have beene called Lollards of Lollium cockle or darnell and so saith the glosse in Linwood as also in the Squires prologue in Chaucer I smell a Loller in the wâ—nde quoth hee abideth for Gods digne passion for mee shall have a predication this Loller here will preach us sâ—mewhat here shall hee not preach here shall he no Gospell glose ne teach he beleeueth all in the great God quâ—th he he would sowne some difficulty or spring cockle in our cleare corne But they were called Lollards from one Raynard Lollard who at the first was a Franciscan Monke and an enemy to the Waldenses but yet a man carried with a sanctified desire to finde the way of salvation Hee afterwards taught the doctrine of the Waldenses was apprehended in Germany by the Monkes Inquisitours and being delivered to the secular power was burnt at Cologne He wrote a Commentary upon the Apocalyps wherein he applied many things to the Pope as to the Roman Antichrist This was he of whom the faithfull in England were called Lollards where he taught witnesse that Tower in London which at this present is called by his name Lollards Tower where the faithfull that profeâ—sed his religion were imprisoned Iohn lâ— Maire in the third part of the difference of Schismes puts him in the ranke of those holy men that have foretold by divine revelation many things that have come to passe in his time such as were Boccace Saint Vincent of Valence of the order of preaching Friers Ioâ—chim Abbot of Gaâ—abria to them he adjoyneth the Frier Râ—ynard Lollard And so I proceede to the severall points in question Of the Scriptures sufficiâ—nâ—y and Canon VVIckliffe saith that Christs law sufficeth by it selfe to rule Christs Church that a Christian 〈◊〉 well underâ—tanding it may thence gather sufficient knowledge during his pilgrimagâ— hâ—re on earth Lyra upon those words in the Gospell They have Moses and the Prophets let them heare them Luke 16.29 makes this inference Moses he taught morâ—lity and what was our duty to doe the Prophets taught mysteries and what we are to beleeve Et ista sufficiunt ad salutem and these are sufficient for our salvation and therefore it followes Heare them so that hee reduceth all to two heads the Agenda or practicall partâ— and the Credenda or Articles of the Creede and these essentiall necessaries contained in the Scriptures he makes sufficient to salvation Amongst the sundry opinions which Ockam reckons vp this is one sayth Ockam That onely those verities are to be esteemed Catholike and such as are necessarily to be beleeved for the attaining of salvation which either expressely are delivered in â—cripture or by necessary consequence may be inferred from things so expressed Richard Fitz-Raphe Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland saith It is defined in generall Councels that there are two and twenty Authenticall bookes of the Old Testament Nicholas Lyra the converted Iew is plentifull in this argument Now that I have by Gods helpe saith he written upon the Canonicall bookes of holy Scripture beginning at Genesis and so going on to the end trusting to the helpe of the same God I intend to write upon those other bookes that are not Canonicall such as are the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus Iudith Tobias and the bookes of Macchabes and withall addeth that it is to be considered that these bookes which are not Canonicall are received by the Church and read in the same for the information of manners yet is their authority thought to be weake to prove things that are in controversie And the same Lyra writing vpon the first of Esdras the first Chapter saith That though the bookes of Tobias Iudith and the Maccabes be Historicall bookes yet he intendeth for the present to passe by them and not to comment on them and he gives his reason namely quia non sunt de Canone apud Iudaeos nec apud Christianos because they are not in the Canon neither with the Iewes nor with the Christians Wickliffe also held that there are but two and twenty Authenticall bookes of the Old Testament Of Communion under both kinds and number of Sacraments THe custome of communicating in both kinds was not abolished in the beginning of this Age but was retained in certaine places especially in Monasteries untill the yeere of our Lord thirteene hundred and more Thus writeth Cassander Beatus Rhenanus saith that Conradus Pellicanus a man of wonderfull sanctity and learning did finde in the first constitution of the Carthusians That they were forbidden to possesse any vessels of price besides a silver Chalice and a pipe whereby the lay-people might sucke the blood of our Lord. Durand their profound Doctor denieth Matrimony to be a Sacrament properly so named and of the same nature with the rest or to give grace Robert Holcot our countrey-man denied that Confirmation was from Christs Institution now Bellarmine saith that Christ onely can institute a Sacrament Alphonsus à Castro telleth us and that from the testimony of Iodocus Clichtoveus and Thomas Walden a bitter adversary of Wickliffes that Wickliffe held extreame unction or annealing was not a Sacrament Of the Eucharist Ockam saith There are three opinions of Transubstantiation of which the first supposeth a conversion of the Sacramentall Elements the second an annihilation the third affirmeth the bread to be in such sort transubstantiated into the body of Christ that it is no way changed in substance or substantially converted into Christs body or doth cease to be but onely that the body of Christ in every part of it becomes present in every part of the bread This opinion he saith the Master of Sentences mentioneth not much disliking it yet it is not commonly holden Their owne Proctours and Canonists Hostiensis and Gaufridus tell us that there were divers in those dayes who taught that the substance of bread did remaine and this opinion say they was not to be rejected Durand was of opinion That the materiall part of the consecrated bread was not converted insomuch that Bellarmine professeth that saying of Durand is hereticall although he is no heretike because he is ready to submit to the judgement of the Church Wickliffe saith that Friers perverten the right faith of the Sacrament of the Auter and bringen in a new heresie of an Accident withouten subject and whence Holy writ sayes openly that this Sacrament is bread that wee breaken and Gods body they sayen that it is nother bread nor Gods body but accident withouten subject and nought and thus they leaven holy writ and taken new heresie on Christ and his Apostles and on Austin Ierom Ambrose Isidore and other Saints and the Court of Rome and all true Christian men that holden the faith of the Gospell Now for his owne opinion he expresseth it in these termes that the body of Christ was really truely in the Sacrament in his
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
kind that is Sacramentaliter figuraliter by way of SacrameÌ„t figuratively to wit as Saint Iohn Baptist figuratively was Helias and not personally So he saith of the coÌ„secrated hoast that it was Christs body in figure and true bread in nature or which is all one true bread naturally and Christs body figuratively And Wickliffe is very confident in his opinion for he saith that the third part of the Cleargy of England would be ready to defend the same upon paine of losing of their lives cum non fuerit materia martyrij plus laudanda there being no better cause of Martyrdome Of Images and Prayer to Saints TO speake properly saith Durand a the same reverence and respect which is due unto the Samplar or person represented is not to be given to the Image signe or Representee neither ought the imagâ— to be adored with Latria or divine worship for any reference or relation it hath to the thing represented thereby Holcot also a principall Schooleman saith No adoration is due to an Image neither is it lawfull to worship any image and his reason is this Latria or divine worship is due onely unto God But the image of God is not God therefore Latria or divine worship is not due unto an Image Otherwise saith he The Creator and the creature should both be adored with one honour By this wee see the Tenet of Thomas Aquinas controlled who taught that the Crucifixe and Image of Christ was to be worshipped and adored with the selfe-same honour to wit of Latria that Christ Iesus himselfe was to be honoured with Durand also held that it was utterly unlawfull to picture or represent the Trinity or God otherwise than as in Christ he tooke our flesh and was found among us as man Wickliffe was of opinion that it were better to banish Images cleane out of the Church and to this purpose he alleadgeth that noted saying of Epiphanius and according to his doctrine not long after William Nâ—vill Lâ—wis Clifford Thomas Latimer and Iohn Montague turned out Images out of certaine Chappels within their Iurisdictions Concerning prayer to Saints whereas wee hold it vaine to pray to the Saints deceased unlesse we might be assured that they heard and understood our prayers and beheld the secret thoughts of our heart some have conceited the glasse of the Trinity according to that of Gregory He that seeth God who seeth all things cannot but see all things in him but this saying is rejected by Hugo de S. Victore as wee heard in the last age as also by Occham Scotus and sundry other excellent men It is true indeede that they see God face to face 1. Corinth 13.12 yet this Faciall vision maketh not the blessed Saints to know all things Every one which beholdeth the Sunne doth not behold every thing which the Sunne effecteth and enlightneth The Saints know according to the capacity of creatures and so farre forth onely as it pleaseth God and is sufficient for their happinesse so that this glasse of the Trinity doth not represent things according to the manner of a Naturall Glasse but as Speculum voluntarium such a Glasse as maketh reflection of such notices as God is pleased to manifest more or lesse when in what manner and to what persons himselfe pleaseth Gregorius Ariminensis resolveth peremptorily that neither Saints nor Angels know the secrets of our hearts but that this is reserved as peculiar to God alone Besides there wanted not some who in this darke age of the Papacy held it superfluous to pray to the Saints insomuch that Iohn Sharpe in the Vniversity of Oxford publikely disputed these two questions of praying to Saints and of praying for the dead especially because it was esteemed by some famous men and not without probability that such suffrages and prayers were superfluous in the Church of God although some other wise men thought the contrary Wickliffe also is noted by Bellarmine for one that opposed Invocation of Saints Wickliffe indeede saith as followeth It seemeth to be a very great folly to leave the fountaine which is at hand and fetch water a farre off out of a muddy poole Who would make a Scurra or vaine fellow his spokesman to procure him accesse and audience in the Kings Court the King himselfe being more courteous and easilier to be intreated than the mediatour whom the petitioner used where Bellarmine bids us by the way observe how Wickliffeâ— compared the Saints deceased to scurrilous persons and troubled waters this indeed is a shrewd imputation but Wickliffe presently expresseth his owne meaning saying The Saints in Heaven although they be no scurrilous persons but incorporated into Christ by the free mercy of their Saviour yet they are lesse in comparison of him than any meane Groome â—ester or Paraâ—ite is in comparison of an earthly King Now what great harme is there in this comparison Iob compared man Yea a righteous man to a worme even the sonne of man which is but a worme Iob 25. v. 6. Yea but the word Scurra is an odious terme so it is indeed as now adayes it is used The vulgar Interpreter used the word Scurra and Lyra expounds it de vilibus perfonis of meane persons and our English translates it vaine fellowes Wehn David daunced before the Arke Michal sayd to him The King uncovered himselfe to day in the eyes of his servants as one of the vaine fellowes openly uncovereth himselfe Howsoever were it that Wickliffe used the Latine word Scurra in a mollified sence or the word Knave in the English Time we know is the Emperour of words and in processe thereof some of them degenerate from their first institution Idiota at first was used for a private man now we take it for a foole for an Ideot The Wise-men that came from the East were called Magi Math. 2.1 Now wee may not terme them Magicians for that were to call them Sorcerers if one should call a King a Tyrant it were treason or a Wise woman Saga hee would be hardly thought of so among the Latines Fur a Theefe when before it was a Servant Quid faciant Domini audent cùm talia Fures When Slaves thus saucy are What will their Masters dare In like sort the word knave sounded not formerly so odiously as now adayes it doth for Chaucer used it for a Servant Goe up quoth he unto his knave Cleape at his doore and knocke fast with a stone And in the same sence it is used by Sir Philip Sidney in his Arcadia If that my man must praises hâ—ve What then must I that keepe the knave Now to proceede Wicliffe in the other comparison alludes to that of the Prophet They have forsaken me the fountaine of living waters and hewed them out Cisterns broken â—esternes that can hold no water and so indeed are the purest creatures in
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
a matter of nothing to corrupt the ancient writers Austin or Fulbertus or both or could this Dicet Haereticus in probability be the mistake of the Printer and not rather purposely done by such as could not brooke the truth of that doctrine which Fulbert delivered out of S. Austine But the same Fulbert elswhere in a higher straine tels us of a Spirituall yet reall receiving of Christ saying Hold ready the mouth of thy Faith open the jawes of hope strâ—tch out the bowels of love and take the bread of life which is the nourishment of the inward man Objection Theophylact saith He that eateth me shall live by mee forasmuch as after a sort he is mingled with me and trans-elementated into me or changed into me Answer Theophylact is not of that credit as being but a late writer above a thousand yeares after Christ and therefore farre short of Primitive antiqâ—itie living as Bellarmine saith in his catalogue of Ecclesiaâ—ticke writers about the yeare 1071. Besides transelementaion proveth not transubstantiation for in transubstantiation the matter is destroyed and the quantitie and accidents remaine and in trans-elementation the matter remaineth and the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Objection Yea but Bellarmine alleadgeth Theophylact saying of the Bread that it is trans-elementated into the body of Christ and he useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answer Theophylact can best tell us his own meaningâ— now the same Theophylact who said that bread was trans-elemenâ—ated into Christs body saith also nos in Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we also are trans-elemeÌ„â—ated into Christ that a Christian and faithfull Communicant is in a manner tâ—ans-elementated iâ—to Christ for so his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— id in cap. 6. Ioan. Nâ—w they will not say that we are transubstantiated into Christ therefore neither doth Theophylact by the word Trans-elementation used of the bread and wine understand any substantiall but onely a Sacramentall change in respect of the use and effect And so I proceed At this time also Berenger Archdeacon of Angiers in France resisted the corporall presence PA. I challenge Berenger PRO. You cannot justly except against him either for his life or his learningâ— In these times saith Platina Odo Abbot of Clunie and Berenger of Tours were of great account for their excellent learning and holinesse of life Sigebert Abbot of Gâ—mbloux saith that Berenger was well skilled in the Liberall arts and an excellent Logician Hildebert Bishop of Mans and afterwards Archbishop of Touâ—s was his Scholler and honoured his deceased master with this Epitaph Vir vere sapiens parte beatus ab omni Qui coâ—los animâ corpore ditat humum Post obitum vivam secùm secùm requiescam Nec fiat melior sors mea sorte suâ He was a man was blest on every part The earth hath his body the heavens his heart My wish shall be that at my end My soule may rest with this my friend PA. What though he opposed the reall presence this was but one Doctors opinion which himselfe brâ—ached without any former Catholicke precedent PRO. That is not so for his country-man Bertram who was a Monke of Corbey Abbey in France opposed the same long before him and Duval a Doctor of Sorbone saith that Amalarius and Ioannes Scotus were Berengers fore-runners The truâ—h is he neither wanted fore-runners nor followers and favourers Sigeberts Chronicle speaking of Berengers Tenet faith That there was much disputation and by many both by word and writing against him and for him Where the learned bishop Vsher observes that the words Et pro eo and for him specially favouring Berengers cause are left out in some Editionâ— but they are to bee found in other authenticke copies and wee may by the way observe that this poynt of carnall presence or the Sacrament Sub Spectebus for so they terme it was but a disputable point pro and contra and no matter of Faith in Berengers dayes Indeed this doctrine was borne downe by the Popes power so that divers durst not make open profession thereof yet privately they imployed both their tongues and pens in defence thereof and some even in a Romane Councel purposely called against Berenger stood in Defence of his figurative sense of the Sacramentall words as appeares by the Acts of the same Councel In a word Mathew of Westminster saith that Berenger had almost drawne all France Italie aâ—d England to his opinion so that the Berengarians did not luâ—ke in any obscure nooke or corner of the world but spread themselves into the famousest parts of Europe PA. Father Parsons saith that Berenger Recanted so that you cannot account him one of your side PRO. Indeed Berenger was called and appeared before divers Councels was questioned and censâ—red by fâ—uâ—e severall Popes and there was a forme of Recantation tendred to him the tenour whereof is this as Gratian hath registred it in his Decrees aftâ—rwards published and confirmed by Pope Gregory the thirtâ—enth I Berengarius doe firmely professe that I hold that the body of Christ is in this Sacrament not onely as a Sacramâ—nt but even in truth is sâ—nsibly handled with the Priests hands and broken and torne with the teeth of the faithfull Now this was such a forme of an Oath as that your owne Glosse saith of it that Vnlesse it be warily understood onâ— may fall into a greater heresie than Berengâ—r did And yet this coâ—poral eating of Christs flâ—sh with the Capernaits in Saints Iobus sixth Chapterâ— and this tearing his body with the Communicants teeth must be understood literally inasmuch as the words were purposely set downe for a formall Recantation and Bellarmine confesseth that There are no formes of speech more exact and proper in phrase concerning the matter of Faith than such as are usâ—d by thâ—m that abjure heresie Againe what though Bâ—renger upon the Clergies importunity through humane frailty were constrained For feare of death as an Historian saith to subscribeâ— and to burnâ— both his owne booke and Scotus his treatise of the Eucharist which had led him into that opinion yet he might still be of the same judgement he was on before And though he Recanted yet heâ—ein he did no more than Saint Petâ—r whose successour the Pope pretends himselfe to be in denying his Mastâ—r no more than Queene Mary who being terrified with her Faâ—hers displeasuâ—e wrote him a letter with her ownâ— hand in which for ever she renounceth the Popâ—s authoritie here in England And though hee was driven for the time to retract yet upon his comming home hee returned to his former Tenâ—t and as one saith who lived about the same time Nec tamen postâ—à dimisit afâ—er that he never changed his opinion In a word â—hough Berenger himselfe were somewhat wavering yet were his Schollers constant insomuch that Malmsburiensis a bitter enemy of theirs saith
of weake abilities and also for that they had made a booke which they called the everlasting Gospell whereunto they said Christs Gospell was not to be compared Pope Alexander the fourth was content upon complaint made unto him that the Friers booke should be burned provided that it were done covertly and secretly and so as the Friers should not be discredited thereby and as for William of Saint Amour hee dealt sharply with him commanding his booke to be burnt as also he suspended from their benefices and promotions all such as either by word or writing had opposed the Friers untill such time as they should revoke and recant all such speeches and writings at Paris or other places appointed so tender was his holines over the Friers credit and reputation knowing belike what service might be done to him and his successours by these newly errected orders of â—riers I call them newly erected for in the time of Pope Innocent the third about the yeare 1198 the Iacobites an order of preaching Friers were instituted by Saint Dominicke and about the beginning of this age the order of Franciscans preaching Friers Minors was instituted by Saint Francis borne at Assise a towne in Italy Of the Scriptures sufficiencie and Canon SCoâ—us saith that supernaturall knowledge as much as is necessarie for a wayfaring man is sufficiently delivered in sacred Sâ—ripture Thomas Aquinas in his commentary upon that place of Saint Paul the Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation that the man of God may be perfect 2 Timoth. 3.15.17 saith that the Scriptures doe not qualifie a man aâ—ter an ordinarie sort but they perfit him so that nothing is wanting to make him happy And accordingly Bonaventure saith The beneâ—it of sâ—ripture is not ordinarie but such as is able to make a man fully blessed and happy Hugo Cardinalis speaking of the bookes rejected by us saith These bookes are not received by the Church for proofe of doctrine but for information of manners Of Communion under both kindes and nâ—mber of Sacraments ALexander Hales howsoever he some way incline to that opinion that it is sufficient to receive the Sacrament in one kind yet he confesseth that there is more merit and devotion and compleatnesse and efficacie in receiving in both Againe hee saith Whole Christ is not sacramentally conteined under each forme because the bread signifieth the body and not the blood the wine signifieth the blood and not the body Concerning the Churches practise wee doe not finde that the lay people were as yet barred of the cup in the holy Sacrament for our Countrey-man Alexander Hales who flourished about the yeare of Grace 1240. saith that we may receive the body of Christ under the forme of bread onely sicut fere ubique fit à Laicis in ecclesiâ as it is almost every where done of the Laiety in the Church it was almost done every where but it was not done every where Concerning the Sacraments the Schoolemen of this age can hardly agree amongst themselves that there be seaven Sacraments properly so called Alexander of Hales saith that there are onely â—oure which are in any sort properly to be sayd Sacraments of the new Law that the other three supposed Sacraments had their being before but received some addition by Christ manifested in the flesh that amongst them which began with the new Covenant onely Baptisme and the Eucharist were instituted immediately by Christ received their formes from him and flowed out of his wounded side Touching Confirmation the same Alexander of Hales saith the Sacrament of Confirmation as it is a Sacrament was not ordained either by Christ or by the Apostles but afterwards was ordained by the Councell of Meldain France Touching extreame unction Suarez saith that both Hugo of Saint Victor in Paris and Peter Lombard and Bonaventure and Alexander of Hales and Altissidorus the cheefe schoolemen of their time denyed this Sacrament to be instituted by Christ and by plaine consequence saith he it was no true Sacrament though they were of opinion that a Sacrament might be instituted by the Apostles and therefore admitted not of this consequence Of the Eucharist COncerning the Eucharist Scotus saith that it was not in the beginning so manifestly beleeved as concerning this coversion But principally this seemeth to move us to hold Transubstantiation because concerning the Saraments we are to hold as the Church of Rome doth And hee addeth wee must say the Church in the Creed of the Lateran councell under Innocent the third which begins with these words Firmiter credimus declared this sence concerning Transubstantiation to belong to the veritie of our faith And if you demaund why would the Church make choice of so difficult a sence of this Article when the words of the Scripture This is my Body might be upholden after an easie sence and in appearance more true I say the Scriptures were expounded by the same spirit that made them and so it is to be supposed that the catholike Church expounded them by the same spirit whereby the faith was delivered us namely being taught by the spirit of truth and therefore it chose this sence because it was true thus farre Scotus Let us now see what Bellarmie saith Scotus tells us saith he that before the Councell of Lateran which was held in the yeare one thousand two hundred and fifteene transubstantiation was not beleeved as a point of faith this is confessed by Bellarmine to be the opinion of Scotus onely he would avoyd his testimonie with a minime probandum est Scotus indeed saith so but I cannot allow of it and then hee taxeth Scotus with want of reading as if this learned and subtile Doctor had not seene as many Councels and read as many Fathers for his time as Bellarmine The same Bellarmine saith that Scotus held that there was no one place of scripture so expresse which without the declaration of the Church would evidently compell a man to admit of Transubstantiation and this saith the Cardinall is not altogether improbable It is not altogether improbable that there is no expresse place of Scripture to proove Transubstantiation without the declaration of the Church as Scotus sayd for although the Scriptures seeme to us so plaine that they may compell any but a refractary man to beleeve them yet it may justly be doubted whether the Text be cleare enough to enforce it seeing the most acute and learned men such as Scotus was have thought the contrary thus farre Bellarmine unto whom I will adde the testimonie of Cuthbert Tonstall the learned Bishop of Durham His words are these Of the manner and meanes of the Reall presence either by Transubstantiation or otherwise perhaps it had beene better to leave every man that would be curious to his owne conjecture as before the councell of Lateran it was left and Master Bernard Gilpin a man most holy and
renowned among the Northerne English and one that was well acquainted with Bishop Tonstall his kinsman and Diocesan saith I remember that Bishop Tonstall often tolâ—e me that Pope Innocent the third had done very unadvâ—sedly in that hee had made the opinion of Transubstantiation an Article of Faith seeing in former times it was free to holde or refusâ— that opinion The same Bishop tolde me and many time ingenuously confessed that Scotus was of opinion that the Church might better and with more ease make use of some more commodious exposition of those words in the holy Supper and the Bishop was of the minde that we ought to speake reverently of the holy Supper but that the opinion of Transubstantiation might well be let alone This thing also the same Bishop Tonstall was wont to affirme both in words and writings that Innocent the third knew not what he did when hee put Transubstantiation among the Articles of Faith and he said that Innocentius wanted learned men about him and indeed saith the Bishop if I had beene of his councell I make no doubt but I might have beene able to have disswaded him from that resolution By this that hath beene sayd it appeares that Transubstantiation was neither holden nor knowne universally in the Church before the Lateran Councell twelve hundred yeares after Christ and that when it began to be received as a matter of Faith it was but beleeved upon the Churches authoritie and this Church virtually and in effect was Pope Innocent in the Lateran Councell twelve hundred yeeres and more after Christ before which time there was no certaintie nor necessity of beleeving it and the Councell might have chosen another sence of Christs words more easie and in all appearance more true there being no scripture sufficient to convince it Of Images and Prayer to Saints HOnorius of Authun in France saith There is none that is godly wise who will worship and adore the Crosse but Christ crucified on the crosse Roger Hoveden our native historian who lived in the beginning of this age condemned the adoration of Images for speaking of the Synodall Epistle written by the Fathers of the second Nicen councell wherein Image worship was established he tells us that Charles the King of France sent into this Isle a Synodall booke directed unto him from Constantinople wherein there were divers offensive passages but especially this one that by the joynt consent of all the Doctors of the East and no fewer than 300 Bâ—shops it was decreed that Images should be worshipped quod ecclesia Dei execratur saith he which the Church of God abhorres Guilielmus Altissiodorensis saith that for such and such reasons many doe say that neither we pray unto the Saints nor they pray for us but improperly in râ—spect we pray unto God that the merits of the Saints may hâ—lpe us Of Faith and Merit THomas Aquinas saith that workes be not the cause why a man is just before God but rather they are the execution and manifestation of his justice for no man is justâ—fied by workes but by the Habit of Faith infused yea justâ—fication is done by Faith onely And Aquinas in his commentary on the Galatians in the place alleadged tho at the first he mention such workes as are performed by the power of nature yet afterwards he speakes also of workes wrought by the power of grace and of such as Saint Iames mentions Chap. 2. saying Was not Abraham justified by workes but these were workes of grace and yet Thomas excludes from justification workes done in the state of Grace and saith Iustification is done by Faith onely Bonaventure saith that by onely Faith in Christs passion all the fault is remitted and without the faith of hâ—m no man is justified Velosillus in his animadversions upon the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church observeth that Scotus held not merit of Condigâ—ity And Vega saith that Thomas Aquinas the flower of the Schoole-Divines constantly affirmeth that a sinner can not merit his owne justâ—fication either of congruity or of condignity and thus have these men given in their verdict but now let us heare themselves speake There is no action of ours saith Scotus that without the speciall ordinance of God and his divine acceptation is worthy of the reward with which God rewardeth them that serve him in respect of the inward goodnesse that it hath from the causes of it because alwayes the reward is greater than the merit and strict Iustice doth not give a better thing for a thing of lesse value And againe hee saith That speaking of strict Iustice God is bound to none of us to bestow rewards of so high perfection as hee doth the rewards being so much greater in worth than any merits of ours The Prophet David saith the learned Archbishop of Armagh hath fully cleared this case in that one sentence Psalm 62.12 With thee Oh Lord is mercy for thou râ—wardâ—st every man according to his workes Originally therefore and in it selfe this reward proceedeth meerely from Gods free bounty and mercy but accidentally in regard that God hath tyed himselfe by his word and promise to conferre such a reward it now provâ—th in a sort to be an act of Iustice in regard of the faithfull performance of his promâ—se For promise amongst honest men is counted a due debt but the thing promised being free and on our part altogether undeserved if the promiser did not performe and proved not to be so good as his word hee could not properly be sayd to doe us wrong but rather to wrong himselfe by impayring his owne credit And therefore Aquinas confesseth That God is not hereby simply made a debtor to us but to himselfe in as much as it is requisite that his owne ordinâ—nce should be fullfilled William Bishop of Paris treating of prayer giveth us this Caveat Not to leane on the weake and fraile foundation of our owne merits but wholly denying our selves and distrusting our owne strength to relye on the sole favour and mercy of God and in so doing sayth hee the Lord will never faile us Cassander saith That both ancient aâ—d moderne with full consent professe to reposâ— themselves wholly upon the meere mercy of God and merit of Christ with an humble renunciation of all worthinesse in their owne workes and this doctrine Cassander derives through the lower ages of the Schoole-men and later writers Thomas of Aquine Durand Adrian de Trajecto afterwards Pope Adrian the sixth Clictoveus and delivers it for the voyce of the then present Church THE FOVRTEENTH CENTVRIE From the yeere of Grace 1300. to 1400. PAP WHat say you of this fourteenth Age PROT. In this Age learning began to revive for so it came to passe that divers learned men among the Greekes abhorring such cruelty as the Turkes used against their Countrey-men the Grecians left those parts and fled into Italy Now by their meanes the
of words as was fit or savoring of too much passion and violence and yet for all this both Gerson and Wicklâ—ffe be good men and worthy guides of Gods Church in their times And so I come from Gerson to Cameracensis from the Scholler to the Master for Petrus de Alliaco is willingly and respectfully acknowledged by Gerson to have been his Tutour and Instructer Petrus de Alliacâ— gave a Tâ—act to the Councell of Constance touching the Reformation of the Church there doth hee reprove many notable abuses of the Romanists and giveth advise how to represse them this treatise of the Cardinals is extant in Orthuinus Gratius his Fasciculus rerum expetendarâ—â— fugiendarum paginâ 206. c. There should not be multiplyed saith hee such variety of Images and Pictures in the Church there should not be so many Holy dayes there shâ—uld not bee so many Saints canonized such numbers and variety of religious persons is not expedientâ— there are so many orders of begging Friers that their state is burthensome to men hurtâ—ull to Hospitals and to the poore He saith that it was then a Proverbe The Church is come to that estate that it is not worthy to be ruled but by Reprobates yet withall he concludeth That as there were seven thousand who had not bowed to Baal so it is to be hoped there bee some which desire the reformation of the Church Now also lived Archdeacon Clemangies who in a set treatiâ—e freely painted forth the corrupt state of the Roman Church He wrote an Epistle to Gerard Maket a Doctor of Paris the argument whereof is this That wâ—e are not onely to depart from Babylon with our affections but with our bodily fecte now hee that commands this of such a place what dost thou thinke saith the same Clemangies hee would have said of that wherein not onely sound doctrine is not received but where such are cruelly persecuted as contradict their wâ—ls yea rather their madnâ—sse Speaking of their votaries hee saith What I pâ—ay yoâ— are Numeries now a dayes but Brâ—thel-houses and common Stews the harbours of wanton men where they satisfie their lusts that now the vayling of a Nunne is all one as if you prostituted her openly to bee a Whore Hee spoke excellently also in the matter of Generall Councels and so did Cardinall Câ—sanus who treating of Councels and the Pope delivereth these positions following That it is without all question that a Generall Councell properly taken is both superiour to the rest of the Patriarkes and also to the Roman Pope I beleeve saith Cusanus that to be spoken not absurdly that the Emperour himselfe in regard of the â—are and custody of preserving the faith committed unto him may Praeceptive indicere Synodum by his imperiall authority and command assemble a Synode when the great danger of the Church requireth the same Negligenâ—e aut contradicente Romano Pontifice The Pope either neglecting so to doe or resisting and contradicting the doing thereof Hee saith That the Romane Bishop hath not that power which many flatterers heape upon him to wit that hee alone is to determine and others only to consult or advise Whiles we defend saith Cusanus That the Pope is not universall Bishop but only the first Bishop â—ver others and whiles wee ground the power of sacred Councels upon the consent of the whole assembly and not upon the Pope wee maiâ—â—taine truth and give to every one his due honour and then concluding the former positions the Cardinall saith I observe little or nothing in ancient Monuments which agreeth not to these my assertions Now also lived Laurence Vaâ—la a learned man and a most excellent Divine as Trithemiâ—s calleth him hee was a Roman Patrician and Chanon of the Cathedrall Church of Saint Iohn of Laterane in Rome hee wrote a treatise of purpose against the forged donation of Constantine whereby the Pope challengeth his pretended Iurisdiction Hee pronounceth of his owne experience That the Pope himselfe doth make warre against peaceable people and soweth â—iscord betweene Cities and Princes that the Pope makes gaines not onely of the commâ—n wealth but even of the state Ecclesiasticall and of the hâ—ly Ghost aâ—d that later Ropes laboured to bee as foolish and wicked aâ— the ancient ones were holy and wise For this and the like freenesse of his speech and pâ—â—â— hee was dâ—iven into exile by the Pope I know indeed that Master Brereley is offended with us for challenging Cusâ—â—â—â— and Valla as witnesses on our behalfe and therefore hee would make his Reader beleeve that Valla being an eager enemy to the Pope can not bee an indifâ—erent witnesse but rather a partie and that both oâ— them retracted their opinions and submitted themselves to the Catholike Church and so they might without yeelding to the Romish faction hee saith they retracted but hee cannot tell when or before whom this Recantation was made or written perhaps it is written on the backe side of Constantines Donation Neither have wee corrupted Valla to make him a partie for us hee was an honest man and we take his testimony as it is recorded and commeth 〈◊〉 our hands he was not an enemy to the Pope but to the forgeries of the papacie and this madethem billet his name amongst such bookes as are forbidden and prohibited In the later end of this age lived Baptista Mantuanus and Franciscus Picuâ— Eaâ—le of Mirandula the Oration of Picus in the Councell of Lateran is extant wherein besides his taxing the behaviour of the Clergie hee useth these words That piety is almost sunke into superstition Hee held not the Popes sentence for an infallible Oracle of truth for hee saith that if the greater part offer as was done in the Councell at Ariminum which stood for the Arrian heresie to decree ought againsâ— the Scriptures wee are not in this case to follow the most voices but to joyne our selves with the lesser numbâ—r being sound in faith Yea we are rather saith he to beleeve a plaine countreyâ—man a child or an old woman if they speake according to the Scriptures rather than the Pope and a thousand of his Prelates speaking against the word of God That the Pope may erre hee sheweth by this Similitudeâ— Even as the naturall head may be sicke and noysome humours may flow from the braine into thâ— body Even so this Deputy-head to wit â—he Pope may be sicke and from hiâ— head-ship naughty opinions saith hee may bee derived and conveied inâ—o the body of the Church Hee was one who desired the Churches reformation for in the foresaid Oration in the Lateran Councell hee wisheth That the copies of the old and new Testament were compared with the ancient and best Originals and purged from such faults as they have contracted through trâ—ct of time or the neglect of the Transcribers and that the true and authenticke Histories were severed from the