the words the presence of Christ depēding vpon their efficacy which they haue by the institution of Christ as they are the forme of this Sacrament which might bee separated frō the signification though de facto it be not Caiet in com 3. p. q. 75. a. 1. And soe Caietane though hee thinke not the bare signification of the words without the authority of the Church sufficient to proue the presence of Christ's body in the Sacramēt yet he doubteth not to affirme with the Councell of Florence alleadging the very words thereof quod ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi substantia vini in sanguinem conuertuntur That by the power of the very words the substance of the Bread is turned into the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into his bloud Soe as Caietan is nothing for you but very much against you 14. But yet you goe on confidently telling vs that you will produce Cardinals Bishops and Schoolemen to testify that there are noe words in scripture to proue transubstantiation Secondly that those words This is my Body are not of the essence of the Sacrament Thirdly that the ancient Fathers did not beleeue the substance of the Sacramental bread to bee conuerted into Christ's real flesh Fourthly that transubstantiation was not beleeued de fide aboue 1000. yeares after Christ Which fower points how well you proue I must now see Sir Humphrey First noting by the way that though you sett them downe seuerally as if you meant to proue them in order one after another bringing one Cardinal one Bishop and one Schooleman at least for euery one yet you neither obserue order nor soe alleadge authors as shall appeare Though for the first of your 4. points you neede not many authors if you adde the word expresly thus that there bee no words in scripture to proue transubstantiation expresly Which word if you putt in your proposition may passe for true if not it is false and without author For though all Catholiques saue onely Caietan agree that the words of consecration of themselues proue the reality of Christ's presence yet all doe not soe agree that of themselues they proue Transubstantiation For some thinke they might bee verified though the substance of bread should remaine together with Christ's body Yet all agree that out of the words as they are vnderstood by the Church transubstantiation is also proued You might therefore haue spared Gabriel's authority which you beginne with in these words How the body of Christ is in the Sacrament is not expressed in the canon of the bible Which I would haue spared also but because I meane to lay open your falshood in alleadging the same by halfes Cab. lect 40. For thus hee saith Notandum quod quamuis expresse tradatur in scriptura quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur a fidelibus sumitur tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi an per conuersionem alicuius in ipsum an sine conuersione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non inuenitur It is to be noted that though it bee expresly deliuered in Scripture that the body of Christ is truely contained vnder the species of bread and receiued by the faithfull yet is it not soe expressed how the body of Christ is there whither by conuersion of any thing into it or whither it beginneth to bee there without conuersion or turning the substance and accidents of bread remayning In which saying of Gabriels as you left out the former part because it made clearely against you soe you might also haue left out the later as making nothing against vs as is euident of it selfe without farther declaration 15. Your next author is Cardinal de Aliaco who you tell vs thinketh it possible that the bread might remayne with Christ's body and that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue Whereto I answeare what then what is this to your purpose if you were a Lutheran you might haue a little colour but seing you are a Caluinist or Protestant or some such I know not what it maketh nothing at all for you not euen in shew But bee you Caluinist Protestant Lutheran or what you will it maketh not for you Suppose that may be possible more easy c. What is that to our purpose that is not matter of faith for Faith doth not stand teaching metaphysicall possibilityes or impossibilityes what may bee or not bee but what is or is not and which is chiefly to bee considered though this author thinke that way more possible and more easy to be conceiued according to humane capacity yet euen heerein hee preferreth the iudgment of the Church before his owne as his very words by you cited doe testify For he saith that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue if it could accord which the determination of the Church But what is this authority to you Sir Humphrey Which of your 4. points doth it proue Doth it say that transubstantiation is not proued out of Scripture or that the words THIS IS MY BODY is not of the essence of the Sacrament and soe of the rest not a word of all these By which it is plaine you onely looke to say somewhat but care not what 16. After this Cardinal you bring Bishop Fisher whom you might better haue called Cardinal Fisher then some others whom in this booke you call Cardinals For he was created Cardinal indeede though hee had the happines to receiue the Lawrel and purple Robes of Martyrdome in heauen before he could come to receiue the honour of his capp and Scarlet robes of his Cardinalship heere on earth But you say out of him that there bee noe words written whereby it may be proued that in the Masse is made the very presence of the body bloud of Christ You cite him in English and though in the margent you put the Latine a little more truly whereas you say in the English in the Masse the Latine is in nostra Missa in our Masse wherein you shall find some difference in this place yet you putt the whole sentence soe lamely that a man would thinke the Bishop by your citing him to be quite of another mind then hee is For you would make one thinke he did not beleeue the real presence could bee proued out of scripture Io. Roffen cont captiu Babylo c. 4. Whereas the 4. Chapter of the Booke heere cited is wholy imployed in proofe thereof against Luther out of the very words hoc est corpus meum this is my body by which hee destroyeth Lutheran companation and consequently establisheth our transubstantiation and teacheth plainely both there and throughout this whole booke that Christ himselfe did change the bread into his owne body and this out of the very words of scripture but in this 10. chapter which you cite he proueth that the true sēse of the
Thus Scotus not onely teaching transubstantiation himself but prouing it out of S. Ambrose who maketh most frequent mention of the change and conuersion of the very nature of bread Which is the thing expressed by the word transubstantiatiō By which it is plaine that Scotus must haue held this Doctrine for the substance thereof to bee as ancient as S. Ambrose at the least and if soe ancient then euen from the beginning His meaning therefore in saying it was determined of late in the Councel of Lateran is onely this that whereas the words of consecration may be vnderstood of the real presence of our Blessed Sauiour's body either by transubstantiation that is by change of the bread into his body or otherwise soe that the substance of the bread doe remaine the Church hath determined that the words are to bee vnderstood in the former sense as may bee gathered by his manner of speaking of the Churches expounding of Scriptures which he saith she doth by the same Spirit wherewith the faith was deliuered to Vs to wit by the Spirit of truth V. Scot. in 4. Sent. dist 11.9.3 Which is nothing against the antiquity of transubstantiation And though it were also the cōmon beleife of the Church from the beginning yet it might well be said not to haue beene de substantia fidei Yribarne speaketh because it had not beene soe plainely deliuered nor determined in any Councel till Greg. the 7. his tyme wherein it was first defined against Berengarius and that but by a particular or prouincial Romane Councel Which notwithstanding the article in it selfe might bee ancient though not soe expresly deliuered as I declared more amply in the first chapter 25. You haue little helpe then Sir Humphrey from Alfonsus a Castro Scotus and Yribarne which although you had yet were not that sufficient for discharge of your credit you hauing promised vs acient Fathers against transubstantiation which these three are not for one of them to wit Yribarne is perhaps now aliue another to wit Alfonsus a Castro liued not past 100. yeares agoe the third to wit Scotus about 300. yeares since which is farr from the antiquity of Fathers as wee ordinarily speake of them Wherefore bethinking your selfe at last you bring vs a Father or two to wit S. Aug. and Theodoret telling vs that S. Aug. is soe wholy yours that Maldonat expounding a place in the 6. of S. Iohn saith that he is perswaded that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes and seene that Caluin expounded the same place as he did he would haue changed his mind and for Theodoret you say that Valentia obseruing him to say that the consecrated elements did remaine in their proper substance and shape and figure he maketh the like answeare that it is noe meruaile if one or more of the ancient fathers before the question was debated did thinke lesse considerately and truely of transubstantiation This is all that euer you haue out of the Fathers Which how little it is and how much to your shame shall vpon examination appeare Aug er 26. in Io. 26. For S. Augustine then what is it that he saith in fauour of you in expounding that verse of the 6. of S. Iohn where our Sauiour saith Your Fathers haue eaten Manna and are dead he that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer He saith that their Fathers that is the naughty and vnbeleeuing people of the Iewes dyed to wit spiritually in their soules because they in eating Manna did consider onely what it presented to their outward senses and not what it represented vnto their minds by faith whereas the good men among them as Moyses Aaron Phinees and others who he saith were our Fathers and not theirs did not dye to wit spiritually because they did not cōsider it onely according to the sense but according to faith remēbring that it was but a figure and a figure of this heauenly bread which we haue as the same holy Father saith expresly in the same place Hunc panem significauit manna Manna signified this Bread and he saith it is the same of Iudas and other bad Christians which receiue of the Altar and by receiuing dye because they receiue it ill Doth not this make much for you now Sir Humphrey Doe not you see how wholy S. Aug. is yours How he saith that Manna was a figure of this our heauenly bread that we receiue it from the altar Doth not all this make finely for you but you will say then if it make nothing for vs why doth Maldonate say that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes hee would haue interpreted otherwise I answeare not that this interpretation is for you but because the other is more against you to wit thus Whereas S. Augustine giues the reason why they that did eate Manna dyed to bee because they did not eate it with faith Maldonate maketh the difference to bee not soe much betweene the persons which did eate as betweene the foode which they did eate saying that our Sauiour maketh this a special prerogatiue of the B. Sacrament farre aboue the Manna that this holy Sacrament giueth life to them that eate it which the Manna did not giue of it selfe And indeede with dew reuerence be it spoken to S. Augustine's authority this interpretation is more sutable to the text and discourse of our Sauiour in that whole chapter which is to compare and preferre that true bread which he said his heauenly Father did giue before that of Manna which Moyses gaue their Fathers It is more also against the Haeretiques of these tymes in reguard it is more for the honour of the Blessed Sacrament which they labour might maine to depresse and that is the very reason why Caluin rather followeth the former interpretation not for any loue to Truth or reuerence which hee beareth to S. Augustines authority 27. How false then and absurd is that scoffing speach of yours Sir Humphrey in the next leafe of your booke where you say ironically thus S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the corporal presence For he would haue changed his opinion if he had liued in these dayes as if forsooth Maldonate did say that S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the reall presence and that he would haue changed his Opinion concerning the same if he had liued now in these tymes You heereby insinuating as if S. Augustine thought otherwise thereof then we now teach But how grosly false this is may appeare plainely by what I haue heere said to wit that it is not the reall presence whereof either S. Aug. or Maldonate speaketh but how they that eate Manna haue dyed and they that eate the body of our Lord shall liue according to our Sauiour's saying which is cleane a different thing Wherein Sir HVMPHREY you be LINDE S. Aug. somewhat but Maldonate you be Linde much more by making as if he acknowledged S. Augustine to bee against the real presence and that he should
by office As for Succession in doctrine to speake properly and clearely the Succession is not to be considered in the doctrine it selfe for that must be alwaies the same but it is to bee considered in the Men. Soe that they succeede one another not onely in place and office but also in the same Doctrine that is holding the same Doctrine which their Predecessors haue held as they hold the same place 3. This premised which cannot be denied I thinke noe man wil be able in all that the Knight saith in this Section to finde soe much as a shaddow of Succession either in person or Doctrine either against vs or for himself Wherefore I shall endeauour onely to discouer his falshood and corruptions in charging vs with ancient haeresies For Latine seruice then that it should be first brought in by Vitalian it is a most strange absurdity for this knight to auerre such a knowne falshood vpon noe other authority then Volphiu's a professed haeretique and who can haue noe other ground but because that Pope liued about the yeare 666. which number is the name of the beast in the Apocalypse though if he that is Wolphius would make a mystery of the yeare wherein S. Vitalian liued I see not why he should take the 666. which was the eleuenth of his Popedome rather then the yeare 655. or 669. which were the first and last yeares thereof which being soe ridiculously false I will forbeare to bring proofes against it least I may giue occasion to any man to thinke that there is any the least likelyhood in it For during those 600. and odd yeares what other Liturgies were there in the Latine Church but Latine of which the very name of Latine Church giueth sufficient testimony if not Latine lett this Knight or his freind Wolphius say what Language was in vse before 4. As for the Osseni whom our Knight would place vpwards towards the Apostles yet after their tyme for he goeth ascendeing vpwards as he saith he is notably mistaken in the tyme. For Epiphanius maketh them one of the seauen Sects which were among the Iewes before Christ's coming For thus hee saith Post relatas Samaritarum superius Graecorum indicatas Sectas septem fuerunt haereses apud Iudaeos ante Christi in carne aduentum In principio cap. 14. Hauing related and pointed out the Sects of the Samaritans and Graecians there were seauen heresies among the Iewes before the coming of Christ in flesh And then reckoning and treating of the heresies in order in the 19. chap. he cometh to this of the Osseni the very title being this Contra Ossenos Sextam Iudaism◠haeresim Against the Osseni the sixt heresy of Iudaisme Besides for the matter I onely say that reading that 19. heresy of Epiphanius which hee citeth the title whereof is Of the Osseni twice ouer and the second tyme yet more attentiuely then the first I could not find any such word as the Knight citeth out of him to wit that there was no neede to make a prayer in a knowne tongue Indeede it was one of Elxais heresies who liued long after in Traian's tyme and whom S. Epiphanius ioyneth with the Osseni that men must not pray towards the East as then was the generall custome of the Church Which error is not to bee compared with the least of a hundred which our Heretiques now adayes maintaine and yet they forsooth make noe matter of because they are not fundamentall 5. For the place of S. Ambrose if a Catholique should vrge him or his Ministers with an authority out of that worke they would make answeare it were not S. Ambrose his and they would fill their margents with citations taken out of our authors Which exception though I might in like sort make yet I doe not because the author is ancient though not knowne nor his doctrine in all things soe currant But for this place the Knight hath soe mangled glossed it yet putting all in a different letter as if they were the author's words that when I came to reade the author and see him soe chāged I beganne to thinke whether that were the place But finding that there could be noe other and that it is like in some words I concluded that this must be it The author then commenting vpon the 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where S. Paul speaketh of some that did vse the guift of tongues for ostentation saith thus Hi ex Hebraeis erant qui aliquando Syra lingua plaerumque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus vtebantur ad commendationem gloriabantur enim se dici Hebraeos propter meritum Abrahae These were of the Hebrews who sometymes vsed the Syriack but most part the Hebrew in their treatises that is speaches or exhortations or Oblations for ostentation For they did boast that they were called Hebrews for the merit of Abraham These are the words of the author truely reported and truely translated Whereas the knight put this praeface that there were certaine Iewes among the Graecians as namely the Corinthians which words are not in this author Then he goeth on thus who did celebrate the diuine Seruice and Sacraments c. Whereas in the author there is neither the word celebrate nor the word diuine Seruice much lesse the word Sacraments all that hath any shew of a thing like is that word oblationibus which signifieth offering whereof some may be made by Lay men and women as the Puritane Ministers finde full oft to their profit without any celebration or Sacraments the word tractatibus signifieth speaches or exhortations by word or writing and soe S. Aug. calleth the expositors of Scriptures tractatores de doct Chr. Vinc. Lirin aedu haere cap. 27. Lastly whereas the author declared the end for which they vsed those tongues to wit for ostentation bragging that they were Hebrewes for the meritt of Abraham this knight leaueth all that out and putteth in these words of his owne which the common people vnderstood not as if they were the author's words Now though this authority doe not import much either one way or other yet a man may by it see the honesty and fidelity of this knight who in all this sentence which he maketh 9. lines in his booke he hath not one word right cited but onely these Sometymes in the Syriacke and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue which being taken alone what sense can they haue and yet how many lines a man is faine to write to lay open his naughty dealinge 6. Another point of our doctrine to wit transubstantiation hee draweth from the Haeretiques Heliesaitae which fained a twofold Christ one in heauen another in earth out of Theodoret. And from one Marcus an Haeretique who by his inuocation ouer the Sacramental cupp as the knight saith caused the wine to appeare like bloud out of S. Irenaeus And lastly from the Capharnaits in Christ's tyme out of his owne braine and soe cōcludeth our Succession in
Ghospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of the Church then the bare words of scripture and proueth it by this that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and vse of the Church noe man can be able to proue that any Priest now in these tymes doth consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Masse that is Masse in these tymes Not saith hee that this matter is now doubtfull but that the certainty thereof is had not soe much out of the words of the Ghospel as of the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of soe long tyme which they haue left to posterity For saith hee againe though Christ of bread made his body and of wine his bloud it doth not follow by force of any woord there sett downe that wee as often as wee shal attempt any such thing shall doe it which vnlesse it bee soe said we cannot hee certaine thereof These are his very words where you see how together he deliuereth two points of Catholique doctrine the one of the real presence the other of tradition for vnderstanding of the Scriptures Neither doth he say that the reall presence in our Masse now a dayes is not proued out of Scripture but not out of it alone without the interpretatioÌ„ of the Fathers which wee acknowledge generally necessary in the exposition of Scriptures neither doe you therefore rightly argue the real presence is not proued soe much out of the bare words of Scripture as out of the interpretation of Fathers and Tradition of the Church ergo not out of scripture This I say is an idle argument For the Father's interpretation Tradition of the Church Doth but deliuer vs the sense of the Scripture 17. What then haue you heere out of Bishop Fisher to proue any of your 4. points not one word For if his words did proue any thing they should proue against the real presence not against transubstantiation which is your coÌ„trouersy And for those other words which you bring out of this same holy Bishop and Martyr for a conclusion thus non potest igitur per vllam Scripturam probari it cannot bee proued by any scripture they discouer your dishonesty most of all For by breaking of the sentence there you would make your Reader beleeue they had relation to the words next before by you cited as if the Bishop did say that it could not bee proued by any scripture that Christ is really present in our Masse whereas there is a whole leafe betweene these two places but the onely bare recital of the Bishops words shall serue for a coÌ„futation which are these Non potest igitur per vllam ScripturaÌ„ probari quod aut Laicus aut Sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguineÌ„ atque Christus ipse confecit quum necâ—stud in scripturis contineatur It cannot therefore bee proued by any Scripture that either Lay man or Priest as often as hee shall goe about that busynes shall in like manner of bread and wine make the body and bloud of Christ as Christ himselfe did seeing that neither that is contained in Scriptures By which it is plaine that his drift is onely to proue that there is noe expresse words in scripture whereby it is promised that either Priest or Lay man shall haue power to coÌ„secrate that though Christ did himself coÌ„secrate coÌ„manded his Apostles soe to doe in remeÌ„brance of him that yet he did not adde any expresse promise that the same effect should alwaies follow wheÌ„soeuer any man should offer to consecrate Which is not against vs. For we gather that power to pertaine to the Apostles Successors in Priesthood out of the words Concil Trid. Sess 22. q. 1. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem not barely but as they haue beene euer vnderstood by the Church which is so farre from being against vs that wee might rather vrge it against you vpon the same occasion that Bishop Fisher doth to wit for proofe of the necessity of traditions and authority of the Church for vnderstanding of scriptures And soe by this it is manifest how much you haue abused this holy Bishop's meaning as you doe other two Bishops that follow 18. The one is Gul. Durandus Bishop of Maunde out of whom it seemeth you would proue the words This is my body not to bee of the essence of this Sacrament For what els you would haue with him I see not but specially because hauing cited him thus in English Christ blessed the bread by his heauenly benediction and by vertue of that word the bread was turned vnto the substance of Christ's body Then you putt these words in Latine tunc confecit cum benedixit them he made it when hee blessed it Whereby you seeme to put the force of this testimony in those words as if by them you would proue out of Durandus that Christ did not consecrate by the words this is my body but by that blessing But Durand himself shall disproue you Sir Knight For thus he saith Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua conuertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM He blessed it by the heauenly blessing and power of the word by which the bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ Durand rat cap. 41. n. 14. to wit THIS IS MY BODY Hoc est corpus meum Which last words I would gladly know Sir Humphrey why you cut of but I neede not aske for any man may see it was because you would not haue that powerful benediction whereof this authors speaketh to consist in those sacred words but Durand both in this very senteÌ„ce and often in the same place attributeth most plainely that power to those very words not to any other blessing as may appeare in that he saith that wee doe blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis By that power which Christ hath giuen to the words 19. Odo Caemeracensis is the other Bishop that followeth whom for the same purpose you cite and as much to the purpose his words are these as you bring them Christ blessed the bread and then made that his body which was first bread and soe by blessing it became flesh for otherwise hee would not haue said after he had blessed it this is my body vnlesse by blessing it he had made it his body Which words you putt in the margent in Latine imperfectly and translate euen them corruptly Benedixit suum corpus You translate Christ blessed bread qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro which in true English is thus That which was bread before by blessing is made flesh You translate otherwise as may appeare by your words though I see not to what end you should soe
he bringeth these which you could not but see Wherefore in this you come short of the very Minister's honesty How little then must you needs haue Lastly I answeare this very authority is against you in the two things in controuersy betweene vs to wit the real presence and transubstantiation both which it alloweth and is against vs onely in one not soe properly in controuersy to wit in that it saith this change is wrought not by the words this is my body but by the benediction that goeth before Which benediction it doth not say whether it were a word or a deede and it is as like to bee some word as otherwise but whether word or deede it is as easy to consecrate by these words this is my body as by any other words or outward deede Soe as herein Sir Humphrey you haue noe helpe from any man eyther Salmeron or the Graecians or euen your freind Chamier for he discouereth your bad dealing 22. After this matter of the Blessing you come backe againe to the proofe of transubstantiation out of Scriptures telling vs that Bellarmine saith it is not altogether improbable that there is noe expresse place of Scripture to proue it without the declaration of the Church as Scotus said for though saith Bellarmine that place which we brought seeme soe plaine that it may compell a man not refractory yet it may iustly bee doubted whether it bee soe or noe seing the most learned and acute men as Scotus haue thought the contrary In which words Bellarmine saith but what we granted before to wit that though the words of consecration in the plaine connatural and obuious sense inferre transubstantiation yet because in the iudgment of some learned men they may haue another sense which proueth onely the real presence without transubstantiation it is not altogether improbable that without the authority of the Church they cannot enforce a man to beleeue transubstantiation out of them What of all this nothing to your purpose Sir Knight though in translating this saying of Bellarmines you haue corrupted it in two places The one that whereas Bellarmine said one scripture or place of scripture which he brought to proue transubstantiation was soe plaine as to enforce a man not refractory You change the singular number into the plural as if Bellarmine had said the Scriptures were soe plaine c. Which is a corruption of yours thereby insinuating as if Bellarmine taught the Scriptures to be plaine and with out difficulty soe as euery body may vnderstand them which indeed is an ordinary saying of you Protestants but as ordinarily denied by vs Catholiques The other is that whereas Bellarmine saith men most learned and acute as Scotus was You say the most learned and acute men such as Scotus Which word the you cannot but know alters the sense much For it importeth as if the better part of learned and acute men went that way which is false and contrary to the Cardinal's words and meaning 23. You tell vs now in the next place that you will proceede from Scriptures to Fathers as if you had said mighty matters out of scripture not hauing indeede said one word out of it either for your selfe or against vs. Well let vs see what you say out of the Fathers Alfonsus a Castro say you was a diligent reader of the Fathers yet after great study and search returnes this answeare of the conuersion of the body and bloud of Christ there is seldome mention in the Fathers But Sir you are noe diligent reader nor faithfull interpreter of Alfonsus a Castro For his words as you your selfe putt them downe in Latine in the margent are thus Alphon a Castro lib. 8. verbo Indulgent De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio That is Of the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is sedome mention in ancient writers Wherein he saith true and you most false For though of transubstantiation there be rare mention yet of the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention as Bellarmine sheweth at large And herein it is that you shew your selfe a faithlesse interpreter de Euchar. l. 3. cap. 20. But if a man consider Castro his meaning he shall find you to haue abused that much more then his words For his drift in that place is to shew that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writes of a thing or plaine testimony of scripture that yet the vse and practize of the Church is sufficient bringing for an example this point of transubstantiation whereof he saith there is seldome mention and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne whereof saith he there is more seldome mention and then maketh his inference vpon it thus yet who but an Haeretique will deny these things you might then as well Sir Humphrey and better too in Castro his iudgment haue denied the holy Ghost to proceede from the Sonne then the bread to be transubstantiated into Christ's body And herein it is that you shew your selfe noe diligent nor vnderstanding reader of Castro 24. After him cometh one Yribarne a disciple of Scotus whose words you also corrupt in the translation which it is enough to tell you of For the matter he saith it was of the substance of faith in the primitiue Church that Christ was really present vnder the formes of bread and wine yet was it not soe of transubstantiation wherein he seemeth to hold with his Master Scotus Who was of opinion that transubstantiation was not a point of faith till the Councell of Lateran For which you your self confesse he is censured by Bellarmine and Suarez which were answeare enough For as I told you in the beginning wee doe not bind our selues to defend euery singular opinion of one or two Doctors contrary to the common opinion of others But besides I answeare that Scotus plainely auerreth transubstantiation and proueth it out of the ancient Fathers who vse the very word of conuersion which is all one with transubstantiation For thus he saith in a certaine place Respondeo quod nec panis manet contra primam opinionem nec annihilatur vel resoluitur in materiam primam Sâ—â—t 4. dist 1â— 9.3 contra secundam opinionem sed conuertitur in corpus Christi Et ad hoc multum expresse videtur loqui Ambrosius cuius vndecim authoritates supra adductae sunt plures habentur de consecrat dist 2. I answeare that neyther the bread remayneth against the first opinion nor is annihilated or resolued in to materia prima against the second opinion but is changed into the body of Christ And to this purpose S. Ambrose seemeth to speake very expresly out of whom 11. authorityes are brought before and more are to bee had de consecr dist 2. S. Amb. de iis qui myst initiant cap. 9 de Sacrament lib. 4. cap. 3. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1.
that Ap. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 49. Sect. 2. Non est attendendum ad naturam eorum quae videntur sed credendum mutationi quae hîc fit ex gratia Wee must not consider the nature of those things which are seene but beleeue the change which is heere made by grace as also that other place where he noteth it for an haeresy springing vpp among the Grecians of some that did deny the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Christ Eucharistiam oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Saluatoris nostri IESV CHRISTI But not to stand longer vpon it Dialog 3. vt habeatur ap Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 46. sect 1. heere is enough I trow to make it euident that Theodoret in this point agreeth with other Fathers and the whole Catholique Church 30. And soe much for these two fathers S. Aug. and Theodoret which are the onely ancient authors it seemeth you can find of your selfe But because you would make your Reader thinke there bee more for you And that our authors acknowledge soe much I must examine what you say out of Cusanus for that purpose for he is the onely author which you heere bring Thus then you say Their learned Cusanus is not soe reserued in his opinion of the Fathers he speakeht plainely and openly that certaine of the ancient Diuines are found of this mind that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantiated or changed in nature but remaineth still and is clothed with another substance more noble then it selfe Soe Cusanus as you cite him Whereby you would make it seeme as if Cusanus taught the Fathers to bee against transubstantiation and euen as if it were Cusanus his owne opinion For though you doe not say it expresly yet you alleadge him in such manner that any man would thinke it But in this you play your part as you are wont to doe For first where doth Cusanus speake one word of the Fathers he speaketh indeed of some ancient Diuines but of Fathers not a word this then is false which you say that Cusanus is not soe reserued in his opinion of the Fathers seeing he is soe reserued as not once to name them Secondly for that which you say of certaine ancient Diuines it is true Cusanus hath somewhat to that purpose but not iust as you say For these are his words Si quis intelligeret panem non transubstantiari sed superuestiri nobiliori substantia prout quidam veteres Theologi intellexisse reperiuntur qui dicebant non solum panem sed corpus Christi esse in Sacramento c. If any man should vnderstand the bread not to bee transubstantiated but to bee ouerclothed with a more noble substance as some ancient Diuines are found to haue vnderstood who said that not onely bread but the body of Christ is in the Sacrament c. Which last words of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament you leaue out because they make as much or more against your selfe then the former of the remayning of bread against vs. But for the ancient Diuines you needed not haue gon soe farre as Cusanus you might haue their names and errours in our late Schoolemen Suar. disp 49. sect 2 3 4. Thirdly concerning Cusanus his owne opinion there can bee nothing more manifest then his true coÌ„stant beleife of transubstaÌ„tiation Excit lib. 6. edit Basâ—â— 1565. pag. 522. lib. 4. p. 446. in this very place hee saith ita manent accidentia vt prius sed substantia conuersa est The accidents remaine as before but the substance is changed And in another place Huius sacramenti institutio ita facta est per Christum quod panis in corpus Christi vinum in sanguinem conuertitur pro esca spirituali sub speciebus sensibilibus The institution of this Sacrament was soe made by Christ that the bread is changed into the body of Christ and wine into his bloud for spiritual foode vnder the sensible species or accidents And there he goeth on with a large excelleÌ„t discourse expressing all things now in controuersy as transubstantiatioÌ„ I meane the very word Concomitancy the efficacy of the very words Christ's manner of presence whole in the whole host whole in euery part thereof illustrating and prouing all by reasons and examples of natural things and this not briefely or in one place onely but soe largely in soe many places as a man by onely opening the booke without an index may presently find enough to shew his Catholique beleife confute your errors What strange malice and boldnes then is this Sir Humphrey soe to leade your reader into tentation by making him beleeue Cusanus is for you I omitt to note your ignorance in citing Cusanus his booke Exercit that is either Exercitiorum or Exercitationum whereas he hath noe such worke but Excitationum Which by your great ignorance euery where shewed I haue good reason to thinke not to bee the Printers fault but yours But heere is an end with Cusanus in whom you haue noe refuge more then you had in the Fathers 31. Now then hauing done with Scriptures and Fathers you come to the Schoolemen telling vs that Scotus taught that before the Councel of Lateran transubstantiation was not beleeued as a point of faith Which Bellarmine disalloweth in him Suarez saith that the Schoolemen which teach that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not very ancient are to be corrected such as Scotus was Of Durand you say that in like manner hee some of his fellow Schoolemen after him professed openly that the material part or substance of the Sacramental bread was not conuerted but that Bellarmine condemneth this doctrine for heretical yet excusing Durand from being an Haeretique because he was ready to submitt to the iudgment of the Church Then letting passe Wickliffe and the Waldenses you say our owne Proctours Osiensis and Gaufridus tell you that there were others in those dayes who taught that the substance of bread did remaine and this opinion say they as you cite them was not to be reiected Lastly to come to this last age you say Tonstall thinkes it had beene better to leaue euery man to his owne coniecture for the manner of the reall presence whether it bee by transubstantiation or otherwise as it was before the Councell of Lateran And Erasmus saith it was defined but of late by the Church These are all your authors and your whole discourse out of Schoolemen 32. To which I say first for Scotus that I haue sufficiently answeared that of him before in answearing the testimony of Yribarre his Schollar Sup. hoc §. n. 24. where I shewed that he meant not soe much of the substance of the doctrine for hee acknowledgeth the antiquity of the conuersion of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and bloud as either of the
word trāsubstantiatiō or of the proof thereof by determining the sense of scripture And this it may be is it wherin Tonstall also followeth him If they meane otherwise the matter is not great for one single author or two contradicted by others carry noe credit with vs in matter of beleife though to say truely Tonstall was noe Schooleman but a Canonist as Cardinal Pole answeareth him very well by letter vpō another certaine occasiō wherein he did swarue from the rules of true Diuinity as I haue seene by the letters of both in both their owne hands Erasmus is noe author to be answeared nor named as you know I haue often told you 33. For the Waldenses and Wickliffe you doe well to lett them passe But the very naming of them shewes you had a good mind to fill out your number of Schoolemen with thē though for the Waldenses I doe not find that they agree with you much in this point of the Blessed Sacrament For they had Masse but once a yeare that vpon Maundy thursday neither would they vse the words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but 7. Pater nosters with a blessing ouer the bread Whereas you may haue your Communion oftener and you vse the words This is my body Not 7. Paters as they did But what neede I say more of them or the Wickliffists either being knowne condemned Haeretiques 34. Now for Durand hee is a Schoolman indeed and a learned one but yet not wholy free from errour in some points and particularly in this of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ For he is of opinion that the change in this Sacrament is noe other then as the natural changes of other substances one into another Durand 4. dist 11. q. 3. and that it is supernatural onely for the manner because it is done in an instant and without the concurrence of naturall causes And that as in theis naturall changes of the elements one into another or other mixt bodyes the forme onely is changed the material part or subiect as Philosophers speake remayning still the same soe also that heere the forme of bread is changed onely the matter or material part of bread and wine remayning Which yet he thought to bee sufficient to verify not onely the realnes of Christ's presence but also the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ For to that purpose he hath these two expresse conclusions 4. dist 10. q. 1. Dicendum saith he quod verum corpus Christi natum de Virgine passum in cruce est realiter in hoc Sacramento I say that the true body of Christ which was borne of the Virgin and suffered on the crosse is really in this Sacrament The other conclusion is this Dicendum quod substantia panis vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi Dur. 4. dist 11. q. 1. It is to bee sayd that the substance of bread and wine are turned into the substance of Christ's Body Whereby it is plaine he held a true and reall presence by a true and reall conuersion of the bread or substance of the bread into the body of Christ discouering also therein your cunning and deluding corruption whereby you would make it seeme to your Reader that these two bee all one the materiall part of bread and substance of bread for soe in the citation of Durand's sentence you glosse the words materiall part with this parenthesis of your owne or substance whereas the material part of bread and substance of bread are two things For the matter in euery compound is but a part of the substance and the absolute denomination of such a specificall substance doth not belong euen to the forme it self alone though it be the more noble and more essentiall part much lesse to the matter or materiall part For we doe not say the forme of fire or water is fire or water but it is that which giueth the being of fire or water to the materiall part or matter which of it selfe is soe farr from hauing any such denomination as some Philosophers doe scarce giue it any proper being of it owne or euen the common name of ens And all agree that it hath noe quality noe actiue power nor force of it self to doe any thing as being but a meere passiue power 35. Wherefore though the matter of bread should remaine in this conuersion or change yet could not the substance of bread bee said to remaine soe long as the forme is changed noe more then all the bread and meate which you eate may be said to remaine because the material part of all the bread beefe mutton capon pheazant and whatsoeuer els you eate remaineth vnconuerted which as it were a great absurdity in any man to affirme soe is it as great an one in you to affirme that the substance of bread in this Sacrament should not bee conuerted though the material part should remaine for as the onely change of the forme in all natural conuersions is sufficient to verify that this thing is changed into that for example Fire into Water soe might it bee in this For as much as pertaineth to the truth of that manner of speaking Which I onely vrge in Durand's defence not that I allow his doctrine For this was his very reason why he did hold that opinion because he thought it sufficient to verify not onely the reall presence but euen transubstantiation also Which very word he vseth in another place for making answeare to a certaine obiection drawne out of the words of S. Iohn Damascen wherein that Father said that the nature of bread was assumed by Christ As if by that manner of speaking he should seeme to insinuate that the bread remayning the same in nature was Hypostatically vnited to Christ Durand saith thus Durand in 4. dist 10◠q. 1. Sicut in baptismate aqua assumitur vt materia Sacramenti permanens sic panis vinum assumuntur vt materia Sacramenti tranfiens quia materia Sacramenti conuertitur in corpus Christi per consequens dicitur aliquo modo vniri diuinitati non per assumptionem manente natura panis aut vini sed per transubstantiationem in humanitatem priùs assumptam As in baptisme water is assumed as the permanent matter of the Sacrament soe bread and wine are assumed as the transient or passing matter of the Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is turned into the body of Christ And by consequence is said in some sort to be vnited to the Diuinity not by assumption or hypostaticall vnion the nature of the bread or wine remayning but by transubstantiation into the Humanity before assumpted Which words declare his opinion both fully and plainely of the change of the matter of this Sacrament into the body of Christ by Transubstantiation 36. But howsoeuer hee faile in declaring this transubstantiation in that he taketh not the whole substance of the bread to
Vncertainety and nouelty of his owne For which end you produce 8. seueral places six whereof I haue answeared before and there also shewed that some are nothing in the world to the purpose others most grosly falsified The 1. place to wit that noe maÌ„ can be certaine of his faith because he cannot bee certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament because that dependeth vpon the Ministers intention is answeared and proued most foolish chap. 10. n. 7.8 c. the secoÌ„d place which is of transubstantiation as if Bellarmine confessed it probable that it could not bee proued out of scripture is answeared in Cap. 9. § 2. n. 22. concerning which I onely note that in this place you haue a new corruption For whereas Bellar. saith onely that yt may be doubted whether there be any place of Scripture soe plaine as without the declaration of the Church to enforce transubstantiation because some learned meÌ„ as Scotus did doubt thereof though Bell. saith to him the Scripture seemeth soe plaine as to enforce it heere you make him say it may be doubted whether the Scripture will beare it which is cleane another thing for to enforce a sense beare a sense are two Seueral things neither did Scotus or any Diuine els euer make question but that the scripture would beare that sense but whither that were soe cleare and obuious a sense as of it selfe to enforce the beleife of transubstaÌ„tiation The 3. Bell. lib. 2. de Miss cap. 9. 10. place which is of Masse without coÌ„municants I passed ouer before as impertinent to the purpose and soe I might doe heere but for the Reader 's fuller satisfaction I answeare Bellarmine saith that Masse is ordained both to offer sacrifice to God and to nourish the people with spiritual food in which respect as it is not vnlawful to offer it to God though there be none to communicate but very lawfull good and holy soe is it more perfect and as I may say in a certaine sort more lawfull where be some to communicate For then it hath both the ends for which it was ordained Now what doth this make for you Sir Knight or against vs as also that which followeth heere to wit that there is not any expresse mention among the ancienâ—s where none did coÌ„municate but the Priest alone but onely coniectures For noe more is there any expresse mention to the contrary that noe Priest might nor euer did say Masse without communicants which vnlesse you can shew in Bellarmine you say nothing against vs neither if you could shew it should you therefore say any thing for your owne sacrificelesse communion which hath noe affinity with our Masse the essence whereof consisteth in being a Sacrifice and communion in being a participation of the same Sacrifice Your Protestant communion being but a bitt of vnblessed bread and noe participation of Sacrifice for you absolutely deny all manner of visible Sacrifice in the Church Now for Bellarmines coniectures it is true he giueth them noe other name but of coniectures but they are such as may with great probability perswade any indifferent man to conclude that many times and I may say much more frequently the Priest said Masse without communicants then with them And the lest of them is such that if you had but halfe such an one for any point you hold you would vaunt it and triumph as if you had an vnanswearable demonstration But be it soe or bee it not of some of the peoples communicating whensoeuer the Priest said Masse what maketh it to our purpose which is whether it be lawful to say Masse without communicants or not they did not will you say in the primitiue Church I aske what then may not we now the people did communicate euery day then must euery body communicate now therefore euery day all gaue their goods away and liued in common must euery body doe soe now I beleiue Sir Knight you will not like that soe well If the peoples deuotion grow soe cold as not to participate sacramentally of the sacrifice must the Priests grow soe cold also as not euen to offer Sacrifice for his owne and the peoples sinnes This is noe good councel Sir Humphrey almighty God reprehendeth it by his Prophet Isay 24.2 that the Priest were growne like the people Sicut populus sic Sacerdos We could be glad Sir if you could helpe to mend the people but not marre the Priest which you would doe enkindle their deuotion not destroy their faith nor take away the holy Sacrifice of the Masse which affordeth many benefits euen to not communicants though not soe much as to them that doe communicate sacramentally But what doe I in this discourse heere it is enough to shew that Bellarmine doth not patronize you nor weaken vs. The two places following touching prayer in a knowne tongue and Communion vnder both kinds in the primitiue Church are also answeared before are onely of the same kind of argument with this the 6. place which is as if Bell. taught your two SacrameÌ„ts is answeared in two places vpon seueral occasions Chap. 9. §. 4 fine and ch 10. fine and in both is shewed your notorious corruption both of words sense 2. Now for your two last testimonies which you brought not before I shall heere examine One you tell vs is touching faith and good works of which say you it is Bellarmines confession Bell lib. 3. de â—ustif cap. 6. that the Protestants doe not deny but that faith repentance are requisite that is a liuely faith and earnest repentance and that without them noe man can be iustified To this I answeare first that you propound the matter very imperfectly and ignorantly in saying thus touching faith and good works it is Bellarmines confession c. not telling vs the particular controuersy for which you bring this saying of Bellarmines there being more controuersies then one betweene you and vs as whither any thing be needful to iustification beside faith or what faith it is that iustifieth and how and whither good works bee necessary or noe and how they concurre for there be all these things and more in question betweene you and vs. And a man would haue thought by your general title of faith and Workes it had beene in proofe of some of these that you had brought Bellarm. But it is for noe such matter Bellarmine in the place cited handling a cleane differeÌ„t question to wit whether a man can be certaine of his owne grace and iustice that is whether he be in the grace and fauour of almighty God or not and for proofe that a man cannot be certaine thereof he bringeth diuers places of Scripture which imply a condition on our part in our iustification as if we turne to God if we seeke him in our whole hart if we doe penance if we beleeue if we doe his will c. God will turne to vs forgiue our sinnes and the like Which condition saith