon in the first Councell of Nice as I have shewed and your Popes Champion St. Thomas hath falsified another and both for the universality of the Pope by which you may easily discerne that you wanted antiquity to prove your faith when your men are driven to forge and faine a consent of many hundred Bishops in an ancient and generall Councell See Concil Chalced. Can. 28. Act. 15. for the supporting of your Lord Paramount when as in truth it decreed the flat contrary doctrine Gelasius Bishop of Rome is corrupted Grat. de Consecr dist 2. c. Comperimus Gelasius Pap◠Majorico Johanni Episcopis Ibid. where hee condemneth halfe Communion as sacrilegious his words are these We finde that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred Bloud which because they doe out of I know not what superstition we command therefore that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them because the division of one and the selfe-same Mystery cannot be without grand Sacriledge Gratian the compiler of the Popes Decrees borrowed his chapter out of that Epistle of Gelasius saith Bellarmine withall prefixed this Title before it Bell. de sacr Euch. l. 4. c. 26. The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Bloud Ea Epistola Gelasii quae modò fortasse non extat Ibid. that is to say without the consecrated Cup and yet by Bellarmines confession That Epistle peradventure is not now extant and
deliros senes sed qui magis quà m Phormio deliraret vidisse neminem I will leave the application to your selfe and the interpretation to the Reader because you say I cannot translate Latin Some truth or modesty I should gladly heare from you but this is such an impudent Calumny as Bellarmine himselfe would have beene ashamed to have heard it fall from the Pen of any learned Papalin heare therefore what your owne men confesse of Calvin and others and what we professe in the name of our Church Your F. Kellison saith of Calvin Kellis Surney lib. 4. cap. 5. p. mihi 229. That if hee did meane as hee speaketh hee would not dispute with him but would shake hands with him as with a Catholike And then hee repeats Calvins words I say that in the Mysterie of the Supper by the signe of Bread and Wine is Christ truly delivered yea and his Body and his Blood And a little before those words hee giveth the reason Because saith he Christs words This is my Body are so plaine that unlesse a man will call God a deceiver hee can never be so bold as to say that hee setteth before us an emptie Signe This is likewise Bellarmines confession of him Bell de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 1. Non ergo vacuum inane signum It is no vaine and empty signe Thus you see your fellowes and you agree like Harpe and Harrow you say it is an empty peece of Bread they answer in Calvins behalfe and ours that it is not an empty signe Idem ibid. c. 8. Nay saith Bellarmine both Calvin and Oecolampadius and Peter Martyr doe teach the Bread is called Christs Body figuratively as being a signe or figure of his body but they adde withall it is no bare and empty figure but such as doth truely convey unto them the things signified thereby Bilson in the difference betwixt Subjection and Christistian Rebellion Part. 4. p. mihi 779. for which truthes sake Christ said not this Bread is a figure of my body but it is my body To give you an instance in some of our Church God forbid saith our learned Bilson wee should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the Faithfull at the Lords Table It is the Doctrine that wee teach others and wherewith wee comfort our selves Wee never doubted but the Truth was present with the Signe and the Spirit with the Sacrament as Cyprian saith Wee knew there could not follow an operation if there were not a presence before Neither doe I thinke you are ignorant of this but that you have inured your selfe to falsities and reproaches For it is apparently true that the question in these dayes is not of the truth of the presence but of the manner that is whether it be to the Teeth and the Belly or Soule and Faith of the Receiver And therupon our learned and Reverend B. Andrews returned his Answer to Bellarmine Wee beleeve the presence Wee beleeve B. Andrew ad Bell. Apol. Resp c. 1. p. mihi 11. I say the presence as well as you concerning the manner of the presence we doe not unadvisedly define nay more wee doe not scrupulously inquire no more than wee doe in Baptisme how the blood of Christ cleanseth us From the Sacraments you procceed to our two and twentie Bookes of Canonicall Scripture and indeed wee allow but two and twentie But will any Catholike say you allow this to have been Catholike Doctrine Yes without doubt Scil. Orig. in Exposit Psal 1. many good Catholikes did follow the Hebrew Canon of the Iewes which saith Origen compriseth but two and twentie bookes of the old Testament according to the number of the letters among them Melito Bellar. de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 20. Bishop of Sardis was a Catholike and saith Bellarmine hee did follow the Hebrew Canon of the Iewes Hilary Hilar. in Prolog in Psal explanat Bishop of Poictiers was a Catholike and he told us The old Testament was contained in two and twentie bookes according to the number of the Hebrew letters St. Cyril Cyril Catechis 4. Bishop of Hierusalem was a Catholike and hee gave us the like Lesson Peruse the two and twentie books of the old Testament but meddle not with the Apochrypha Athanasius Anthanas in Synops Bishop of Alexandria was a Catholike and affirmes that the Christians had a definite number of books comprehended in the Canon which were two and twentie equall to the number of the Hebrew letters Ruffinus was a Catholike Bellar. de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 20. and Bellarmine confesseth hee did follow the Hebrew Canon which conteined our two and twentie books Gregory Nazianzen was a Catholike Naz. Carm. Iamb ad Seleucum Iamb 3. and hee shewed to Seleucus a Catalogue of the Canonicall bookes and hee cites the bookes in order from Genesis to Malachie the last of the Prophets and leaveth out all the Apochrypha The Fathers of the Councell of Laodicea were Catholikes Concil Laod. cap. 59. and in the 59th Canon they allow onely those two and twenty bookes for Canonicall which wee receive There are others whom you terme Catholikes as namely Damascene Hugo de Sancto Victore Lyranus Hugo Cardinalis Tostatus Waldensis Driedo and Cajetan all which differ from your Tenet of the Apochryphall bookes which are canonized by your Trent Councell such agreement is there amongst your best learned touching the greatest point of your Beleefe and yet forsooth your Church cannot be depraved But here is one thing say you which giveth mee much cause of wonder which is that you talke of Traditions as distinct from Scripture I ever tooke you to be so fallen out with them that you made the deniall of them a fundament all point of your Religion that you would not indure the word Tradition but alwaies translated or rather falsified it into Ordinances Thus you It is a true saying of the Heathen Orator Cicero Hee who once goeth beyond the bounds of Modestie had need to be lustily impudent I protest I onely termed your Additions Traditions and you question our Church for false translating of the word And cannot wee indure the word Traditions Doe not we allow of all the Apostolicall Traditions which agree unto the Scriptures Nay more doe wee not translate the word Traditions in the Scripture when the Text will beare it according to the Greeke originall Looke upon the fifteenth of Matthew Matth. 15. v. 2 3 6. and in three severall verses 2 3 6. wee use the word Tradition Looke upon the seventh of Marke Marke 7. v. 3 8 9 13. and in foure severall places of that chapter you shall find likewise wee translate Traditions Looke upon Saint Paul to the Colossians Galatians and upon Saint Peter Colos 2.8 Galat. 1.14 1. pet 1.18 and in all these in the Translation joyned with your Rhemish Testament you shall find the word Traditions How
Anselme and his words Gospell the Knight gaines nothing by it or we lose for though it bee the safest way to cast anchour at the last in the bottome of Gods mercie and put our whole confidence in Christs merits it doth not from hence follow but that men may doe workes meritorious of increase of grace and glory First why doth he lispe here and not speake plaine out the Romish tenet which is that our Workes doe merit not only increase of grace and glorie but remission of sinnes and h Concil Trid. Sess 6. c. 32. Si quis dixerit hominis justificati opera non verè mereri augmentū gratiae vitam aeternam ipfius vitae aeternae si tamen in gratià decesserit consecutionem Anathema sit eternall life Next I would faine know how mercy and merit nay sole mercy and merit can stand together Certainly as mercy excludeth merit so sole mercy all merit Can those workes which is S. Anselmes judgement will not beare scale in Gods ballance weigh downe super-excellens pondus gloriae a super-excellent weight of glorie Certainly the Spectacle-maker put in a burning glasse into his Spectacles which hath much impaired his eye-sight or else hee could not but reade S. Anselmes words in this place in which he renounceth all merit and that in most direct and expresse tearmes I beleeve that none can bee saved by his owne merits Vid loc sup cit p. 4. or by any other meanes but by the merit of Christs passion I set the death of Christ betwixt ' mee and my bad merits and I offer his merits in stead of the merits which I ought to have and have not Concerning Transubstantiation Spectacles chap. 9. Sect. 2. à pag. 132. ad 187. THE Knight and the Protestants commit a great sinne in administring the Sacrament of Baptisme without those Ceremonies which were used in the Church from the Apostles times Elfrick was not the Authour of the Homilie and Epistles the Knight citeth against Transubstantion in which notwithstanding there is nothing against Transubstantiation but much for it if the Knight had not shamefully corrupted the Text by false translating it in five severall places The difference of Catholique Authours about things not defined by the Church maketh nothing for Protestants because they vertually retract all such opinions by submitting their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church Cajetan is falsely alledged by putting in the word supposed and Transubstantiation he denied not the bread to bee transubstantiated into Christs body though hee conceived that those words This is my body doe not sufficiently prove the reall presence of our Saviours body for which he is worthily censured by Suarez and the whole schoole of Divines Biel affirmeth that it is expresly delivered in holy Scriptures that the body of Christ is contained under the species of bread c. Which former words the Knight leaveth out because they made clearely against him and in the latter set downe by the Knight he denieth not that Transubstantiation may bee proved out of Scriptures but that it may be proved expresly that is in expresse tearmes or so many words Alliaco his opinion maketh nothing for the Knight being a Calvinist though hee seeme to favour the Lutherans tenet and though hee thought the Doctrine of consubstantiation to be more possible and easie yet therein hee preferred the judgement of the Church before his owne B. Fisher denieth not that the reall presence can be proved out of Scripture for the fourth chapter of the booke cited by the Knight is employed in the proofe thereof against Luther but that laying aside the interpretation of Fathers and use of the Church no man can be able to prove that any Priest now in these times doth Consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Durand B. of Maundy doth not deny Transubstantiation to bee wrougnt by vertue of the words This is my body For though in the first place hee saith that Christ then made the bread his body when he blessed it yet hee after addeth that wee doe blesse illâ virtute quam Christus indidit verbis Durand rat c. 41. n. 14. by that power which Christ hath giuen to the words Odo Cameracensis calleth the very forme of Consecration a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for so holy an end and because they produce so noble an effect or because they are joyned alwayes with that benediction and thankesgiving used both by our Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament and now by the Priest in the Catholique Church in the Consecration of the same Christopherus de capite fontium is put in the Roman Index of prohibited bookes and in the words cited out of him by the Knight there is a grosse historicall errour in this that hee saith that in that opinion of his both the Councell of Trent and all Writers did agree till the late time of Caietan as if Caietan were since the Councell of Trent and in citing this place the Knight is against himselfe for whereas hee maketh Cardinall Caietan and the Archbishop of Caesarea his two Champions against the words of Consecration as if they did both agree in the same here this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him but onely Cajetan Salmeron relateth it indeed to bee the opinions of some Graecians that Christ did not consecrate by those words This is my body but by his benediction but this opinion of theirs is condemned by him as Chamier saith expressely in the place coted by the Knight l. 6. de Eucha c. 7. Bellarmine in the place alledged saith nothing but what is granted by all Papists De Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. to wit that though the words of Consecration in the plaine connaturall and obvious sense inferre Transubstantiation yet because in the judgement of some learned men they may have another sense which proveth only the reall presence it is not altogether improbable that without the authority of the Church they cannot inforce a man to beleeve Transubstantiation out of them Alfonsus à Castro affirmeth that of Transubstantiation there is rare mention in the ancient Fathers yet of the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention and the drift of Castro in that place is to shew that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing or plaine testimonie of Scripture that yet the use and practice of the Church is sufficient bringing in for example this point of Transubstantiation and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son The meaning of Yribarne and Scotus saying Transubstantiation of late was determined in the Councell of Lateran is only this that whereas the words of Consecration may bee understood of the reall presence of our blessed Saviours body either by Transubstantiation or otherwise so the substance of bread doe remaine the Church hath determined the words are to be understood in the former
sence And moreover Yribarne saith that Transubstantiation was not from the beginning de substantiâ fidei because it had not beene so plainely delivered nor determined in any Councell till Gregorie the 7 his time wherein it was first determined against Berengarius It is not the reall presence whereof either S. Austine or Maldonate speaketh but how they that eate Manna have died and they that eate the body of our Lord shall live according to our Saviours saying which is a cleane different thing Gregorie de Valentia having brought two or three severall and substantiall answers to a place alledged out of Theodoret concludeth somewhat roundly with the heretiques in this manner that if no other answer will serve the turne but that they will still stand wrangling that it is no marvell that one or two hee meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius might erre in this point and that Bellarmine Suarez and others answer the place otherwise to whom hee remitteth the Knight Cusanus speaketh not of ancient Fathers but of certaine ancient Divines whose names and errours are set downe in our late Schoole-men and this Cardinall himselfe in the place alledged by the Knight declareth his beliefe of Transubstantiation Excit l. 6. The Waldenses agree not with Protestants in the point of the Sacrament for they had Masse but once a yeare and that upon Maundy Thursday neither would they use the words hoc est corpus meum but seven Pater nosters with a blessing over the bread Durand affirmeth not that the substance of the Bread and Wine remaineth in the Sacrament but the materiall part only and hee acknowledgeth that all other Schoole-men were herein against him Gaufridus and Hostiensis though they recount three opinions concerning the presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrament of which the one saith the bread is the body of Christ another that the Bread doth not remaine but is changed into Christs body a third that the bread doth remaine and is together with the body of Christ yet they approve none for true but only that of the body of Christ being upon the Altar by Transubstantiation Tonstall with Scotus speake either of the word Transubstantiation or of the proofe thereof by determining that sense of Scripture or if they meane otherwise the matter is not great For one single Authour or two contradicted by others carry little credit in matter of beliefe Erasmus is not an Authour to be answered or named as the Knight hath beene often told The Hammer AS Nugno wrote of an Argument of Suarez the Iesuite In 3. p. Tho q. 61. insolubile est argumentuÌ„ Suarez propter intricationem obscuritatem non difficultatem that it was in a manner insoluble not in regard of the difficultie of the matter but in regard of the intricacie and obscuritie in the manner of propounding it so this Section may be truly said to bee uncapeable of a cleare and distinct answer thereunto not in regard of any difficultie in the matter it selfe for there is nothing contained in it but Crambe centies cocta but in respect of the confusion thereof the Adversary following no tract at all but leporis instar viam intorquens purposely like a Hare leaping out of the way that hee might not be caught for which cause I have beene enforced to leave the order or rather disorder in his Paragraphes and cull out of the whole Section here and there what hee materially answereth to the Knights allegations and reduce it to the numbers following whereunto I purpose to referre my ensuing animadversions To the first Exception Whereas hee taxeth the Protestants for leaving out ceremonies in Baptisme used in the Church since the Apostles time hee shamefully abuseth his reâ—der for hee speaketh not of the signe of the Crosse or of Godfathers and Godmothers which ceremonies and custome of the ancient Church hee knoweth that we retaine but of Salt and spittle or baptismall chrisme which can never be proved to have beene used in the Apostles time or many hundred yeares after Of the most ancient of them to wit Chrisme he himselfe else-where Apolog. c. 2. Pag. 57. acknowledgeth that it began but about Constantines time as Aurelius the Sorbonist observeth in his booke intituled Vindiciae censurae wherein the Iesuite is trimmed as such a shaveling deserveth To the second concerning Elfrick That Aelfrick was not the Authour of the Homilies wee acknowledge neither doth this any whit derogate from their authoritie but adde rather For the more ancient the Authour was the more authoritie the Sermons carry Now it appeareth out of an ancient Manuscript that these Homilies were extant in Latine before the dayes of Aelfrick In Bib. Bodelianâ Oxon. who was commanded by the Archbishop of Yorke Wolstanus to translate them into English which after hee had faithfully done the Bishops at a Synod commanded them to bee read to the people on Easter day before they received the Communion As for the shamefull corruption hee objecteth to the Knight by false translating the Homilies in five places I cannot sufficiently pitty the grosse stupidity and blindnesse of the objecter Hee who hath made a paire of Spectacles for the Knight had need to have a Festrawe made for himselfe to spell withall for here hee most absurdly and ridiculously mistaketh a Collation for a Translation and Bertram for Aelfrick Doctor Vsher now Primate of Armath whom the Knight here followed step by step maketh a kind of parallel betweene the words of Bertram and divers passages in the Homilies and Epistles translated by Aelfrick to shew the conformitie of the doctrine in both This parallel by this blind buzzard is taken for a translation a Cic. Phil. 2. Viste asine literas doceam saith Tully to Anthony non opus est verbis sed fustibus yea but the Authour of this Homilie is so farre from condemning Transubstantiation that hee professedly teacheth it in these words b Sicuâ—â— Paulò antequam pateretur panis substantiam et vini creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat sic etiam in deserto Manna aquam de â—errâ in suam carnem saâ—guiâ—eâ— coÌ„vertere praevaluit As therefore a little before hee suffered hee could change the substance of Bread and the creature of Wine into his proper Body which was to suffer and into his Bloud which was there extant to bee afterwards shed so in the Desert hee was able to change Manna and water into his owne body and bloud I answer this passage hee doth well to whet like a sharpe knife to cut the throat of Transubstantiation For let it be granted according to the doctrine of â—lfrick and Bertram that Christ so turned the Bread into his Body at his last supper as hee turned Manna and water into his owne flesh in the wildernesse what will hereupon insue but that the conversion or change which is made in the
elements is not reall and corporall but spirituall and sacramentall as that was in the Desert of which the Apostle speaketh the c 1 Cor. 10.4 spirituall rock followed them and that rock waes Christ When Manna fell and the rock was strucken Christ was not incarnate nor many hundred yeares after how then could the Manna or the water bee really and properly turned into his flesh and bloud Moreover howsoever hee eludeth the former words of Aelfrick There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is received of the faithfull the body in which Christ suffered was borne of the flesh of Mary and consisted of bloud and bone but the other is gathered of many cornes without hloud and bone by saying that the difference which Aelfrick sheweth betweene Christ on the Crosse and Christ on the Sacrament is in his manner of being not in the being it selfe not denying him to bee really in both yet the later words which containe an inference upon the former therefore there is nothing to bee understood in the Sacrament bodily but spiritually admit of no colourable evasion for if nothing bee there understood bodily but spiritually then must needs the words This is my body be understood figuratively then must we not according to the doctrine of those times understand any substantiall change of the bread into Christs very body or the Wine into his bloud really and corporally To the third The difference betweene Papists of most eminent note concerning the words by vertue whereof they teach Transubstantiation is effected maketh much against the doctrine it selfe and by consequence quite overthroweth it For thus we argue against them out of this their difference If the bread bee turned into Christs body then either by the words of benediction before hee brake the bread or gave it c. or by the very words of Consecration viz. hoc est corpus meum But hee neither changed the bread into his Body by the one nor by the other Ergo hee changed it not at all Not by the precedent benediction as Aquinas and Bellarmine prove For till the last instant of the prolation of the words This is my Body the substance of bread remaineth Not by the words of Consecration for as Durand and Odo Cameracensis and Christopherus Archbishop of Caesarea prove Christ could not have said after hee had blessed the Bread This is my body unlesse by blessing it he had made it his body before If when Christ said Take yee and eat yea at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed it would follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eate the substance of Bread which to say is to deny the article of Transubstantiation Neither can the Iesuite heale this sore by his vertuall salve in saying that those men above alledged who impugne the prsent tenent of the Schooles concerning the words of Consecration in which the essence of the Sacrament consisteth vertually retracted such opinions because they submitted their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church for so wee may say with better reason that what they held against us they vertually retracted by submitting their judgement to the Catholique Church which we can easily prove not to bee the particular Roman but the Universall which in all times and all places through the Christian world hath professed the common faith once given to the Saints without any of those later Articles which P. Pius the fourth Jud. 13. and the late conventicle of Trent hath pinned unto it To the fourth Cajetan is truly alledged by the Knight for though neither the words Transubstantiation nor supposed are in him yet the sence of them is to be found in him for as both Suarez and Flood himselfe acknowledgeth p. 147. Cajetan said that these words This is my body doe not sufficiently prove the reall presence of our Saviours body without the presupposed authoritie of the Church and if in his judgement they prove not so much as the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament much lesse prove they the presence thereof by Transubstantiation or turning the bread into it By the word supposed which the Knight addeth more fully to declare Cajetans meaning hee intended not suppositions or barely pretended authority of the Church but truly presupposed which maketh not the speech sound at all contemptibly of the Church as Flood would have it whose stomack is so bad that it turneth sweet and wholsome meate into choler Nectar cui fiet acetum vaticani perfida vappa cadi To the fifth The Knight transcribeth so much out of Biel as was pertinent to his purpose with the rest he thought not fit to trouble the reader In Can. Miss Lect. 40. notandum guod quamvis expressè tradatur in scriptur â quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur à fidelibus sumitur tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ accidentibus panis in Canone bibliae non invenitur The whole passage in Biel standeth thus It is to bee noted that though it bee expressely delivered in Scripture that the body of Christ is truly contained under the forme or species of Bread and received by the faithfull yet it is not found in the canon of the Bible how the body of Christ is there whether by conversion of any thing into it or whether it beginneth to be there without conuersion or turning the substance and accidents of bread remaining The former words in which passage make nothing against the Knight Who in this chapter for the most part condemneth Papists out of their owne mouth and therefore taking Biel for such hee maketh use of his testimonie against the Roman Church in point of Transubstantiation Which is very direct and expresse and the Iesuites answer is very weake and unsufficient thereunto to wit that hee denieth only that Transubstantiation is found in Scripture in expresse words For first Biel saith not non invenitur expressum but non invenitur It is not found in Scripture whether Christs body be there by conversion of any thing into it Now many things are found in Scripture as the Trinity of persons the eternall generation of the Sonne the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne the number and nature of Sacraments which yet are not set downe in expresse words Secondly it is evident out of the former words of Biel that hee accounted those things expressely to be delivered in Scriptures which yet are not set downe in expresse words for hee saith that it is expresly delivered in Scriptures that the body of Christ is truly contained under the species of bread and yet those words are not found in Scripure If wee should admit then of Flood his glosse upon Biel Transubstantiation is not found in Scripture that is
of the Apostle the cup of blessing which wee blesse 1 Cor. 10.16 is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ the Bread which wee breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ for wee being many are one bread and one body because wee are all partakers of that one bread is pertinently alledged by the Knight against private Masse which is a communion without communicants much like to Caesars monument Philippica 1. which the Oratour fitly tearmeth insepultam sepulturam an unburied buriall How is the cup of blessing a Communion if none pledge as it were the one the other in it how is the Bread a Communion if it bee communicated to none How are the people made one bread and one body by it if they partake not of it I grant the union betweene the head and members and Priest and people may remaine though the Priest say Masse and the people receive not as likewise it may remaine though the Priest say no Masse nor communicate himselfe because there are other meanes of this Communion besides the Sacrament yet because this Sacrament was ordained principally to confirme this union and communion and from thence taketh its name they who impropriate a common and of a publike communion make a private Masse destroy both the name and nature of this Sacrament Moreover as the worthy participation of the Sacrament wonderfully confirmeth so it was instituted by Christ to represent the union of the Priest with the people which cannot bee done in private Masses wherein the Priest communicateth alone For that representeth rather a distinction and separation of the Priest from the people then an union Yea but saith the Iesuit if this argument of the Knight were good it would follow that not only some but all the people must receive together with the Priest and that the people must not receive one without the other I answer that it followeth indeed that all the people that are solemnly invited by the Priest and come prepared ought to receive together and this the Apostles words strongly enforce wee being many are one bread and one body 1 Cor. 10.17 because wee are all partakers of that one bread marke it all partakers of one bread and therefore all one bread and one body How can Papists make this argument good out of their private Masses wherein none partaketh of the Bread or tasteth of the Cup but the Priest To the fifth By the Iurie of twelve men true and honest in the Iesuits account for they all lived and died in the communion of the Church of Rome all Priests that say I cannot say celebrate private Masses are cast as transgressours of the traditions and customes of the primitive Church Nay farther as novelists and innovators For they all testifie and that joyntly that the practise of the primitive Church is for our publike Communion and against their private Masses true saith the Iesuit they testifie concerning the practise of the primitive Church but they affirme not that the contrary practise was unlawfull the people then did communicate ordinarily with the Priest but there was no necessitie so to doe Admit this answer were true that the verdict of this Iurie passed for the practise and manner of the primitive Church not for any Canon or precept so to doe yet the Knight hath the better of the cause For they all prove that for which hee produceth them viz. that by the confession of our Adversaries antiquitie is for us in this point and that there was a Church celebrating the Lords Supper as we doe in the first and best ages when there was no Church extant in the world either maintaining or practising private Masses No man doubteth but that the constant and uniforme practise of the primitive Church ought to sway more with all religious Christians De sacrific Miss Dur. rat l. 4. c. 53. in primitivâ ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi missarum intererant communicabant Bellith in explicat can c. 50 Micro de eccles observat Tolos de Ritibus c. 38. Innocent 3. l. 6. myster mis c. 5 Odo in expos ean antiquitùs nullae missae sine collectâ hoc est caetu aliquo modò offerentium sacramenta participantiura agebantur Iustin in 1 Cor. 10. olim quod nunc etiam Graeci usurpant ex uno eodemque pane cōsecrato delibatae particulae singulis tribuebantur ut melius unio conjunctio cum Christo atque apertiùs significaretur then any novell constitution or practise of any later Church whatsoever If wee had nothing but their practise that alone were of great moment Yet wee have more I meane their judgement For sith whatsoever is not of faith is sinne especially in actions of this nature their constant and uniforme practise in this kind may serve as a demonstration to any sober-minded man that what they did they thought most agreeable to Christs institution But the Witnesses depose farther for some come home to the point of unlawfulnesse of private Masses Albeit Cocleus saith no more then that anciently the Priests and people did communicate together and Durandus that all that were present at the celebration of the Masse did every day communicate And Bellichus and Micrologus and Tholosanus and Innocentius the Third that in the infancie of the Church all that were present together at the Sacrament were wont to communicate Yet Odo Cameracensis goeth a step farther saying in the Primitive Church they never had Masses without the convention of the people to communicate together Iustinian addeth to the practise of the primitive Church the present practise of the Greeke Church backing them both with a good reason In ancient times saith hee which the Greeke Church useth at this day of one loafe of bread Consecrated divers parts were distributed to each communicant that by this their Communion their union with Christ might bee more plainly expressed Hugo de S. Vict. in spec eccles post baec dicitur communio quae sic appellatur ut omnes communicemus vel dicitur communio quia in primitivâ ecclesiâ populus communicabat quolibet die Cassand de solitar miss propriè communio dici non potest nisi plures de eodem sacrificio participant Ioan citat Cassand consult de solit miss res ipsa clamat tam in Graecâ quà m in Latinâ ecclesiâ non solùm sacerdotes sacrificantes sed reliques presbyteros diaconos nec non reliquam plebem aut saltem aliquam plebis partem communicà sse quod quomodo cessaverit mirandū est c. Bellar. li 2 de miss c 9 et 10 Durandus de hoeret l. 2. c. 4. and Hugo out strippeth him saying it is therefore called the Communion to teach us that we ought all to communicate of it or because the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day together Cassander enforceth the Argument drawne from the name of this Sacrament yet farther against private Masses it cannot bee said
use them and therefore wee may administer the Sacrament at another time to a greater or lesser number then twelve we may receive it also with another gesture then Christ or his Apstles used because he no where tieth us to those circumstances but wee may in no wise administer or receive it in one kind because he commandeth us to communicate in both saying drinke ye all of this and what though the Councell joyne not the word notwithstanding to Christs institution in both kindes but to his administring after supper yet this no way excuseth the Fathers in it from confronting Christ and abrogating his commandement by their wicked Decree for notwithstanding Christs command drinke you all of this that Councell by a countermaund forbiddeth any Priest under a great penaltie to exhort the people to communicate in both kindes or to teach that they ought so to doe To the third If the Iesuits forehead had not beene made of the same metall which hee worshipeth in his images hee would have blushed to utter so notorious an untruth contrary to the Records of all ages and the confession of all the learned of his owne side Never any before this Iesuit durst to say that the halfe Communion was the beliefe and practise of the whole Church before the Councell of Constance for besides Salmeron Arboreus Aquinas Tapperus Alfonsus a Castro the Councell of Constance Bellarmine and Cassander alledged by the Knight See grand Sacrilcg Sect. 17. I could adde Estius the Sorbonist Ecchius the great adversarie of Luther Suarez their accomplished Iesuit Soto their acutest Schoole-man and Gregorie de Valentia who of all other hath most 〈◊〉 laboured in this argument all not only affirming but some of them also confirming that the Communion in both kindes was anciently and universally administred to the people It is well knowne that the Easterne Churches in Greece and Asia and Southern in Africa and Northerne in Muscovia have ever and at this day doe administer the Communion to the Laitie in both kindes and in the Westerne and Roman Church it selfe for a thousand yeares after Christ and more the Sacrament was delivered in both kindes to all the members of Christs Church which is manifest saith Cassander Cassand consult art 22. by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greeke and Latine And when the new custome of communicating in one kinde began a little before the Councell of Constance Soto artic 12. q. 1. in dist 12. non modo inter baeretieos verùm inter Catholicos ritus ille multo tempore iuvaluit it was impugned not by heretiques as Flood would beare us in hand but by good Catholiques as Soto a man farre before Flood ingenuously confesseth To the fourth Albeit I grant there is some difference betweene an institution or constitution or command yet our argument drawne from Christs institution in both kindes is of force against the Romish halfe Communion For a command is as the genus and an Institution is as the species every command is not an institution but every institution is a command for what is an institution but a speciall order or appointment in matter of Ceremonie or Sacrament was not the institution of Circumcision an expresse command to circumcise every male child was not the institution of the Passeover a command for every familie to kill a Lambe and eate it with sowre herbes Was not the institution of Baptisme a command to Baptise all Nations in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Was not the institution of the Lords Supper by words imperative Take eate doe this in remembrance of mee and drinke yee all of this Yea but the Iesuit instanceth in Mariage which we acknowledge to be instituted by God yet not commanded I answer all sacred Rites and namely the ordination of Mariage are injunctions and commands to the Church or mankind in generall though they bind not every particular person but such onely as are qualified for them Gen. 2.24 if crescite multiplicamini bee rather a benediction upon Mariage then a command to marrie yet certainly those words used in the Institution of Mariage therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall bee one stesh containe da direct command not to every man simply I grant but to every one that hath not the gift of continencie 1 Cor. 7.2 to avoide fornication saith the Apostle let every man have his owne wife and let every woman have her owne husband And againe if they cannot containe let them marry V. 9. for it is better to marry then to burne To the fist There needs no subtiltie of wit to find out the opposition betweene the Decree of the Trent Councell and Christs institution the dullest wit cannot but stumble upon it For if whole Christ be received in either kind why did Christ who doth nothing superfluously institute the Sacrament in both kindes If the Sacrament can no otherwise exhibit Christ unto us then by vertue of his Institution how can wee be assured that whole Christ is communicated unto us when we violate his institution administring the holy Communion but by halfes the Sacrament exhibiteth nothing but what it signifieth but the bread signifieth Christs body not his blood the wine signifieth his blood not his bodie therefore accordingly the one exhibiteth only his body the other his bloud Againe if Christ bee whole in either kinde then a man might receive whole Christ in drinking of the cup only though he eate not at all of the bread and consequently a man may without sinne at the Lords board drinke only of the Consecrated cup and not eate of the bread which yet no Papist to my knowledge ever durst affirme To the sixt This evasion of the Iesuit is exploded by Philip Morney De Euch. l. 1. c. 10. Chamierus tom 4. resp Bellar. in D. F. his conference with Everard p. 256. and divers others This may suffice for the present for the overthrow of this generall answer of all Papists to the words of the institution Drinke you all of this viz. that by all in S. Mathew and S. Marke Priests only are to be understood First I note at this time the Apostles were not fully ordained Priests For as yet Christ had not breathed on them nor given them the power of remission of sinnes next admit they were Priests yet in the institution of this Sacrament they were non conficients supplying the place of meere communicants and therefore consequently whatsoever Christ commanded them hee commanded all receivers after them Thirdly Christ commanded the same to drinke to whom before hee said Take eate this is my body but the former words take eate are spoken to the Laye-people as well as Priests therefore the words drinke you all of this are spoken to them also Math. 9.6 those things which God hath joyned together let no man put asunder Fourthly I would faine know of
of the ancient Eusebius neither could he say truly that the Colein was translated by a Catholike for indeed it is the property of an Here-ticke to falsifie and corrupt the Text. And thus you have done in your Colein Edition where you have altered the sense in that manner Eusebius Emissenus Bishop of Emesa in Syria is forged by Gratian for the doctrine of Transubstantiation Grat. Dist 2. de Consecrat Quia corpus fol. Mihi 432. his words are these Christ the invisible Priest turned the visible creature into the substance of his body and bloud with his word and secret power saying Take eate this is my Body whereas there are no such words to be found in all his Works The Councell of Laodicea is falsified in favour of your Iâ—vocation of Angels The words of the Originall are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Laod. Can. 35. Bin. Tom. 1. p. 245. Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and depart aside and invocate Angels and make meetings which are things forbidden If any man therefore be found to give himselfe to this privie Idolatrie let him be accursed Now in the same Councell published by James Merlyn and Fryer Crab by transmutation of a letter you are taught a lesson contrary to sense and reason saying b Quod non oporteat EcclesiaÌ„ Dei relinquere abire at que angelos nominare congregationes facere Merlin Tom. 1. Concil edit Col. An. 1530. f. 68. Crab. edit An. 1538. Colon. fol. 226. Verit as non quaerit Angulos It is not lawfull for Christians to forsake the Church of God and goe and nominate or invocate Angels or corners and make meetings and thus Angeli are become Anguli Angels are become Angles or Corners as if truth did seeke Corners when so faire an Evidence is brought against Invocation of Angels St. Basil the great Archbishop of Caesarea was forged by Pope Adrian the first at the second Councell of Nice for the worship of Images his words are these c Pro quo siguras ImaginuÌ„ eorum honoro adoro veneror specialitèr hoc enim traditum est à Sanctis Apostolis necest prohibendum acideò in omâ—ibus Ecclesiis nostris eorum designamus Historias Citat ab Adriano in Synod Nic. 2. Act. 2. p. Mihi 504. For which cause I honor and openly adore the figures of the Images speaking of the Apostles Prophets and Martyrs and this being delivered us by the Apostles is not prohibited but in all Churches we set forth their Histories This Authority was cited by Pope Adrian in the name of Basil the Great in his Epistles when as in all his Epistles of which are extant 180. there are no such words to be found St. Hierome is likewise forged for the same doctrine and by the same Pope the words in the Epistle are these Sicut permisit Deus ador are omnem gentem manufacta c. Citatur ibid. Ep. Adr. p. Mihi 506. As God gave leave to the Gentiles to worship things made with hands and to the Jewes to worship the carved workes and two golden Cherubins which Moses made so hath he given to us Christians the crosse and permitted us to paint and reverence the Images of Gods workes and so to procure him to like of our labour These words you fee are cited by your owne Pope at a generall Councell as you pretend for a point of your Romish faith and yet there are no such words nor the meaning of of them to be found in either of those Fathers and without doubt there was great scarcity of true ancient Fathers to bee found at that time to prove your adoration of Images when your Pope was driven to shifts and forgeries especially when your owne Polydore tells you Polyd. de ReruÌ„ Invent. that the worship of Images not onely Basil but almost all the ancient holy Fathers condemned for feare of Idolatrie as S. Hierome himselfe witnesseth This puts me in mind of Erasmus complaint that the same measure was afforded to Basil Eras in Praefat. lib. de Spirit Sanct. Bas which hee had otherwise observed in Athanasius Chrysostome Hierome that in the middle of Treatises many things were stuffed and forced in by others in the name of the Fathers St. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine is falsified and corrupted Franciscus Junius as an eye witnesse Junius Praefat. in Ind. Expurg Belg. tells us that at Leyden in the yeare 1559. being familiarly acquainted with Ludovicus Saurius Corrector of the Printing house and going to visit him hee found him revising of St. Ambrose workes which then Frelonius was printing after some conference had betwixt them Ludovicus shewed him some printed leaves partly cancelled and partly razed saying this is the first Impression which wee printed most faithfully according to the best Copies but two Franciscan Fryers by command have blotted out those passages and caused this alteration to my great losse and astonishment It may be the discoverie of it by Junius might stay their further printing of it or else might be an occasion to call it in after the printing for otherwise if that Impression may be had it were worthy the examination Bolseus dicit se in manibus Secretarii hâ—c testimonium vidisse inspexisse In disp de Antichristo in Apend Nu. 49. 53. Laurent Rever Rom. Eccl. p. 190. Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri sedem non habent Grat de Paenit Dist 1. c. Potest fieri But for a proofe of this falsified Ambrose Lessius the Jesuit tells us that Bolseck doth confesse he saw the Copie in the hands of a Secretary howsoever their later Editions are sufficient proofe of your manifold falsifications But I will speak of Impressions onely that have been within my view First to prove your succession in doctrine in your owne Church Gratian tells us from St. Ambrose They have not the succession of Peter who have not the Chayre of Peter and thus he hath changed Fidem into Sedem Faith into Chaire This forgery in time may creepe into the Body of Ambrose but as yet the words of Ambrose are agreeable to our doctrine that is a Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri fidem non habent Ambr. de Paenit c. 6. Tom. 1. p. 156. Basil apud Joh. Frob. An. 1527. Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 5. Tom. 4. p. 393. Basilâ—ut supra they have not the succession of Peter which want the faith of Peter These be the words of true and ancient Ambrose hereby declaring unto us and them that they may have the See of Peter and yet want the faith of Peter Againe in his Booke of the Sacrament St. Ambrose saith b Fac nobis haÌ„c oblationem ascriptam c. quod fit in figuram corports sanguinis Jesu Christi Amb. Colon. Agripp An. 1616 Tom. 4. p. 173. Make this Oblation to be a reasonable acceptable one quod est
Oblationibus which you interpret Offrings Saint Ambrose cannot meane the peoples gifts or offrings for there was no need of any speech much lesse a long speech at these offrings It must therefore follow that either he meanes the celebration of the Sacrament or some spirituall sacrifices of Praise and Thanksgiving You proceed from one heresie to another viz from your unknown Service to your Transubstantiation This Doctrine I shewed had his descent from the Heretikes Helcesaitae from Marcus from the Capernaites Touching the Helcesaitae you say It is an hereticall fable for those Heretikes make two Christs pag. 92. wee acknowledge but one and the same both in heaven and in the consecrated Host It is true this particular Instance is cited amongst the Tables of Theodoret but yet you have affinitie with their Tenets as neere as cosen Germans once removed For as you acknowledge but one Christ in the heavens and in the Host no more did those Heretikes in words for they rehearsed the Apostles Creed Et in Iesum Christum and not in Christos and as they made a two-fold Christ one in heaven another in earth so likewise you teach that Christ in the Sacrament here on earth is invisible and indivisible but in heaven at the same time visible and with dimensions of quantitie and distinctions of Organs And what is this but consequently to make two Christs or at least to make contradictories true at the same time of one and the same Christ in respect of his humane nature to be visible and invisible Touching Marcus the Heretike you say Hee changed the colour but you teach that the colour and accidents remaine and the substance is changed It is true and your opinion in this is more absurd than that of Marcus for hee changed the Colour to make the people beleeve it was true blood and you make them beleeve it is blood when there is neither tast nor colour of blood Lastly touching the Capernaites you deny there is any likenesse of Doctrine For say you the Capernaites thought they should eate Christs body piece-meale but wee receive Christ whole and entire not in the forme and shape of flesh but of bread c. But I pray which of the Evangelists ever charged them with any such conceit The truth is they understood the words of Christ as you doe in a grosse and carnall manner and therfore Christ in reproving them saith not Flesh eaten piece-meale profiteth nothing but absolutely The flesh profiteth nothing As touching your eating of Christ whole and intire it is all one with their eating of him by piece-meale for there may be many differences in eating but all eating the flesh of Christ with teeth and jawes is Caperniticall But you neither see nor taste the flesh of Christ which they dream'd they should for you receive it Not say you in the forme of flesh but of bread I will returne you an Answer from a learned Divine on our side B. Bilson in the difference between Christ subject and unchristian Rebellion pag. 748. You chaw the flesh of Christ actually with your teeth and swallow the same downe your throats and these be proper actions and right instruments of externall and Caperniticall eating your eyes and your taste be not else blind men and such as by reason of Sicknesse can taste nothing by your Divinitie can eate nothing Since then you concurre with the Capernaites in eating and swallowing notwithstanding you vary from them in sight and taste yet your opinion establisheth a corporall eating of Christs flesh and a perverting of the meaning of Christs words no lesse than theirs did Let mee paralell them together with the most favorable construction I can yet your Church must have her Antiquitie and descent from those Capernaites For suppose the Capernaites did beleeve that Christ would kill himselfe and give his body to be eaten yet the Church of Rome teacheth that Christ did eate his owne flesh a thing no lesse barbarous being meant litterally than to kill himselfe Admit the Capernaites did beleeve that Christ would give his flesh to be mangled by pieces or by halves yet your Churches opinion is no lesse cruell to beleeve that in the Sacrament Christs flesh is swallowed up whole at one morsell Lastly let it be granted that the Capernaites did believe that Christs flesh should be eaten when hee was dead yet the opinion of the Romanists is more brutish to imagine his flesh to be eaten when he was alive being a higher degree of crueltie to devoure men alive Apertissimi loqâ—imur corpus Christi veri à nobis attrectari manducan circumgestari dentibus atteri sensibiliter sacrificari non minâ—â—â— quà m ante consecrationem panis Alanus lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 37. than when they are dead Sure I am they both agree in this that according to the letter they should eate the flesh of Christ Orally Corporally and Substantially they both agree in the sensible handling of his body in devouring him with the mouth and in grinding him with the teeth Alanus the Romanist professeth openly in the name of the Church Apertissimi loquimur Wee affirme plainly the body of Christ is truly handled of us carried about ground with the teeth and sensibly sacrificed Long before him Pope Nicholas confirmed this doctrine in a Councell at Rome and taught it for a lesson to Berengarius Verum Corpus Domini nostii Iesu Christi sensuclitèr non solum in Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi ac fideliùm dentibus atteri Grat. de con secr d. 2. c. 4.2 Ego Berengarius to let him know the great difference betwixt Papist and Protestant in the same Church I beleeve that the body of our Lord Iosus is sensibly and in very deede touched with the hands of the Priest and broken and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull This confession stands a Record in the Roman Decrees and unlesse you mince the words strangely you must needs acknowledge that you eate the flesh of Christ peice-meale and then you sympathize in all things with your first Parents the Capernaites From Transubstantiation you proceede to the Popes Supiemacy wherein you say pag. 93. I am mistaken in saying that Phocas gave that authority to the Bishop of Constantinople It is true this is a mistake of the Printer but no corruption Rogatu Bonifacij phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesie caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum nam anteà Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam omnium Vsperg in Phoc. fol. mihi and in the last Impression which you should have taken you shall finde Rome for Constantinople and this you might well understand to be an error in the print because my purpose was to shew a descent of the Bishop of Romes Supremacy not of the Bishop of Constantinople And this authority stands good against you notwithstanding all your exceptions viz. that the Pope of Rome and that
the Lords blood a Sacrilegious sleight Against these Heretikes also wrote another Bishop of Rome in the same age Grat. de Consecrat Dist 2. Comperimus namely Pope Gelasius We have intelligence saith hee that certaine men receiving only a portion of the sanctified Body abstain from the Cup of the sacred blood who for that it appeareth they be intangled with I know not what superstition let them either receive the whole Sacraments or be driven from the whole because the dividing and parting of one and the same mystery cannot be without grievous Sacrilege What thinke you of your halfe Communion you that brag so much of the antiquitie of your Church The Manichees without doubt were the first Authors of your Doctrine and by the suffrages of two infallible Popes your Sacrament is sacrilegious But say you as at that time the Church forbad the use of one kind so now it forbiddeth the use of both and may againe give way when it shall seeme convenient for the use of both kinds Thus you It seemes you make no scruple to thwart the Institution of Christ nor the Custom of the Ancient Church but because in this point your Church is branded with Sacrilege I thinke indeed you could be content to joyne with the Protestants and restore the Cup to the Lay-people but I would gladly know how it can be done Is not your Communion in one kind published and decreed by your Pope and Councell for an Article of Faith And is it in your Churches power to alter and dispense with Articles of Faith at her pleasure Bulla Pij 4 Act. 6. Concil Trid Sess 13 Surely this Confession proves that your Church can create new Articles of Beleefe which elsewhere you deny or else this is no Article of Faith being contrary to the practise of the first and best ages and by consequent your infallible Pope and Councell are guilty of Error and Sacrilege in a high degree For a conclusiō of this point you say the words Drinke yee all of this from whence we draw our succession in Doctrine were spoken to the Apostles and in them to Priests not to the Laitie By this reason who seeth not but you may aswell take the Bread from the Lay people as the Cup for that also was given onely to the Apostles but if the Cup were proper for the Priests onely why doe you deny it to your Non-conficient Priests doe they stand in the place of Lay people Nay more were not all Non-conficients at the time of Christs Institution what strange shifts and evasions hath your Church to uphold the Novelty of your faith I will give you but one testimony of Antiquity There is saith St. Chrysostome where the Priests differ nothing from the people Chrys 18. in 2. Corinth as when we must receive the dreadfull mysteries for it is not here as it was in the old Law where the Priest eates one part and the people another neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those things of which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one Body is proposed to all and one Cup to all To passe by innumerable authorities of the Ancients which you know are full in our behalfe I will shut up this haereticall point of doctrine for such is the foundation of it with a testimony of your owne side Gerard. Lorichius de Missa publica proroganda p. mihi There are some false Catholikes that feare not to stop the Reformation of the Church what they can these spare no blasphemy lest that other part of the Sacrament should be restored to the Lay people for say they Christ spake drinke yee all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these Take and eate yee all of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken onely to the Apostles then must lay men abstaine likewise from the Element of bread which to say is an haeresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemy It is therefore consequent that both these words Eate yee Drinke yee were spoken to the whole Church Thus your Ancient Bishop of Rome termed your halfe Communion a Sacriledge and this latter Author of your owne termes it an haeresie and a pestilent Blasphemy and this may serve to prove your descent from the Haeretikes the Manichees in this point From your halfe Communion you proceede to your Invocation of Angels which I derived from the Haeretikes Angelici and for answer to them you say they were Haeretikes swarving from the rule of the Catholike faith by excesse that is honouring Angels more then their due And this is your very case for you doe not onely honour them but religiously worship them and call upon them I will compare your worship with theirs and let the Reader judge if you be not the children of those haereticall Authors called Angelici St. Austin saith Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati Aug. de haeres c. 35. Angelici vocati quia Angelos colunt Isid Orig in l. 8. c. 5. Rhem. Annot. in Apoc. 19. Sect. 4. that those haeretikes were inclined to the worship of Angels or as Isidore noteth they were called Angelici because they did worship Angels The one saith they were but inclined to worship the other saith they did worship On the other side you teach that there is a religious reverence honour and adoration which is not to be denied to Angels nay more you make it a point of Faith and have decreed that the Saints and Angels reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed unto Art 8. in Bulla Pij 4. Thus whereas the ancient Haeretikes were but inclined to adoration your men have made it a doctrinall determination flatly to adore them and whereas they did worship them with a religious honour as a custome learned from the Heathen Philosophers you receive it as a Dogmaticall resolution of your Faith delivered by your Trent Fathers and surely in this if there be any excesse in the worship it is in your selves Againe those Haeretikes learned their lesson from the Gentiles For Celsus the Philosopher had said of the Angels Orig. lib. 8. contrà Celsum that they belong to God and in that respect we are to put our trust in them and make Oblations to them according to the Lawes and pray unto them that they may be favourable untous And is not this your very doctrine and yet these men say you swerve from the rule of the Catholike faith Observe then what was the Chatholike doctrine of those times Origen returnes his answer in the name of all true beleevers Idem Ibid. Away with Celsus councell saying that we must pray to Angels and let us not so much as afford any little audience to it Againe St. Chrysostome was living in the fourth age when Apostrophes began to be used to Saints and Angels yet hee telleth us it was the Devills doing to draw men unto the
every one hee meeteth First hee falleth upon the Knight for creating a Cardinall to wit Hugo de S. Victore Flood p. 188. of his owne free goodnesse to make up the number of his Bishops and Cardinals I answer for the knight that he created no supernumerall Cardinall for he would not usurpe upon the Poges priviledge but committed a small errour in an 〈◊〉 and cry which was made after one Hugh in stead of another yet peradventure it was not the Knights mistake but the Correctors For Hugh of S. Victor though he hath his Cardinals hat in the margent yet hee standeth bare-headed in the text it is called a Communion Lynd safe way p. 119. because it is a common union of Priests and people otherwise saith Hugo it is called a Communion for that the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day But admit the Knight mistooke Hago de S. Victore for Hugo Cardinalis as Bellarmine confesseth that many learned men of his owne side mistooke Anselmus Laudunensis for Cantuariensis yet Flood should have pardoned or let passe and overseene this small oversight because wee tooke him at a worse fault in the like kind in examining his last Section wherein as I there shewed hee grosly mistaketh Bertram for Elfrick and a collation of two Authours for a translation of one Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus Eras Adag after this hee jeareth at the Knight for saying that the Councell of Trent wished well to our doctrine P. 189. What saith hee have you Masses Sir Humfrey take heed it may cost you money an Informer that should heare this might catch you by the backe and bring you in for so many hundred markes as you have received bits of bread in your Church which truly might prove a deere ordinarie for you The Orator said well Cic. pre Coel. nihil tam volucre quà m maledictam nothing is so easily cast out as a contumelious word and I may adde nothing so easily returned backe The Knight no where saith that wee have any Masses in our Church but only that the Councell of Trent wisheth well to publike Communions wherein the people communicate with the Priest which are not certainly your private Masses but admit hee had said wee have Masses in our Church hee might very well have defended this speech by my Lord of Duresme his distinction of Christ his Masse Tho. Mor. episc Dunelm l. nitit Christ his Masse and the Pope his Masse Wee have Christ his masse at every communion neither is any man merced for being present at it but for being absent from it For Masses are not sold with us as they are with Papists where there is a price set for drie Masses and wet Masses for low Masses and high Masses the ordinarie was but a groat for the one and a tester for the other but now it is raised and so to speake in the Iesuits language the Priests Masses prove a Deere ordinarie for the Laitie After this madde Tiger hath left the Knight hee fastens his teeth upon our Communion Table calling it an emptie Communion nothing but a morsell of bread P. 190. and a sup of wine and a prettie service and good-fellow Communion P. 199. Flood is the same full and fasting in jeast and in earnest for in both hee contradicts himselfe which discouereth an idle and addle braine If our Communion bee emptie and nothing but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine what good-fellowship can there bee in it But in good earnest how can the Iesuit call ours an emptie Communion which is every way full and fuller then theirs both for the signes and the things signified for the signes we have the substance of Bread and Wine they nothing but hungrie accidents and shewes a bit of quantity and a morsell of colours and a soppe of figures neither have the Laitie among them so much as a sup of the consecrated cup. For the thing signified we teach that all communicants by faith feed on the very body and bloud of Christ and all that so feed partake of all the benefits of Christs passion they teach that Infidels and reprobates eate Christs body and reape no benefit at all by it As for his good-fellow Communion let him take it to himselfe for Aquinas noteth that sometimes their Priests are overseene by drinking the liquor in the Consecrated cup Missal in cautel si in casu gulae Eucharistiam evomuerit and the cautels of the Masse appoint what is to bee done in case the Priest being drunke before cast up the host As for our Communion there can bee no excesse or as hee tearmeth it good-fellowship in it For the people have warning a weeke at least before to prepare themselves and they receive alwayes fasting before and the quantitie is so smal that it cannot distemper any which this bone Compaignion could not bee ignorant of But it seemeth hee tooke a cup of vinum Theologicum in the Taverne before hee set pen to paper in this section For besidemanifold contradictions before noted hee tearmeth in it our Commnuion sacrilegious P. 199. not considering that they sacrilegiously take the cup from the Laity and that we have restored it and he concludeth the Section with these words here is enough of such an idle subject Now the subject as appeares by the argument of the Section and the title he putteth throughout is Private Masse Nay which is a most certaine demonstration of his distemper when hee wrote this Section hee forgot that hee was a Priest and reckoneth himselfe among the Laitie saying the union may remaine betweene us and the Priest P. 197. l. 1. though he say Masse and wee not receive Concerning the 7. Sacraments Spectacles paragraph 4. a pag. 199. usque ad 242. THe Knight unjustly chargeth Bellarmine for laying a foundation of Atheisme Concil Trid. Sess 7. can 1. Bell. de effect sacram l. 2. c. 25. si tollamus authoritatem praesentis ecclesiae praesentis concilij in dubiū revocari poterunt omnium aliorum cōciliorum decreta tota fides christiana 1 Eliz. 1. in saying that if wee should take away the credit of the Roman Church and Councell of Trent which decreeth the precise number of 7. Sacraments the Decrees of other Councels nay even Christian faith it selfe might be called in question for if such a generall Councell may erre the Church may erre if the Church may erre the faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently there can bee no certaintie S. Gregorie the great did often say and write that hee did hold the 4 first Councels in the same honour that hee did the 4. Gospels which is the same as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Gospels And the Parliament lawes of England give as great authoritie to those 4. first Councels as S. Gregorie doth acknowledging that for heresie whatsoever is condemned for such by any of