inuenitur in Canone Bibliae It is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible Patet quod ille modus sit possibilis nec repugnat rationi nec authoritati Bibliae imò facilior ad intelligendum rationabilior quam c. In 4. Sentent q. 6. ar 1. Cardinall de Alliaco That manner which supposeth the substance of bread to remaine still is possible neither is it contrarie to reason nor to the authoritie of the Scriptures nay it is more easie and more reasonable to conceiue if it could accord with the determination of the Church Hactenus Mattheus qui solus Testamenti noui meminit neque vllum hîc verbuÌ„ posituÌ„ est quo probetur in nostrâ Missa veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiaÌ„ I. Fish contrà capt Babylonicam N. 8. O. I. Fisher Bishop of Rochester Hitherto Saint Matthew who onely maketh mention of the new Testament neither are there any words here written whereby it may bee proued that in the Masse is made the very presence of the body and bloud of Christ and lastly he concludeth Non potest igitur per vllam Scripturam probari it cannot be proued by any Scripture Durand Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua conuertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi c. Durand in Rational l. 4. c. 41. Christ blessed the bread by his heauenly benediction and by vertue of that word the bread was turned into the substance of Christs body and saith he Tunc confecit cum benedixit He then made it when he blessed it Odo Cameracensis Christ blessed the bread Benedixit fuii corpus fecit qui prius erat panis benedictione factus est caro non enim post benedictioneÌ„ dixisset Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ nisi in Benedictione fieret corpus suuÌ„ Odo in Canonem Dist. 4. and then made that his bodie which was first bread and so by blessing it became flesh for otherwise he would not haue said after he had blessed it This is my body vnlesse by blessing it he had made it his body Cardinall Caietan That part which the Gospell hath not expressed Quod Euangelium non explicauit expresse ab Ecclesia accepiâ—ius viz. conuersioneÌ„ panis in corpus Christi Caiet 3. 7 75. ar 1. Christoph lib. de Cap FontiuÌ„ de correctione Theolog. Scho. Lege Christophorum fol. 11. 41. 87. â—8 23. 63. 58. Fol. 7. 9. c. viz. the conuersion of the bread into the bodie and bloud of Christ we haue receiued expresly from the Church Christophorus Archbishop of Caesarea Before the words This is my body were vttered by Christ if the bread by benediction had not beene his bodie that proposition had not beene true for when Christ said Take ye eate ye if at that time the bread by benediction were not changed it will follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eate the substance of bread and so we must denie the Article of Transubstantiation therefore it is most certaine that Christ did not consecrate by those words neither were they any part of consecration and in this opinion both the Councell of Trent and all writers did agree till the late times of Caietan that Christ did consecrate the bread by blessing it and therefore we conclude this for an infallible truth to which both Scriptures and Councels Secundò dicit Scotus non extare locum vlluÌ„ Scripturae tam expressuÌ„ vt sine Ecclesiae determinatione euidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere atque id non est omninò improbabiâ—e Nam etiamsi Scriptura tamen merito dubitari totest cuÌ„ homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis inprimis Scotus suit contrartuÌ„ sentiunt Bel. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. and all Antiquitie yeeld an vndeniable testimony and consent that the words This is my body are not the words of coÌ„secration nor consequently the cause of Transubstantiation Cardinall Bellarmine It is not altogether improbable that there is no expresse place of Scripture to proue Transubstantiation without the declaration of the Church as Scotus said for although the Scriptures seeme to vs so plaine that they may compell any but a refractarie man to beleeue them yet it may iustly bee doubted whether the Text bee cleare enough to inforce it seeing the most acute and learned men such as Scotus was haue thought the contrarie Thus the learned Cardinall who at first did confidently affirme that the words This is my bodie were of the essence of the Sacrament and did effect that which they did signifie Vpon the examination of witnesses of his owne side confesseth Merito dubitari potest c. It may iustly bee doubted whether the Scriptures doe prooue the bodily presence and wee all know and confesse that a doubtfull opinion cannot be made an Article of faith from which coÌ„fessions I may truly infer If the consecrated bread be neither transubstantiated by Christs benediction before those words were vttered as Aquinas the Romane Catechisme and the Masse Priests commonly affirme nor by the words This is my body vttered after the Benediction as the Archbishop of Caesarea Cardinall Caietan and others doe affirme then certainely there are no words in Scripture to proue Transubstantiation for an Article of beleefe I proceed from Scriptures to Fathers Alphonsus à Castro was a diligent reader and obseruer of the ancient Fathers De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi raraenim antiquis Scriptoribus mentio Alphon. lib. 8. contra heres verbo Indulgentiae yet after great studies and long search in their writings returnes this answer Of the conuersion of the body and bloud of Christ there is seldome mention in the ancient Fathers And the reason is giuen by another learned writer of his owne side Jn Primitiua Ecclesia de substaÌ„tia fidei erat corpus Christi subspeciebus contineri tamen non erat de fide substantiam panis in corpus Christi conuerti factâ consecratione illinc recedere Ioh. Yribarne in 4. d. 11. q. 3 disp 42. Sect. 1. In the Primitiue Church it was beleeued for a point of faith that the bodie of Christ was contained vnder the formes of bread and wine but it was not beleeued as a matter of faith that after consecration the substance of the bread was conuerted into the body of Christ and howsoeuer our Aduersaries pretend antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers for their doctrine yet Saint Austin is so wholly ours in this point that Maldonat the Iesuite noting his exposition vpon those words of Scripture The Fathers haue eaten Manna and are dead c. makes this confession I am perswaded that if Saint Austin being so great an enemy to heretiques Hoc dico perswasum me habere SanctuÌ„ Augustinumsi nostrâ suissot â—tate longè aliter sensurum fuisse hominem omni haereticoruÌ„ generi inimicissimum cum videret ad eundem ferè modum Caluinistas hunc illum D. Pauli
obscure assemblies but in open Churches and generall Congregations of our owne Countrie in the darkest ages long before Luthers daies But obserue the comming of our aduersarie That book which was published in Anselmes daies for instruction and visitation of the sicke the same booke I say both for matter and substance hath of late yeares beene printed at Paris at Collen Ordo Baptizandi cum modo visitandi infirmos Paris anno 1575. Colon. anno 1556. Ven. anno 1575. at Venice whereby not onely the doctrine of merits is ecclipsed but the now Romane faith is discouered to differ from the ancient what therefore can bee expected how these men should iustifie their owne printed Authors Behold the Romane Inquisitors haue carefully prouided by two Expurgatory Indices Quiroga p. 149. Sandoual Roxas anno 1612. that the words of comfort which the Priest was enioyned to pronounce to the sicke person should be all blotted out and although the Inquisitors haue not as yet passed their sentence vpon Aelfricks Homilie Aelfricks Sermon on Easter day printed at London 1623. pag. 7. yet in that Homilie they haue suggested Transubstantiation by two feined miracles contrary to the doctrine of the Eucharist then publiquely taught and farre different from the whole Scope of the Author and the Latine Epistle written by Aelfricke to the Arch-bishop of Yorke is to be seene mangled and razed in a Manuscript in Bennets Colledge in Cambridge as is well obserued by a learned Diuine D. Iames in his corruption of Fathers pag. 55 and I cannot conceiue but it was done by some Romanist because it doth plainely confute the doctrine of Transubstantiation Thus wee see what time and errors hath brought to passe That Protestant faith which in Aelfricks daies was generally receiued in England for Catholique doctrine is now condemned as hereticall by a preuailing faction in the Romane Church and that word of truth which was published in Anselmes daies for the saluation of Priests and people in the English Church is now condemned by an Index Expurgatorius with a Deleatur vpon those sauing words but I say of them as Saint Ambrose sometimes pronounced of the Arrians Ambros orat 1. contr Arrian Transubstātiation They may well blot out our letters but our faith they shall neuer abolish Againe looke vpon their doctrine of Transubstantiation and you shall see how miserably their Church is deuided touching the antiquity and vniuersality of that point of faith some deriue it from the words of Christ others from Christs Benediction before the words were vttered some from the exposition of the Fathers others from the councel of Lateran some from the authoritie of the Scriptures others from the determination of the Church and whereas many other points of the Romish doctrine are pretended to be Apostolicall Traditions as hauing no foundation in the written word it is obserued by learned Du Plessis that the Papists generally maintaine that their Masse is prooued from the Scripture insomuch as in the 28. of Matthew and other places where there is mention made of the Sacrament the ordinarie Glosse doth note with capital letters in the Margent Moru de Miss lib. 1. c. 1. in initio Here is the Institution of the Masse It was the great vaunt of Campian the Iesuite Camp Rat. If the Protestants name the Gospell we ioyne with them the verie words are for vs This is my body this is my bloud and Bellarmine his fellow Iesuite professeth confidently that the words Bellar. de Euch. l. 1. c. 11. This is my bodie are of the essence of the Sacrament and they are operatiue If wee shall further question at what time whether before or after the wordes spoken there is a conuersion of the elements into the bodie and bloud of Christ Aquinas tels vs Vltimum instans prolationis verborum est primum instant in quo est in Sà cramento corpus Christi in toto autemtempore praecedenti est item substantia panis Aqu. par 3. q. 75. art 7. ad 1. that the verie last instance of the deliuerie of those words is the first instance of Christs bodie in the Sacrament but in all the time before there is the substance of bread remaining If these men therfore haue spoken the truth let them beare witnesse of the truth onely let mee tell you they want that vnitie in this point of faith which they appropriate as a speciall marke to their Church and for proofe of this I will proceed to publication of witnesses wherein I will produce no other testimonies but their owne learned Authors and I presume a better proofe then their owne confessions none of them can expect whereby it shall appeare that their grand point of Transubstantiation hath neither foundation in our Scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among themselues to conclude it for an Article of beleefe Touching the words of Consecration Salmeron the Iesuite speaking in the person of the Grecians deliuers their opinion in this manner Cham. lib. 6. de Euch. c. 7. When the Benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine neither gaue hee simply bread it followeth when he gaue it the transmutation was made and those wordes This is my body did demonstrate what was contained in the bread Ex Catholicis solus Caietanus in Commentario huius Articuli qui iussu Pij Quinti in Romanâ editione expunctus est docuit seclusa Ecclesiae authoritate verba illa Hoc est corpus meum ad veritatem hanc confirmandā non sufficere Suar. Tom. 3. disp 46. not what was made by them And Swarez the Iesuite ingeniously professeth that Cardinall Caietan in his Commentarie vpon this Article did affirme that those words of Christ This is my body do not of themselues sufficiently prooue Transubstantiation without the supposed authoritie of the Church and therefore by the commandement of Pius Quintus that part of his Commentarie is left out of the Romish Edition Habemus confitentem wee haue a faire confession for a Cardinall and a friendly caueat touching the spunging of his authoritie And that the world may know these men are better friends to our cause then many yet conceiue them I will produce both Cardinals and Bishops and Schoolemen who will testifie with vs that there are no words in Scripture to proue Transubstantiation that those words This is my body are not of the essence of the Sacrament that the ancient Fathers did not beleeue the substance of the Sacramentall bread to be conuerted into Christs reall flesh and lastly that Transubstantiation was not beleeued de Fide as a matter of faith aboue 1000 yeares after Christ And first I will giue you their owne confessions touching the place and proofe of Transubstantiation deriued from the Scriptures Quomodò fit corpus Christi vtrum per cōuersionem alicuius c. Biel in Con. Missae Lect. 40. Gabriel Biel How the body of Christ is in the Sacrament Non
It may be obiected that in the time of the Apostles all the people in diuine Seruice did answer one Amen and this custome continued long in the East and West Churches as appeares by Chrysostome Cyprian Hierome c. In answer hereunto he saith When the Christians were but few they did all sing together at the time of diuine Seruice but when the number of people did increase the office of publique seruice was diuided and it was left onely to the Church to celebrate the Common Prayers Here we haue the seueral confessions of our learned Aduersaries that in the first ages publique prayers were vsed for the vnderstanding of the people and they giue a speciall reason for it to wit for the better conformity of the Heathen and ignorant people in the doctrine of Christianity Harding Now as you haue heard the reasons why the Seruice was vsed amongst the Ancients in the knowne tongue so likewise you shall vnderstand one special cause of the alteration of it in the Romane Church It is reported saith Honorius when the Canon of the Masse in the Primitiue times was publiquely read and vnderstood of all Honorius in Gemma Animae l. 1. de Canone Cass Lyturg. c. 28. certaine Shepheards hauing learned the words of consecration and pronouncing them ouer their bread and wine in the fields suddenly their bread and wine were transubstantiated into flesh and bloud and the shepheards likewise for their presumption in vsing the words of Consecration were strucken dead by the hand of God So that by Honorius confession the Canon of the Masse was anciently read and vnderstood of all and which is strange Aut Pastor fuit aut illud quod dicere nolo Iuuenal shepheards did transubstantiate bread and wine and as it seemes chiefely occasioned the alteration of the Church seruice into the Latin and vnknowne tongue Cassander Lyturg 28. p. 65. Pope Innocent the third and Iohannes Bilethus relate the same storie but withall adde another reason why the Church decreed the Seruice in an vnknowne language Ne sacrosancta verba vilescerent The Church commanded that such prayers and seruice should be secretly deliuered by the priest lest that the knowne words of the sacred Scripture should grow triuiall and of no account Sicut sacra Scriptura est ne vilescat Beleth de diuinis officijs Cass p. 65. And the Councell of Trent three hundred yeares after in confirmation of that decree addes a more weightie reason for a conclusion Histor of Trent lib. 5. p. 460. that this inconuenience would follow all would thinke themselues Diuines the authoritie of Prelats would be disesteemed and all would become heretiques It is to be wondred how the Church is altered in this point saith Erasmus but it is to bee lamented that poore ignorant soules should bee captiuated with such sillie reasons Eras in 1. Cor. 14. and that faithfull beleeuers shold be accursed for heretiques for following the examples of the Apostles and the Primitiue Church euen by the testimonies of the best learned amongst themselues since therefore Prayer and Seruice in an vnknowne tongue wants antiquity frō the written word or rather since it is forbidden by the word of the Apostle Saint Austins confession shall bee my conclusion If we or an Angell from heauen preach vnto you any thing concerning faith and life besides that you haue receiued in the Legal and Euangelicall Scriptures let him be accursed PARAG. 7. Worship of Images IT is the ninth Article of the Romane Creed Artic. 9. I doe resolutely affirme that the Images of Christ and of the Virgin Mary and also of other Saints are to bee had and retained and that due honour and veneration is to be yeelded to them This Article was decreed in the ninth Session of the Councel of Trent where it was declared Concil Trid. Sess 9. We teach that the Images of Christ the Virgin mother of God and other Saints are chiefly in Churches to bee had and retained and that due honour and worship is to be giuen vnto them This doctrine of Image worship we absolutely denie and condemne as a wicked and blasphemous opinion first because their Article of faith doth not onely want the authoritie of the Scripture which an Article of faith ought to haue but because the Scripture doth flatly and plainely forbid it Leuit. 26. Exod. 20. Deut. 4. Esay 40. If we looke vpon the old Law before the comming of Christ Vasques the Iesuite confesseth Vasq disp 104 in 3. Thom. c. 6. So farre forth euerie Image was forbidden as it was dedicated to adoration therefore neither the Cherubins nor any other Images had any worship in the Temple And Coruel us Agrippa tells vs the Iewes did abhorre nothing more then Images neither did they make any Image that they worshipped insomuch as when Caligula the Emperour was desirous to haue his owne Image set vp in the Church of Hierusalem king Agrippa makes him this answer Philo Indaeus lib. de Legatione ad Caiū This Temple ô Caligula from the first beginning to this time neuer yet admitted any Image being the house of God for the workes of Painters and Caruers are the Images of materiall gods but to paint the inuisible God or to faine a representation of him our Ancestors did account it a wickednesse And that which is more to be lamented the worship of Images at this day is such a stumbling block to the Iewes and a hindrance to their conuersion that when they come to the Christians Sermons as in Rome they are inioyned once at least euery yeare so long as they see the Preacher direct his speech and prayer to a little woodden crucifix that stands on the pulpit by him to call it his Lord and Sauiour to kneele to it to imbrace it to kisse it to weepe vpon it as it is the fashion in Italie it is preaching sufficient for them and perswades them more with the verie sight of it Sir Edward Sands his descrip of the Religion in the West parts to hate Christian Religion then any reason the world can alledge to loue it It is agreed there on both sides that in the old Law the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of Images for almost foure thousand yeares and this was concerning the Images of God the Father Now let vs descend from the Law to the Testament and see what order was taken by Christ and his Apostles for the representation of him his Saints after him It is manifest and without question that the Law of God made against Images Vasques Dico praeceptum illud de non adorandis figuris non fuisse legis naturae sed tantum positiui◠ceremoniale temporale in tempore Euāgelij cessare debere Vasq l. 2. disp 4. ca. 4 num 83. c. 7. num 115 is a Morall Law and stands in force at this day against Iewes and Gentiles And although Peresius and Catharinus