to grant and therefore addeth for his further answer that Catholique Priests doe imitate S. Paul in the administration of the Sacrament because they are ready to communicate with all such as come worthily to receive Catholique Priests that is in his language Romanists imitate S. Paul in their Masse wherein and how he administred a Sacrament they offer a sacrifice hee prayed in a knowne tongue they in the Latine unknowne to the people he acknowledgeth no Lords supper where there is not a Communion 1 Cor. 10.17 whereby many are made one bread and one body because they all partake of that one bread they say private Masses in which the Priest bids the people eate and drinke but eateth and drinketh all himselfe hee speaketh of breaking of bread they breake none at all hee commandeth every one to examine himselfe and so to eate of that bread and drinke of that cup ver 28. They forbid the Laytie to touch the cup and call they this an imitation of the Apostle is it not rather an immutation and violation of the Apostles holy precepts and practise in these things they tread in the Apostles steps as the Antipodes doe in ours who are therefore so stiled because their feet and steps are diametrally opposite to ours P. 194. Yea but saith Flood there are many things which S. Paul did and wherein he did desire to bee followed as chastening of his body fasting and prayer in which Protestants are not so well able to prove themselves followers of him as Papists can doe I answer that although S. Paul in this place speaketh of no such thing neither can his words reasonably bee stretched to the chastening and beating downe of his body to bring it in subjection because hee addeth as I am of Christ bee ye followers of mee as I am of Christ Now wee reade not that Christ beate his owne body or needed to endeavour to bring it into subjection which was alwayes so from the beginning yet let him rightly understand the Apostles practise in taming his flesh and subduing his body and he will find Protestants as ready to follow him as any the most austere Papist For by taming his body hee meaneth not whipping or scourging which Papists receive by tradition from the heretiques called flagellantes or the whippers nor was his fasting an abstinence from flesh and feeding on the daintiest fish and powring downe the sweetest and strongest wines Act. 28.33 Ye have continued fasting having taken nothing wherfore I pray you to take some meate for this is for your health but an afflicting his body by watching continuall labour and fasting from all kind of sustenance and such fasts not only private Christians among us keepe often but our whole Church in publike calamities by the command of supreame authoritie religiously observeth and hath reaped singular benefits thereby To the third That the precept of S. Paul to tary one for another when they came to eate appertaineth to the Sacrament is evident 1 Cor. 11.20 first by that hee calleth it the Lords supper which they came together to eate when yee come together in one place this is not to cate the Lords Supper Now that by the Lords Supper not the Agape which were not instituted by him but the Sacrament is meant not only S. Austin and S. Cyprian Ep. 118. tract de coen dom and the Fathers generally quoted by Casaubonus Exercit. 16. sect 23. Baron annal tom 1. An. 34. Constat coenam domini sic enim patres appellare consuevere institutionem sacratissimae Eucharistiae Greg. Valent. Tom. 4. disp 6. q. 1. puncto 1. solet vocari hoc sacramentum coena domini sicut appellavit but Baronius and Gregorius de Valentia and the Fathers in the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent expresly affirme Secondly it is evident by the coherence of the Apostles discourse in this chapter who having reproved some abuses in eating the Lords Supper to set an edge upon his reproofe relateth v. 23. sequentibus the institution of the blessed Sacrament and from thence inferreth verse the 33. and 34. wherefore my brethren when you come together to eate tary one for another and if any man hunger let him eate at home that ye come not together to condemnation Yea but saith the Iesuit Apostolus 1 Cor. 11. Chrysostomus hom 1. de coena dom quamsanè appellationem tanquā à veteribus patribus usurpatā commemorat quoque catechismus Romanus Catechis Trid. pat tract de sacram Alt sanctissimi patres Apostolorum authoritatem secuti coenae etiam nomine eucharistiam interdum vocârunt quòd illâ novissimâ coenâ salutari mysterio à Christo domi no sit instituta some among the Corinthians exceeded others and some did want some were drunke and some went away hungrie which could not pertaine to the Sacrament as every one knoweth I grant these abuses could not fall out in the very act of receiving the Sacrament in which every one had but some part of the Consecrated bread and a draught also of the holy Cup in such a small measure and quantitie as they could not bee distempered thereby neither doth the Apostle taxe these abuses at the Lords Supper but in their owne supper which they tooke before v. 21. their disorders in these hee sharply reproves not only as breaches of the Morall law and acts of intemperance but also as prophanation of the Sacrament to which they ought to have come with a holy preparation before Yea but saith the Iesuit the distribution of the Sacrament belonged to the Priests not to the people who are here reprehended for their manner of making their suppers I answer that albeit it appertaineth to the Priests to deliver the sacred elements and the people to receive them from them yet because the Priests cannot give if none bee to take from them the people who either absented themselves from the Communion or came not together but one after another are justly reproved because by this their negligence or disorder the Sacrament could not bee so decently or solemnly celebrated as it ought Now if the Apostle as the Iesuit will have it requireth the people to tary one for another before they began their feasts called Agapae how much more thinke you would hee require this dutie of expecting one the other before they began the Lords Supper which is one of the chiefest and most publike Act and service whereby we professe and expresse the Communion of Saints The neglect of the former dutie in not staying for their guests at their Agapae could bee at the most but a discourtesie or incivilitie but the neglect in the later as the Apostle teacheth trenched upon their conscience and hazarded their salvation wherefore my brethren saith the Apostle v. 33.34 When you come together to eate tarie one for another and if any man hunger let him eate at home that you come not together to condemnation To the fourth The text
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
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
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
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
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
4. Art 1. betwixt a Councell approved by the whole Christian world and one that is disclaimed by most Christian Kings and Bishops and the major part of Christendome But you would further know a difference betwixt their two Creeds Let me tell you in briefe When a Romanist like your selfe would needs know of a Protestant the difference betwixt his religion and ours Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate salutis Bonifac. 8. in Extr. de Major Obed cap. Unam sanctam because both beleeved the Catholike Church in the Creed the Protestant made answer that wee beleeve the Catholike faith contained in the Creed but doe not beleeve the thirteenth Article which the Pope put to it when the Romanist was desirous to see that Article the Extravagant of Pope Boniface was brought wherein it was declared to be altogether of necessitie of salvation for everie humane creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome This thirteenth Article in your Trent Creed besides the newnesse of the rest makes a great difference Mr. Lloyd betwixt the two Creeds and the rather because it is flat contrarie to the decree of the Nicene Councell besides many other differences as shall appeare hereafter But say you they agree in this that as the Arrians of those times cryed out against that Creed as being new and having words not found in Scripture for example Consubstantiation so our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of faith for the same reasons of noveltie and words not found in Scripture as for example Transubstantiation It is true the Arrians at the time of the Councell cryed out against the Nicene Creed for defining the word Consubstantiall or Coessentiall as being new but it is as true they complained without a cause for long before that time the word was used by Origen Doctos quosdam ex veteribus illustres Episcopos Homousii dictione usos esse cognovimus Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. and other ancient Fathers as appeares by Socrates Wee know saith he that of the old writers certaine learned men and famous Bishops have used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly it was resolved by S. Austin that the name was not invented but confirmed and established in the Councell of Nice The word therefore Consubstantiall was not new August contr Maxim l. 3. c. 14. which they complained of but the word Transubstantiation is so new that it was altogether unknowne till the Councell of Lateran Concil Lateranense Anno 1215. Bellarm. 1200. yeeres after Christ therefore your comparison holds not in the first place But ad nit the Councell had first devised the word Quomodo dicis in Scripturis divinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non inveniri quasi aliud sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quà m quod dicit Ego de Deo patre exivi Ego Pater unum sumus Ambros de fide contra Arrian Tom. 2. c. 5. p. 223. in initio August Ep. 174. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Ep. quod decret Synod Nic. Congruis verbis sunt exposita Nihil refert hanc vocem non esse in Scripturâ si vox id significat quod Scriptura docet Vasq in 1. Thom. Tom. 2. Disp 110. c. 1. sect 4. yet it is agreed on all hands that the meaning of the word is contained in Scripture S. Ambrose writing against the Arrians puts to them this very question How doe you say the word Consubstantiall is not in divine Scriptures as if Consubstantiall were any thing else but I went out from the Father and the Father and I are one the word therefore was a pregnant word agreeable to the sacred word of God And albeit saith S. Austin the word perhaps be not found there yet the thing it selfe is found and what more frivolous quarrell is it than to contend about the word when there is certaintie of the thing it selfe In like manner Athanasius answered the Arrians in those dayes as I must answer you Touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albeit it be not found in Scriptures yet it hath the same meaning that the Scriptures intend and imports the same with them whose eares are entirely affected towards religion We cry not out against you simply because your word Transubstantiation is not found in the Scriptures but because the true sense and meaning of the word is not contained in them for the words Unbegotten Increate the word Sacrament the word Trinitie and the like are not found in Scripture yet wee teach them wee beleeve them because their true sense and meaning may bee deduced from the Scripture and we professe with your Jesuite Vasques Nihil refert c. It mattereth not whether the word be in Scripture or no so as that which it signifieth be in the Scripture To come neerer to you doe you but prove that the words This is my body imply Transubstantiation and let me be branded for an Arrian if I refuse to subscribe to it but that the world may know we condemne you justly both for the newnesse of the word and your doctrine also hearken to the learned Doctors of your owne Church Your Schoole-man Scotus tels us that before the Councell of Lateran Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucbar c. 23. Transubstantiation was not beleeved as a point of faith It is true your fellow Jesuites are ashamed of this confession and thereupon Bellarmine answers Ibid. This opinion of his is no way to bee allowed Suarez in 3. Tom. in Euch. disp 70. sect 2. and Suarez not content with such a sober reckoning proclaimes that for his lowd speaking hee ought to be corrected and as touching the words of consecration from whence you would inferre both the name nature of Transubstantiation Mont. in Luk. 22. your Arias Montanus saith This is my body that is my body is sacramentally contained in the Sacrament of bread and hee addes withall the secret and most mysticall manner hereof God will once vouchsafe more clerely to unfold to his Christian Church The doctrine therefore of your carnall and corporall presence is not so cleerely derived from the Scriptures nay on the contrarie hee protesteth that the body of our Saviour is but sacramentally contained in the Sacrament as the Protestants hold and therefore not bodyily It is more than evident that the word Consubstantiation used by the Fathers was derived from the Scriptures but you have not that infallible assurance for your word Transubstantiation witnes your Cardinall Cajetan Cajet in Thom. part 3. q. 75. art 1. he assures us that there appeareth nothing out of the Gospel that may inforce us to understand Christs words properly yea nothing in the text hindereth but that these words This is my body may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense as those words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ that the words of either proposition may well bee
present Binius ibid. in his Annot. on the other side Peter Lombard and Gratian Pet. Lomb. l. 4. Sent. Dist 6. Grat. Can. Mulier de Consecr Dist 4. they have put in their exception nisi necessitate cogente except it be in case of necessitie so that in the absence of the Priest and in case of necessitie women may baptize by the authority of your Church notwithstanding the Councels decree And this is according to Bellarmines confession Although saith he those words of exception nisi necessitate cogente be not found in the Tomes of Councels Bell. de Baptis l. 1. c. 7. yet Peter Lombard and Gratian cite the Canon in that manner And thus by your owne Cardinals profession your Priests have added that exception to the Canon to dispense with women for Administration of the Sacrament which is not found in the Councell Againe the same Councell is razed both by the compiler of the decrees and publisher of the Councels for the Councell saith in the 44. Canon a Clericus nec comam nutriat nec barbam radat Concil Carth. Can 44. Let no Clerke weare long hayre nor shave his Beard The decretals and your late Councels published by Binius have left out the word Radat and have quite altered the sense of the decree and so your Church hath gone directly against the meaning of the Councell in shaving of Priests S. Austin Bishop of Hippo is both purged and falsified in favor of your doctrine First for the purging of him your own men make this declaration b Augustinus nuper Venetiis excusus in quo praeter multorum locorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum exemplarium curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fideliū mentes haeretic â pravitate possent inficere aut a Catholica orthodoxa fide deviare Praefat Ind. lib. prohibit ad Lectorē Genevae impress an 1629. St. Austin was lately printed at Venice in which Edition as we have restored many places accerding to the ancient Copies so likewise we have taken care to remove all those things which might either infect the mindes of the faithfull with Heresies or cause them to wander from the Catholike faith This publike profession your men have made and accordingly the c In hunc modū est repurgatus ut in libri inscripsione testātur qui editioni praefuerunt Ibid. p. 6. Booke was purged as those who were present at that Edition doe witnesse in the Inscription of the Booke but let us returne to the corrupted Editions in our view St. d De Civitate Dci lib. 22. c. 24. Austin in his 22. booke of the Citie of God and 24. Chapter is cyted by e Bell. de Purg. l. 1. c. 4. Bellarmine for the proofe of Purgatory yet in that Chapter saith f Lud. Vives in lib de Civit. Dei c. 8. Vives in the ancient Manuscript Copies which are at Bruges and Colein those ten or twelve printed lines are not to be found And in the 22. booke and 8. Chapter he tells us there are many additions in that Chapter without question foysted in by such as make practise of depraving Authors of great Authority Touching forgeries and falsifications in particular The humane nature of Christ is destroyed if there be not given it after the manner of other bodies a certaine space wherein it may be contained In your Edition of Paris printed by Sebastian Nivelle An. 1571. this passage is wholly left out This is observed by Dr. Moulin but the Authour so printed I have not seene But when neither adding nor detracting could make good your Transubstantiation Fryer Walden thought it the surest way to forge a whole passage in the name of St. Austin which indeed strongly proves the very name and nature of it The words are these Wald. Tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 83. p. mihi 141. No man ought to doubt when Bread and Wine are consecrated into the substance of Christ so as the sabstance of bread and wine doe not remaine whereas we see many things in the workes of God no lesse marvellous A woman God changeth substantially into a stone as Lots wife and in the small workemanship of man hay and ferne into glasse Neither must we beleeve that the substance of bread and wine remaineth but the bread is turned into the Body of Christ and the wine into his bloud the qualities or accidents of bread and wine onely remaining This fo gery was judicially allowed by Pope Martin the fist and his Cardinals in their Consistorie and yet it savours rather of a Glasse-maker than an ancient Father but what answer maketh Walden to this invention * Egoenimreperi trāscripsi de vetustissimo exemplari scripto antiquā valdè manu formatâ Idem Ibid. I found it faith he and transcribed it out of a very ancient Copie written with a set hand Thus one while you adde another while you detract another while you falsifie the ancient Fathers if either they make for us or against you and yet you tell us that we are guiltie of corrupting the Fathers But above all Gratian hath most shamefully and lewdly falsified St. Austin whom he hath made to say Inter Canonicas Scriptur as decretales Epistolae connumerantur Dist 29. In Canonicis fol. 19. A. The decretall Epistles of the Popes are accounted in the number of Canonicall Scriptures The truth is St. Austin in his booke of Christian doctrine informes a Christian what Scripture hee should hold for Canonicall and thereupon bids him follow the greater part of the Catholike Church Amongst which those Churches are which had the happinesse to injoy the seates of the Apostles and to receive Epistles from them Gratian in the Canon Law altereth the words thus Amongst which Canonicall Scriptures those Epistles are which the Apostolicke See of Rome hath and which others have deserved to receive from her and accordingly the title of the Canon is Imer Canonicas Scripturas c. The decretall Epistles of Popes are counted by St. Austin for Canonicall Scriptures Now judge you what greater forgerie nay what greater blasphemie can be devised or uttered against Christ and his Spirit than that the Popes Epistles should bee termed canonicall Scriptures and held of equall authority with the Word of God especially since by your owne men they are censured as Apocryphall and counterfeit Epistles Your owne Bellarmine as a man ashamed of such grosse forgeries would seeme to excuse it Bell. de Concil Author l. 2. c. 12. Primo That Gratian was deceived by a corrupt copie of St. Austin which he had besides him and that the true and corrected copies have not the words as himselfe reporteth Thus Walden excuseth his forgerie by an ancient Manuscript the Cardinall by a corrupt copie and yet by your Cardinals leave this and many other such like forgeries stand printed in the Canon Law no Index Expurgatorius layes hold on them Idem de script Eccles An.
for the benefit of the Lay people hee dedicates his Booke to Cardinall Bovadillius and he tells him that wee esteeme it an excellent thing to reade the workes of Greeke and Latine Philosophers and therefore much more ought wee to search and know the will of God out of his sacred Scriptures for the one is a matter of pleasure and the other is a matter of necessity the not knowing of the one may hurt little or nothing at all but to bee ignorant of the other brings a grievous mischiefe besides eternall destruction of the soule Againe what is it saith hee to forbid the Scriptures to bee read in the vulgar tongue than to forbid God his owne purpose and as it were to command God which doth declare himselfe to all by his Word that hee should not be manifested unto us This is the whole scope of the Author and for this cause lest the reading of the Scripture in a knowne tongue should discover Antichristian Doctrine by frequent reading a Ind. lib. proh p. mihi 36. the Book it selfe is forbidden till it bee purged in this and the like places witnessing against your Romane Doctrine Johannes Langus is numbred amongst your Heretiques in the first Classis pag. 51. Yet his Annotations upon b Permittuntur verò ejusdem in D Justinum annotatioÌ„es iteÌ„ in Nicephorum scholia si expurgentur Ind. l. proh p. mihi 51. Justin Martyr and his Commentaries upon Nicephorus are allowed if they bee purged Now let the Reader observe for what cause you would have him purged First touching his Annotations upon Justin Martyr c Multa continet parum Catholicae Religioni consona inter ea autem illud est praecipuum quòd transubstantiationem non agnoscit sed opertè contendat cum corpore sanguine Christi remanere veram panis vini substaÌ„tiaÌ„ They containe many things disagreeing to the Catholike Religion but among those that is chiefe that hee doth not acknowledge Transubstantiation but doth openly maintaine that the true substance of bread and wine doth remaine with the body and bloud of Christ. Againe d Perversè admodum interpretatur illud Malachiae In omni loco offertur sacrificium nomini meo de doxologia benedictione laudibus hymnis Sic Ind. ut upra He doth very maliciously interpret that place of Malachy In every place a sacrifice shall be offered to my name that is saith he in giving of glory blessing laud and praise to the Name of God e Gerardi Lorichii Adamarii collectio triuÌ„ libroruÌ„ c. de missa publicaproroganda Ind. l. proh p. 11. Gerardus Lorichius is prohibited till he be purged for the reproving and condemning your private Masse and Communion in one kinde his words be these There be false Catholikes that are not ashamed by all meanes to hinder the Reformation of the Church they to the intent that the other kinde of the a Dâ— Missa pub Racemationum lib. 2. Canonis pars 7. p. mihi 177. Sacrament may not be restored to the Lay people spare no kinde of blasphemy b Excusum an 1536. For they say Christ said onely to his Apostles Drinke yee all of this but the words of the Canon of the Masse are Take and eate you all of this Here I beseech them let them tell mee whether they will have this word All to pertaine onely to the Apostles Then must the Lay people abstaine from the other kinde of the bread also which thing to say is an Heresie and a pestilent and detestable blasphemie Ambrosius Catharinus Archbishop of Compsa wrote against Cajetan and saith * Bellar. de Ec. Scrip. p mihi 312. Bellarmine hee wrote likewise against Luther e Opuscula verò similiter prohibentur nisi corrigantur Ind. l. prohib p. 4. Yet something hee wrote is disallowed of the Church as namely touching the words of consecration other things are commonly refuted by the Doctours of the Church viz. the certainety of Grace of Predestination c. therefore his Workes are warily to be read Thus you have Cajetan against Luther and Catherinus against Cajetan and Luther both against the Tenets of their own Church insomuch as the Inquisitors have commanded a deleatur upon Cajetan and Catharinus in the second Classis and against f Commentaria in Lucam nisifuerint ex repurgaâ—â— impressâ—â— ab an 1581. vel nisi anteà edita expurgentur Ind. l. prohib p 26. p. 318. Ind-Belg p. 317. Ind. Hisp p. 63. Luthers whole Workes in the first Classis Didacus Stella is prohibited to bee printed before hee be purged The places which are purged are such wherein hee teacheth Protestant Doctrine as may be seen in g See Appendix to the Romish Fisher caught in his owne net Mr. Crashaw and Dr. James and D. F. Observations Andreas Masius in his Commentarie upon Josuah is purged for this Protestant doctrine Ad solam vitae benè actae imitationem non etiam ad religiosum cultum quem adorationem vocant Theologi DivoruÌ„ monumen ta conservare fas est In Comment Jos hist c. ult Ind. l. expurg p. 31. Wee ought to preserve the Monuments of Saints onely for the imitation of their godly life not for Religious worship which Divines call Adoration Againe hee saith a Idem in Jos c. 22. The Church sets before our eyes the figure of Christs Crosse not that wee should worship it which latter words are commanded to bee razed out Lastly Cardinall Bellarmine who was the first and best that ever handled all controversies indifference betwixt us b Ind. Belg. p. 269. was in danger of a prohibition or rather of an absolute suppression of all his workes Your owne Barclay witnesseth of him Barclay of the authoritie of the Pope c. 13. p. 66. Engl. That there is not one of the Popes partie who hath either gathered more diligently or propounded more sharply or concluded more briefly or subtilly than the worthy Divine Bellarmine who although he gave as much to the Popes authority in temporalties as honestly hee might and more than he ought yet could he not satisfie the ambition of the most imperious man Sixtus the 5th who affirmed that he had supreme power over Kings and Prince of the whole Earth and all People Countries and Nations committed unto him not by humane but by divine Ordinance and therefore he was very neare by his Pontificiall censure to the great hurt of the Church to have abolished all the writings of that Doctour which doe oppugne Heresies with great successe at this day as the Fathers of that order whereof Bellarmine was then did seriously report unto me How probable this may seeme his worke of Recognitions doth witnesse to the world wherein he was inforced to recant that doctrine which he had both sincerely taught and published according to the truth As for instance whereas he professed that the Pope was subject to the Emperour in temporall affaires on the
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
I cite but three Authors and yet none prove the Antiquitie or Vniversalitie of our Faith Then you goe backe againe and you tell the Reader I say nothing here of the mans notable cunning and falshood in making him beleeve as if we did excuse our selves in those things whereof they accuse us If such extravagant excursions and reproches you call a Reply or a Catholike Answer I will lay my finger on my mouth and say with your Cardinall Qui decipi vult decipiatur Briefely the substance of my Assertion was this The three Creeds the Canonicall Scriptures the Apostolike Traditions the foure first generall Councels and the rest were so generally received in the bosome of the Roman Church that for that reason it might seeme a senselesse question to demand where our Church was before Luther Next I shewed that the positive Doctrines of our Church mentioned in our 39. Articles were contained in a very few points and those also had Antiquity and Vniversality then I shewed that those doctrines which they obtruded upon us were but Additions and Negative Tenets in our Articles and that many of those additions were condemned or at least excused by their owne men And I instanced in three Authors before mentioned for three severall points of their Doctrine and this is the substance and true meaning of that Section and thus much by way of advertisement to the moderate Reader Now to answer you distinctly to that you have produced confusedly Your first exception is touching Pope Adrian the sixth you say It is not as Sr. Humphry putteth it to wit if the consecrated Bread be Christ but if it be rightly consecrated And doe not you still by Adrians confession excuse your adoration by implying a condition and is it not all one according to your doctrine For if it be rightly consecrated it is Christ if not it is a Crust and no man amongst your Communicants knoweth what it is because he knoweth not the Priests intention Take it therefore which way you will yet my assertion stands true we condemne you for adoring the Elements for ought you know of bread and wine because it doth depend upon the intention of the Priest whether Christ be there or no but yet you cannot condemne us for adoring Christs rent body in the Heavens and however the Priests doe consecrate yet saith Gerson when the host is adored that condition is ever at lest to be supposed if it be rightly consecrated that is Gers compend Theol. Tit. de tribus virtut p. 111. if it be truely the body of Christ And this is that Pope Adrian hath delivered by your owne confession and therefore they are not to be cleered from Idolatry because they intended to worship one God as indeede there was but one God but because they adored him there where he was not and in that manner as they supposed him to be The case saith Catharinus is like in the host not consecrated Cathar Annot. in Caiet p. mihi 134. For God and Christ is not adored simply but as he is existing under the formes of bread and wine If therefore he be not there but it be found that Divine worship is given to a creature insteede of Christ there is Idolatry also For even in this regard they were Idolaters who adored Heaven or any other thing supposing with themselves that they adored in it the Divinity whom they called the soule of the world Compare then the certainty of your faith with ours which is the point in question and tell me if in this we are not more certaine and safe then you can be First your owne Bellarmine tels us Bell. de Iustific l. 3. c. 8. that none can be certaine by the certainity of faith that he doth receive a true Sacrament No man saith Andreas Vega can beleeve assuredly that he receiveth the least part of the Sacrament Vega l. 9. de Iustific c. 17. and this is so surely to be credited as it is apparant that we live And both give one and the same reason for it For there is no way except it be by Revelation that we can know the intention of the Minister either by outward appearance or by certainty of faith From this dangerous consequence we condemne your adoration and resolve to let you know from your owne men Th. Salistar de arte Praedicandi c. 25. that No man be he never so simple or never so wise ought precisely to believe that this is the body of our Lord that the Priest hath consecrated but onely under this condition if all things concerning the consecration be done as appertaineth for otherwise he shall avouch a creature to be the Creator which were Idolatry Now as this way in the generall is uncertaine and dangerous so likewise there are many other wayes which may easily occasion this Idolatry and therefore you cannot deny us to be in the more certaine and safe way As for instance Iohannes de Burgo who was Chancellor of Cambridge about 200. yeares since gives us to understand that a Priest may faile in his intention many wayes As for example Pupilla Oculi c. 3. 5. c. If the Bread be made of any other then wheaten flower which may possibly happen or if there be too much water in quantity that it overcomes and alters the nature of wine if the wine be changed into vinegar and therefore cannot serve for consecration If there be thirteene cakes upon the Table and the Priest for his consecration determine onely upon twelve in that case not one of them all is Consecrated Lastly if the Priest dissemble or leave out the words of Consecration or if he forget it or minde it not in all and every of these wayes there is nothing Consecrated and consequently the people giving divine honour to the Sacrament all Bread or Cup commit flat Idolatry When I heare the Apostle proclaime to all Christians that he which doubteth is condemned already I cannot chuse but pitty the state and condition of that miserable man who hath a doubtfull perplexed and uncertaine faith who taketh all upon trust and upon the report sometimes of an Hypocrite sometimes of a malitious Priest who hath no intention at all to administer the true Sacrament History of Trent For saith your Trent history if a Priest having charge of foure or five hundred soules were an Infidell but a formall Hyppocrite and in absolving the Penitent baptizing of children and Consecrating the Eucharist had an intention not to doe that which the Church doth it must be said that the children are damned the penitent not absolved and that all remaine without the fruite of the Communion Now let the Reader judge which doctrine is most certaine and safe either that of your Church which may occasion flat Idolatry in the worshiper or our sursum corda with hearts and eyes lifted up to Heaven where we adore our Saviour Christ in his bodily presence according to the
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
is not found expressely Yet our Argument from Biels testimonie is no way disabled thereby because it appeareth out of Biels owne words that hee holdeth that to bee expresly delivered in Scriptures which is either expressed in word or sence the reall presence he saith is expresse not in the letter or forme of words in the text yet in the sence but so saith he is not Transubstantiation the apparant opposition betweene the members of his sentence sheweth that what hee beleeved of the reall presence hee beleeved not of Transubstantiation but the former he beleeved could bee proved out of Scripture though not in expresse words yet in sence therefore the later hee beleeved could not be proved so much as in sense much lesse in expresse words To the sixt Although Petrus de Alliaco inclineth rather to the Lutherans opinion in the point of the Sacrament then to the doctrine of the Church of England yet the Knight upon good reason produceth him as a witnesse for hee speaketh home against Transubstantiation Cameracë in 4 sent q. 6. art 2. patet quòd ille modus sit possibilis nec repugnet rationi nec authoritati bibliae imò facilior ad intelligendum rationabilior est quum c. his words are that the conversion of bread into Christs body cannot evidently bee proved out of Scripture and that that manner or meaning which supposeth the substance of bread still to remaine in the Sacrament is possible neither is it contrary to reason or to the authoritie of the Scripture nay it is more easie to bee understood and more reasonable then that which saith the substance doth leave the accidents If this bee not as Flood will have it so much as in shew for the Knight I am sure it is both in shew and substance against the Trent faith for if it bee granted that Consubstantiation is not contrarie to Scripture nor reason it followeth necessarily that Transubstantiation is grounded upon neither but rather repugnant to both for as trans denieth con so con trans If the remaining of the substance of bread with the substance of Christs body be not repugnant to the authoritie of Scripture nor the meaning of Christs words then doe not these words This is my body signifie or make Transubstantiation which necessarily abolisheth the substance of Bread and putteth in place thereof the substance of Christs bodie If Consubstantiation bee more easily to bee understood and more agreeable to right reason in Alliacoes judgement then Transubstantiation it is evident but for feare of his Cardinalls cap hee would have simply avowed the former and renounced the latter To the seventh Take Roffensis his words at the best the Iesuite is at a great losse admit hee said no more then I.R. here confesseth that no man can bee able to prove that any priest now in these times doth consecrate the true body of Christ see what will follow hereupon that no man is able to prove that your priests and people are not grosse Idolatours adoring a piece of bread for Christ Secondly that none is able to prove that Christ is really and substantially offered in your Masse for if it cannot bee proved that he is there corporally present as Roffenfis confesseth and you be are him out in it it cannot bee proved that hee is corporally offered restat itaque ut missas missas faciatis Roff. cont Luth captiv Bab. c. 4 neque ullum posituÌ„ hic verbum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fi lci carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam non potestigitur per ullam scripturam probari it remaineth therefore that you dismisse your misses or Masses For what can they availe the living or the dead if nothing but meere accidents and shewes of Bread and Wine bee offered which are meere nothing Wee may yet gather farther upon Roffensis his words if it cannot bee proved by any Scripture that Christs body and bloud are present in the Roman masse it cannot bee proved that they are present in any Masse unlesse it bee granted that the Roman masses are of a worser condition then others if not in any masse much lesse must Papists say in any Sacrament without the Masse What then becommeth of the maine and most reall article of the Trent faith which hath cost the reall effusion of so much Christian bloud I meane the reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament To Roffenfis I.R. should have added Cajetan and so hee might have had a parreiall of Cardinalls for the Knight alledged him and his words are most expresse not only against the proofe of Transubstantiation Caje in 3. p. Tho. g. 75. dico autem ab ecclesiâcum non appareat ex Evangelio coactivum aliuod ad intellg â—â—dum haec verba propriè quod evangelium non explicavit expressè ab ecclesia accepimus viz. conversionem panis in corpus but also of the corporall presence of Christ as out of the words hoc est corpus meum The Cardinalls words are that which the Gospell hath not expressed wee have received from the Church to wit the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ I say from the Church because there appeares nothing out of the Gospell that can enforce a man to beleeve that the words This is my body are to bee taken properly How doth this Flood swell in pride that to so great a Cardinal so profound a Schoole-man so eminent a Doctour so divine a Commentatour so golden a Writer all which titles are given by the Roman Church to Cajetan he vouchsafeth not a looke But indeed he held a Wolfe by the eares and was in a quandarie what to doe whether to keepe his holt or to let him goe if hee had taken notice of his testimonie against the Roman Church either hee must have disparaged the Cardinall or given his Trent faith a grievous wound To the eight Durand his words are plaine enough to prove that the conversion of bread into the body of Christ is wrought by the vertue of Christs benediction before hee uttered the words Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua convertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi Dur. rat c. 41. This is my body hee blessed saith hee the bread by his heavenly benediction and by vertue of the Word whereby the Brend is turned into the substance of Christs body Yea but faith Flood hee addeth Wee blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis wee blesse by that power or vertue which Christ hath given to the words true verbis benenedictionis not consecrationis according to Durands mind by that power which Christ gave to the words of benediction going before not those words which you call the words of Consecration ensuing after viz. This is my body which words yet Durand there rehearseth not to prove the conversion to bee wrought by them but to prove Christs body to be truly there To the ninth Though
the forme of Consecration may be called a Benediction for the reasons alledged by the Spectacle-maker Odo Camerac in can mis dist 4. benedixit suum corpus fecit qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro non enim post benedictionem dixisset hoc est corpus meum nisi in benedictione sieret corpus suam yet it is certaine that Odo Cameracensis distinguisheth the one from the other and ascribeth the conversion of bread into Christs body to the vertue of the precedent benediction and not of the subsequent Consecration Christ blessed the bread hee made it his Body that which before was Bread by his blessing is made flesh for hee would not have said after hee had blessed it This is my Body unlesse by blessing it hee had made it his Body Yea but Flood threatneth to bring a place out of Odo expresly to the contrary which is this Take away the words of Christ Odo Camera expos in Can. miss dist 5. tolle verba Christi non fiunt sacramenta Christi vis sieri corpus fanguinem appone Christi sermonem and take away the Sacraments of Christ wilt thou have the Body and Bloud of Christ made put thereto the word of Christ but which word of Christ for therein is the cardo questionis whether the word of Benediction going before or the word of Consecration following after In Odo his judgement by the word of benediction for hee saith Benedictione factus est caro by blessing it became flesh and that before hee uttered the words This is my Body which in Odo his apprehension as wee heard before could not bee true unlelesse bread had beene turned into Christs body before he pronounced them To the tenth I.R. Here Iohannes de Rivis or Iohn of the Flood speaketh very disgracefully of his Father Christopher us de capite fontium Christopher of the head of the Fountaines Nay to a most reverend Father the Archbishop of Caesarea for the Archbishop of Caesaerea his booke saith hee De correctione Theologiae scholasticae I doe not so much as looke into him but remit it to the Roman Index where you shall find this booke by you here cited forbidden and even the arrogancie of the title sheweth it to deserve no better a place Solinus c. 43. Bonasus Tauri similis si insequantur Agasones vebementiùs fimum emittit per tria jugera quicquid tangit Vrit The Bonasus when hee is hard followed casts dung in abundance on the pursuer and brayeth hideously so doth I.R. cast filth and raile downe right when he is so hard pressed with a testimonie that he hath nothing to reply The Roman Index Prohibitorum librorum is to Flood like the Philosophers pons asinorum in all extremities hee flieth to it But what is this Index to us hee might as well alledge the Turkes Alcharon against the Knight This Index of prohibited bookes deserveth not only a prohibition but a purging by fire For in the first ranke we find the holy Bibles translated into vulgar languages to bee set and after them most of the prime and Classick Writers almost in all professions There is nothing so easie as to prohibit this or any other booke but unlesse our Adversariee back this Papall prohibition with detection of errours and heresies contained in such bookes and a solid confutation thereof this tyrannicall Prohibition of the workes of Authours wil prove an evident conviction that they forcibly smother that truth the light whereof dazleth their eyes Yea but saith Flood there is a grosse historicall errour in that he saith that in that opinion of his both the Councell of Trent and all the Writers did agree till the late time of Cajetan as if Cajetan were since the Councell of Trent No historicall errour at all in the Archbishop but a frivolous cavill in Flood For hee saith not that the Councell of Trent was before Cajetan but that the Councell of Trent and all Writers before it also did agree till the late time of Cajetan Yea but the Knight maketh Cardinall Cajetan and the Archbishop of Caesarea his two champions against the words of Confecration as if they did both agree in the same whereas here the Archbishop saith quite contrarie that all are for him but only Cajetan A ridiculous sophisme ex ignoratione Elenthi the Knight alledgeth both Cardinall Cajetan and the Archbishop of Caesarea against the words of Consecration but not ad idem not to prove the same conclusion hee alledgeth Cajetan to prove that there is nothing in the words hoc est corpus meum to enforce Transubstantiation but the Archbishop of Caesarea to prove that the supposed conversion is made not by the words of Consecration This is my body but by the precedent words of Benediction Christoph de correct theoscholast fol. 11.41 usque ad 63. nisi prius quà m ista verba diceret Christus corpus suum ex pane factum erat ista proposito non fuisset vera hoe est corpus meum c. Fol. 23. and this hee proveth against all Papists strongly after this manner Vnlesse before Christ uttered those words this is my body his body had beene made of bread this Proposition had not beene true This is my body for when Christ said take ye eate yee if at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed it will follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eate the substance of bread and so wee must denie the article of Transubstantiation therefore saith he certo certius constat Christum non solùm per ista sola verba non consecrâsse sed ne quidem illa partem aliquam fuisse consecrationis quam fecit it is most certaine that these words were no part of the Consecration And this hee proveth to bee the opinion of all the ancient Fathers by name of Iustine Martyr Dionysius S. Austine Hesichius S. Ierome Gregorie Ambrose Rupert Alquine Bernard Seotus Landulph Peter de Aquila Pelbert and others To the eleventh The Knight alledgeth not Salmerons opinion but his relation of the opinion of other men and although his credit bee cracked with Protestants yet it is whole with Flood and his fellow Iesuits as Chamierus on the contrarie his credit is good with Protestants though none with Pontificians P. 162. Yea but saith Flood Chamier discovereth the Knights bad dealing I would faine know how or wherein first how by the spirit of prophesie or by some letter sent to the Knight after Chamier his death for Chamier was dead many yeares before the Knight wrote Were he alive what bad dealing could he discover in the Knight Cham. de Euchar l. 6. c. 7. who out of him truly and sincerely relateth the words of Salmeron the Iesuite concerning the Graecians in these words seeing the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine nor gave hee simply bread it followeth that when hee gave it the transmutation was made and those
words This is my Body did demonstrate what was contained in the bread What fault findeth hee in this allegation If the Greekes had no such opinion or Salmeron relateth no such thing the blame must light between Salmeron and Chamier howsoever the Knight is free For hee truly quoteth Chamier neither dare Flood say that Chamier misquoteth Salmeron P. 161. For saith hee though I found not this place in him yet I will not say but it may bee there Let this Spectacle-maker put on a better paire of Spectacles and hee shall plainly reade the words alledged out of Salmeron in the place quoted by Chamier Cie Orat. pro Rosc Amerino The geese in the Capitoll if they gagled without cause were to be beate for it and the dogges to have their legges broken if they barked when there was no suspition of a theefe approaching Some such like punishment they deserve in Tullies judgement who lay foule aspersions upon others without any colour of proofe or semblance of truth To the twelfth At the Knights allegation out of Bellarmine Flood here nibleth but can no where fasten his tooth hee excepteth at the changing of the singular number into the plurall and translating Scriptures for Scripture and the most learned and acute men such as Scotus for most learned and acute men It seemeth this Iesuite is descended of the race of Domitian Sueton in Domitian whose greatest exercise was all day to strike at flies with a sharpe iron bodkin reade Scriptures in the plurall or Scripture in the singular or most acute Bellar. de Euchar l. 3. c. 23. Dicit Scotus non extare locū uilum soripturae tam expressum ut sine ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere at que id non est omninò improbabile nam etiamsi scripturae nob is tam apertae videantur ut cogant hominem non protervū tamen meritò dubitari potest cùm homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis imprimis Scotus fuit aliter sentiant or the most acute the confession of Bellarmine maketh still altogether as strongly against the grounding of Transubstantiation on Scripture Scotus saith that there is no place of Scripture so expresse viz. for Transubstantiation which setting aside the declaration of the Church evidently enforceth a man to admit it For though the Scripture viz. That text of Scripture brought by him to prove Transubstantiation seemed to bee so plaine as to enforce a man not refractorie to beleeve it yet it may bee doubted whether that text viz. Hoc est corpus meum bee cleare enough to enforce it seeing most learned and acute men such as Scotus was thought otherwise If it may bee justly doubted whether the text This is my body inferre Transubstantiation why doe our Adversaries blame us for doubting of it If sharp-sighted Scotus and other most learned and acute men thought the text enforceth no such thing let our Adversaries give us leave to preferre their opinion before the judgement of Flood and others neither so learned nor so acute To the thirteenth L. 8 con haeres verb. indulg de transubslātiatione panis in corpus Chrislirara in antiquis scriptoribus mentio rara c. The Knight regarded not at what Alfonsus à Castro aimed but hee tooke up his arrow where hee found it and shooteth it against your Trent doctrine Of the Transubstantiation saith hee of the bread into Christs body there is rarely or seldome any mention made in ancient Writers What doth I. R. answer hereunto Alfonsus saith hee saith true and the Knight most false For though of Transubstantiation there bee no mention yet of the conversion of the bread into Christs body there is most frequent mention P. 164. Reade my riddle wat 's this rare mention of Transubstantiation but not rare mention of the conversion of the bread into Christs body pugnantia te loqui non vides Is not this a flat contradiction I would faine know what difference there is betweene Transubstantiation and the conversion of the substance of Bread into the substance of Christs body in the Sacrament Neither can the Iesuite free himselfe here from uttering an evident contradiction in the same sentence by saying that Alfonsus speaketh of the word Transubstantiation not of the thing it selfe For Alfonsus there speaketh of things not of words as Flood himselfe confesseth in the same page five lines after saying that Alfonsus his drift 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 instance the point of Transubstantiation and procession of the holy Ghost See here Alfonsus speaketh not of the word Transubstantiation but of the point or thing it selfe and of this thing or point hee saith there is rare or seldome mention in ancient Writers To the fourteenth Neither Scotus nor Yribarne speake of the interpretation of the words This is my body Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. unum addit Scotus c. quod ante Lateranense concilium Transubstantiatio non fuit dagma fidei Yrib in 4. dist 11. q. 3. disp 42. in primitivâ ecclesiâ de substantia fidei erat cotpus Christi sub speciebus contineri tamin non erat de fide substantiam panis in corpus Christi converti Aug. de doct Christ l. 2. c. 9. omnia quae continent fidem mores in illis inveniuntur quae apertè posita sunt in seripturâ Chrysost in 2. ad Thess hom 3. manifesla sunt in divinis Scripturis quaecunque sunt necessaria Rivet Cathol orthod q. 18.138 Gat. discourse of Tran. pag 60.61 Scotus 4. Sent. dist 11. ad hoc multùm expressè videturloqui Ambrosius nor of the manner of the deliverie of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in former times but de dogmate fidei of a doctrine of faith which they expresly denie Transubstantiation to have beene and what they say may bee confirmed by Flood his owne answer in this place For if Transubstantiation in former ages was not plainly delivered as hee confesseth p. 167. it could not bee then dogma fidei or de substantiâ fidei any doctrine of faith For all doctrines of faith are plainly and evidently set downe in holy Scriptures as S. Austine and S. Chrysostome joyntly teach As for the passage alledged by Scotus out of S. Ambrose it is fully answered retorted by Andrew Rivet Mr. Gataker and others Whereunto I thinke fit to adde nothing but that Scotus in the place alledged speaketh not confidently of S. Ambrose that hee held the doctrine of Transubstantiation but that in words he seemed to favour that opinion To the fifteenth Albeit S. Austine in the place alledged by the Knight speaketh not expresly against your carnall presence yet by consequence hee quite overthroweth it for if the unbeleeving Iewes in the Desert and Iudas in the new Testament died spiritually after
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
For indeed those bookes of the Cardinall are no other then the exercise of his readers patience or at the best of his owne wit or imagination To the eighteenth For Wickliff and the Waldenses the Knight insisted not upon their testimonie though well hee might for they were most eminent professours of the truth and most free from those foule aspersions which their sworne enemies and bloudy persecutors cast upon them because his purpose was in this chapter as hee professeth in the title vos vestris gladijs jugulare to cut your throat with your owne swords and condemne you out of your owne mouth as Christ doth the evill servant in the Gospell 'T is true Wickliffe was condemned for an heretique in the Councell of Constance many yeares after his death and barbarous inhumanitie was also exercised upon his bones Yet will it follow no more from hence that Wickliffe was an heretique then that Ieremie was a false Prophet or Christ and his Apostles false teachers because they were condemned by councells of Priests And of all Councells that of Constance carries the least credit because it is not only condemned by all the reformed Churches but by the Roman Church her selfe and the Decrees thereof repealed in later Councells Touching the Waldenses what the Iesuite here writeth of them hee confirmeth by no testimonie and the contrarie may be demonstrated out of Orthwinus Gratius Histoire des Vaudois and the Historie and confession of the Waldenses lately set forth out of authenticall records in French To the nineteenth The Iesuits answer to Durand concerning the materiall part of bread remaining in the Sacrament but not the substance implying that the materiall part of Bread and the substance are different things is not materiall nor true For though the materiall part of any substance be a distinct thing both from the forme the compositum yet is it a substance and hath accidents inherent in it For according to the axiome of the metaphysickes ex non substantijs non fit substantia a substance or substantiall compound is not made or composed of non substances Sith the whole is not distinct really from all the parts united together the compound cannot bee substantiall unlesse the parts of which it consisteth be substances Durand therefore affirming that the materiall part of the bread remained in the Sacrament after Consecration held that some part of the substance of bread remained and therefore the Knight no way wrongeth Durand but Flood the Knight If Durand held that the whole substance of the bread was turned into the body of Christ according to your Trent Decree De Euch. l. 3. c. 13. why doth Card. Bellarmine censure his doctrine as hereticall if he taught not that the whole substance was converted hee must needs hold that some part of the substance remained as it was before which is all the Knight chargeth him with As for that the Iesuite addeth to salve the matter that he acknowledgeth all others to bee against him in this point Durand in 4. sent dist 11. q. 1. let him put on his Spectacles and reade the place againe and hee shall see there are no such words Only I find quest 3. This modest parenthesis salvo meliori judicio Which indeed are respective words befitting a modest man but no way amounting to a confession that his opinion in that point was singular and that all others were against him which notwithstanding Flood puts upon him To the twentieth Touching Gaufridus and Hostiensis cited by the Knight out of Durand In 4. sent dist 10. q. 1. n. 13. it is evident that howsoever they might peradventure incline to that which the Roman Church determined viz. the second opinion that the bread doth not remaine but is changed yet they no way condemne the third opinion viz. the substance of bread remaines and is together with tho body of Christ For as Durand well noteth they call it an opinion not an errour or an heresie neither doe they say it is to bee reproved but let it passe without any censure which they would not have done if they had held Transubstantiation to be a doctrine de fide to be beleeved of all upon paine of damnation To the twentie one Cutbert Tunstall was a Bishop and in great esteeme among all the learned in his time In his Epitaph in Lambeth Chancell he is styled Aureusiste Senex Tunst de Euch. l. 1. pag. 46. de modo quo id fieret fortasse satiùs erat curiosum quemque relinquere conjecturae sicut liberum fuit ante concilium Lateranense and therefore not lightly to bee filliped off and sleighted by a priest and Iesuit de face vulgi by saying that the matter is not great whether Tunstall said that for which hee is alledged or no because one single Author or two contradicted by others carrieth no credit For I find not that hee is contradicted by any His words are these of the manner and meanes of the reall presence either by Transubstantiation or otherwise perhaps it had beene bettter to leave every man that would bee curious to his owne conjecture as before the Councell of Lateran it was left free Neither did that learned Bishop of Duresme ever retract this opinion For Mr. Bernard Gilpin a holy man and a kinsman of the Bishop affirmeth that the Bishop his Diocesan often told him that Innocent the third had done very unadvisedly in that he had made the opinion of Transubstantiation an article of faith Neither doe wee find that any in his dayes or since before Flood taxed this Bishop for this his opinion To the twentie two None more sleight men of worth then those who want it Erasmus will live both in his owne workes and in the writings of the ancient Fathers and other Classick Authours corrected and set forth by him when a thousand Floods and Leomelij and Daniels a Iesu shall bee buried in perpetuall oblivion Erasmus was in great esteeme with Archbishop Waram and Sir Thomas Moore Lord Chancellor of England and of divers Bishops yea and Cardinalls also beyond the Sea and what Tully spake of Aristotle may bee truly said of him A golden river A hellish lake there is in his writings aureum slumen but in the Iesuit his adversarie lacus averni Concerning private Masses Spectacles Paragraph 3. à pag. 187. vsque ad 199. OVR Saviours words take yee eate ye make nothing against private Masse for Christ there spake to all his Apostles who did all eate and out of that place a man might as well say that all must communicate that are in the Church at the same time as two or three S Pauls words where hee inviteth Christians to imitate him are meant of chastening the body fasting and praying and the like in which Protestants follow him not and if the words bee extended to the Sacrament Catholike Priests imitate S. Paul therein because they are readie to communicate with all such as come worthily to
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
are they not as much as an outward element Yes surely as much in quantitie and more too Bell. l. 1. de matrim c. 6. Si matrimonium consideretur Vt jam factum celebratum conjugati sunt materiale Synbolum externū cujus re fut at vid. apud Chamierum Panistrat Cathol de sacr l. 4 c. 27. but none ever before this Iesuit and his Master Bellarmine maketh mens bodies outward elements in any Sacrament the bodies of men and their soules are either the Ministers or receivers in every Sacrament not the elements or materiall parts thereof The element in every Sacrament hath the denomination of the whole as when wee say the sacrament of Circumcision of the Passeover of bread and wine but who ever heard of the sacrament of men and womens bodies Our third exception against the sacrament of Matrimonie is that if it bee a sacrament conferring grace as they teach ex opere operato why doe they deprive Priests of it and make them take a solemne vow against it The Iesuit answereth that though Mariagebee a holy thing as Order also is yet as Order is forbidden to all women so upon good reason Mariage is forbidden all Priests T is true I grant that all holy things in themselves are not fit for all ages sexes and callings In particular it is no way fit that women should be admitted into holy Orders because they are forbidden to speake in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 and it seemeth to bee against the law of nature that the weaker and more ignoble sex should be appointed to instruct and governe the stronger and more noble but there is not the like reason in Order and Matrimonie Heb. 13.4 For the Scripture saith Mariage is honourable among all but not that the order of Priesthood is commendable in all men Much lesse women yet the Iesuit saith that upon good reason Mariage is forbidden Priests because it is not agreeable to the high and holy estate of Priesthood and religious life A strange thing that a sacrament should not bee agreeable to the most sacred function that a holy Rite conferring grace should not bee agreeable to a religious life If Marriage were any disparagement to the holinesse of priesthood why did God appoint married Priests under the law and Christ chose married Apostles in the Gospel Eusebius saith of Spiridion that though hee were married and brought up children Sozom. Eccles hist l. 1. c. 11. Chrys in Gen. 5.22 vet that hee was nothing thereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hindered or disparaged in his sacred function and S. Chrysostome in his Homilie upon those words Enoch walked with God noteth it that it is said twice for failing Enoch walked with God and begat sonnes and daughters to teach us that marriage is no impeachment to holinesse or the highest degree of perfection whereby wee are said to walke with God To shut up this point concerning Matrimonie Cardinal Bellarmine teacheth us that the seven Sacraments anwer seven Vertues Baptisme answereth to Faith Confirmation to Hope the Eucharist to Charitie Penance to Iustice Extreame Vnction to Fortitude and Matrimonie to continence or temperance if so then certainly Matrimonie is most agreeable to the office of a Bishop or Priest 1 Tim. 3.2 For a Bishop must hee continent and modest and as it there followeth the husband of one wife and unlesse the rules of Logick faile if Matrimonie hold correspondencie with temperance the prohibition thereof and forced single life must needs answer to intemperance as the testimonie of all ages proveth it For Extreame Vnction the lagge of all their Sacraments little or nothing can bee said For it wanteth all the three conditions requisite to a Sacrament it hath neither element nor forme of words prescribed by Christ nor any promise of saving sanctifying grace The Apostles indeed used oile but as a medicine to heale the body not as a sacrament to cure the soule As the Apostles used oyle so Christ spittle in restoring sight to the blind will they hereupon make spittle an eighth sacrnment Sacraments ought to be of perpetual use in the Church whereas the Unction whereof the Scripture speaketh wherby the sick were miraculously cured is ceased long agoe if the Iesuit will not give eare to us let him yet yeeld so much respect to Cardinall Cajetan as to peruse what he commenteth on that text of Scripture on which the Church of Rome foundeth this Sacrament Is any sick among you Iames 5.14.15 let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anoynting him with oyle in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if hee have committed sins they shall bee forgiven him Cajet com in hunc locum neque ex verbīs neque ex effectu verba baec loquuntur de Sacramentali Vnctione seu sacramento Extremae Vnctionis sed magis de Vnctione quam instituit Dominus Iesus in Evangelio à discipulis exercendâ in aegrot is textus enim non dicit infirmatur quis ad mortem sed absolutè infirmatur quis effectum dicit infirmi allemiationem de remissione peccatorum non nisi conditionaliter loquitur cum extrema Vnctio non nisi propè articulum mortis detur directè ut ejus-forms sonat tendit ad remissionem peccatorum adde quod Iacobus ad unum aegrum mult os praesbyteros tum orantes tum Vnguentes mandat vocari quod ab Extremae Vnction is ritu alienumest On these words thus Cajetan inferreth it cannot bee gathered either from the words nor from the effect here mentioned that the Apostle speaketh of sacramentall or Ex. treame Vnction but rather of that anoynting which Christ appointed in the Gospell to bee used in healing the sick for the Text saith not is any man sick unto death but simply is any man sick and the effect hee attributeth to this anoynting is the ease or raising of the sick of remission of sinnes he speaks but conditionally where as Extreame Vnction is given to none but at the point of death and directly tendeth to remission of sinnes as the forme importeth Adde hereunto that S. Iames commandeth many Elders to be sent for both to pray and anoynt the sick which is not done in Extreame Vnction To the sixt The Knight having shot two arrowes out of S. Austines quiver the one with a head the other without yet sharpe pointed the Iesuit quite concealeth the one and endeavours to blunt the other The former hee drew out of S. Austine his treatise de symbole ad catechumenos where speaking of Baptisme and the Lords Supper he saith haec sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta these are the two twin Sacraments of the Church De latere in cruce pendentis lanceâ percusso sacramenta Ecclesiae profluxerunt to this the Iesuit answereth negry quidem To the other taken out of the 15. tract
contradict Romish doctrines not out of disobedience to man but out of obedience to him who commandeth us to contend for the true faith and to reprove and convince all gainesayers What Papists intentions are we take not upon us to judge their doctrines we put to the test of Gods word and finde them false and adulterine and all be it some points of their beliefe considered in themselves might seeme indifferent yet as they hold them they are not because they are not of faith Rom. 14.23 and what soever is not of faith is sinne Now no point of the Romish Creed as they hold it is of that faith the Apostle speaketh of that is divine faith because they ground and finally resolve all their articles not upon Gods word but upon the authority of the Pope Resp ad Archiepis Spalaten c. 47. Firmitas fundamenti â—â— firma licet implicita in aureo hoc fundamento veritatis adhaesio valebit ut in Cypriano sic in nobis ad salutem faenum stipula imbecilitas caries in tecto contignatione explicitae erroris opinio non valebit nec in Cypriano nec in nobis ad perâ—â—tiem or Church of Rome which is but the authority of man whereas on the contrary as Doctor Crakent horpe demonstrateth If any Protestant build hay or stubble upon the true foundation he may he saved because be holdeth the true foundation which is that every doctrine of faith ought to be built upon Scripture If the Iesuit wonder at this conclusion let him weigh the Authors reasons and he will be forced to confesse that the errors if there be any in Protestants in regard they sticke close to the true foundation and implicitly deny them cannot in them be damnable whereas the very true doctrines of faith in Papists because they hold them upon a wrong ground and foundation very much derogatory to God and his truth are not so safe To the third With what face can the Iesuit avow this considering that Prieras before alleaged and other writers approved by the Church of Rome mainetaine this blasphemous assertion that the authority of the Church is greater then the anthority of Scripture and all Papists of note at this day hold that the Scripture is but an imperfect and partiall rule of faith all Protestants on the contrary teach that it is an entire and perfect rule of faith Papists believe the Scripture for the Churches sake Protestants the Church for the Scripture sake Papists resolve all points of faith generally into the Popes infalibility or Churches authority Protestants into the written word of God which as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth De verbo Dei non script l. 4. c. 11. containeth all things necessary for all men to beleeve and is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeveing Yea but saith the Iesuit out of Vincentius Lerinensis De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 2. he that will avoid the deceits and snares of Haeretikes and remaine soundin the faith must strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the divine law and the tradition of the Catholike Church This advise of Vincentius is sound and good if it be rightly understood and not in the Iesuits sense Vincentius there by tradition of the Catholike Church understandeth not unwritten verities but the Catholike expositions of holy Scriptures extant in the writings of the Doctors of the Church in all ages and we grant that this Catholike exposition of the Doctors where it can be had is of great force to confirme faith and confound Heretikes Vt Scripturae ecclesiastice intelligentiae jungatur authoritas For the stopping of whose mouth that Father saith and we deny it not that there is great neede to add to the Scripture the Churches sense or interpretation albeit as he there addeth which cutteth the throat of the Iesuits cause The Canon of Scripture is perfect and sufficient of it selfe for all things nay rather as hee correcteth himselfe Over and above sufficient cum sit perfectus scripturae canon sibique adomnia satis superque sufficiat To the fourth Here the Iesuit would make his Reader study a little and his Adversarie to muse Vero nihil verius certo nihil certius but it is indeed whether hee be in his right wits or no. For first as Seneca well resolveth one thing cannot be said truer than another one truth in Divinitie may be more evident to us than another but in it selfe it cannot be truer or surer Secondly admitting there could be degrees of certainty at least quoad nos there can be yet no comparison in regard of such certaintie betweene an Article of the Creed assented unto by all Christians and a controverted conclusion maintained onely by a late faction in the Westerne Church But the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his Father is an Article of the Creed set downe in expresse words in holy Scripture Mark 16.19 Luke 24. consented unto by all Christians in the world whereas the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Tranfubstantiation is no Article extant in any Creed save onely that of Pope Pius his coyning in the yeare of our Lord 1564. It is neither in words set downe in Scripture as the other Articles are neither can it be necssarily inforced or deduced by consequence as foure great Cardinals of the Roman Church confesse Cameracensis Cajetan Roffensis and Bellarmine Neither was this Doctrine of the Romane Church ever assented unto by the Greeke Church nor by the Latine anciently or generally as I shewed before Thirdly the Iesuit contradicteth himselfe within eight lines for having said in the eighteenth line Pag. 384. that Christ his corporall presence in the Sacrament was more sure than his presence in heaven at the right hand of his Father about seven lines after forgetting himselfe hee saith that Wee shall find as much to doe marke as much not more in expounding that Article of the Creed as they doe in expounding the words This is my Body Wherein it is well hee confesseth that Papists make much to doe in expounding the words This is my Body which is most true for by the demonstrative Hoc they understand they know not what Neither this Body nor this Bread but an Individum vagum something contained under the accidents of Bread which when the Priests saith Hoc it is Bread but when hee hath muttered out an Vm it is Christs Body Likewise by the Copula est is they understand they know not what either shall be as soone as the words are spoken or is converted unto or is by Transubstantiation Lastly by Body they understand such a body as indeed is no body without the extension of place without distinction of Organs without facultie of sense or motion and will hee make this figment so incredible so impossible as sure nay more sure than the Article of Christs ascension into heaven and his sitting at the right hand of his
there is no controversie betweene them and us concerning the immaculate conception of our Lady whereas both Chemnitius and Reynolds many other Protestant writers have overthrowne the ground of their feast of the immaculate conception of our Lady and all reformed Churches in generall have strucke that feast out of the Calender and the title of the 15. Article of religion of Christ alone without sinne sheweth to the world that we beleeve it to be the prerogative of our blessed Saviour among all the Sonnes of Adam that he alone was free from all originall and actuall sinne And now Master Flood sith you are taken in so many and fowle untruths in one Chapter I hope the Reader will not envie you that Guerdon which Aristotle bestowes upon a lewd and lowd Lyer not to be credited when he speaketh the truth Concerning Razing of Records and clipping Authors tongues Spectacles Chap. 13. a page 435. usque ad 446. BECAVSE there have beene many bookes published this last age by occasion of Haeresie and liberty which came therewith to the great prejudice of the Catholike faith there hath beene a course taken for the restraint of all such not onely writings of Haeretikes but even of Catholikes which have any tang of haeresie and this kinde of care hath beene ever used in the Catholike Church So wee see in Scripture it selfe some that followed curiosities becomming Christians confessed their deedes and burnt their bookes Gelasius in the yeare 490. maketh a Catalogue of haereticall bookes which he forbiddeth and I would know of the Knight or any man else that cryeth so bitterly against our Index Expurgatorius what he can say against it that he may not say against this Decree and Councell of Gelasius and against which we may not defend our selves by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts Sith all swarving from the rule of faith is a declining to haeresie it appertaineth to the Catholike Roman Church which as Gelasius saith hath neither spot nor wrinkle to prevent the danger that may come by such bookes forbidding the use of them It were a more dangerous and unnaturall part in the Church not to use this care then it were in a mother that should see sugar and rats-bane lie together and seeing her child going to taste thereof should forbeare to warne it I will not stand particularly to examine every Author and justifie the inquisition onely I cannot omit one Author called Bertram whom of all men living me thinkes the Knight should never so much as have named considering how much disgrace he hath sustained by translating that booke and ventring his owne credit and the credit of his Church upon the faith thereof Another thing I am to note concerning his quoting the Canon of the Councell of Laodicea wherein first is to be noted his error in Chronologie concerning the time of this Councell which he maketh to be in the yeare 368. forty three yeares after the first Councell at Nice whereas it was celebrated before that Councell Secondly his corruption in the translation and cutting off the Canon which is thus non oportet relictâ ecclesiâ ad angelos abominandae idolatriae congregationes facere quicunque autem inventus fuerit occulte huic idololatriae vacans anathema sit Now where in this Canon doth the Knight finde the word invocation of Angells which is the thing he pretendeth to be forbidden Whereas the Knight objecteth to us the recantation of Henry Buxhorne who was sometime appointed to put in execution the tyrannicall Decree of the inquisitors and had noted 600. severall passages to be spunged and blotted out which animadversions of his he wished he could have washed away with his teares and blood his heart being smitten and his eyes open by the mercy of God I answere if such matter will serve the Knights turne he may have enough neither neede I search corners to finde out such obscure fellowes as this Buxhorne he might bring the Fathers of the Knights religion for example Luther Calvine Zuinglius Beza Carolstadius and who not for though they might pretend severall causes yet there was one principall one which consisted indeede in the smiting of their hearts with a fiery dart of carnall love and when they found an Eve to give them an Apple then their eyes were opened and so it proved also with their friend Buxhorne as I shall shew by a briefe story of his life most authentically related by that grave and Holy man Oliverius of the society of Jesus Henry Buxhorne a licentiate of Divinity c. It was not the razing then of evidences that made Buxhorne fall from his faith but there were certaine Lutheran baites wherewith many of them were catched which were aurum gloria delitiae veneres gold glory delights and Venus of which some are catched with one and some with another The Hammer IN the former Section the Iesuit shewed himselfe a prevaricatour but in this a cowardly runnagate For to the mangling of authors and razing out of Records objected against him namely this marginall note out of Stephanus his Bible Deus prohibet sculptilia fieri This Glosse upon Gratian the Priest cannot say significatively of the bread This is my Body without telling a lie Cassanders observation upon the same words that setting aside the authoritie of the Church they prove not sufficiently Transubstantiation Cassanders whole Tract concerning the Communion in both kinds Vdalricus his Epistle touching the lawfulnesse of Priests marriage Anselmes Treatise concerning the visitation of the sicke together with divers passages in Cassander against merit in Polydor Virgil against Images in Langus against Transubstantiation in Ferus against the Popes supremacie The Iesuit answereth nothing at all in particular but onely applies Salves in generall which no way heale the wounds given by the Knight to the Inquisitors as the Reader shall see by taking them off one after another and viewing the Sores To the first The Iesuits instance is wide from the purpose For those Books were not burnt by any decree of the Church much lesse the Church of Rome which was not then in being but by the owners of them to testifie their unfeined Repentance for so wee reade Acts 19.19 Many also of them brought their Bookes together and burned them before all men and they counted the price of them and found it 50000 pieces of silver Secondly these Bookes which the owners burnt of their owne accord were Bookes of such as used curious Arts that is Books of Art-magick Necromancie Sorcerie and the like Whereas the Bookes which the Romish Inquisitours either mangle or utterly deface are Christian Treatises written for the most part by them that lived and died in the bosome and peace of the Church of Rome To the second This Decree of Gelasius which the Iesuit opposeth as a Buckler against all our darts is not altogether approved by the present Romane Church for in reckoning the Canonicall bookes of Scripture the Pope there excludeth the booke
witnesses for proofe of the Catholike Faith beginneth with Martyrs those particularly who being Pastours of the Roman Church suffered Martyrdome successively one after another to the number of thirty three These saith Campian were ours and nameth some of them as Telesphorus Victor Sixtus Cornelius with the particular points which they held conformably with us against Protestants That these Martyrs are ours notwithstanding they died not for any of those points the Knight mentioneth is plaine because they professed the same Catholike Faith which wee doe which wee also prove by the Faith of their successour Vrban the eigth who as hee holdeth their seat so also their Faith for Peters Chaire and Faith goe together as the very Heretike Pelagius confessed to Pope Sozimus saying to him Tu qui Petri fidem sedem tenes Not to stand here upon the most effectuall and infallible Prayer of our Saviour himselfe Oravi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua which proofe must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell us what Pope began to vary from his predecessors For adoration of Images whereas the Knight asketh whether any of these three and thirty were canonized for it though there be no speciall mention of any of these three and thirty their adoration of Images yet there is very pregnant presumption thereof by this that Pope Sylvester who was the very next after the three and thirtieth and was Pope in time of Constantines conversion had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul which it is most like he received from his Predecessors Moreover it is plaine that those three and thirty were ours by their owne decretall Epistles which are so full of those points which Father Campian citeth that the Heretikes have no other shift but to denie the authority of the same Epistles That the consecrated Bread depending upon the Priests intention is the reall Flesh of Christ or that this Priest Garnet by name hath power to consecrate is no matter of Faith but that in the Sacrament the matter forme intentton and all things requisite concurring the Bread and Wine is really and truely converted into the Body and Blood of Christ this is a matter of Faith and this a man is to die for Neither maketh it any matter whether any man have died for it or not for that is more in the persecutors power to appoint what point of a mans Faith hee will put him to death for than in the Martyrs owne who must be readie to die for all and every one as well for one as for another The Hammer IN this Chapter the Knight pulleth the garland of Red Roses off from the heads of all Papists I meane the Crowne of Martyrdome by three most forcible arguments which may thus be reduced into Syllogisticall forme 1. None of those who suffered death for the common Articles of the Christian Faith which we all professe are to be accounted Popish Martyrs But the 33. Popes and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church suffered death for the common Articles of faith which we all professe Ergo none of them were Popish Martyrs neither can they lay any more or better claime to them then we if so good 2. All that may be tearmed truely Popish Martyrs must suffer death either for the profession of the Trent Faith in generall or some speciall point of it wherein they differ from the reformed Churches But none of the Primitive Martyrs suffered death for the profession of the Trent Faith in generall or any point thereof wherein they differ from the beliefe of the reformed Churches Ergo none of the Primitive Martyrs were Popish 3. If the Articles of the Romish Creed published by Pope Pius were either unknowne to the Primitive Church or not then declared to be de fide none in those dayes could suffer Martyrdome for them But the twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed were altogether unknowne to the Primitive Church or not then declared and defined to be de fide as the Iesuit Page 490. in part acknowledgeth Ergo none in the Primitive Church could suffer Martyrdome for them What wards the Iesuit hath for these blowes we shall see in the examination of the particular exceptions before mentioned To the first It is as true that those 33. martyred Popes were Martyrs of the Romish Religion as that Campion the Iesuit who suffered death for Treason against Queene Elizabeth was a Martyr The truth is that although Campion in his tenth Reason search Heaven and rake Hell also for witnesses to prove the truth of the Romish Religion yet he findeth none as D. Whitaker clearely demonstrateth in his answer to that tenth reason and his defence thereof against Dureus To let others passe those 33. Bishops of Rome the Iesuit mentioneth who now weare Crownes of Martyrdome in Heaven never ware the Popes triple Crowne on Earth P. 486. l. 16. I answer that those Martyrs suffered death not for the points now in controversie with Haeretikes but for the profession of Christianity at the hands of the enemies of Christ They sate as Bishops of Rome they sate not as Lords over the whole Church neither was the cause of their death any contestation with Princes for Soveraignty nor the maintenance of any points now in controversie as the Iesuit himselfe confesseth but the profession of Christianity They were not therefore Martyrs of the Roman Church as she is at this present nor of their Trent Creed but of the Catholike Church and the common faith once given to Saints To the second The Iesuits argument drawne from these 33. Bishops of Rome to Pope Vrbane the eighth fall short at least by 1300. yeares If he should thus argue in the Schooles Pope Vrbane the eighth in the yeare of our Lord 1633. held the Trent faith and beleeved Pope Pius the fourth his Creed therefore the 33. Bishops that suffered Martyrdome under the Heathen Emperours within 300. yeares after Christ held the same faith and subscribed to the same Articles of Trent he would be stampt at and hissed out by all present for who knoweth not that George the Arian immediatly succeeded Athanasius the most Orthodox Bishop and that all the Arian Bishops in Constantius his time held the Sees of those Orthodox Bishops who in the first Councell at Nice condemned that blasphemous haeresie In our memory did not Cardinall Poole a Papist succeede Cranmer a Protestant Bishop and Martyr againe did not Parker in Q. Elizabeths daies a learned Protestant succeed Cardinall Poole an Arch-papist in his Arch-bishoprick of Canterbury What a wooden Argument then is this to inferre succession in Doctrine from succession in the same Chaire This wretched Argument the Iesuit proves as lewdly by the testimonie of Pelagius the Heretike This is indeed to Aske his brother if he be a thiefe or no to aske an Heretike whether your Romish Doctrine be not hereticall Yet so unfortunate is hee in his proofe that even this his onely witnesse how liable
soever to exception saith nothing for him Pelagius was not so absurd as to hold this position that Peters Chaire and Faith goe alwaies together but only spake in a glozing manner thus to Pope Sozimus Thou holdest Peters Chaire and Faith and will the Iesuit inferre an universall from a particular Pope Sozimus held Peters Chaire and Faith therfore all that hold Peters Chaire hold his Faith What holdeth these two together Luke 22.32 Quest vet N. Test q. 75. Quid ambigitur pro Petro rogabat pro Iacobo et Iohāne non rogabat ut caeteros taceam manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri a most strong and effectuall Bond saith the Iesuit namely Christs promise to Peter I have prayed for thee that thy Faith faile not The time will faile me to declare particularly how many waies this Argument of the Iesuit failes first Christ prayed not here for Peter onely as Saint Austine affirmeth What doth any man make question hereof did Christ pray for Peter and not for James and John To say nothing of the rest it is manifest that in Peter all the rest are contained This prayer then no more privilegeth the See of Rome from error than of Ierusalem or of Ephesus or any other See of the Apostles Secondly Christ prayed not that Peter might not erre who afterwards erred Gal. 2.14 and was reproved by Saint Paul Galathians the second but that his Faith might not faile that is be overcome in that fearfull temptation in such sort that hee might not rise againe after his fall Thirdly Christs prayer is for Peter himselfe in his person and the Apostles whom Satan winnowed not for his See Fourthly if this promise any way belonged to his Successors certainly no more to those of Rome than Antiochia so infirme is this the Iesuits proofe which yet hee saith Must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell what Pope began to varie from his Predecessours Agreed Sir Humphrey shall presently tell him by name Liberius the Arrian Vigilius the Eutychian Honorius the Monothelite condemned in three generall Councels sixth seventh and eighth Iohn the three and twenty deposed in the Councell at Constance as for other enormous crimes so for this his damnable heresie that Hee denied the immortalitie of the soule and the life to come To which after the Iesuit hath replied instance shall be given in many other Popes which have beene branded with the note of heresie in like manner To the third A strange and loose inference three and thirty Popes adored Images because their Predecessor had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Pope Gregorie allowed of the standing of pictures in the Church Vid. supr yet would have them by no meanes adored Helena the mother of Constantine had the wood of Christs crosse yet adored it not saith Saint Ambrose If to have the picture of Saint Peter or Saint Paul nay or of Christ himselfe maketh a man an Idolater or a Papist then not onely all the Lutherans generally but very many of the most orthodoxe Divines in our and other reformed Churches will be proved as good Papists as Pope Sylvester To the fourth Not only Protestants whom the Iesuit nick-nameth Heretikes but also Contius and other Romanists have disparaged these Epistles and if the Iesuits nose be not very flat and stuffed also hee may smell the forgerie of these Decretals by the barbarisme of the stile disagreeing to those times and many absurdities and contradictions noted in them by Coqueus and others To the fift If it be no matter of Faith that this particular Priest Transubstantiateth the Bread because no man knowes his intention nor that particular Priest Et sic de caeteris It followeth that it is no matter of Faith to beleeve that any Priest in the Roman Church by the words of Consecration turneth the Bread into Christs Body As for that hee addeth that it is no matter whether any ever died for this point in particular I answer it is a matter of great moment for if Garnet would not take it upon his salvation that this Bread hee consecrated immediately before the death was turned into Christs Body nor any ever would or did pawne his life for Transubstantiation it is evident that Papists themselves doubt of the certainty of that Article On the contrarie wee can produce hundreds nay thousands who for denying Transubstantiation have beene put to death and have signed the truth of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning the Sacrament with their blood and therefore the Doctrine of the Protestants in this point is of more credit than the contrarie because it is strengthened and fortified by a Noble armie of Martyrs Concerning the Protestants charitable opinion of the salvation of Papists Spectacles Chap. 17. à page 491. usque ad 508. THE Knights discourse in this Chapter is wholly from his purpose which he pretendeth in the title of his Chapter which is to answer our objections The Knights eight instances in the Doctrine of Merits Communion in both kinds publike use of Scripture Priests marriage Service in a knowne tongue Worship of Images Adoration of the Sacrament and Traditions are all answered before and proved some false for the things wherewith he chargeth us are all absurd if we consider the proofes of Scripture which he bringeth All testimonies from an enemy proceede not from charity but from truth and such are those which Catholikes bring out of learned Protestants to prove that a man dying in the Romish Religion may be saved Free-will Prayer for the Dead Honouring of Relikes Reall Presence Transubstantiation Communion in one kinde Worshiping of Images the Popes Primacy Auricular Confession and the like are all acknowledged some by one Protestant some by another not to be materiall points so as a man may without perill beleeve either way the severall authors are Perkins Cartwright Whitgift Fulke Penrie Somes Sparks Reynolds Bunnie and Whitaker John Frith a Foxean Martyr acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation whether he beleeve it or not John Huz held the Masse Transubstantiation Vowes Freewill Merit of workes and of the haeresies now in controversie held onely one to wit communion in both kindes Dr. Barrow acknowlegeth the Church of Rome to be the Church of God Hooker a part of the house of God and limbe of the visible Church of Christ Dr. Somes that all learned and reformed Churches confesse that in Popery there is a Church a Ministry and true Christ Field and Morton that we are to be accounted the Church of God whose words may be seene in the Protestants Apologie Tract 1. Sect. 6. Whereas the Knight saith that men otherwayes morally good relying wholly on the merits of Christ that is living Papists and dying Protestants in the principall foundation of our faith may finde mercy because they did it ignorantly where hath the Knight learned this Theologie that a man
bookes yet extant wherein he no way approveth of Transubstantiation but condemneth it expressely Neither doth he say that a right beliefe in the Sacrament touching the substance thereof is no matter of salvation but that it is no matter of salvation to beleeve after what manner the substance of Christs body is in the Sacrament whether by Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation which is most true for as Doctor Andrewes late Bishop of Winton acutely observed Christ said hoc est Corpus meum non hoc modo est or fit Corpus meum this is my Body not the bread is after this manner my body To the sixt If communion in both kindes be an haeresie Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church which administred and received the Communion in both kinds as is confessed in the Councell at Constance cannot be free from haeresie And whereas the Iesuit saith that this Martyr in all other points held with Papists the contrary appeares in his printed bookes and by the prayer he made at his death mentioned by Cocleus in the history of the Huzzites wherein he prayeth to God that his soule after his death might be where the soule of Wickliffe is To the seventh To the Iesuit his allegations out of Barrow Hooker Some Bunnie and Covell Dr. Morton now Bishop of Duresme answereth at large in his Catholike appeale l. 4. from the first Section to the sixth where he proveth that the testimonies themselves and the reasons annexed to them doe shew that the above cited Protestants yeeld no more security to the Romish Church then they doe to any other erroneous Church wherein there is true baptisme and the the profession of the chiefe principles of faith Barrow acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be a Church of God that is a Church professing Christianity in which there may be a possibility of salvation not an Orthodox or right believing Church in which there is certainty of salvation Hooker saith that the Church of Rome is a member of the visible Catholike Church a member not the Catholike Church and no sound member neither according to that Thesis of Doctor Reynolds Romana ecclesia nec est Catholica nec sanum membrum Catholicae Dr. Somes saith as likewise Iunius Iunius de Eccles l. sing Papatu◠est in Ecclesia seu in papatu est Ecclesia Papatus tamen non est Ecclesia that in Popery there is a Church that is under the Popes dominion Christ hath his Church or that Popery is in the Church yet that Popery is not the Church Bunnie saith that we are not a severall Church from the Papists that is not essentially defferent from it no more then a sicke man differeth from a sound Covell saith the Church of Rome is a part of the Church of Christ but a very unsound part From all which passages this onely may be concluded of the Roman Church as of other erroneous assemblies that though in regard of their manifold errors they must be esteemed sicke and unsound Churches yet in regard of the being and essence of a Church they must be acknowledged visible Churches of Christ Neither Field nor Morton saith that the Church of Rome is the Church of God but a Church of God Fields words are Romana ecclesia est verè ecclesia non vera ecclesia is truely a Church not a true Church Morton proveth in one whole Section that the Church of Rome is not properly the Catholike Church but a particular Church subject to error Sect. 6. Protest appeal l. 4. But in this point in what sense the Protestants call the Church of Rome a true Church see a late Treatise set forth by Doctor Hall the Bishop of Exton called the Reconciler wherein both he and Bishop Davenet and Morton in their letters affixed thereunto cleare the matter nothing at all I assure you to your advantage To the eight The Knight saith not that a man may be saved in one Religion yet so as he must not die in it but that a man living in one Religion to wit the Popish may be saved so that he renounce it before his death and dye in a better for not onely the bosome of the Church but also the gates of Heaven are alwayes open to the penitent as the Prophet Ezekiel teacheth C. 18.23 neither is this any new conceit of the Knight but the generall opinion of all Protestants as the Iesuit may read in the Catholike Appeale l. 4. c. 1. The Reverend Bishop now mentioned understanding how that great and honourable personage in the last Act of her life renounced all presumption of her owne inherent righteousnesse and wholly affianced her soule to Christ in beliefe to be justified onely by his satisfactory justice did therefore conceive hope of her salvation by vertue of that Cordiall prescribed by the Holy Apostle viz. that where sinne aboundeth the grace of God doth superabound which the Apostle hath ministred for the comfort of every Christian who erring by ignorance shall in sincere repentance for all his knowne sinnes depart this mortall life having the heele or end of his life shod with the preparation of the Gospell of peace not of the new Romish but of the old Catholike faith which is the faith of all Protestants C. 15. p. 363. And againe in his booke intituled the Grand Imposture If you demand why Protestants have so charitable opinion of some Romanists you are to understand that it is in regard of that without which they cannot be saved that they died in the beliefe of this Protestant Article of Faith which is to be justified by remission of all their sinnes through the satisfactory righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith and not by the legall justice or perfection of inherent righteousnesse in themselves as your Councell of Trent hath decreed and this opinion we finde verified in the experience of many Papists who howsoever in their life time they professe and magnifie your doctrine of perfection of works yet on their death bed as soone as the least glimpse of the majesty of Christs tribunall is revealed unto them and the booke of their conscience begins to be unclapsed and so laid open before them that they cannot but reade their sinnes which in their life-time they held as veniall to be deadly and written in Capitall litters then they take Sanctuary in the wounds of Christ from whence floweth the Ocean of all expiatory merit and satisfaction by which it is impossible but that every faithfull penitent should receive life To the ninth To this argument I say that it is paralyticall and weake in the sinewes For how doth this follow the Donatists held as the Papists doe that all men were damned that were not of their sect St. Austine de unit eccles c. 12. and other Catholike Bishops thought that some of them might be in the state of grace and that their Baptisme was good Ergo it is a safer way to embrace the Donatists haeresie then the Catholike