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
translate them But because your intent in this place is to proue out of this Doctor that the consecration is performed not by the words of Christ but by his blessing for els I see not what you should ayme at I will bring you a place out of himselfe expressely to the contrary which is this Tolle verba Christi non fiunt Sacramenta Christi Odo Cam. exp in can Miss dist 3. Vis fieri corpus sanguinem appone Christi sermonem Take away the words of Christ and take away the Sacraments of Christ Wilt thou haue the Body and bloud of Christ made put thereto the word of Christ In which words he sheweth that all the Sacraments of Christ are performed by words soe as without words they are not Sacraments as the Catholique Church teacheth And in particular that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the worde of Christ is that whereby the bread and wine is changed in to his body Of which change and matter he speaketh most plainely a little before in this manner In specie panis vini manducamus bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis sanguinis subijsdem qualitatibus mutata substantia vt sub figura sapore prioris substantiae facta sit vera substantia Christi corporis sanguinis In shew of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of the body and bloud vnder the same qualities the substance being changed that vnder the shape and tast of the former substance the true substance of Christ's body and bloud bee made Which words are no lesse euident for proofe of the reality of Christ's presence and change of the bread and wine into his Body and Bloud or transubstantiation then the other are for proofe that the change is made by force of the words Which declare what his meaning is in those words which you alleadge for the blessing as if that did cause this change For he as many other Fathers and Doctours call the very forme of consecration a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for soe holy an end and because they produce soe noble an effect or because they are ioyned alwayes with that benediction and thanks-giuing vsed both by your B. Sauiour in the institution of this holy Sacrament and now by the Priests in the Catholique Church in the consecration of the same You haue then Sir Humphrey gotten as little by Odo as by any of the rest 20. But after all these authors you putt one in the rere who must make amends for all that the rest haue failed you in and that is one Christophorus de Capite fontium Arch Bishop of Caesarea in his booke de correctione theologiae Who indeede speaketh plainely for you in behalf of the blessing against the words of consecration if you cite him truely as a man might well make doubt if the author were otherwise allowable but because he is not I doe not soe much as looke in him but remitt you to the Romane Index where you shall find his booke by you heere cited forbidden which may be answeare enough for you and euen the arrogancy of the title sheweth it to deserue noe better a place for it is entituled de necessaria correctione Theologiae scholasticae As if he alone were wiser then all others Schoolemen putt together Besides in the words cited out of him by you in this place there is a grosse historical error which euery man may perceiue at the very first sight to let passe his theologicall errours and it is in this that he saith that in that opinion of his both the Councel of Trent and all writers did agree till the late tymes of Caietan as if Caietan were since the tyme of the Councel of Trent Whereas indeed he died aboue a Dozen yeares before the first beginning thereof And withall you doe not marke how in citing this place you are against your self For whereas you make Cardinal Caietan and this Archbishop of Caesarea your two champions against the words of consecration as if they did both agree in the same heere this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him but onely Caietane Whom then shall we beleeue you Sir knight or your author 21. Now though you thought to conclude with this Christopherus a capite fontium as being a sure card yet cannot I omitt though after him to answeare heere a certaine authority which you bring before somewhat out of season out of Salmeron telling vs that he speaking in the person of the Graecians deliuereth their opinion in this manner For as much as the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine neither gaue he simply bread it followeth that when he gaue it the transmutation was already made and these words this is my body did demonstrate what was contained in the bread not what was made by them Whereto I answeare first that you mistake your termes when you call this an Opinion which is an errour of the Graecians Secondly I might answeare that this is not Salmeron's authority whom you seeme to cite but doe not indeed you citing onely for authour a french Huguenot called Daniel Chamier who also citeth those words out of Salmeron but without any the least mention of the place where they may be found Soe as Salmeron's works making 7. or 8. good volumes to looke for such a place as this without any light or direction is almost as good as to looke for a needle in a bottle of hay Yet I did looke in that part of his workes which treateth of the B. Sacrament where I thought it most likely to find this place but found it not Which notwihstanding I will not say but it may bee there for it is true that there haue beene some Latine authors that haue held that our Sauiour himselfe did consecrate not by those words but either by other words V. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 1. seq or by the power of his owne will without any outward signe or by some outward signe other then words or by these very words twice spoken Into some of which Doctrines it is like some Graecians might fall being soe prone to erre as they haue beene these later ages V. Aund though in other authors I doe not find this errour of theirs of the benediction before the words but rather the contrary Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 3. that these words this is my body wherewith Christ did consecrate are not now sufficient to consecrate without certaine prayers coming after in the Canon of the Masse appointed by the Church But of this it maketh not much matter and it may be some of them soe thinke and therefore I answeare thirdly for Salmeron this is noe opinion by him allowed as you would seeme by your manner of citing him to insinuate but by him condemned of errour as your freind Chamier saith expresly citing to that purpose Salmeron's owne words also euen there where
which Bellarmine obiecteth against and answeareth but he hauing proued that those prayers and spiritual canticles which the Apostles would haue to be made in the Church in the vulgar tongue that the people might vnderstand answeare Amen were not the publique prayers of the Church but priuate exteÌ„porary deuotions though in the Church with others he obiecteth in behalf of an Haeretique thus you will say that as the Apostle would haue those prayers to bee made in a vulgar tongue to the end the people might answare Amen soe he ought in like sort to wish that the diuine Office might be celebrated in the vulgar tongue that the people might answeare Amen To this hee answeareth denying the consequence because the diuine Office was celebrated in Greeke which was vnderstood by many though perhaps not by all and this was enough for the Apostle did not desire that all should answeare whereas the other languages which they spoke by the guift of tongues were such many tymes as not one man there vnderstood them not euen the speaker himself and this was Bell. First answeare which you leaped ouer Sir Humphrey Lib 2. de Ver. Dei cap. 16. because you saw it was a good and proper for our case for it is the same of our Latine and their Greeke for though all doe not vnderstand Latine yet many doe and almost euery body enough to answeare Amen Bellarmines second answeare is that which you make or rather marre by mistranslation besids saith hee because then the Christians were few all did sing together answeare in the diuine Offices which is a reason why it was more necessary for the people to vnderstand the language but afterwards the people increasing the Offices were more diuided and it was onely left to Clarks to performe the common prayers and prayses in the Church soe as though it might bee then more needfull for the people to vnderstand because they were to answeare yet now it is not because they are not to answeare and sing but that belongs to Clarks Now in Englishing Bellarmines words besids other smaller faults you haue these two which I note You say the office of publique seruice was diuided whereas Bellarmine saith not soe but that offices were more diuided that is the seueral functions in the Church to wit that which belonged to Priests and Clarks was left to them and that which belonged to the people was left to the people or they to it for to them it did not soe properly belong to sing and answeare but onely for that tyme of necessity when the number both of Clarks and people was but small the other fault is that you translate Solis Clericis onely to the Church whereas it is to the Clarcks alone or by themselues which though it may be the same in sense I see not why you should take that liberty to alter at you pleasure in the translations of other men's words And soe much for your authors Honor. gemma anime lib. 1. cap. 103. Innoc. 3. lib. 3 de Mâ—ss cap. 1. 13. Now to come to your conclusion of this § you tell your Reader that you will lett him vnderstand one special cause of the alteration of the office in the Romane Church which is a story out of one Honorius of certaine Shepheards who hauing learned the words of consecration because in the primitiue tymes say you the Canon of the Masse was publiquely read and vnderstood of all Io Beleth de diu offi cap. 44. and pronouncing the words of consecration ouer their bread and wine in the fields the bread and wine were suddainly transubstaÌ„tiated into flesh and bloud and themselues strucken dead by the hand of God Wherevpon you say that by Honorius his confession the canon of the Masse was anciently read alowd and which is strange say you also that Shepheards did transubstantiate bread and wine by which you tell vs farther it seemeth the alteration of the Church seruice into the Latine and vnknowne tongue was occasioned the same story you say is told by Innoc. 3. and Io. Belethus adding a reason withall out of them why the words of consecration are pronounced secretly to wit ne Sacrosancta verba vilescerent Least the holy words should grow contemptible Thus you talke freely Sir Humphrey as if all were Ghospel you say 14. But you must giue other men for all that a little leaue to make doubt thereof and first you runne heere from one thing to another to wit from seruice in a knowne or vnknowne tongue to soft or lowd pronouncing of the words of consecration or of the Canon of the Masse Secondly you say that by occasion of this Story which you tell vs the Church altered the seruice in to the Latine and vnknowne tongue wherein Sir Humphrey you forgett your self much for you told vs before that that alteratioÌ„ was brought in by Pope Vitalian about the yeare 666. which cannot well agree with this story of yours for if it were a late story neere Honorius his tyme that relateth it that was neere 500. yeares after Vitalian's tyme if the story be an ancient one as there is one some what like which I shall by and by speake of in the booke called Pratum spirituale then that was a good while before Vitalian's tyme for the man that writeth it liued in Honorius 1. his tyme which was the 6. Pope before Vitalian and that author writeth it by the relation of a graue ancient man who knew one of the persons that were actours in this busines now an old man the thing hauing happened when hee was but a boy soe that there might very well bee 80. or 100. yeares betweene the tyme of this story and Pope Vitalian Thirdly I see not why this story should cause soe great an alteration as to change the Church-Office or Masse into another tongue for it might haue serued the turne very well to reade the Canon or speake the words of consecration softly that others might not heare or learne them Or if they must be chaÌ„ged into an other tongue not to be knowne why into Latine the most knowne tongue in the whole world besids where this thing hapned the Church-language was Greeke which was not soe common to the vulgar which if it did not hinder the irreuerence committed there how should it be likely that changing it into Latine onely would hinder it heere Moreouer if it did not cause any change in the Easterne Church where it hapned why should it cause any in the Westerne Church where perhaps this story was not heard of for a long tyme after And indeede lett the language be what it will any man may learne some few words and abuse them if he will therefore that will helpe little Lastly me thinks it had beene meete for you Sir Humphrey to haue said somewhat when this change was made or what language it was that was vsed before or bring some author for your self for of these 3. which you
contrary of Christ's body in the B. Sacrament as by and by shall appeare 8. Fourthly whereas the Latine saith Caro spiritualis spiritual flesh the knight translateth it the spiritual body which I onely note without standing vpon it for it is noe great matter But that which cometh next is the maine corruption of all For whereas Aelfricke saith that this spiritual flesh which is as much to say as our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrament according to the outward shew which it carrieth doth consist of graines of corne hath noe bones nor sinewes noe distinction of limbs noe life or motion of it selfe the knight leaueth out those words Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly which are the very life of all that which followeth to wit that to see to it cōsisteth of corne to see to it hath noe bones and sinewes to see to it hath noe distinction of parts to see to it hath noe soule nor power to exercise any motion of it selfe the knight making his Reader thinke that Aelfricke saith our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrement hath noe bones noe parts noe soule c. which is a notorious falshood Lastly whereas the knight maketh this inference in the same place as if they were Aelfrick's words therefore there is nothing to bee vnderstood bodily but spiritually Aelfrick saith not soe though that might bee said in a good sense but thus he saith For whatsoeuer therein giueth the substance of life is of spiritual power inuisible working and diuine vertue In which there is a great deale of difference betweene Aelfrick's for which giueth a reason for that which goeth before and the knight's therefore which maketh an inference vpon that which was said which a learned man will easily perceiue to make a great deale of difference in the sense nay any man may see the difference betweene a reason and an inference Aelfricke therefore plainely teacheth in these words that that flesh doth liue but with all that that life proceedeth from a spiritual power and inuisible working Which agreeth very well with what he had said before that according to the outward shew that flesh hath neither bones nor sinewes nor limbs nor life nor motion but that all these things are not seene and that the life which it hath proceedeth from a spiritual power and working which is not seene 9. Now lett any man see whither this Knight haue not egregiously abused this ancient author corrupting this little sentence of his by fiue great corruptions besides other more of lesse moment which I haue beene somewhat longer in discouering because it is the man's maine proofe in this place and one of his two records as he calleth them wherewith as it were with two speciall and ancient euidences he presenteth his Reader in the very beginning of this Section § 1. and wherein therefore he hath vsed all the cunning he could deuise to make this author speake his Protestant language and consequently also the Bishops and other learned men of that tyme who approued this Homily if they did approue it as hee saith but in vaine as you may see by this that is said and by one place more which I will bring euen out of this Knight's maister Dr. Vsher which shall plainely shew this Aelfrick's perfect Catholique beleife in this point The words are these Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur panis substantiam vini creaturam conuertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat sic etiam in deserto manna aquam de petra in suam carnem sanguinem conuertere praeualuit c. as therefore a little before he suffered he could change the substance of bread and the creature of wine into his proper body which was to suffer and into his bloud which was extant to be after shed Soe in the desert he was able to change manna and water into his owne flesh and bloud c. Where he sheweth plainely a conuersion of bread and wine into that owne body of Christ and bloud which was a little after to suffer and be shed which is nothing more then that which we call transubstantiation And out of this as a certaine truth he gathereth that Christ had also the power to turne manna and water into his body and bloud as well as bread and wine And soe it is in reguard of the power it is all one but in reguard that Christ was not then in being according to his humane nature the manna could not be changed into his body and water into his bloud Which place as plaine as it is it is a strange and almost incredible thing to see how D. Vsher which I onely note by the way for my quarrel heere is not soe properly against him doth peruert by his interpretation For thus hee putteth the English in the text So he turned through inuisible vertue the bread to his owne body and that wine to his bloud as he before did in the wildernesse before that he was borne to men when he turned that heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to his bloud Wherein there is scarce one word truly translated which I will not stand to shew particularly but not onely the maine corruption that whereas Aelfricke saith that as Christ was able to turne the bread and wine soe he was able to turne the manna and water This man turneth it quite contrary that as hee turned the manna and water soe he turned the bread and wine which is a foule corruption But D. Vsher I heare is sufficiently answeared and his corruptions laid open to the world if the books might be as freely printed and sold as his But therein they haue the aduantage of vs Catholiques that they haue free vse of libraries and prints and publique allowance for the sale All which we want and therefore noe meruaile if books be not answeared as freely as they are written But this is but by the way 10. Now then if thus much may be said out of what D. Vsher picketh out for his owne purpose what may a man thinke might be said if a man saw the author himselfe who though he were printed in London as Sir Humphrey noteth 1623. yet is he not now to be heard of But as I was saying all this sheweth this Aelfricke to haue beene a Catholique and that his doctrine was none other then the Doctrine of the Catholique Church at this day Wherefore Sir Knight Campian's saying which you account a vaine flourish standes good still that you cannot espy soe much as one towne one village one howse for 1500. yeares that sauoured of your Doctrine and should still be true though you might find some one man or two or more that did agree with you in your Berengarian haeresy though alsoe one man doe not make either towne Village or howse For your faith doth not consist of
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.
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
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
say you to this Sir Humphrey haue I not iust cause heere to tell you your owne but I forbeare you 23. Extreame vnction is next of which you tell vs that Bellarmine saith that that anoyling which the Apostles vsed Mar. 6. was not Extreame vnctiō that Caietane saith the same of the anoyling which S. Iames speaketh of p. Iacq 5. Likewise of Hugo Peter Lombard Bonauenture Altisiodorensis You say that they held it was not instituted by Christ Well what of all this be it soe that one thinke it not to bee mētioned in S. Marke another not in S. Iames others not to haue beene instituted by Christ What then Doth therefore any one of all these deny it to be a Sacrament nay doe they not all say and maintaine the cōtrary most expresly which is more do not you your self out of your freind Cassander acknowledge that in Peter Lombard's tyme the number of seauen Sacraments was determined though not before as out of the same Cassander you wisely say For Hugo Vict. as I shewed before determines the number of seauen Sacramēts somewhat before Peter Lombard's tyme but to lett that goe if in Peter Lombard's tyme there were seauen Sacraments acknowledged then was Extreame vnction one But you will say that out of that which those 5. anciēt Diuines say to wit that it was not instituted by Christ it followeth that it is noe Sacrament I answeare had you liued in their tymes they would haue denied your consequence But had they liued now in yours they would haue said that Christ did institute it For that is now defined which then was not soe for them you are answeared Now for Bellarmine he saith well it is not deduced out of that place of S. Marke what then out of noe place els or if out of noe place els but by tradition should it bee noe Sacrament What argumēts are these Sir Knight to cōuince a Catholique or any man of learning withall but Catetan you tell vs saith it is not that which S. Iames speaketh of what then Suppose he say well and truely Doth he therefore say it is noe Sacrament noe surely noe more then he denied the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be the true body bloud of Christ though hee thaught the real presēce not to be sufficiently proued out of the very words of Consecration without the interpretation of the Church but as both in one and other he did erre for as much as pertaines to the proofe of those articles out of scripture which is not soe much the matter betweene you and vs soe did he not erre for the things themselues But had he liued to see this sense of the scripture declared and this verity of Extreame vnction defined out of hat place of S. Iames by the interpretation of the Councel of Trent Conc. Trid Sess 14. de extr vnct c. 1. he would haue submitted his iudgment 24. As for the Sacrament of Order you say that Soto telleth vs that Ordination of Bishops is not cruely and properly a Sacrament Well be it soe let Soto say soe Doth he deny the Sacramēt of Order in the Church others deny the fower lesser orders to be Sacraments and some deny Sub-deaconship to be soe what then Doe they deny the Sacrament of Order in the Church to be properly and truely a Sacrament as you doe this is boyes play Sir Humphrey There is a question among Catholiques concerning the Episcopal power and character whither as it is distinct from Priesthoode it be a Sacrament of it self whether there be a new character or the same extended and the like some say I some say noe what is this to you it is not matter of faith whereof wee are not to dispute with you but keepe you off at the staffes end or rather out of doores When you are once receiued into the Catholique Church we may admit you to speake of a Schoole point not till then 25. Lastly about Matrimony you make much adoe First you tell vs Durand denieth it to bee a Sacrament strictly and properly To which I answeare that he saith indeede it is not a Sacrament vniuocally agreeing with the other six which cometh much to one with what you say neyther wil I stand with you for a small matter but looke in Bell. for answeare Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 5. who handleth that matter of Durand largely lib. 1. de Matr. c. 5. I onely say briefly that all acknowledge an errour in him Diuines of his owne tyme did note it for such though then the matter were not soe clearely defined Secondly you say Caietan saith the prudent Reader cannot inferre out of the words of S. Paul Eph. 5. Sacramentum hoc magnum est that Matrimony is a Sacrament he doth not be it so Neither doe we inferre it vpon that word Sacramentum but doth Caietan deny it to be a Sacrament because it is not inferred from that word Noe surely What then doe you bring him for though it be not inferred from this place may it not be inferred from another or if neither from this nor tother may it not bee deduced out of Tradition Thirdly you say that for a conclusion our owne Canus telleth vs that the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that he should bee accounted a foole who in soe great difference of opinions would take vpon him to establish a certaine and knowne doctrine Canus saith rem aliquam certam Which you translate a certaine and knowne doctrine Which you might as well and as easily haue translated any thing certaine and more truely though this bee but a smal matter to stand vpon onely I note it because I see your drift is from the diuersity of opinions which is among Catholique Diuines in assigning the matter and forme of Matrimony wherein Canus saith it were a foolish thing for a man to take vpon him to determine any thing for certaine and cleare Your drift I say is to make your Reader beleeue that Canus saith the doctrine of Matrimony's being a Sacrament or not is vncertaine and vnknowne but this is but one of your ordinary trickes Well to come to Canus He saith true that there is difference among Diuines concerning the matter and forme of this Sacramēt but he himself maketh the chieffe difference by bringing V. Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 7. in a new and singular opinion of his owne By which he saith that the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme of this Sacrament and consequently that if there be a Marriage made without a Priest it is noe Sacrament in his opinion But whither it be true that you Sir knight would make vs thinke that in his iudgment Matrimony is noe Sacrament he shall beare witnesse himself Can. loc lib. 8. cap. 5. Siue nostra opinio vera sit siue falsa nihil moror Si Lutherani de hoc matrimoniorū genere disceptare voluerint intelligant
seuerall places you offend in another kind For whereas the Councel saith that though Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrament in both kinds and soe giue it to his Apostles you leaue out that of the last supper and that of the Apostles both which were putt downe there for very good reasons and to our purpose That determining of the tyme of the last supper leaueth it free for vs to thinke that Christ might at some other tyme after his resurrection communicate some of his Disciples in one kind as some Fathers thinke he did his two Disciples at Emmaus or at least thereby did foreshew the lawfulnes of Communion in one kind as Suarez sheweth out of S. Aug. and others Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 71 sect 1. That word of the Apostles is likewise put downe to shew that that particular fact of Christ and command did pertaine onely to the Apostles who were then ordained Priests and in them to such as should succeede them in that office whereas you by leauing out that word would faine haue it seeme as if that of both kinds did pertaine to all Thus much then for the Councel of Trent 7. Now lett vs heare what you say against this Communion in one kind First obseruing your strange folly in saying that one that shall heare two Councels one accursing another condemning for Haeretiques such as shall deny the lawfulnes of one kind would gladly know the reasons whereas you your self note in the margent a treatise of Gersons against the haeresy of the Lay communion in both kinds acknowledging that he shewes the causes For if he shew cause why doe you call for 〈◊〉 as if there were none giuen if he doe not why doe you say he doth But to lett that passe with the rest of your non sequiturs You bring the two places of scripture before cited Drinke yee all of this and doe this in remembrance of mee Which places you may see answeared in Bellarmine with all the enforcement and vrging that Luther Caluin Kemnitius Melancthon Bell. de Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. Brentius and all the rable of them can bring The answeare in a word is this that the former words were spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests as appeareth more plainely by S. Marke who sheweth all which our Sauiour meant of Mar. 14.23 when he said Drink yee all of this For saith S. Marke and they did drinke all thereof The later words import onely the distribution in one kind being spoken as appeareth by S. Luke immediatly after the consecration of the bread Luc. 22 19. before the consecration of the Chalice And though they should haue beene spoken after both How will you proue to which action of our Sauiours for he did more then one at that tyme that pronowne Hoc had relation or which it did demonstrate The sense therefore and explication thereof is to be taken from the Fathers and Church who vnderstand noe such precept in those words as is the giuing of both kinds 8. Another argument of yours is the practise of the Primitiue Church for which you bring ten or eleuen authors which needed nâ—t For we would haue granted you that without all that labour but what proueâ—â— out that that all must doe soe now You must first proue it a practize grounded vpon some diuine praecept indispensable or els it followeth not but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practize in the vse and administration of the Sacraments as it was to change the Sabboth into the Sunday though the obseruing of the Sabboth were a diuine praecept Nay you must proue that it was general soe as none did or might doe otherwise but that you caÌ„not doe For Bellarmine euen in the place heere cited by you teacheth that euen then all did not receiue in both kinds and heere by the way I note two things One is that whereas Bell. in the place heere cited saith he proued before that all did not receiue in both kinds that of the prouing you leaue out putteing a little line which might giue a man some notice of something wanting which yet is a litle better dealing then commonly you vse though not soe good as you promised vs at first Another that whereas Bell. bringeth six maine reasons deduced out of scriptures partly out of the figures of the old testament and partly out of the doctrine and examples of our Sauiour and his Apostles in the new and in one of those reasons which is deduced out of the practize of the Primitiue Church he bringeth six seueral rites or practices which our aduersaryes cannot deny euidently conuincing the frequent vse of one kind you in your 7. Sect. heere before bring but one coniectural place which I there promised to answeare as if Bellarmine had noe more nor noe better proofs euen which coniecture you neither doe nor can impugne For it is grounded vpon two places of scripture thus Bellarmine saith it is a probable coniecture that the Nazarites among the first Christians in Hierusalem did communicate in one kind Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. He proueth it thus one scripture saith of these first Christians in Hierusalem that they were all perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles and breaking of bread which is the receiuing of the Eucharist as all agree Among these there were many Nazarites as it is most probable for there were many continually among the Iewes Which being soe there was another scripture that did forbid a Nazarite to drinke wine or euen eate a grape raisin or soe much as the stone it was not like then that they did receiue in both kinds For either they must make the former scripture false if they did not communicate at all or they must breake the command of the later by communicating in both kinds This Bellarmine doth not say is a conuincing proofe for such he hath a great many others but onely probable and such noe man can deny it to bee Why then should you stand geering at it without once saying what is false or improbable 9. Touching the rest of your authors which you bring for proofe that it was the common practise of the Primitiue church for the Layty to communicate in both kinds I allow of their authority they affirming onely that it was the practise not any command But for as much as you bring one authority to proue the more conueniency of Communion in both kinds quite contrary to the author's meaning I meane heere to haue a saying vnto you for it this author is Ruardus Tapperus whom you cite thus It were more conuenient the communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone for this were more agreeable to the institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and the Fathers of the Primitiue church Râ—ar Tapp 〈◊〉 15. the Latine being thus habito respectu ad Sacramentum eiusque perfectionem magis
not much short of idolatry For Tertull doubteth not to aequal them Nec dubitare quis debet neque ab idolatria distare haereses Tertul. de praeser cap. 40. quum auctoris operis eiusdem sint cuius idolatria Neither ought any man to doubt that heresies doe not differ from idolatry since their author and worke is the same which idolatry Nay in some respects haeresy goeth beyond idolatry as S. Thomas well sheweth and S. Hierome saith absolutely and without limitation 2.2 q. lib. 7. in Esai Nemo tam impius est quem Haereticus impietate non vincat There is noe man soe impious whom an Heretique doth not surpasse in impiety Therefore your comfort is vanity since your profession is impiety And soe much for that matter 16. Now if any man will but lend an eare he shall heare a fine conceit of yours whereby to proue your Faith ancient vniuersall and what not That is by answearing our question where your Church was before Luther in this manner Of the foure Creeds to wit of the Apostles of Nice of Athanasius and Pius 4. You beleeue 3. which were beleeued before Luther of the 7. Sacraments you beleeue 2. which we confesse also to haue beene instituted by Christ of Scriptures you acknowledge 22. books For canonical which we allow which were soe beleeued before Luther's tyme. why rather 7. Councels then 17. or 19. Of the 7. generall Councels 4. are confirmed by Parlament in England not called by Luther The traditions vniuersally receiued and which we confesse to bee Apostolicall are deriued from the Apostles to you as you say not from Luther The prayers in your common prayer booke are the same Say you in substance with our ancient liturgies not broached by Luther the ordination of Ministers is from the Apostles not from Luther If therefore say you the 3. creeds the two principall Sacraments the 22. books of canonicall scripture the fower first generall Councels the Apostolique traditions the ancient Liturgies the ordination of Pastors were anciently vniuersally receiued in all ages in the bosome of the Romane Church euen by the testimonyes of our aduersaries is it not a silly and senselesse question to demand where our Church was before Luther all this is your discourse Sir Knight and most part your very words wherein you seeme to thinke you haue soe satisfied our question that in your iudgment it is silly and senselesse to demaund it any more But it will easily appeare on the contrary side what a silly senselesse thing it was for you to frame such a discourse to your selfe and much more soe to publish it to other men as if any body els had soe little witt as to be pleased therewith For be it soe that these points of doctrine were ancieÌ„tly taught as they are now taught by the Romane Church what followeth that you had a Church before Luther nothing lesse For a Church consisteth not of points of Doctrine or faith onely but much more of men professing such and such Sacraments rites such a faith religioÌ„ If therefore you will shew vs a Church you must shew vs such a company of men which till you can shew the question remaineth vnansweared If you say they were the same men of which the Romane Church did then consist which you seeme to say in that you tell vs your Church was in the bosome of the Romane Church I answeare that is not to the purpose For as now since Luther's tyme you are a distinct company making a Church such as it is by your selues soe you must shew a company of men in like manner distinct in former tymes from ours and your antiquity is onely to begin from such a tyme as you began to bee a distinct company from vs You must not thinke to stand and contend with vs for antiquity and then pretend our antiquity to bee yours But you must shew a distinct Succession of Bishops a distinct common wealth or people professing that Faith onely which you beleeue practizing those rites ceremonies and Sacraments onely which you haue when you haue done this you may better demand what a silly senselesse question it is to aske where your Church was before Luther 17. But because you mention your being in former ages in the bosome of the Romane church not onely heere but els where often in this your treatise as if thereby you would make your Church seeme one and the same with ours or at least to descend from ours Tertull. de praesâ—r cap. 36. and soe to participate of our Visibility and Vniuersality I will alleadge you a saying of Tertullians which doth soe fully answeare the matter that you will take but little comfort in the manner of your descent Thus it is Tertullian hauing alleadged for his eight prescription against Haeretiques the authority of the Apostolique churches which then kept the very authentical letters written To them by the Apostles and especially of the Romane Church which he calleth happy for that to it the Apostles powred forth all their whole doctrine together with their bloud and there putting downe a briefe summe of some speciall points thereof concludeth in theis words Haec est institutio non dico iam quae futuras haereses praenunciabat sed de qua haereses prodierunt Sed non fuerunt ex illa ex quo factae sunt aduersus illum Etiam de oliua nucleo mitis opimae necessariae asper oleaster exoritur Etiam de papauere fici gratissimae suauissimae ventosa vana caprificus exurgit Ita haereses de nostro fructificauerunt non nostrae degeneres veritatis grano mendacio siluestres This is the institution I doe not say now which did foretell Haeresies to come but out of which haeresies haue come But they were not of it from the tyme that they became against it Euen out of the kernel of the mild fatt and necessary or profitable oliue the sower bastard oliue groweth From the seede alsoe of the most pleasant and sweete figtree ariseth the windy and vaine or empty wild figtree And soe haue haeresies fructified out of ours but they not ours degenerating from the graine of truth and becoming wild by vntruth or lying Thus farr Tertullian Acknowledging indeede that haeresies haue their beginning from vs that is that the men that broach them come out of our Church but that they are noe more ours when they beginne once to be against vs. And that the dishonour thereof redoundeth not to vs but to themselues hee declareth by the two similitudes of the oliue and figgetree comparing vs to the true and fruitfull trees and them to the bastard vaine and wild trees issuing out of the former All which if you consider well Sir Humphrey you will find it but a small honour for you to haue come out of the Romane Church though you haue layen neuer soe long in the very bosome thereof as you
rightly vnderstood with the Catholique faith which we now professe For heere is nothing but what I shewed before out of Bellarmine Lib. 5. de iustif cap. 7. prop. 3. to wit that in reguard of the vncertainty of our owne iustice that is whether we be iust or noe and for the peril of vaine glory it is most safe to putt our whole confidence in the Sole mercy and benignity of GOD. Which word Sole doth import confidence in that and in nothing els With which it may stand very well that men in the fauour and grace of God may doe works meritorious of increase of grace and glory which is the controuersy betweene Vs and Haeretiques For men may bee in grace and not know it they may doe those good works and yet not know that their works haue that supernatural goodnes purity of intention and other perfection which is necessary to make it meritorious all which makes vs vncertaine whether we merit or not though we be neuer soe certaine that if our Workes be such as they should bee they are meritorious And to this purpose is the discourse of the Councel of Trent in the end of the 16. Chapter of the 6. Session where hauing explicated the meritt of good works and reward dew vnto them it hath these memorable words to stopp the mouths of all insulting Haeretiques Absit tamen vt homo Christianus in seipso vel confidat vel glorietur non in Domino God forbid that any Christian man should trust or glory in himselfe and not in our Lord. What more then is there Sir Humphrey in that booke which you alleadge then heere is in Bellarmine and the Councel of Trent or which may not be easily explicated to this sense And all this answeare is supposing you cite your author true for I haue not seene him nor doth it soe much import to see him But if it bee not against vs why will you say doth the Inquisition correct it I answeare not for the doctrine but for the doubtfulnes ambiguity of the words which being not rightly vnderstood might endaunger the lesse wary Reader 's fall into your Lutheran errour of deniall of all meritt of good works which was neuer intended by the author though it may bee he might speake securely in those dayes where there was no thought of any such haeresy But how soeuer the booke is not of any knowne good author and it hath been printed and reprinted now in this tyme of haeresy by Haeretiques and therefore may well fall vnder the Inquisition's correction as giuing iust cause of suspition that they thrust words in for their owne purposes What poore authority is this then for you to build vpon Wherefore to begin well you haue wholy failled in the proofe of your first point of iustification producing but one onely place and that of noe speciall good authority as you alleadge it out of Cassander and euen nothing against vs If then you begin soe well with iustification how are you like to iustify your self in the rest of your points which follow to which I now passe The Knight's 2. §. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's super as he speaketh and the Doctrine of transubstantiation examined §. 2. 1. HE beginneth this § with a praeamble concerning his Churches Baptisme which he saith noe mā will deny to be the same substātially with that of the Primitiue Church and that our salt spittle and other caeremonies doe not transsubstantiate the element nor want of them enforce rebaptization Which serueth for nothing els but to shew the man's folly and vanity for what Catholique did he euer heare speake against the Validity of the Sacrament of Baptisme administred in dew matter and forme and with intention of doeing what the Church doth though the Minister were neuer soe much Haeretique Iew Turque or Infidell or affirme that the caeremonies therein vsed did cause any transubstantiation of the water or that for the want of them the party were to be rebaptized noe we say none of these things but onely that they that administer this Sacrament without these caeremonies euer vsed in the Church from the Apostles tyme vnlesse in case of necessity doe cōmitt a great sinne as Protestants doe and the more because they omitt them out of an haeretical contempt Which notwithstanding the Baptisme is auaileable 2. But letting this passe the knight cometh to the Sacrament of the Eucharist wherein he triumpheth mightily about a certaine Homily of one Aelfricke an Abbot heere in England about the yeare 996. Which he saith was approued by diuers Bishops at their Synods and appointed to bee read publiquely to the people on Easter-day and two other writings or Epistles of the same authors one to the Bishop of Sherborne the other to the Bishop of Yorke The words of the Homily are these as he citeth them out of D. Vsher. There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is receiued of the faithfull The body truely that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbs with a reasonable Soule liuing and his Spiritual body which nourisheth the faithful Spiritually is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limbs without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodily but Spiritually c. Thus farre the authority or words of this author wherwith Sir Humphrey maketh much adoe spending 2. or 3. leaues in it 3. To which I answeare first for his Synods that it is strange hee nameth not any Synod nor any author or place where any such is extant For the Councels I haue examined them and yet doe not find any Synod held in England about that tyme or any thing of that nature handled Lett him name the Synode and bring the words I doubt not but we shall find a sufficient answeare therefore to let his Synods alone for the present we come to Aelfrike whom I haue not also seene nor can find soe much as named in those books which haue most of our Catholique authors both moderne and ancient saue onely by Harpsfield in his history where I find also noe more but that the Berengarian haeresy beganne some what to bee taught and maintained out of certaine writings falsely attributed to Aelfricke this is all and therefore cannot say soe much in confutation of this place as it is like might be said if a man did see the author himselfe and not set out or translated onely by Haeretiques but yet I trust I shall say enough euen out of Dr. Vsher who citeth the Latine in the margent to shew Sir Humphrey's bad dealing and to satisfy any indifferent Reader 4. First you Sir Humphrey to turne my speech to you I say that Aelfrick was a Catholique author and deliuereth nothing but Catholique doctrine in this Homily or place by you cited which a man may proue euen out of your selfe For
you confesse that transubstantiation is suggested in that Homily by two miracles which you say are feigned contrary to the author's meaning but your cōmon fashion is to call all Miracles feigned because you can worke none your selues besids if they goe alōg in the narration as the rest of the text as if they did not I suppose you would note being a good proofe against them what colour is there that we should suggest them and not the author write them himselfe or why should you take the other words heere rehearsed to be the author's and deny the miracles which goe along with them in the same narration You will say they are against his meaning and scope that were somewhat indeede Sir Humphrey but it is but your misvnderstanding of the author for euen in those words which Mr. Vsher citeth in Latine and which he culleth out as making most for his owne purpose I finde the author to speake very well and plainely of transubstantiation as I shall now shew Vshers disp pag. 78. cap. 3. the words are these Multâ differentiâ separantur corpus in quo passus est Christus hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur illa namque caro quae crucifixa est de Virginis carne facta est ossibus neruis compacta humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta rationalis animae spiritu viuificata in propriam vitam congruentes motus At vero caro spiritualis quae populum credentem spiritualiter pascit secundum speciem quam gerit exterius frumenti granis manu artificis confistet nullis neruis ossibusque compacta nulla membrorum varietate distincta nulla rationali substantia vegetata nullos proprios potens motus exercere Quicquid enim in ea vitae praebet substantiam spiritualis est potentiae inuisibilis efficientiae diuinaeque virtutis 5. These are the Latine words cited in the margent by D. Vsher which he translated farre otherwise in his English text whom you also follow taking his English words either because you vnderstood not the Latine or perhaps because you would be loath but to follow any error or corruption that cometh in your way I will therefore truely translate them and then obserue your Doctor 's corruption and yours the true translation is this The body in which Christ suffered and this body which is celebrated euery day by the faithfull in mistery that is as a mystery or mystical representation and commemoration of the passion are separated by much difference that is are very different or doe much differ for that flesh which was crucified was made of the flesh of the Virgin compacted with bones and nerues or sinewes and distinguished by lineaments of humane limbs liu'd or made liuing by the spirit of a reasonable Soule vnto proper life and congruent or agreeable motions but the Spiritual flesh which Spiritually feedeth the beleeuing people according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly consisteth of graines of corne by the hand of the artificer not compact or knit together with any finewes and bones not distinguished by any variety of members not vegetated or liu'd by any reasonable substance not able to exercise any proper motions For whatsoeuer in it giueth the Substance of life is of Spiritual power inuisible working and diuine vertue Now lett any man compare Dr. Vsher's and Sir Humphrey Lind's English and see whether agree better with the Latine theirs or this though they differ somewhat betweene themselues but I will chiefly follow my owne chase of the Knight's translation He shall find first in these words Hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur This body which is daily celebrated by the faithfull in mystery of the passion the word hoc left out And all the other words saue onely the word Corpus the rest because there is mētion made of daily celebration as a mystery of the Passiō of Christ as is practized in the Catholique Church they change in the trāslation The Knight thus the body which is receiued of the faithfull the Dr. a little otherwise but I let him alone wherein any man may see the knight's bad meaning 6. Secondly the knight saith the body that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary c. Whereas the true English is this The flesh which was crucified was made of the flesh of the Virgin Wherein though to the Vulgar Reader there may appeare but small difference betweene borne and made yet there is a great deale for Aelfrick's opposition doth not consist in this that the flesh crucified was borne of the Virgin and the other not as the knight would make a man beleeue but it consisteth in the matter whereof the body on the crosse and the body in the Sacrament are made For as it is in the Sacrament it is made of bread tanquam materia transeunte as Diuines speake and not of the Flesh of the Virgin but that flesh is the terminus ad quem of the transubstantiating action or that whereinto the substance ob bread is changed though it be the same body that was borne of her And this sheweth the knight's cunning corruption how great it may bee in matter and substance though the word be neuer soe like or little 7. Thirdly whereas the knight saith with bloud and with bone with skin and with Sinewes in humane limbs with a reasonable soule The Latine hath not the word bloud nor the word skin And the Knight on the other side leaueth the word compacta Compacted with bones and sinews And those words in humane limbs are farre otherwise in the Latine as any man may see to wit thus distinguished by humane limbs All which putting in and putting out chopping and changing though it may seeme not to make much either way yet it is very like it is vsed by this Knight to obscure the author's meaning and drift which is by all these particulars to shew the difference betweene Christ vpon the crosse and Christ in the B. Sacrament that is the difference in his manner of being not in his being it selfe nor denying him to be really in both which is that the knight would obscure and make seeme as if this author meant it were not the same Christ that were in both Which is very false which his bad meaning is farther discouered in that which followeth For hauing putt downe these words with a reasonable soule liuing which yet doe not altogether soe well answeare to the Latine words rationalis animae spiritu viuificata he leaueth out these other immediately following in propriam vitam congruentes motus By which it is signified that Christ's flesh crucified vpon the crosse had a reasonable soule whereby not onely to liue but to be able to shew this life by action and motion agreable therevnto which words explane the former and are very pertinent to declare the meaning of what is said on the
therefore correct him with one of your scorneful taunts and say he vnderstood it not whereas Maldonate speaketh onely of S. Aug. his exposition of that place of Scripture which hee doth not also condēne though he bring another more agreeable as he thinketh to the true meaning of our Sauiour in that place which truely a man may doe without any such arrogancy and scoffing as you are pleased out of your ingenuity and gentlemanly breeding to fasten vpon Maldonate 28. And soe hauing cleared the matter of S. Aug. I come now to Theodoret who indeede hath a place in shew a little hard to such as want will to vnderstand him as it seemeth you doe Sir knight For it hath beene often clearely and seuerall wayes answeared by many and euen by Valencia Val. de Transub lib. 2. cap. 7. of one of whose answeares you thinke to make your aduantage but it will proue to your disaduantage For he hauing brought two or three seuerall and substātial answeares at last concludeth somewhat roundly with the Haeretiques in this māner That if noe other āsweare will serue the turne but that they will still stād wrangling it is no meruaile that one or two he meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius who both speake in the same māner might erre in this point before it was discussed Which last answeare you onely take hold of as if that were the onely answeare not taking notice of any of the rest which as in the one side it sheweth your badd dealing soe doth it on the other shew the goodnes of his solutions to be such as you could not tell what to reply against them b. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 27. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 46. sect 4. fine Bellarmine Suarez and others answeare it in like manner diuers wayes to whom therefore I remitt you onely for the Reader 's sake not to leaue him in suspence I shall heere make one plaine and briefe answeare and as I cōceiue out of the very words which you heere obiect against vs Dialog 2. which are these Neque enim signa mystica post Sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura manent enim in propria substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur For neither doe the mystical signes depart from their owne nature after the sanctificatiō for they remaine in their proper substance figure and forme they may be seene and touched as before but they are vnderstood to be that which they are made and they are beleeued and adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee These are the words of Theodoret which Sir Humphrey you partly cite by halfes and partly corrupt by mis-translation For thus you cite him onely The consecrated elements remaine in their proper substance and shape and figure leauing out all the later part of beleeuing and adoring and all words which might signify any change as there bee many As first in that he saith the mysticall signes doe not change their nature by Sanctification which why should he deny vnlesse the Sanctification did worke some change or why should he make such a special matter of that that the mystical signes that is accidents as I shall by and by shew should not change their nature vnlesse the substance whereto they did belong did change it owne nature For it were a ridiculous thing for any man to make a wonder of that that the colour figure and tast of bread should remaine the substance it self of the bread remayning but this being changed for them to remaine is a wonder which may beseeme a wise man to speake of Secondly whereas he sayth these mystical signes may be seene and touched as before you leaue that out because it plainely shewes there is some change for a thing cannot bee otherwise then it was before without some change Now the change he saith is not in the accidents themselues or in their owne nature for that remaines therefore it must necessarily be in that their subiect as Philosophers speake or substance in which they did inhere or rest is changed Thirdly Theodoret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by sanctification and which is vnderstood and adored What is this that is made heere not the accidents for they remaine the same not the substance of the bread for that was before Neither is that said to bee vnderstood or beleeued but seene and felt much lesse is it or can it bee said to bee adored All this then you leaue out Sir Humphrey we neede not aske you why for euery man seeth the reason Thus much of your mangling of this authority 29. Now to come to your mis-translation Whereas you translate Signa mystica consecrated elements I would be glad to know in what Dictionary you find Signa to signify elements and mystica to signify consecrated For though the holy Fathers many tymes vse the word mystical when they speake of the Blessed Sacrament as being a Mystery and which indeed cannot be soe without consecration yet mystical and consecrated are two seueral things and they haue seueral relations or respects and consequently seueral Significations For consecrated hath relation to the words and action of the Priest whereby it is sanctified and changed mystical hath relation to the secrecy or hiddennesse of it as farr surpassing the knowledge or comprehension of man or as being another thing then it seemeth outwardly to bee But for the word Signa I see not what colour any man can haue to translate it elements being two such different things without any connexion For elements pertaine to the very substance of a thing they being the prime principles of which any thing is made and consisteth Signum or a Signe properly pertaineth to the accidents of a thing which are the proper obiects of our senses and which doe notify or signify vnto vs the substance of the thing bringing it soe to our knowledge and euery thing is called a Signe soe farr as it is apt to cause in vs this knowledge Wherefore this is a notable cunning tricke of yours Sir Knight by changing Signes into elements to make all that Theodoret saith of the accidents of bread to bee vnderstood of the elements or substance of the bread as if that did remaine whereas he onely saith that the accidents remaine in their owne substance that is their owne entity nature or being which to them is not accidental and therefore may be termed their substance For it is plaine that accidents haue a certaine being of their owne different from that of their subiect wherein they inhere or rest And this is that nature or substance which Theodoret saith doth remaine For as for the change of the substāce of bread besides that there is enough in this very place to conuince it I could bring diuers other plaine places out of him as
it as you translate is farre otherwise to wit that there be but onely two Sacraments in all For first you leaue out the demonstratiue pronoune haec makeing the speach more general as if Bessarion did say there were but two Sacraments whereas he doth not speake any thing that way in these words of the number of SacrameÌ„ts in general but restraineth his speach to these two in particular which rather importeth that there be other Sacraments For if one should say these two men came this way or these two horses belong to mee would not any man gather that there were more men besides those two that came this way and more horses besides those two that I say belong to mee For otherwise it were needlesse to adde this determining or distinguishing pronoune these vnlesse there were other things of the same kind from which they are to bee distinguished SecoÌ„dly the word Sola you place in a certaine odd and craftie manner to make the sentence sound as if there were two Sacraments and no more For you put it before the word Sacraments whereof it followeth that the negation included in the word Sola falles vpon the word Sacraments as if there were but two Sacraments or two and noe more whereas it is to fall vpon the words expressè tradita expresly deliuered that is to say that these two Sacraments and none other are expresly deliuered which is another thing Neither will it serue your turne to say you place it in English as it is placed in the Latine for the placing of words iust soe in English as they are in Latine may many tymes alter many tymes also make noe sense at all and in translation the sense is chiefly to be reguarded Thirdly you putt in the pronoune relatiue which of your selfe and change the participle tradita in to the verbe traduntur whereby of one proposition you make two in this manner we reade of two only Sacraments that is of two and noe more which two are expresly deliuered in the Ghospell Whereas Bessarion maketh but one proposition in which one alsoe his intention is not soe much to affirme these two SacrameÌ„ts to be expresly deliuered as you make it as to deny the other Sacraments to be expresly deliuered as shall farther appeare by his owne words Here then in this little senteÌ„ce of not past a line in length you coÌ„mitt 4. faults besides one which I passe ouer as not soe much altering the sense One in leauing out haec Another in putting in quae a third in changing the word tradita into traduntur thereby making 2. propositions of one A fourth in soe placing sola in the English as quite to alter the sense thereby making affirmatiues of negatiues and negatiues of affirmatiues The least of which in as much as it alteres the sense cannot be excused from corruption especially seeing it is by you expresly intended for you say that Bessarion coÌ„cludeth with the Protestants and for proofe you bring his words thus translated which sheweth that you intended his authority should sound soe as if there were but two Sacraments as you teach whereby you would leade your Reader into an errour Which yet you doe in such a maÌ„ner that I cannot say but that a wary carefull Reader may picke out or at least guesse at Bessarion's true meaning But that is your cuÌ„ning to haue a double sense the one to deceiue the simple and another to excuse your selfe against the obiectioÌ„s of the learned But you should remember Sir Hum. there is a Woe in store for such cunning men Eccles 2 14. Vae duplici corde labijs scelestis et manibus malefacientibus peccatori terraÌ„ ingredienti duabus vijs Woe to the double of hart and wicked lipps hand ill doing to a Sinner going on the earth two wayes In which last word of going two wayes is touched this your cunning in this place Though if you examine your conscience well you may find your self guilty of all the particulars of this sentence 18. But now to Bessarion I answeare that in saying that the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist are the onely Sacraments expresly deliuered in scripture he comes not neere the curse of the Councel For that canon doth not command vs to beleeue that these two or more or lesse are deliuered plainely or not plainely in Scripture it leaueth that to the disputation of Diuines onely it will haue vs beleeue there bee 7. Sacraments that they were instituted by Christ that they are all properly Sacraments against which Bessarion hath not a word but rather much for it For writing that Oration in defence of the Romane Church to shew that the consecration in the Eucharist is performed by words he proueth it by the example of other SacrameÌ„ts thus Bessar de verb. conse Hunc modum Apostoli a Saluatore vt crâ—dendum est ab Apostolis Sanct Patres postea sumentes in singulis ecclesiae Sacramentis quemadmoduÌ„ materiam propriaÌ„ sine qua nullo modo fieret quod proponitur ita etiam propriam formam statuerunt Quod manifestum est si quis ad Chrismatis SacramentuÌ„ mentem conuerterit This manner the Apostles receiuing from our Sauiour as it is to bee beleeued and our holy Fathers from them as in each Sacrament they haue appointed a proper matter without which that cannot be done which is purposed soe also a certaine forme Which is manifest if a man turne his mind to the Sacrament of Chrisme By which words it is manifest that besides the two Sacraments which you speake of he acknowledgeth not onely the Sacrament of Confirmation in expresse tearmes but the other Sacraments of the Church which you cannot but know to be the same 7. which now wee hold But what neede any man more argument for Bessarion's beleife in this point then the Councel of Florence wherein he was a great man and wherein was deliuered that Decree of Eugenius the 4. to the Armenians wherein the Seauen Sacraments are precisely and distinctly taught with the vniforme consent both of the Latine and Greeke Church soe as impiety it self cannot find what to obiect against it 19. Thus then hauing deliuered Bessarion also froÌ„ your Worship 's imaginary curse I come to the Schoolemen among whom you are not ashamed to promise your Reader that he shall find as little vnity as amoÌ„g the Fathers which as you say in an euill seÌ„se as though there were not vnity amoÌ„g the Fathers soe doe I yeild to you in a good sense to wit that as there is vnity among the Fathers in this point noe lesse then in others of our faith soe also the Schoole Diuines their childreÌ„ succeeding them haue maintained this point noe lesse then others with the same vnity and consent as I shall shew by answearing your fond cauills Though some Schoolemen out of the common ignorance and infirmity of mankind in some poiÌ„ts not throughly discussed nor defined by the Church did
will giue him leaue to take him for his owne to encrease his Church and make vpp his number of learned men for noe man but an haeretique can dispute against what is once defined Catholique Doctors may indeede differ in opinion soe long as a thing is vndefined For soe long it is not faith but when it is once defined they must be silent and concurre all in one because then it is matter of faith Which agreement and concurrence of opinion in such a case sheweth there was still before a kind of radical vnion that is a praeparation of mind or promptnes to submitt to Authority of the Church when it should shew it self Wherefore whatsoeuer hee or any man els shall say of our differences are but arguments for the vnity and certainty of our beleife 4. Now for his reuiew of all his 8. points it is but a reuiew indeede wherein he taketh all that he said before for true as if he had carried all smooth before him which prouing quite contrary all this reuiew and discourse builded thereon falleth to the ground Neither will I stand examining them all heere againe but remitt the Reader to what is said particularly of each one in his owne place Onely heere I will reflect vpon his conclusion which is a witnessing of men and Angels that we haue noe antiquity and Vniuersality for proofe of our articles For his protestations and witnessings there are many examples gone before which shew how foolish false and hypocritical they are of this therefore I say noe more but that it may goe with the rest But I aske him how he proueth we haue noe antiquity For his first point he laboureth to proue against our Iustification by words out of a Ritual in S. Anselmes dayes some fiue hundred yeares since that the sicke party was to putt all his trust in Christ's merits Which thing I shewed to be nothing against vs. Wherein then hath he derogated from the antiquity and Vniuersality of our Doctrine and though that proofe had beene good that is to say against what we teach of iustification what could the bare authority of soe late a worke haue preiudiced our antiquity which we maintaine 1000. yeares before that tyme Or what could that doctrine taught in such an obscure booke of I know not whose writing nor of what authority and but in a corner of the world praeiudice the Vniuersality of our doctrine taught in all tymes in all countryes by Fathers and Doctors in their seueral tymes and in general Councels or doth it shew his doctrine to be ancient because it was taught 500. since or Vniuersal because it was taught in England noe such matter In his second point of transubstantiation he bringeth one man saying the words of consecration doe not of themselues without the explication of the Church proue the realnes of Christ's praesence in the Sacrament another man saying they doe not proue transubstantiation or that it was defined but in the Councel of Lateran about 500. yeares agoe to which We answeare againe that those one or two say nothing against vs in the points of controuersy with haeretiques and euen in that which they teach contrary to the common consent of Diuines though in matters not defined we say they are reproued not by one or two but by all the whole current of Catholique Diuines what is this then against the antiquity of our Doctrine or doth it proue his Doctrine to be ancient or vniuersall nay doth it proue it any Doctrine at all For what can any man tell by this what he beleeues much lesse whither it be true or noe which he beleeueth may not another man that denieth the Protestant-Lord's-Supper proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his doctrine or rather his denyal of doctrine as the Knight doth his and by the same argument Because a man denieth one point of ours doth he presently allow all his may not he find a third way of his owne different from both and if the Reader please to marke it all the knights proofe of antiquity is the denial or doubt made by some one of our Writers though that one of ours be much more against him in other things as a man may see both in Caietane Scotus and the rest as I said before His discourse then in this is as deuoyd of reason as his Doctrine is of antiquity 5. In his â— point he bringeth a great many authorityes to proue that anciently the people did communicate euery day with the Priest which we grant and aske againe what this derogateth from the antiquity of our Doctrine or how it proueth that a Priest is bound to forbeare saying Masse if there be noe body to communicate or that it is ill and vnlawfull for him to say Masse in that case or how it proueth the antiquity or vniuersality of his doctrine that denieth all Masse nay doe not we moreouer ex abundanti proue that the custome of the peoples daily Communion did cease euen in the Primitiue Church and yet that some Priests did say Masse daily Doe not wee then proue our antiquity not onely by disproofe of his erroneous nouelty but euen by positiue proofes drawne from antiquity Concerning the number of Sacraments he saith some teach there be 3. some 4. some 5. some 6 that some say of this Sacrament it was not instituted by Christ others of that some say this Sacrament is not proued out of this place of Scripture another not out of the other Now suppose all this were true as I haue disproued him almost in euery word he saieth and shewed his folly Doth this proue the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine is not the number of 5. or 6. as farre from his number of two as from ours of 7. and the number of 3. or 4. as incompatible with his number of two as with ours of seauen What madnes is it then in a man to thinke by this disprouing of our number to thinke his owne to be soe presently proued as if a man could not deny 7. but hee must affirme onely two For as for his proofe out of some Fathers naming of two he confesseth others name three others 5. some more some lesse which he bringeth to disproue our seauen but how doth it stand with his two Soe of his Communion in one Kind he saith out of many of our authors it was anciently vsed in both and we grant it but we say it was also vsed in One many tymes and might haue beene more and may also be now in One or both as it shall seeme good to the Church according to diuers circumstances in whose power is the administration of the Sacraments How doth the affirming of the former part or denying of the later proue the antiquity of his doctrine which is that it is not lawful to administer in one kind For publique Prayer he saith out of some of our authors it was vsed in a knowne tongue in the Primitiue Church We grant it and say
Gerson's treatise in the margent which as he there acknowledgeth shewes the causes I there reprehended him for it as may be seene heere chap. 9. § 5. n. 7. Now as it seemes reflecting vpon his owne absurdnes therein in his 4. edition he doth not say that Gerson shewes the causes as he said before but declares them himself out of Gerson saying they were these to wit The length of lay mens beards the lothsomnesse to drinke after others the costlinesse and difficulty of getting wine the frosts in winter the flies in sommer the burden of bearing the daunger of spilling and the peoples vnworthines to equall the Priests in receiuing in both kinds Thus farre are Gerson's words as he citeth them in a different letter continuing the discourse himselfe in this manner And thus for longe beards and vnsweet breathes for a litle paines and noe great charges for frosts in winter and flies in summer I say for these and the like Catholique considerations pretended in the Councel of Constance the church of Rome abolished Christ's institution and laide Anathema vpon all that at this day maintaine the contrary Soe Sir Humphrey prouing himself as impertinent in setting downe Gerson's discourse lamely and ridiculously as he did before in not setting it downe at all for better declaratioÌ„ whereof I shall heere put downe Gerson's words as they lye Gers tract de com laico sub vtraque spe which are these Vnde dicunt plurimi Theologi c. Wherefore very many diuines say that the custome of not coÌ„municating the layity vnder both kindes especially since the multiplication of the faithfull hath beene lawfully and reasonably introduced this for the auoidind of manifold daunger of irreuerence and scandal in the receiuing of this most blessed Sacrament The first daunger is in spilling the second in carriage from place to place the third in the fowling of the vessels which ought to bee hallowed not handled or touched ordinarily by lay-people and much lesse ought the consecrated wine to be sold in shops as it is said to be with such men that is the Bohemians whoe stood for the vse of the chalice the fourth is in the longe beards of lay-men the fifth in the keeping thereof for the sicke because in the vessel it may become vinager and soe the blood of Christ would cease to be there being neither to be receiued nor to be consecrated a new without Masse and soe it might come to passe that pure vinager may come to be giuen in steed of the blood of Christ besids that in summer flies would breede how close soeuer the vessel should be shut some tymes also it would putrify or become as it were noisome to drinke and this reason is very efficacious as also for an other reason when many had drunke before And we may aske in what vessel soe great a quaÌ„tity of wine should be consecrated at Easter for ten or twenty thousand persons the sixt harme is in the costlinesse of wine at lest in many places where there is scarce wine found to celebrate withall in other places where it is not to be had but at a deare rate beside there would be daunger of congeling or turning to â—ee Againe there would be daunger of credulity and this many wayes First that the dignity of the layity is as great in the receiuing of this Sacrament as that of Priests Secondly that soe to doe was euer and is a matter of necessity soe all that haue done and doe thinke practise or teach otherwise haue perished and doe perish and generally all as well clarks Doctors and Prelats whoe haue not opposed themselues against such a custome by word and writing and that they haue peruerted the scripture Thirdly that the vertue and force of this Sacrament is not more principally in the consecration then in the receiuing Fourthly that the church of Rome doth not thinke rightly of the Sacraments nor is heerein to be imitated Fiftly that general Councels and particularly this of Constance haue erred in faith and good manners Sixtly it would many wayes be occasion of sedition and shismes in our part of Christendome as experience sheweth in Bohemia Hitherto are the words of Gerson by the onely reading and comparing whereof it will easily appeare how badly Sir Humphrey hath delt as well in culling out some few reasons of least force as also in deliuering them not in the author's phrase as they lye but in a certaine ridiculous fashion of his owne for first he mentioneth not the two maine heads which containe all the rest and are chiefly to be reguarded in the administration of Sacraments to witt irreuerence and scandall then among the daungers of irreuerence he leaueth that which may most easily happen and cannot indeede be well auoided to wit that with longe keeping as when it is kept for the sicke the species of wine would turne into vinager that it would otherwise corrupt become noysome which Gerson seemeth to count his chiefe reason for he saith of it that it is a very efficacious one Sir Humphrey also leaueth out that other reason that either the vessels wherein it is kept must be let to grow very fowle or be touched and handled by lay people both which are contrary to the reuerence dew to this holy Sacrament he leaueth out that point of scandal in selling of the coÌ„secrated wine to saue the credit of his bretheren of Bohemia whoe vsed soe to doe He leaueth out the manifold daungers of scandal by mis-beleif to wit that heereby men might come to beleeue that it were a matter of necessity that heereby they might come to condemne all that haue taught or practised the contrary or not opposed it that heereby they might come to condemne the practise of the Romane church and condemne general Councels of error in faith all which the Knight was pleased to passe ouer putting downe onely those other which he thought he might make better sport withall for which purpose he also altereth Gerson's words for whereas he speaketh of a little paines noe great charges Gerson saith nothing of paines for charges he saith the quite coÌ„trary to witt that the charge is very great in some places and in others that there is not wine to be had sufficient for the people but onely very little for the Priest to say Masse withall and for altering Christ's institution Gerson saith the expresse contrary to wit that it is an error to say that there is any such institution and that there is noe more necessary by diuine institution but that we doe not contemne it as saith he Doctors teach of Confirmation and Extreame Vnction which are said to be Sacraments not of necessity Which truth being supposed I see not but Gerson's reasons may be good and sufficient to proue his intent which was to shew the manifold irreuerence and scandal which might come by the vse of both kinds for exaÌ„ple is it not an vndecent thing to see
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