nothing remaines but the outward formes and accidents of bread Reply Bellarmin saith that this Epistle is not extant amongst Saint Chrysostome's Workes and when Peter Martyr objected this place to Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester the Bishop replyed That it was none of Chrysostomes but another Iohns of Constantinople Rejoynder What though it were not then extant diverse parcells of Chrysostome have beene lately found out and annexed to his other Workes Besides the same Bishop Gardiner reports that Peter Martyr saith that this Treatise of Chrysostome was extant in a Manuscript and found in the Library at Florence and that a Copie thereof remained in the Archbishop of Canterburies hands Againe they that would father tâ—is â—reaâ—â—se on another theâ— must bring us anothâ—r Iohn of Constantinople besides Chrysostome and tell us what time hee lived it is usuall with the Church-storie and Sâ—int Austine and Ierome to call Chrysostome Iohn of Constaâ—tinople or Priest of Antioch Lastly this Authour saith nothing but what Saint Ambrose Gelasius and Theodoret have vouched For whereas the Hâ—retike Eâ—tyches taught that Christ his body was changed into the substance of his Divinity after the resurrection and that the substance of his body remayned no more the same Pope Gelasius confuteth him by a similituâ—e and comparisâ—n drawne from the Sacrament to wit Tâ—at as the substance of Bread remayneth after consecration so Christ his bodily substance remained after the resurrection His words are these The Sacraments which wee receive of the body and â—loud of Christ are a divine thing by meanes whâ—râ—of wee are made partakers of the divine nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be The Papists they tell us that after consecration the substance of bread and wine is abolished and the shaâ—eâ— accidents quantity therof only remaine but this is contrary to these Fathers assertion who say there ceaseth not to be the very substance of bread and wine Neither will it serve to say that Gelasius by substance meant accidents for if Gelasius had not taken the word substance properly in both places he had not concluded against the Hereticke Reply Pope Gelasius was not the Author of this Treatise but some other of that name Rejoynder There be divers Authors that entitle Pope Gelasius to it but were it Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea as Bellarmine seemes to incline or a more ancient Gelasius Gelasius Citizenus as Baronius would have it the record is still good against our adversaries for it is confessed on all sides that he was an Orthodoxe Father and very ancient Theodoret brings in Eranistes in the person of an Eutyclâ—ian Heretike who confounded the two natures in Christ and falsely held that The body of Christ after his Ascension being Glorified was swallowed up of the Deitie and continued no more the same humane and bodily essence as before his resurrection it had been and for defence of this his Heresie he takes his comparison from the Eucharist and argues in this sort Even as the symbols or signes of the Lords body and bloud afâ—er the words of Invocation or Consecration are not the same but are changed into the Body of Christ even so after his Ascension was his body changed into a divine substance To this Objection of the Hâ—retikes the Orthodoxe or Catholike which was Theodoret himselfe replies and retorts his owne instance upon him thus You are caught saith he in your owne net for as the mysticall signes in the Eucharist after sanctification or Consecration doe not goe out of their proper nature but continue in their former figure and substance and may be seene and felt as before so the body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth in it's former figure forme circumscription and in a word the same substance which it had before although after the Resurrection it be immortall and free from corruption In which passage we see the Heretike held that Bread is changed after consecration into the substance of Christ's body and so do our adversaries the Orthodoxe or Catholike taught that Bread after consecration remaineth in substance the same and so doe we teach Theodoret indeed and so doe we acknowledged that Christ's body after his Ascension was changed from a corruptible to an immortall and glorious body but yet not changed in substance it still remained the same in substance even as the Elements in the Sacrament remaine the same in substance that they Were before consecration and may be seene and fealt though they be changed in use from common to consecrated bread and wine Now if the Elements of Bread and Wine according to this Orthodoxe Father remaine in their former substance shape and species then is not the whole substance of bread and wine changed into the whole substance of the body and bloud of Christ and where is then your Transubstantiation Answer Bâ—llarmine answereth this place by distinguishing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substantia saying When Theodoret saith â—hat the substance of the Elements remaynes and is not changed hee speaketh not of substance as it is opposed to accidents but of the â—ssence and nature of accidents which hee alwayes understandeth by Symbols Reply Theodoret in this very Dialogue exactly distinguisheth betweene Substance and Accidents and sheweth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meanes not Accidents but Substance properly so taken saying Therefore wee call a body substance and health and sicknesse an accident by which passage it is evident against Bellarmine that Theodoret takes not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the esâ—ence specially of accidents but for substance propeâ—ly so called as it is opposed to Accidents Besides if Theodoret had thought as the Papists hold that the substance of bread and wine ceaseth and is changed into the very body and bloud of Chirst and that the accidents thereof onely remaine as namely the whitenesse roundnesse taste or the like then could not this Father have drawne or râ—torted an Argument from the Sacrament to proâ—ve that the substance of Christ's body remayned after his ascension for then as the learned on ouâ— side have well observed the Hereticke upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation might have inferred this erronious opinion about the humane nature of Christ to wit that as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance even so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the very nature The same Theodoret saith that our Saviour honoured the visible symbols with the name of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature The same Thâ—odoret saith that our Saviour gave the signe the name of his body What can a man say more expresse then that in thâ—se words This is my hody our Saviour hath given to the signe that is to say to the bread the name of his body Answer You stand
that stone then from which the water ranne bodyly Christ but it signifyed Christ. The same Abbot saith Men have often searched and doe yet often search so that it seemes that this was then in question and so before Berengarius time how bread that is gathered of Corne may be turned to Christs body or how wine that is pressâ—d out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords Bloud and the resolution returned is this Now say wee to such mâ—n that some things bee spoken of Christ by signification some thing by thing certaine true thing and certaine is that Christ was borne of a Maid Hee is said Bread by signification and a Lambe and a Lyon Hee is called Bread because hee is our life hee is said to bee a Lambe for his Innocencie But Christ is not so notwithstanding after true nature neither Bread nor a Lambe Why is then the holy Housell called Christs Body or his Bloud if it be not truely that it is called Without they be seene bread and wine both in figure and taste and they â—ee truly after their hallowing Christs body and blood through Ghostly mysterie And againe Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to Housel the body truely that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud and with bone and his Ghostly body which wee call the Housel is gathered of many Cornes without bloud and bone and therefore nothing is to bee understood therein bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood Here wee see the body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin the body of flâ—sh is plainly distinguished from the consecrated substance of bread or the Body Sacramentall which the Homilist cals Ghostly And againe This Mysterie iâ— a pledge and a figure Christs body is truth it selfe the pledge we doe keepe Mistically untill wee bee come to the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Truely it is Christs body and bloud not Bodily but Ghostly and ye should not search how it is done but hold it in your beliefe that it is so done The like matter also was delivered to the Clergie by the Bishops at their Synods out of two other writings of the same Aelfricke in the one whereof directed to Wulfsine Bishop of Shyâ—burne we reade thus That holy Housel is Christs body not Bodily but Ghostly not the body which he suffered in and so forth In the other witten to Wulfâ—tane Archbishop of York thus That lively bread is not bodily so nor the selfe-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy wine is the Saviours bloud which was shed for us in bodily thing but in Ghostly understanding both be truely the bread his body and the wine also his bloud as was the heavenly bread which wee call Manna which words are to be seene mangled and razed in a Manuscript in Bennets Colledge in Cambridge as our learned Antiquarie of Oxford hath well observed And we may conceive it to be done by some Papist for that it plainely confutes the doctrine of Transubstantiation the best is the evidence is restored out of another Copie PA. Here is much a doe with an old Record which your selves will not haply justifie in every poynt PRO. The Record is both ancient and authenticke but to be free from errour is the priviledge of holy writ your selves stand not to all which the Fathers even of the first Age wrote Why then shâ—uld we make good all that was delivered in this later and ignorant Age so much cumbred with Monkery There are indeed in this Homily some suspicious wordes as where it speakes of the Masse to be profitable to the quicke and dead of the mixture of water with wine and a report of two vaine miracles which notwithstanding seeme to have beene infarced for that they stand in their plâ—ce unaptly and withoâ—t purpose and the matter withoâ—t thâ—m both before and afâ—er doth hang in it selfe togâ—thâ—r most ordeâ—ly besides these mistakes they are but touched by the way and aâ—e different from thâ— whole scope of the Authour Thus was Priest and people taught to believe in the Chuâ—ch of England above sixe hundâ—ed yeares agoe for this Sermon was written in the old Saxon tongue befoâ—e the Conquâ—st and appointed in the reigne of the Saxons to be spoken to the people at Easter before they should recâ—ive the Communion Neither was Aelfricke the first Authour of this Homily but the Translatour theâ—eof out of Latine into the old English or Saxon tongue the Homily it selfe was exâ—ant before his time and the resolution thereof is the same with that of Berâ—â—am and in many places directly translated out of him so that the doctrine is both ancient and Orthodoxe whereas that of Transubstantiation was not publickly taught in the Church of England till Lanfranck and others a thousand yeares after Christ came with an Italian tricke and expounded Species and forma panis for the qualities and accidents of bread without subject or substance But from the bâ—ginning it was not so Of Images and Prayer to Saints Concerning Images Churchesâ—an â—an a middle couâ—se neither rudely breaking them nor supeâ—sâ—itiously adoring them and this opinion they stoutly maintained and for some ages after continued most constant therein as Câ—ssâ—â—der sâ—ith and hee saith true as appeares by the prâ—ctise of the French in the ninth and the Almaines in the twâ—lfth Age. The Abbat Smaragdus saith that Christ onely makes Inteâ—cesâ—ion in heaven for us performing that with the Father which he pâ—titioned of the Father being both our Mediator to preferre our Petitions and our Creator to grant our râ—quâ—sts In liâ—e sort Radulphus Flaviacensis calls the Angell of the covenant Christ Iesus The Master of Requests to preferre our suits in the court of Heaven and to mediate betwixt God and men Now if he by his Fathers Patent be Master of Requests surely wee may not without Commission and warrantie out of Gods word constitute others either Saints or Angels Mediators of our Prayers Of Faith and Workes It is of necessitie that belâ—evers should bee saved onely by the faith of Christ saith Smaragdus the Abbot Who is it that can doe all that God hath commanded wee are not come to that blessednesse or merit to yeeld him obedience in all things saith Flaviacensis For as he saith One may doe bonum and not benè one without grace may doe a Morall act as give Almes the act Morally good ex genere objecto but not good ex fine circumstantijs in case it be given out of vaine glory or â—he like PA. You taxed this Age for imposing single life on the Clergie this was no Innovation PRO. In this Age there arose great contention about Priests marriage At length about the yeare 975. the matter was referred to the Roode of Grace which as the Annalists and Legendaries say returned this
and driven out as an Hereticke Gerson howsoever he thought that the Church might lawfully prescribe the communicating in one kind alone wherein we cannot excuse him yet hee acknowledgeth That the Communion in both kinds was anciently used The Councel of Basil permitted the Bohemians to continue the use of the Communion in both kinds upon condition That they should not find fault with the contrary use nor sever themselves from the Catholicke Church Iacobellus Misvensis a Preacher of Prague being admonished by Petrus Dresdensis after he had searched into the writings of the ancient Doctors and by name Dionysius and Saint Cyprian and finding in them the communicating of the Cup to the Laity commanded hee thenceforth exhorted the people by no meanes to neglect or omit the receiving the Communion of the Cup. Cardinal Bessarion Bishop of Tusculum professeth in expresse termes Wee reade onely of two Sacraments which were plainely delivered in the Gospel Of the Eucharist Waldensis saith That some supposed the Conversion that is in the Sacrament to be in that the bread and wine are assumed into the unitie of Christs person some thought it to be by way of Impanation and some by way of Figurative and Tropical appellation The first and second of those opinions found the better entertainement in some mens mindes because they grant the essentiall preseâ—ce of Christs body and yet deny not the presence of the bread still remaining to sustaine the appearing Accidents These opinions he reports to have beene very acceptable to many not without sighes wishing the Church had Decreed That men should follow one of them Whereupon Iohn Paris writeth That this way of Impanation so pleased Guido the Carmelite sometime Reader of the Holy Palace that he professed if hee had beene Pope he would have prescribed and commanded the embracing of it Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinal professâ—th that for ought he can see the substantiall Conversion of the Sacramental elements into the body and bloud of Christ cannot be proved either out of scripture or any determination of the universal Church maketh it but a matter of opinion inclining rather to the other opinion of Consubstantiation His words are these That manner or meaning which supposeth the substance of bread to remaine still is possible neither is it contrary to reason or to the authoritie of the Scriptures nay it is more easie and more reasonaâ—ble to conceive than that which sayes the Substance doth leave the Accidents And of this opinion no inconvenience doth seeme to ensue if it could accord with the Churches determination And hee addes That the opinion which holdeth the substance of bread to remaine doth not â—vidently follow of the Scripture nor in his seeming of the Churches determination Biel saith It is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament and hereof anciently there have beene divers opinions Cajetaâ— saith that secluding the Churches authoritie there is no written word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receive this doctrine of Transubstantiation Saurez the Iesuit ingeniously professeth that Cardinal Cajetan in his Commentâ—rie upon this Article did aâ—â—irme that those words of Christ. This is my Body doe not of themselves sufficiently prove Transubstantiation without the Churches authoritie and therefore by the Commandment of Pius Quintus that part of his Commentarie is left out in the Roman Edition By this it appeares that their learned Councel of Schoolemen who lived in this Age were not fully agreed upon the poynt Of Images and Prayer to Saints Abulensis was so farre from allowing the worship of Images as that he held it a thing unlawfull in it selfe Deut. 4.16 secluding Adoration to make any visible Image or representation of God according to his deâ—ty for hence saith hee these two inconveniences will follow First The Perill of Idolaâ—rie in case the Image it selfe should come to be adored and Secondly Errour and Heresie whiles one shall asâ—ribe to God such bodily shapes and formes as the Trinity â—s usually pictured withall Now that Abulensis with othâ—rs held it unlawfull to picture or represâ—nt the Trinâ—tie is acknowledged by Bellarmine saying It is Calvins opinion in the first booke of his Institutions cap 11. that it is an abhominable sinne to make a â—â—sible and bodâ—ly Image of the invisible and incorporeall God and this opinion of Calvins is also the opinion of some Catholicke Doctors as Abulensiâ— upon 4. Deut. quest 5. and Durand upon 3. dist 9. qu. 2. and Peresius in his booke of â—raditions Gerson condemned all mâ—king of an Image or portraiture appointed or accommodaâ—ed to worship and aadorationâ— saying Thou shalt â—ot adore thâ—m nor worship them which are thus to bâ— distinguished Thou shalt not adore them that is With any bodily reverence or bowing or kneeling to them Thou shalt not worship them with any devotion of mind Images therefore are prohibited to bee either adored or Worshipped The same Gerson disliked the varietie of pictures and Images in Churches occasioning Idolatry in the simple If Christians were in no peâ—ill of Idolatry by worshipping Images why doth Gerson complaineâ— that Superstition had infected Christian Religion anâ— that people like Iewesâ— did onely sâ—eke after Signes and yeeld Divine honour to Images Cassander writeth in this manner The opinion of Thomas Aquinas who holdeth that Images are to be woâ—shipped as their Samplers is disliked by soundâ—r Scâ—oolemen amongst whom is Durand Holcot and Gabriel â—iel Biel reporteth the opinion of them which say that an Image neither as it is considered in it selfe materâ—ally nor yâ—t according to the nature of a Signe or Image is to bee worshipped And he saith well that this opinion of Thomas was disliked of others for besides those already mentioned this was one of the Problems which Picus Mirandula proposed to be maintained by him at Rome namely that Neither the Crosse nor any other Image was to be worshipped with Latria or Divine worship no not in that sense as Thomas would have it And when otheâ—s carped at this and other his Assertions touching â—he Sacrament of the Eucharist himselfe made his owne Apologie and defence Touching Invocation of Saints though Gerson did not absolutely condemne it yet hee reprehendeth the abuses and sâ—persâ—iâ—ious observations then prevailing in the worshiâ—ping of Sâ—ints veâ—y bitterly For in his Consolatoâ—y tract of Rectifying the Heart amongst many oâ—her considâ—rations he complaineth That â—hâ—re is incollerable â—uperstitioÌ„ in the worshipping of Saints innumerable observations without all ground of reason vaine credulitie in beleeving things concerning the Saints reported in the uncertaine Legends of their lives superstitious opinions of obtaining Pardon and remission of sinnes by saying so many Pater nosters in such a Church before such an Image as if in the Scriptures and Authenticall writings of holy men there were not sufficient direction for all
to them nor worship them saith also thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven Image PRO. Our learned Bishop White hath answered for 〈◊〉 the Ground and Proposition of this argument saith he is falâ—e for worshipping of Images is forbidden as the principall object of that negative precept and as a thing Morally evill in his very kind but making them is forbidden onely when it is a meanes subservient to worship and because it may be separated both in his owne nature and in mans intention from that end and use therefore the one is simply forbidden and the othâ—r is onely prohibited when it becommeth a meanes or instrument to other for we mislike not pictures or Images for historicall use and ornament now this distinction and disparitie betweene making and woâ—shipping is comfirmed by the example of the â—razen Serpent made by Gods owne appointment for when the same was onely made and looked upon it was a Medicine when it was worshipped it bâ—came a poyson and was destroyed To proceedâ— the Church of Rome holds that the Saints raigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayâ—d unto but this we hold is not warranted by Gods word but rather repugnant to it for we are commanded to invocate God in the name of Christ and our Saviour himselfe inviteth us to approach with confidence to the throne of his grace he is rich in mercie to such as call upon him and more compassionate better able and more willing to helpe us than any Saint or Angel and he is appointed by God to be our Intercessour We reade in the new Testament many examples of people which made supplication immediately unto Christ but not of one which made intercession to the Virgin Mary or to the blessed Saints or Angels And if any question with this our negative concluding from Scripture Saint Hierome upon occasion did the like saying we beleeve it not because we reade it not I will close up this point with that advise which Ignatius gave the Virgins of his time not to direct their prayers and supplications to Saints or Angâ—ls but to the Trinity onely O ye Virgins have Christ alone before your eyes and his Father in your Prayers being enlightned by the spirit Of Faith and Merit The Trent Councâ—l accurseth all such as say that a siâ—ner is justified by Faith onâ—ly or deny that the good workes of holy men doe truly Merit everlasting life our reformâ—d Churches hold that wee are accounted righteous bâ—fore God onely for the Merit of Iesus Christ applyed by Faithâ— and not for our workes or Merits And when we say that we are justified by Faith onely we doe not meane that the said justifying Faith is alone in man without true repentance hope charity and the feare of God for such a Faith is dead and cannot justifie Even as when we say that the eye onely seeth wee doe not meane that the eye severed from the head doth see but that it is the onely propâ—rtie of the eye to see Neither doth this Faith of Christ which is within us of it selfe justifie us or deserve our justâ—fication unto us for that were to account our selves to be justified by the vertue or dignity of something within our selves but the true meaning therâ—of is that although we heare Gods Word and beleeve it although wee have Faith Hope Charity Repentance and the fâ—are of God within us yet we must renounce the Merit of all our vertues and good deedes as farre too weake and unsufficient to deserve remission of our Sinnes and uâ— justification and therefore we must trust onely in Gods mercie and the Merits of our only Saviour and justiâ—ier Iesus Christ. Neverthelesse because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for our justification and that by Faith given us of God we embâ—ace the promise of Gods mercie and the remission of our Sinnes which thing none other of our vertues or workes properly doth therefore the Scripture useth to say that Faith without workes and the ancient Fathers of the Church to the same purpose that onely Faith doth justifie us Now for the Poynt of Merit it is neither agreeable to Scripture nor reason for we cannot Merit of him whom we gratifiâ— not we cannot gratifie a man with his owne now all our good is Gods already his gift his proprietie What have we that we have not received saith the Apostle not our Talent onely but the improvement also is his meere bounty there can be therefore no place for Merit PA. Wee hold the ancient Romane Faith PRO. That is not so as may appeare by these instances Saint Paul taught his Romanes that our Eleâ—â—ion is of Gods free grace and not ex operibus praevisis of workes fore-seene He taught that we are justified by Faith onely we conclude that we are justified by Faâ—th without the workâ—s of the Law which is all one as to say a man is justified by Faith onely He taught that eternall life is the gift of God and therefore not due to the Merit of workes that the good workes of the Regenerate are not of their owne condignitie meritorious nor such as can deserve heaven and the sufferings there expressed are Maâ—tyrdomes sanctified by grace He condemned Images though made to resemble the true God and taught that to bow the knee religiously to an Image or to worship any creature is meère Idolatry He taught that we must not pray unto any but unto God onely in whom we beleeve and therefore not to Saints or Angels since we beleeve not in them He taught that concupiscence is a Sinne even in the regenerate and Possevine the Iesuit confesseth that Saint Paul called it so but saith he we may not call it so He taught that the Imputed righteousnesse of Christ is that onely that maketh us just before God Thus taught Saint Paul thus the ancient Romanes beleeved from this Faith our latter Romanists are departed Here then let the Reader judge whether it be likely that Saint Paul who as Theodoret saith delivered doctrine of all sorts and very exactly handled the Points thereof should neverthelesse writing at large to the Romane Church not once mention those maine points wherein the life of Poperie consists namely the Popes Monarchical Iurisdiction Transubstantiation Communion in one kinde Service in an unknowne tongue Popes pardons Image worship and the like if the Church of Rome were then the same that now a dayes it is Now if these points mentioned were no Articles of Faith in the ancient Romane Church in Saint Pauls dayes when their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole world then they be not Articles of Faith at this day but onely Additions to the rule of Faith such as the corruption of the times hath patched up and pieced it withall for it is a ruled case in the Schooles that the body of Religion
of the Evangelist what wants it what obscuritie is there in it all things there are full and perfect Saint Basil saith it is a manifest falling from the Faith and an argument of arrogancie either to reject any point of those things that are written or to bring in any of those things that are not written Gregory Nyssen layeth this for a ground which no man should contradict that in that onely the truth must be acknowledged wherein the seale of the Scripture testimonie is to be seene The same Father in an oration of his calleth the Scripture an even streight and inflexible Rule neither mentâ—oneth he any more rules but this onâ— and adding the word ipsa to the Rule he delareth the same to be an adaequate and onely Rule Of the Scripture Canon The Councell of Laodicea saith we ought to reade onely the bookes of the Old and New Testament yea the same Councell recites onely those Canonicall bookes of Scripture which we allow and the Canons of this Councell though a provinciall Councell are confirmed by the sixt generall Councell in Trullo now if it be replied the Laodicean Councell excludes the Apocrypha the Carthaginian Councell receives them and both these were confirmed in the sixt generall Councell held in the Palace called Trullo and how can this stand together the matter is thus reconciled the Laodicean speakes of the Canon of Faith the Carthaginian of the Canon of good manners to both which the sixt Councell subscribed in that sence and we to it To proceed Hilary tells us the Law of the Old Testament is conteined in two and twentie bookes according to the number of the Hebrew letters and Athanasius saith the same and as touching the Apocryphall bookes as namely the booke of Wisedome Maccabees and the rest he saith Libri non sunt Canonici they are read onely to the Caetechumens or novices in Religion but are not Canonicall Epiphanius after he had reckoned up the Canon of two and twentie bookes censureth the bookes of Wisedome and Ecclesiasâ—icus in these words they are fit and profitable but not reckoned amongst those bookes which are received by our Church and therefore were neither laid up with Aaron nor in the Arke of the New Testament Ruffinus in his explanation of the Creede which is found among Saint Cyprians workes and so attributed to him setteth downe the Catalogue conteining all those bookes which we admit secluding all those that are now in question wee must know saith he that there be also other bookes which are not Canonicall but are called of our Ancestors Ecclesiasticall as is the Wisedome of Salomon Ecclesiasticus Tobias Iudith and the bookes of Maccabees all which they will indeed have to be read in the Church but not to be alledged for Confirmation of Faith To this testimonie of Ruffin Canus a Popish writer thus replieth although Ruffin did affirme that the bookes of Maccabees were to be rejected by the tradition of the Fathers yet by the Readers leave he was ignorant of that Tradition as if Canus a late writer were better skilled in the Primitive tradition than Ruffinus or Cyprian Gregorie Nazianzen nameth all the bookes that wee admit save that he omitteth the booke of Hester being misperswaded of the whole by reason of those Apocryphall additions to it Now Bellarmine would shift off such testimonies as these by saying it was no fault in them to reject these bookâ—s because no generall Councell in their dayes had decreed any thing touching them But we aske how it came to passe that so many Catholike Divines after this pretended decree of their Canon rejected these bookes as others had done before for some in every Age rejected thâ—m Of Communion under both and number of Sacraments Gregory Nazianzene saith of his sister Gorgonia in this manner if her hand had laid up any portion of the types or tokens of the precious body and of the bloud he saith that his sister after she had communicated she laid up some part of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ now as she kept the consecrated bread in a cloth so she might carry the wine in a viall howsoever this religious woman received in both kinds The same Nazianzen bids reverence the Lords Table to which thou hast accesse the bread whereof thou hast beene partaker the cup which thou hast communicated being initiated in the passions of Christ. Athanasius being accused for breaking a Chalice writeth thus What manner of Cup or when or where was it broken in every house there are many Pots any of which if a man breake he committeth not sacriledge but if any man willingly break the sacred Chalice he committs sacriledge but that Chalice is no where but where there is a lawfull Bishop This is the use destin'd to that Chalice none other wherein you according to institution doe drinke unto and before the Laity This was the custome in Athanasius his dayes Saint Ambrose speakes to a great secular Prince Theodosius in this sort How dare you lift up to him those hands from which the blood yet droppeth will you receive with them the sacred body of our Lord or how will you put in your mouth his precious bloud who in the commanding fury of your wrath have wickedly shed so much innocent bloud The same Saint Ambrose in his Treatise that hee wholly set apart for the laying foorth of the Doctrine of the Sacraments specifyeth not any other than either those two of ours Baptisme and the Lords Supper and yet wee have of his as they are divided sixâ— bookes de Sacramentis of the Sacraments And so I come to treat of the Sacrament Of the Eucharist PA. You have produced Hilarie and Cyril of Hierusalem on your side whereas they make for us in the poynt of the Sacrament Saint Hâ—larie sayth nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus Hil. l. 8. de Trinitate PRO. Hilaries testimony was much urged by Mr. Musket Priest and was notably cleered by Doctour Featly in the second dayes disputation now to the place alleadged he sayth The Word truely became Flesh truely to wit by Faith and Spiritually not with the mouth and carnally Objection These words of Hilarie Sub Sacramento communicandae carnis and the like following nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus wee truely receive the Flesh of his body under a mystery prove the reall presence of Christs flesh under the formes of bread and wine Answer Saint Hilarie by the words Sub Sacramento and sub mysterio carnem sumimus meaneth nothing but that in a mystery or Sacramentally we eate the true flesh of the Sonne of God sub mysterio is no more than in mysterio that is mystically under a similitude in a similitude or after a resemblance Object St. Hilarie sayth in the booke alleadged de veritate carnis sanguinis non est relictus ambigendi locus
of the trueth of Christs flesh and bloud there is no place left for doubting Answer Neither doe we doubt of the truth of Christs body and bloud but firmely believe the doctrine of the true Incaâ—nation of Christ. Objection Hilarie saith in nobis carnalibus manentem per carnem Christum habemus we men consisting of flesh and bloud have Christ remayning in us by his flâ—sh Answer So wee have by reason of our mysticall union with Christs flesh and not by any corporall transubstantiation of our flesh into Christ. The same Hilarie saith nos in eo naturaliter inessemus ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente Christ is naturally in us and wee in him but wee are not in him naturally or carnally by any transubstantiation therefore neither is he so in us these termes then of Hilaâ—ies permanentâ—m in nobis carnaliter silium the sonne remayning in us carnally note onely a greater and more reall union than barely by consent or concord of will such as the Arrians acknowledged onely betwixt the Father and the Sonne denying an unitie of nature purposely to avoid that text I and the Father are oneâ— Hilary speaking of this neere union calleth it the mysterie of a true and naturall union mysterium verae ac naturalis unitatis and so indeed it is in respect of Christs inseparable union which hee hath with us by his incarnation by which he is become flesh of our â—lesh and bone of our bone and in respect of our mysticall union with him and his body whereby wee become members of Christs body and quickned by his spirit Object Saint Cyril in his fourth Catechisme saith He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his onely will is not hee worthy that wee beleeve him that he hath changed wine into his blood Answer S. Cyrils place maintaineth not Popish transubstantiation for in this the shapes and accidents remaine and the materiall substance is corrupted but in our Saviours miracle in the second of Saint Iohn the shapes accidents and forme were changed and the common materiall substance remained Iohn 2.9 Object Cyril saith it is not simple bread and wine it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Answer Hee sheweth his meaning to be this namely that the consecrated bread is not common ordinary and meere naturall bread but sanctified elevated and changed to supernaturall use and operation And so I proceed The Elements called Antitypes after Consecration The Fathers of this age treating of the Sacramentall Signes call them Similitudes correspondent types or figures of the body and blood of Christ the figure of the body and blood of the Lord Iesus saith Ambrose and Nazianzene speakes as wee have heard of his sisters laying up some portion of the types or tokens of Christs precious body and blood and againe how durst I offer unto him the type of so great a mysterie in lâ—ke sort Cyril of Hierusâ—lem cals them types and antitypes and they call the Symboles after Consecration Antitypes Now that which is a figure similitude and representation of a thing is not properly the same PA. It followeth not the Eucharist is termed the figure of Christs naturall body therefore it is not substantially and properly his body The figure of a thing may be the same with the thing figured Christ Iesus is a figure of his Fathers substance Hebr. 1.3 and yet is the same substantially with the Father Iohn 10.30 PRO. There is such opposition of Relatives as that the signe and the thing signified cannot bee the same in that very respect and point wherein they are opposite for the instance brought it followeth thus the sonne is the chaâ—acter of his Fathers substance ergo the Son is not the Father though of the same substance nor is the Father the Sonne so must the opposition of necessity hold the Sacrament is the figure signe and representation of Christs body ergo it is not the body of Christ but sacramentally and figuratively In a word you say that Christ is a Character and figure of his Father and yet of the same substance but to have spoken home to the matter in question you should have said that Christ a figure of the Fathers person is yet the same person that the Father which is utterly false To procâ—ed Saint Ambrose saith if thâ—re bee such vâ—rtue in the words of our Lord to make those things that were not to begin to bee how much more powerfull is his word that they remaine the same they were and yet bee changed into another thing hee holdeth the bread and wine in the Lords Supper to remaine to bee the same thaâ— they were therefore they are not changed in substance for then they should not be the same they were yet hee saith they are changed into other to wit not in substance but in qualitie use and signification for so hee saith before the blessing of the heavenly words another kind is named after the Consecration the body of Christ is signified Now if by the consecrated bread in the Eucharist the body bee signified then is not bread essentially the body PA. Saint Ambrose in the ninth chapter of such as are newly instructed in the mysteries saith Moses his word changed the water of Aegypt into blood if so great was the benediction of man what may wee thinke of divine Consecration where the very words of our Saviour worke hee saith also that by benediction or consecration the nature of the Elements in the Lords Supper is changed PRO. Among the six or seaven examples broâ—ght by Saint Ambrose only two are substantiall and the rest accidental for in the place alledged he addeth also these examples that Moses divided the Red Sea that Iordan turned his couâ—se that the bitter waters of Mara were made sweet in all which workes of God there was no Transubstantiation for the waters and the Red Sea were the same in nature and substance as they were before so that by these examples it appeareth that notwithstanding Saint Ambrose say the nature is changed yet he meant a change in qualitie onely and not in substance And such a change there is in the Eucharist the Elements are changed when of common and naturall creatures they are made sacred and become Channels and Instruments of saving grace and such a change Ambrose meant for comparing these miracles of the Prophets wherein God changed the nature of things with the change that is wrought in the Sacrament he saith that it is no lesse to adde some new things unto things than to change the nature of things averring plainly thereby that the bread had received some new thing without loosing the nature of bread and such a change is not strange for thus a piece of waxe becomming the Kings Seale changeth it's nature without Transubstantiation Besides the Fathers use the like Tenour of speech of the Sacrament of Baptisme and yet doe not hence inferre any Transubstantiation they
taught the same doctrine in other books also to wit De Nativitate Christi and de Animâ which are to be seene in the Libraries of the Cathedrall Church of Sarisburie and Bennet Colledge in Cambridge as the same Bishop Vsher observes PA. Was Bertram a learned man and of a good liâ—e PRO. Trithemius the Abbot gives him a large commendation For his excellent learning in Scripture his godly life his worthy Bookes and by name this of the Body and Bloud of Christ. Clodius de Sanctes â—aith Hee is put in the Catologue of Ecclesiasticall Writers for one Catholike in life and doctrine and your Brerely saith That ancient Catholike Writers doubt not to honour Bertram for a holy Martyr of their Church Now are wee come to our famous countrey-man Scotus much what of Bertrams standing and both of them in favour with Charles unto whom as Bertram Dedicated his Treatise of the Sacrament so also Ioannes Scotus wrot of the same argument and to the same effect that Bertram had done Bellarmine saith That Scotus was the first who in the Latine Church wrot doubtâ—fully of the reall presence It is indeed their fault that we have not his Booke yet may wee presume that he wrot positively neither doe we any where find that his booke of the Sacrament was condemned before the dayes of Lanfrancke who was the first that leavened the Church of England with this corrupt doctrine of the carnall presence so that all this while to wit from the yeare 876 to 1050 he passed for a good Catholike PA. Was Scotus a man of that note PRO. He was as Possevine saith Scholler to Bede Fellow-pupill with Alcuinus and accounted one of the founders of the Vniversitie of Paris and in the end dyed like a Martyr For after that he came into England and was publike Reader in Oxford by the favour of King Alfred he retired himselfe into Malmsbury Abbey and was there by his owne Schollers stabbed to death with Pen-knives and this was done saith Bale and others Fortassis non sine Monachorum impulsâ— haply not without the Monks procurement being murdered by his Schollers whiles he opposed the carnall presence which then some private persons began to set on foot By his birth he was one of the Scottish or Irish nation and is sometime called Erigena sometime Scotigena He was sirnamed Scotus the Wise and for his extraordinary learning in great account with our King Alfred and familiarly entertained by Charles the Great to whom he wrote divers letters In a word there is an old homely Epitaph which speakes what this Scotus was Clauditur hoc tumulo Sanctus Sophista Ioannes Qui ditatus erat jà m vivens dogmate miro Martyrio tandem Christi conscendere regnum Quoâ— meruit sancti regnant per saecula cuncti Vnder this stone Lyes Sophister Iohn Who living had store Of singular Lore At length he did merit Heaven to inherit A Martyr blest Where all Saints rest Or thus Here lyes interr'd Scotus the Sage A Saint and Martyr of this Age. Of Images and Prayer to Saints Ionas Bishop of Orleance who wrote against Claudius bishop of Turin in the defence of Images holds that The Images of Saintâ— and Stories of divine things may bâ—e painted in the Church not to be worshipped but to be an oâ—nament and to bring into the minds of simple people things done and past But to adore the Creature or to give it any part of divine honour we count it saith he a vile wickednesse detesting the doâ—r thereof as worthy to be accursed It is flâ—t impiete saith the same Ionas out of Origen to adore any save the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost Agobardus bishop of Lyons saith That the Ancients they had the pictures of the Saints but it was for historie sake and not for adoration and that none of thâ— ancient Catholicks haply thought that Images are to be worshipped or adored And the Orthodoxe Fathers for avoiding of superstition did carefully provide that no pictures should bee set up in Churches lest that which is worshipped should be painted on the walls Rhemigius saith That neither Images nor Angels are to be adored and Walasfridus Strabo would not have divine honour given to ought that is made by us or any other Creature Now what say the Papists to these Testimonies Baronius yeelds us Walafridus Strabo Ionas bishop of Orâ—leance Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes and saith That they foâ—sooke the received opinion of the Church and yet they were ever held sound Catholicks Bellarmine saith That Ionas was overtaken with Agobard his errour and other bishops of France in that Age and therefore puts in a Caveat that Ionas must bee read warily So that by their owne confession the learnedst and famousest men of this Age stand for us in this point this makes them seeke to suppresse such testimonies as are given of them Papirius Massonus set forth this booke of Agobards and delivers the argument therof to be this Detecting most manifestly the errours of the Greciâ—ns touching images pictures he to wit bishop Agobard denies tâ—at they ought to be worshipped which opinion all we Catholicks do allow and follow the testimony of Gregory the great concerning them Now this passage the Spanish Inquisitors in their expurgatorie Index Commanded tâ— bee blotted out and this is accordingly performed by the Divines of Collen in their late corrupt Edition of the great Bibliothek of the ancienâ— Fathers To close up this poynt Charles the Great was seconded by his Sonne Lewis the Godly for by his appointment the Doctors of France assembled at Paris in the yeare 842 and there condemned the adoration of Images It is not strange saith Ambrose Ansberâ—us that our prayers and teares are not offered up unto God by us but by our High Priest since that Saint Paul exhorts us to offer up the Sacrifiâ—e of Praise unto God Haymo upon those words of Isay 〈◊〉 enim Pater noster Thou O Lord art our Father Isay. 6â— ver 16. â—aith Et rectè solum invocamus ac dâ—p ecamur te And we doe right onely to invocate thee and to make our supplication to thee Of Faith and Merit Claudius Scotus saith that Faith alone saveth us because by the works of the Law no man shall be justified yet he addeth withall this caution Not as if the works of the Law should be contemned and without them a simple faith so he calleth that solitary faith which is a simple faith indeed should bee desired but that the works themselves should be adorned with the Faith of Christ. Rhemigius saith That in truth those onely are happy who are freely justified of grace and not of merit Haymo saith Wee are saved by Gods grace and not our owne merits for we have no merits at all Ambros. Ansbertus expounding that place Revel 19.
then that you doe what reward can you looke for if God doe all and these and such like Pelagian speeches of some Monkes occasioned him to write his treatise of Grace and free will wherein he denying such freewill as many Popish schoolemen teach ascribes the whole originall power of good in the consent of the will unto grace saying That the good which we doe is not partly Gods but it is to be ascribed wholly unto God He disclaimed humane satisfactions saying Who will murmure and say we labour too much fast too much since we are unable to dâ—scharge the thousandth nay not the least part of our debts He held that man was unable to keepe the Law in perfection according to Gods Commandements Neither saith he was the commander ignorant that the weight of the Commandement exceeded mans strength but he judged it to be profitable thereby to put them in mind of their owne insufficiencie so that God by commanding things impossible to us did not thereby make man a transgressour but humbled him to the intent that we receiving the Law and feeling our owne wants might call to heaven and the Lord might helpe us And to the same purpose he elsewhere saith God hath therefore commanded his precepts to be observed exceedingly or to the full that we beholding our imperfection and falling short and finding that we are unable to fulfill that which we ought may fly to his mercy He held certainety of Salvation saying that a just man by the testimonie of the Holy Spirit within him may be assured of grace Bernard likewise held that our workes doe not merit condignely and herein he is most direct and punctuall against all Popish merit-mongers Dangerous saith he is the dwelling of them that trust in their owne merits dangerous bâ—causâ— ruinous And This is the whole merit of man if he put all his trust in him who saveth the whole man Againe the merits of men are not such saith he as that eternall life is due to them of right or as if â—od should doe wrong if he did not yeeld the same unto them and he giveth a reason hereof because all merits are Gods gifts and so man is rather a debter to God for them than God to men for what are all merits to so â—reat a glory Indeed he elsewhere telleth us of his merits but they be Christs and these we doe willingly embrace with Saint Bernard and apply them to our selves his words are these Therefore my merit is the mercy of the Lord I am not poore in merit so long as he is not poore in mercie and if the mercies of the Lord be many my merits also are many otherwise S. Bernard renounced al confidence of his owne merit reposing his soule on that imputative Iustice which is without man even the merit of Christ as in that al-sufficient satisfaction saying I am not worthy I confesse neither can I by my owne merits obtaine the kingdome of heaven but rest upon that interest which I have in the merits of Christs passion Now what could be spoken more Protestant-like and yet thus spake Bernard of himselfe And in this sweete meditation the devout Father closed his life as the reporter thereof hath left recorded Now besides these Articles already mentioned which are weighty ones Bernard was no universall Tâ—ent Papist neither held he divers points which your Trent Counsell hath established for foundamentall and namely the doctrine of Transubstantiation of which he is altogether silent even there where he was likeliest to treate of it if he had then knowne it for Catholike doctrine yea he there delivereth that which makes against it He taught also that the Eucharist was a commemorative sacrifice onely insomuch as alleadging those words Do this in remembrance of me he menâ—ioneth no reall sacrifice of â—hrists body and blood such as is made in the Masse but a thankefull remembrance of his death and passion Indeed S. Bâ—rnard in that Sermon of the Lords Supper if it be his for Bellarmie saith it is nothing like S. Bernards sâ—ile speakes of the Priests holding his God and reaching him forth to others as also of touching God with their hand with their mouth and hearing him speake unto them Now as the Priest heareth Christ speake unto him so he holdeth Châ—ist in his hand but the Priest heareth not Christ speake verily and indeed but in a certaine peculiar manner and forme of speech therefore he holds not Christ in his hand really and indeed but after a sort for a straine of Rhetoricall amamplification he is sayd to hold God that holdeth any thing specially pertaining to God Besides hee held the sufficiencie of the Scriptures without Traditions for writing unto a Covent of Abbots he requireth such a Councell wherein the traditions of men are not obstinately defended but which doth diligently and humbly enquire what is the good and perfect will of God and elsewhere hee saith that the Word of God is all in all He held habituall Concupiscence to be a sinne saying That kinde of sin which so often troubles us I meane our concupiscence and evill desires ought indeed to be repressed Besides he never taught adoration of Images hee held not the precise number of seaven Sacraments he stood against the opinion of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Marie and the like Tenets which be Articles of Faith with you In a word he plainely confessed that the Roman Church was degenerate from the auncient religion And this may suffise to shew what religion S. Bernard professed if any man desire to see more testimonies he may finde them in Master Pankes Collectanea out of Saint Gregorie the Great and S. Bernard the devout shewing that in most foundamentall points they are ours PAP Well but I challenge Saint Bernard for one of our side PROT. I have showne already that he was ours on the surer side he was indeed a Monke and in some things superstitious and no mervaile since he lived in a later age above a thousand yeares after Christ what time as errours crept into the Church which hee might sucke in from the age wherein he lived neverthelesse he was sound in the principall points of Religion for other things wee defend him not since as your owne Proverbe goes Bernardus non vidit omnia even holy Bernard had his blemishes Yet since he held the foundation of Iustification by Faith onely in Christ and disclaimed his owne merits though otherwise his hay and stubble of praying to Saints and such like stuffe as cannot endure the fire of the Holy Ghosts triall doe burne and consume yet since he kept close to the foundation wee doubt not but his soule is safe and rests with the Lord God pardoning his errours and ignorances which he being carryed with the streame of the time tooke up as they were delivered to him without scanning or
saying of Ernestus Arch-bishop of Magdeburg lying on his death-bed some five yeares befoâ—e Luther shewed himselfe It is witnessed by Clement Schaâ— Chaplaine to the said Arch-bishop and one who was present at his death that a Frier Minor used this speech to the Archbishop Take a good heart most worthy Prince wee communicate to your excellencie all the good workes not onely of our selves but our whole order of Frier Minors and therefore doubt not but you receiving them shall appeare before the tribunall Seate of God righteous and blessed Whereunto the Arch-bishop replyed By no meanes will I trust upon my owne workes or yours but the workes of Christ Iesus alone shall suffice upon them will I repose my selfe THE SIXTEENTH CENTVRIE From the yeare of Grace 1500. to 1600. Of Martin Luther PAPIST WHat say you of this sixteenth Age PROTESTANT We are now by Gods assistance come to the period of time which was agreed upon in the beginning of our conference to wit to the dayes of Martin Luther for about the yeare of Grace 1517 hee beganne to teach and Preach against Indulgences And withall I have produced a Catalogue of our professours unto this present sixteenth Centurie PA. Stay your selfe you must saith Master Brerely show us your professours during the twentie yeares next before Luther PRO. It is done already for besides our English Martyrs we have produced Trithemius the Abbot and Savonarola both which lived within the time mentioned and held with us the Article of free Iustification and Savonarola howsoever the matter be otherwise coloured was burnt for Religion in the yeare 1498. Besides there have beene in all Ages and in the time mentioned such as held the substantiall Articles of our Religion both in the Roman and Greeke Church and by name the Grecians in common with us have openly denyed the Popes Supremacie Purgatorie private Masses Sacrifices for the dead and defended the lawfulnesse of Priests marriage Likewise in this Westerne part of the world the Schollers of Wickliffe called Lollards in England the Taboâ—ites in Bohemia and Waldenses in France maintained the same doctrine in substance with our moderne Protestants as appeareth by a Confession of the Waldensian Faith set forth about the yeare of Grace 1508 which was within the time prefixed Neither did these whom we have produced dissemble their Religion but made open profession thereof by their Writings Confessions and Martyrdomes as also their just Apologies are extant to cleere them from the Adversaries imputation PA. I thought Luther had beene the first founder of your Religion for there bee some of your men who call him the first Apostle of the reformed doctrine PRO. Luther broached not a new Religion he onely drained and refined it from the Lees and dregs of superstition he did not forme or found a new Church which was not in being but onely reformed and purged that which he found from the soilâ— of errours and disorders When Hilkiah the Priest in Iosiah's time found out the booke of God he was thereby a meanes to bring to light what the wicked proceedings of Manasses Amon and others had for a season smothered and so did Luther he was the instrument whom God used for the farther enlightning his Church and yet hereupon it no more followeth that he was the first that preached our Religion than upon the former that Hiâ—kiah first preached the Law The Protestants Church by Luthers meanes began no otherwise in Germanie than health begins to be in a body that was formerly sicke and overcharged and now recovered So that in respect of doctrine necessary to salvation the Church in her Firme members as Saint Austine speakes was the same before Luther and afterwards and it began to be by his meanes onely according to a greaâ—er measure of knowledge and freedome from such corruptions as formerly like ill humours oppressed it and oveâ—charged it The Proâ—estants Church then is the same with all good and sound Christians that lived before them and succeedeth the sound members of the visible Chuâ—ch that kept the life of true Religion in the substantiall matters of Faith and Godlinesse though otherwise those times were daâ—kened with a thicke mist of errours Now whereas some call Luther the first Apostle of the reformed doctrine they did not therâ—by intend that he was the fiâ—st that ever preached the dâ—ctrine of the râ—formed Churches for they could not be ignorant that after Christ and his Apostles and the Fathers of the first five Ages Bertram and Aâ—lfricke and Berenger Peter Bruis and Henry of Tholouse Dulcinus and Anâ—ldus and Lollardus Wickliffe Husse Hierome of Pragâ—e and others stood for the same truth which we professe but their meaning was that Luther was the first who in their Age and memorie publickly and succesfully set on foot a generall reformation of the Church in these Westerne parts And thus in a tollerable sense Luther may bee called the first Apostle of the Reformation though not simply the first that preached the Protestants doctrine Americus Vesputius is reported to have discovered the West Indies or America and withall beares the name thereof and yet Christopher Columbus discovered it before him Bishop Iewell saith that in Luthers dayes in the midst of the darknesse of that Age there first began to shine some glimmeâ—ing beame of truth his meaning is not that the truth was then first revealed but that by Luthers mâ—anes it was manifested in a fuller measure and degree of lâ—ght and knowledge than it was in the fâ—rmer and daâ—ker times of Poperie yea he giveth pâ—rticular instance of true professours that were before Luther namely Saint Hilarie Gregory Bernard Pauperes de Lugduno the â—ishops of Greece and Asia as also Valla Marsilius Petrarch Savonarola and others PA. Did Luther himselfe acknowledge he had any predecessors or fore-runners PRO. I answer with my worthy and learned friend Doctor Featly that Luther acknowledged the Waldenses termâ—d fratres Pigardi as appeares by his Preface before the Waldension Confession I found saith hee in these men a miracle almost unheard of in the Popish Church to wit that these men leaving the doctrines of men to the utmost of their endeavour meditated in the Law of God day and night and were very ready and skilfull in the Scriptures whereas in the Papacie the greatest Clerkes uâ—terly neglected the Scriptures I could not but congratulate both them and us that wee were together brought into one sheepfold Of Iohn Husse and Hiâ—rome of Prague he saith They burned Iohn Husse and Hierome both Catholike men they being themselves Heretikes and Apostates and in his third Preface hee saith hee hath heard from men of credit that Maximilian the Emperour was wont to say of Iohn Husse Alas alas they did that good man wrong And Erasmus Roterodam in the first bookes which hee printed lying yet by me writeth That Husse indeed was condemned and burned but not convicted PA. To
and differed from you so that they cannot belong to the same Church PRO. Concerning Wickliffâ— Husse and the rest if they have any of them borne record to the truth and resisted any innovation of corrupt Teachers in their times even to blood they are justly to be termed Martyrs yea albeit they saw not all corruptions but in some were themselves carried away with the streame of error Else if because they erred in some things they be no Martyrs or because we dissent from them in some things we are not of the same Church both you and we must quit all claime to Saint Cyprian Iustin Martyr and many more whom we count our ancients and predecessors and bereave them also of the honour of martyrdome which so long they have enjoyed Irenaus and Iustin Martyr held the error of the Millenaries Cyprian many others held Rebaptization necessary for such as were baptized by heretikes S Austin and the greatest part of the Church for sixe hundred yeares held a necessitie of the Eucharist to Infants and in other things differed one from another and from the Church in the aftertimes correcting their errors yet because they all entirely and stedfâ—stly held all the necessary fundamentall principles which these errors did not infringe neither held they these errors obstinatly but only for want of better information they were of the same Church and Religion whereof we are S. Austin saith There be some things in which the most Learned and best Defenders of the Catholike Rule the bond of faith preserved do sometimes not agree among themselves and one in some one thing saith righter than anoher Now if the different opinions of the Fathers in some points hindred not their union in substance of the faith and their being members all of the same Church why should the like or lesser differences now among the Protestants hinder their union in substance of the same faith and their being members all of the same Chuch both among themselves and with the Fathers yea but Wickliffe and Husse with others mentioned in our Catalogue they erred in point of faith it is true but yet their error was not joyned with pertinacy they errâ—d not incorrigibly buâ— for want of better information they erred in that doctrine of faith wherein the truth was not fully scanned declared and confirmed by a Plenary Councell as S. Austin speaketh had it beene we may well thinke the very same of all those holy men which Austin most charitably saith of Saint Cyprian Without doubt they would have yeelded to the truth being manifested unto them by the authority of the whole Church Object We are at vnity but your Protestants are at ods and namely your Lutherans and Calvinists in the point of the Sacrament the one holding Consubstantiation and the other opposing it Answer The Protestants especially we of the Church of England are at unity as appeares by the Harmony of our confessions as also by our joynt subscriptions to the Articles of Râ—ligion established And for the point mentioned the difference is nothing so great as you would have it thought for as the moâ—t learned and judicious Zanchius observeth and our Doctor Field out of him In all necessary points both the parties agree and dissent in one unnecessary which by right understanding one another might easily be compounded Both sides saith Zanchius doe agree that the elements of bread and wine are not abolished in their substance but onely changed in their use which is not onely to signifie but also to exhibit and communicate unto us the very body and blood of Christ with all the gracious working and fruits thereof Both parties agree that the very body and blood of Christ are truely present in the Sacrament and by the faithfull truely and really received Thus farre all parties agree that is in the whole necessary and sufficient substance of the doctrine of this Sacrament for the other matter wherein they differ de modo of the manner how Christ is present in the Sacrament seeing it is not expressed in the Scriptures in the judgement of Zanchius it might well be omitted and they themselves confesse when they have gone as farre as they can to determine it still it is ineffable and not possible to be fully understood It is enough for us saith the same Zanchius to beleeve the body and blood are there though how and in what manner wee cannot define So then in this maine controversie betweene them about Consubstantiation which as Zanchius saith did afterwards occasion that other of ubiquity in both these controversies the main truth on both sides is out of controversie that Christ is really truly exhibited to each faithfull Communicant and that in his whole person he is every where the doubt is onely in the manner how he is in the Symbols and how in heaven and earth Now for other ods amongst us they be but in Ceremonies or at worst in points of no absolute consequence whereas the differences amongst Papists concerne the life of Religion They differ concerning the Supreame authoritie of the Church whether it be in the Pope or in the Generall Councel The Councels of Constance and Basil determined that a Generall Councel was above the Pope the Councel of Florence decreed the Pope to be above a Generall Councel They differ concerning the manner of the conception of the Virgin Mary The Dominican Friers following the Thomists hold that she was conceived in Originall sinne the Franciscans hold the contrary The moderne Popes disâ—gree with the ancient concerning the dignitie of universall Bishop adoration of Images Transubstantiation Communion in both kinds and the Merit of good workes as is already showne in the fifth and seaventh Centurie of this treatise So cleere is it that some doctrines of the later Roman Church were opposed by the ancient Roman Bishops thâ—mselves to wit adoration of Images as also the dignity and title of universal Bishop by Gregorie the Great coÌ„munion in one kind â— as also the merit of good works by Leo the first TransubstantiatioÌ„ by Gelasius the first Besides the Iesuits and Dominicans differ at this day concerning the weighty point of Free-will and Grace The truth is the Popish Faith varieth not onely with their persons but according to time and place so that they can exchange their tenets upon occasion advance or cry downe their opinions at their pleasure as may best serve for their advantage For as Azorius the Iesuit saith It falls out often that that which was not the common opinion a few yeares since now is And that which is the common opinion of Divines in one Country is not so in another As in Spaine and Italy it is the common opinion that Latreia or divine worship is due to the Crosse which in France and Germaâ—y is not so but some inferior kind of worship due thereunto And Navarrus the Casuist sayes
by the Romists such as indeede could not in truth with any possibilitie fall into the imagination or fancie of any man much lesse bee doctrinally or dogmatically delivered Besides many of the books and writings of Wickliffe and Husse are extant wherein are found no such doctrines as Papists have charged them with but rather the contrary So that we hope there is no indifferent person will regard their slanders for even at this day when things are in present view and action they calumniate the persons and falsifie the doctrine of our professours as grossely as ever Pagans traduced the Primitive Christians for instance sake they give it out that we hold that God regardeth not our good works whereas we beleeve that Good works are necessary to salvation and Works are said to be necessary for us unto salvation to wit not as a cause of our salvation but as a meane or way without which wee come not unto it as a Consequent following Iustification wherewith Regeneration is unseparably joyned In like sort they gave out that Beza recanted his Religion before his death whereas he lived to confute this shamelesse lye and with his owne hand wrote a tract which he called Beza Redivivus Beza Revived Thus also of late have they dealt with that Reverend zealous and learned Prelate Doctor King late Bishop of London giving it out in their idle Pamphlets that hee was reconciled to the Church of Rome which is unanswerably proved to bee a grosse lye for towards his death hee received the holy Sacrament at the hands of his Chapleine Doctor Cluet Arch-deacon of Middle-sex he received it together with his wife children and family whom he had invited to accompany him to that Feast whereof hee protested in the presence and hearing of divers personages of good note that his soule had greatly longed to eate that last Supper and to performe that last Christian duty before he left them and having received the Sacrament he gave thanks to God in all their hearing that he had lived to finish that blessed worke for so himselfe did call it And then drawing neerer to his end â—e expresly caused his Chapleine then his Ghostly Father to reade the Confession and absolution according to the ordinarie forme of Common prayer appointed in our Liâ—urgie Did this worthy Prelate now dye a Papist who to his last breath communicated with the Church of Eâ—gland Besides whereas Preston the Priest was given out to be the man that reconciled the Bishop to the See of Rome Preston as appeareth by his Examination and Answer taken before divers honourable Commissioners protested before God and upon his conscience as he should answer at the dreadfull day of Iudgement that the said Bishop of London did never confesse himselfe unto him nor ever received Sacramentall absolution at his hands nor was ever by him reconciled to the Church of Rome neither did renounce before him the Religion professed and established in the Church of England Yea he added farther that as he hoped to be saved by Christ Iesus he to his knowledge was never in company where the said Doctor King late Lord Bishop of London was neither did he ever receive letter from him nor did write letter unto him neither did he ever to his knowledge see the said Bishop in any place whatsoever nor could have knowne him from another man Object You have singled out some testimonies of Fathers Schoole-men and others and alleadged them on your owne behalfe as if they had thereby beene of your Religion whereas they be our witnesses and speake more fully for us than for your side Answer According to the Rule in law Testem queâ— quis inducit pro se teâ—etur recipere contra se you have produced them for your owne ends and now in reason you cannot disallow them when they are alleadged by us so that you must give us leave to examine your men upon crosse Interrogatories Besides one may be a materiall witnesse who speaks home to two or three Interrogatories although he cannot depose to all the rest It is no part of our meaning to take the scantling of our ancestors Religion from some single testimonies wherein they either agree with or dissent from us but fâ—om the maine body of the substantiall points of doctrine which are controverted betwixt us at this day Neither make wee any such simple collection Such a man held such a point with us therefore he was a Protestant no more then we allow them to frame the like Such a man in such or such a particular agreed with the nâ—w Church of Rome therefore he was a Papist For it followeth no more than this an Aethiopian or Tauny-moore is white in part namely in his teeth therefore he is white all over But our care hath beene that since In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word is established Deut. 19.15 and thaâ— as Hieâ—ome saith One single witnesse were it Cato himsâ—lfe is not so much to bee credited to joyne together the severall testimonieâ— oâ— such worthies as lived in the same age presuming that what some of note delivered and the same not opposed by their contemporaries that that is to bee supposed to have beene the doctrine commonly received in those countries and at that time Vpon these and the like considerations the Reader may bee pleased to rest satisfied with such passages as have beene produced on our behalfe though not so thronged and full in every age inasmuch as divers of our Ancestors have not left unto us sufficient evidence whereby it might appeare what they held in divers particulars Besides that there bee divers testimonies suppressed so as we can hardly come by them as namely in Faber Stapulensis his Preface to the Evangelists there is a notable place touching the Scriptures Suficiencie the words are these The Scripture sufficeth and is the onely Rule of eternall life whatsoever agâ—eeth not to it is not so necessary as superfluous The Primitive Church knew no other Rule but the Gospel no other Scope but Christ no other Worship than was due to the Individuall Trinity I would to God the forme of beleeving were fetched from the Primitive Church Thus saith Stapulâ—nsis Now this whole passagâ— is appointed by the Expurgatory Index of Spaine to be lâ—fâ— ouâ— in their later editions and yet by good hap I met with this passage in an edition aâ— Basâ—lâ— as also in anothâ—r at Colen An. 1541. In like sort I â—â—nd alleadged out of Luâ—ovicus Vives his Commentaries upon Saint Augustine dâ— Civitate Dei these passages following touching the Canon of the Scripture and the practised Adoration of Images in his time namely the same Vives saith that The storie of Susanna of Bel and the Dragon are not Canonicall Scripture he saith also that Saints are esteemed and worshipped by many as were the Gods among the Gentiles These places I carefully sought for in the severall editions of S. Austin