Epistle of S. Leo but there is not a word in it of those he quotes Sect. 5. 41. He quotes Scotus as declaring that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not 42. To the same purpose he quotes Occham but I can finde no such thing in him 43. To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he saith no such thing 44. To prove that the Decree of the Lateran Council was but a pretended one he quotes Platina Many thing 's indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed leaving out the next words giving the reason of it which shewed that he meant not of Decrees of Faith but of raising Force to send to the Holy Land against the Saracens which was the cause of calling that Council The Pope when he saw the power of the Saracens to encrease in Asia called a Council c. Many things came then in consultation but nothing could be fitly decreed because both the Pisans and Genowayes by Sea and the Cisalpins by Land were at war among themselves c. 45. To prove that our own men have affirmed that Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture he quotes Suarez That Cajetan affirmed that the Article of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture when Suarez saith no such thing but onely this But of Catholiques Cajetan alone taught that secluding the authority of the Church those words This is my body sufficed not to confirm this truth 46. To the same purpose he quotes Canus who saith not that it is not expressed but not so express i.e. not plainly or clearly and ranks it with the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead and in his next Chapter passeth to things which belong to Christian Faith which are neither clearly nor obscurely in Scripture Not all things which pertain to Christian Doctrine are expressed in holy Writ For the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son the equality of three Persons in one substance and their distinction by relative proprieties you shall not finde so express in the Canonical Books wherefore as the Article of the Resurrection was contained in that I am the God of Abraham c. which afterward Christ expounded to the less intelligent so the Church by the Spirit of truth hath explicated some things which are had obscure in the holy Scriptures 47. He saith Henriquez affirms that Scotus saith Transubstantiation was not ancient when Henriquez saith no such thing 48. To prove that in Peter Lombards time Transubstantiation was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholique Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no and after Peter Lombard had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd he could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no he quotes these words If it be enquired what kinde of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kinde I am not able to define it Onely I know that it is not formall because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is changed into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former authorities seem to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted c. And saith they are a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was new not the Doctrine of the Church Which is a notable falsifying of that Author and the Doctor if he read him could not chuse but know he quoted him directly against his meaning For there were two Questions one whether the substance of the Elements be converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and this question alone pertains to what we believe in the point of Transubstantiation And this question Peter Lombard had treated of afore and resolved positively 1. That it is undoubtedly to be held that under the visible species the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us is received by the wicked and the contrary he counted a Heresie The next Section he entitles De Haeresi aliorum c. Of the Heresie of others who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in sign And thus he speaks of it There are other transcending the madness of the former Hereticks who measuring the power of God by the model of natural things do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth affirming that in the Altar is not the Body or Blood of Christ nor the substance of Bread and Wine converted into the substance of Flesh and Blood who take occasion of erring from the words of truth whence began the first Heresie against this truth among Christs Disciples It is the Spirit that quickens c. And they cite those words of S. Augustin Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. And there are other sayings also ministring fomitem to their madness The poor ye have alwayes with you but me not These and other sayings the aforesaid Hereticks use in maintenance of their Error Then he sets down his Proofs to the contrary which were the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article which having set down he concludes thus By these and other more it is manifest that the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of the Body and the substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood Having thus dispatched that first question in the next Section which is that which the Doctor quotes he comes to a second which is a meer School nicety touching the manner of this substantial change whether it be formal or substantial or of some other kinde And touching that he useth the words quoted by the Doctor I am not able to define it c. Nay and even in that too he quotes him fraudulently to abuse the Reader For these words which he sets down as Peter Lombards argument against the modus substantialis were onely set down as an Objection to which he there gives an answer which the Doctor conceals To which may be answered in this manner that the Body of Christ is not said to be made in that sense as if the Body which was form'd in the Virgins womb were form'd again but because the substance of Bread or Wine which afore was not the Body or Blood of Christ is by the celestial Word made his Body and Blood And a little after Therefore after Consecration there is not the substance of Bread or wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain And to one that should object against this how this can be he answers briefly A mystery of Faith may salubriter be
those sometimes unwritten c. But if our Lord be faithful in all his words c. without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity either to detract from the things that are written or to introduce any thing that is not written seeing our Lord hath said My sheep c. wherefore we also as heretofore we have ever had that determined in our mindes to avoid all voice or speech contrary to the Doctrine of our Lord so at this time c. But in all his discourse he hath no such words as the Dr. quotes for his to adde any thing to the Faith that is not there found 3. To the same purpose he quotes Theophilus Alexandrinus It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in Scripture when he spake likewise onely of a particular Heresie that Origen had devised of his own proud head against express Scripture viz. that Christ was at one time or other to lose his Kingdom I cannot know with what temerity Origen feigning such things and following not the authority of Scriptures but his own error c. But being ignorant that it is an instinct of a devilish spirit to follow the sophismes of humane mindes which words the Dr. craftily left out and to think any thing Divine extra Scripturarum authoritatem without the Scriptures authority 4. To the same purpose he quotes S. Athanasius The Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being immodestiae vecordia to speak those things which are not written when he spake it likewise onely of a particular Heresie contrary to Scripture viz. That Christs flesh was consubstantial to the Godhead If therefore ye be Disciples of the Gospels speak not against God iniquity but walk by the Scriptures But if ye will prate things dissonant from the Scripture why do ye contend with us who endure not either to speak or hear any thing beside what is written What is therefore the madness of your immodesty that ye speak things which are not written and think things that are dissonant from piety which words likewise the Dr. craftily left out as who presume to say that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial to the Deity 5. Against our veneration of the Images of Christ and his B. Mother and Heavenly Saints he quotes Lactantius Without all peradventure whereever an Image is meaning for worship there is no Religion when he knew Lactantius spake onely of worshipping with Divine honour the Idols of the Heathen Gods as his whole discourse afore and after manifests which it would be too long to set down 6. To the same purpose and in the same fraudulent manner he quotes Origen We ought rather to dye then pollute our Faith with such impieties when Origen spake onely of the worshipping of Idols of the Heathen Gods But the Christians not onely shun the Temples Altars and Idols of the Gods but go more readily to death lest with any excess or impiety they should altogether pollute that which they most rightly believe of God the Creator of all things 7. Against our giving the Communion in one kinde he saith The Primitive Church did Excommunicate them that did not receive the Sacrament in both kindes and quotes for it the Canon Comperimus when the Canon spake not of receiving the Sacrament by the Communicants but of the consummating of the Sacrifice by the Priest as appears by the reason given Because the division of one and the same Mystery or Sacrifice cannot be without great Sacriledge and by the title of the Canon The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without his Blood 8. To the same purpose he quotes S. Ambrose He who receives the Mystery otherwayes then Christ appointed that is saith the Doctor in one kinde when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord c. where to wrest it to his purpose he first corrupts the words for S. Ambrose saith not who Receives but who Celebrates it plainly meaning the Priest alone nor doth he say otherwayes then Christ appointed but otherwayes then it was given by him 2. He corrupts the sense with his ridiculous gloss devised out of his own brain without any least colour of ground for it in the place nay S. Ambrose gives another reason for it Quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt c. They who come without the discipline of tradition and conversation are guilty c. In his 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 9. To prove that all who believe the unity of substance and Trinity of persons in the Godhead are Catholiques he quotes the Imperial Law All who believe this Doctrine that is in the Father Son and holy Ghost c. are Christians and Catholiques when he could not but know that that Law meant not that they were Catholiques absolutely but onely as to those points for after that Law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Unity of the Godhead 10. To prove that in the Church of Rome there is a pretence made to a Power not onely to Declare but to Make new Articles of faith and new Creeds he quotes the Bull of Pope Leo X. condemning this Article of Luther It is not in the power of the Pope to constitute Articles of faith when Luthers word was not constituere but statuere i.e. to decide declare determine or settle Articles of Faith which may be without making them such 11. To the same purpose he quotes Turrecremata l. 2. c. 203. where he hath no such words as he is quoted for but cap. 107. he hath but then the words say not that the Pope hath power to make Articles of Faith nor do they mean any more but as the title of the Chapter proposeth to prove that to him belongs to declare or determine matters of Faith nor do they say absolutely as the quotes them The Pope is the measure and rule c. but onely that because the Pope is primus maximus Praelatorum ad eum maximè pertinebit c. To him most or above any other it will pertain to be the measure c. 12. To the same purpose he quotes Augustinus Triumphus who saith no such thing as he quotes him for viz. that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith or new Creeds nor did he mean that he could multiply any new Articles or put them into the Creed that were not alwayes of Faith and implicitely at least contained in holy Scripture as is manifest 1. from the reason given by him For in the Creed are put those things which universally pertain to Christian Faith which words are fradulently left out by the Doctor 2. From his express Doctrine in his Resolvendum There hath been one Faith of the
Ancients and Moderns 3. From what he saith Art 2. in resp ad 2. To adde a truth which is contained in holy Scripture to explicate or declare hath alwayes been lawful for the Church 13. To the same purpose he quotes Petrus de Ancorano who spake not of making new Articles of Faith as making opposeth declaring which was the sense for which he quoted him for this was his charge The Church of Rome pretends to a power not onely of declaring but of making new c. but onely of making them such quoad nos by declaring them to be of Faith as appears by his own explication The Pope may make new Articles of Faith that is that a thing ought now to be believed when afore it ought not so c. 14. To the same purpose he quotes Panormitan when he saith no such thing neither but rather the contrary viz. that the Pope cannot make but onely declare as would have appeared had the Dr. set down his words at length which he fraudulently curtail'd for these are his words The Pope can induce a new Article of Faith declaring this Divine right of which he had afore spoken and of this is inferred that this Constitution or Canon cum Christus looks back upon things past 15. To prove our corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers he saith That when not long since we printed Origen we left out that whole 6. Chap. of S. John and Origens Commentary upon it and so maim'd the Author for the same cause that is because Origen argued there against Transubstantiation A meer slander as is manifest by the very Protestant Editions for in the Edition of Basil by Froben Anno 1545 there was no Commentary at all upon John And in a later Edition of Basil 1620. his Comment upon John is set out in the same manner as it is in our Catholique Editions and no other viz. without any Comment either upon the 5 6 or 7. Chap. of that Gospel To the same purpose he quotes our Index Expurgatorius in which in S. Chrysostoms Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no Merit but what is given us by Christ. And the like he saith we have done to S. Ambrose and to S. Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press of Lyons complained of it to Junius that he was forced to blot out many sayings of S. Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lions 1559. so that we think it not sufficient to feign some convenient sense when they are opposed in Disputation but the words which make against us we wholly leave out of our Editions Nay saith he we correct the very Tables or Indexes made by the Printers or Correctors c. A notorious slander as appears 1. Because the Index Expurgatorius was not appointed till the end of the Council of Trent which was in Anno 1563. and therefore that could put no force upon Saurius for maiming S. Ambrose in Anno 1559. 2. Because the Index Expurgatorius extended not to any Writings or Works of the Fathers but onely to the Indices or marginal Notes or other corruptions made by Protestants as is confessed by his own Author Junius that published the Index for in his Preface to that Book he makes this Objection But here the Fathers are not purged and answers it 1. That yet by the purging of later Authors the truth of Doctrine and History is in many places expurged 2. That what they dare not with the Fathers they practise upon us Protestant Printers and Writers and with their little forks they thrust out our Annotations in the Margin and Sayings in the Indices although consonant to the Fathers minde For example saith Junius In the Index of S. Chrysostom printed at Basil this is commanded to be blotted out The Church is not built upon the Man but his Faith And likewise this There is no merit but what is given us by Christ. 17. To the same purpose he quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying to Pope Pius V. Expurgari emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipuè veterum Patrum Scripta Thou hast taken care for the purging of the Writings of all Catholique Writers and especially of the ancient Fathers most shamefully corrupting the sense of the Quotation by leaving out the words that follow Haereticorum aetatis nostrae faeâ—ibus contaminata venenis infecta Contaminated with the dregs and infected with the poisons of the Hereticks of our age 18. Against the power of the Church to adde any Articles to the Creed he quotes the Ephesine Canon That it should not be lawful for any man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed then that which was desined by the Nicene Council c. when that Canon did not mean adding Articles to the Faith defined by that Council for how could the supreme power binde its own hands or make that unlawful for another General Council which the Council of Constantinople had already done in adding divers Articles to the Nicene Creed but publishing any Creed repugnant by adding or detracting to the Nicene 19. To prove that the Council of Constance declared not for the Popes Supremacy he quotes John Gerson as saying That the Council of Constance did abate those heights to which slattery had advanced the Pope and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope which afterwards moderate men durst not speak whereas he saith no such words nor had any meaning against the Popes Supremacy for this is all he saith Fallor si non ante celebrationem hujus S. Constantiensis Synodi c. I am deceived if afore the celebrating of this holy Council of Constance this Tradition which slattery suggested viz. that the Pope was supreme Monarch even in Temporals that he was above the Law could take away mens rights from them c. had not so possessed the mindes of the most that he that should have taught the contrary would have been noted or condemned of Heretical pravity Take a sign of this that after the determination and practice of the same Council there are found who fear not to assert openly such things 20. He puts down these for the words of the Council of Trent Although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not believe it necessary c. whereas the words of the Council are not with any such Antithesis but thus onely Nor therefore is antiquity to be condemned if sometime they used that custome in some places For as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause of their so doing according to the condition of that time so truly it is without question to be believed that they did it with no necessity of salvation 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 21. He quotes Bishop Fisher as saying That