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
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
c who never were in Purgatory where if he mean likewise as he must or it was impertinently urged that Durantus acknowledges that they prayed for them as for the rest of the dead and namely that God would shew them mercy or pardon them Durantus saith no such thing but the direct contrary Truly in Epiphanius and Cyril and the Canon of the Greeks is read that they offered Sacrifice to God for the Patriarchs Apostles Martyrs c. which signifies the same as in our Canon Communicantes memoriam venerantes gloriosae semper Virginis c. For when the Greeks say We offer for the Martyrs c. it is not understood that we commend them to God but we commemorate them for their glory and to give God thanks for the glory he hath bestowed on them ... The Priest prayes nothing for them but rather prayes them that he may be helped by their prayers c. 32. He quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John 22. not onely taught and declared the Doctrine that before the day of Judgement the Souls of men are kept in certain receptacles c. but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian P. in 4. Sent. When Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John but onely reports the opinion of others nor doth he quote Pope Adrian as saying so but onely as reporting also what others said for these are Sixtus Senensis his words It is said that Pope John 22. subscribed to their opinion and decreed that it ought so to be believed Witnesses of this Decree are Occham and Adrian VI. whose words are these Finally it is reported of John 22. that he publiquely taught c. And afterward Sixtus Senensis shewes the uncertainty of that report Know that it is not altogether certain with approved Authors that which Occham being offended with him and in this condemned by the Council of Trent wrote of him yea there want not Authors of highest authority and credit that relate the contrary and among them Benedict XI c. 33. To prove that S. Augustin doubted of Purgatory he quotes these words of his Whether it be so or not it may be enquired and possibly it may be found so and possibly it may be never And he quotes two places for it In neither of which S. Augustin speaks of Purgatory directly but of grief for the loss of temporal good things too much loved burning some just men here and perhaps hereafter too In Enchiridion For this wood hay and straw may not absurdly be interpreted such affections to secular things although lawfully had as they cannot be lost without grief of minde But when this grief burns if Christ have in the heart place of the foundation that is that he who is so burnt had rather want those things which he so loves then want Christ he is saved through fire ... For the grief of the lost things which he loved burns him but consumes him not being guarded by the stability of the foundation That some such thing such a burning grief for loss of temporal things is done even after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or not may be enquired and either be found or lie hid that some faithful men are later or sooner saved by a certain Purgatory fire by how much they more or less loved perishing goods And much to the same sense is the other place quoted If in this interval of time betwixt Death and the Resurrection the spirits of the dead may be said to suffer this kinde of fire which they feel not who had no such manners and loves in the life of this body but others feel which carried these kinde of buildings with them of wood hay and stubble upon Christ the foundation either there alone or both here and there or therefore here that not there they finde a fire of transitory tribulation burning saecularia worldly affections delights offences c. although venial from damnation I oppose or censure it not because perhaps it is true c. 34. To prove that in the time of Otho Frisingens in Anno 1146 the Doctrine of Purgatory was uncertain and gotten no further then to a Quidam asserunt he quotes these words of Otho Some do affirm that there is a place of Purgatory after death shamefully corrupting both the sense and words of this Author for neither doth Otho say after death nor mean it but after the day of general judgement as the Doctor himself could not but see if he read the place For the title of that Chap. is An post judicium extra infernum inferiorem ad leviores poenas locus remaneat Et quid de parvulis qui solo originali tenentur Whether after judgement i.e. the day of doom there remain any place without the nether most hell for lighter pains And what will become of Infants that dye in onely original sin And in the Chapter he treats of it thus His dictis indagandum puto si transacto Judicio extra inferum inferiorem ad leviores poenas locus remaneat Esse quippe apud inferos seil after the day of judgement locum Purgatorium in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantùm assiciantur that is for some time vel expiationis igne decoquantur quidam asserunt juxt a illud Apostoli Ipse autem salvus erit sed quasi per ignem At si terminatis in judicio causis singulorum pro qualitate meritorum aeternis poenis deputatis nullus ultra purgabitur quomodo locus ille superior Purgatorius residuus erit si verò non remanebit ut de aliis taceam quid de parvalis qui solo originali renentur delicto fiet nunquid in puteum inferni inferioris ipsi trudentur 35. He saith that in the Speculum Exemplorum it is said that a certain Priest in an extasie saw the Soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eves of his house c. when in the place quoted is not a word to any such purpose 36. He saith that the Greek Church did alwayes dissent from the Latines in this particular touching Purgatory and in the Council of Basil publisht an Apology directly disapproving the Romane Doctrine of Purgatory And that how afterwards they were press'd in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius and by their necessity how unwillingly they consented how ambiguously they answered how they protested against having that half consent put into the Instrument of Union how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs being obnoxious to the Pope how a while after they dissolved that Union and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine are things so notoriously known that they need no further declaration All which things are so notoriously false as there needs no further declaration of the falsifying spirit of this Doctor But for the other falsities I must wave them my business at present being onely to note his false Quotations and