Anselme and his words Gospell the Knight gaines nothing by it or we lose for though it bee the safest way to cast anchour at the last in the bottome of Gods mercie and put our whole confidence in Christs merits it doth not from hence follow but that men may doe workes meritorious of increase of grace and glory First why doth he lispe here and not speake plaine out the Romish tenet which is that our Workes doe merit not only increase of grace and glorie but remission of sinnes and h Concil Trid. Sess 6. c. 32. Si quis dixerit hominis justificati opera non verè mereri augmentū gratiae vitam aeternam ipfius vitae aeternae si tamen in gratià decesserit consecutionem Anathema sit eternall life Next I would faine know how mercy and merit nay sole mercy and merit can stand together Certainly as mercy excludeth merit so sole mercy all merit Can those workes which is S. Anselmes judgement will not beare scale in Gods ballance weigh downe super-excellens pondus gloriae a super-excellent weight of glorie Certainly the Spectacle-maker put in a burning glasse into his Spectacles which hath much impaired his eye-sight or else hee could not but reade S. Anselmes words in this place in which he renounceth all merit and that in most direct and expresse tearmes I beleeve that none can bee saved by his owne merits Vid loc sup cit p. 4. or by any other meanes but by the merit of Christs passion I set the death of Christ betwixt ' mee and my bad merits and I offer his merits in stead of the merits which I ought to have and have not Concerning Transubstantiation Spectacles chap. 9. Sect. 2. à pag. 132. ad 187. THE Knight and the Protestants commit a great sinne in administring the Sacrament of Baptisme without those Ceremonies which were used in the Church from the Apostles times Elfrick was not the Authour of the Homilie and Epistles the Knight citeth against Transubstantion in which notwithstanding there is nothing against Transubstantiation but much for it if the Knight had not shamefully corrupted the Text by false translating it in five severall places The difference of Catholique Authours about things not defined by the Church maketh nothing for Protestants because they vertually retract all such opinions by submitting their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church Cajetan is falsely alledged by putting in the word supposed and Transubstantiation he denied not the bread to bee transubstantiated into Christs body though hee conceived that those words This is my body doe not sufficiently prove the reall presence of our Saviours body for which he is worthily censured by Suarez and the whole schoole of Divines Biel affirmeth that it is expresly delivered in holy Scriptures that the body of Christ is contained under the species of bread c. Which former words the Knight leaveth out because they made clearely against him and in the latter set downe by the Knight he denieth not that Transubstantiation may bee proved out of Scriptures but that it may be proved expresly that is in expresse tearmes or so many words Alliaco his opinion maketh nothing for the Knight being a Calvinist though hee seeme to favour the Lutherans tenet and though hee thought the Doctrine of consubstantiation to be more possible and easie yet therein hee preferred the judgement of the Church before his owne B. Fisher denieth not that the reall presence can be proved out of Scripture for the fourth chapter of the booke cited by the Knight is employed in the proofe thereof against Luther but that laying aside the interpretation of Fathers and use of the Church no man can be able to prove that any Priest now in these times doth Consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Durand B. of Maundy doth not deny Transubstantiation to bee wrougnt by vertue of the words This is my body For though in the first place hee saith that Christ then made the bread his body when he blessed it yet hee after addeth that wee doe blesse illâ virtute quam Christus indidit verbis Durand rat c. 41. n. 14. by that power which Christ hath giuen to the words Odo Cameracensis calleth the very forme of Consecration a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for so holy an end and because they produce so noble an effect or because they are joyned alwayes with that benediction and thankesgiving used both by our Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament and now by the Priest in the Catholique Church in the Consecration of the same Christopherus de capite fontium is put in the Roman Index of prohibited bookes and in the words cited out of him by the Knight there is a grosse historicall errour in this that hee saith that in that opinion of his both the Councell of Trent and all Writers did agree till the late time of Caietan as if Caietan were since the Councell of Trent and in citing this place the Knight is against himselfe for whereas hee maketh Cardinall Caietan and the Archbishop of Caesarea his two Champions against the words of Consecration as if they did both agree in the same here this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him but onely Cajetan Salmeron relateth it indeed to bee the opinions of some Graecians that Christ did not consecrate by those words This is my body but by his benediction but this opinion of theirs is condemned by him as Chamier saith expressely in the place coted by the Knight l. 6. de Eucha c. 7. Bellarmine in the place alledged saith nothing but what is granted by all Papists De Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. to wit that though the words of Consecration in the plaine connaturall and obvious sense inferre Transubstantiation yet because in the judgement of some learned men they may have another sense which proveth only the reall presence it is not altogether improbable that without the authority of the Church they cannot inforce a man to beleeve Transubstantiation out of them Alfonsus à Castro affirmeth that of Transubstantiation there is rare mention in the ancient Fathers yet of the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention and the drift of Castro in that place is to shew that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing or plaine testimonie of Scripture that yet the use and practice of the Church is sufficient bringing in for example this point of Transubstantiation and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son The meaning of Yribarne and Scotus saying Transubstantiation of late was determined in the Councell of Lateran is only this that whereas the words of Consecration may bee understood of the reall presence of our blessed Saviours body either by Transubstantiation or otherwise so the substance of bread doe remaine the Church hath determined the words are to be understood in the former
elements is not reall and corporall but spirituall and sacramentall as that was in the Desert of which the Apostle speaketh the c 1 Cor. 10.4 spirituall rock followed them and that rock waes Christ When Manna fell and the rock was strucken Christ was not incarnate nor many hundred yeares after how then could the Manna or the water bee really and properly turned into his flesh and bloud Moreover howsoever hee eludeth the former words of Aelfrick There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is received of the faithfull the body in which Christ suffered was borne of the flesh of Mary and consisted of bloud and bone but the other is gathered of many cornes without hloud and bone by saying that the difference which Aelfrick sheweth betweene Christ on the Crosse and Christ on the Sacrament is in his manner of being not in the being it selfe not denying him to bee really in both yet the later words which containe an inference upon the former therefore there is nothing to bee understood in the Sacrament bodily but spiritually admit of no colourable evasion for if nothing bee there understood bodily but spiritually then must needs the words This is my body be understood figuratively then must we not according to the doctrine of those times understand any substantiall change of the bread into Christs very body or the Wine into his bloud really and corporally To the third The difference betweene Papists of most eminent note concerning the words by vertue whereof they teach Transubstantiation is effected maketh much against the doctrine it selfe and by consequence quite overthroweth it For thus we argue against them out of this their difference If the bread bee turned into Christs body then either by the words of benediction before hee brake the bread or gave it c. or by the very words of Consecration viz. hoc est corpus meum But hee neither changed the bread into his Body by the one nor by the other Ergo hee changed it not at all Not by the precedent benediction as Aquinas and Bellarmine prove For till the last instant of the prolation of the words This is my Body the substance of bread remaineth Not by the words of Consecration for as Durand and Odo Cameracensis and Christopherus Archbishop of Caesarea prove Christ could not have said after hee had blessed the Bread This is my body unlesse by blessing it he had made it his body before If when Christ said Take yee and eat yea at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed it would follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eate the substance of Bread which to say is to deny the article of Transubstantiation Neither can the Iesuite heale this sore by his vertuall salve in saying that those men above alledged who impugne the prsent tenent of the Schooles concerning the words of Consecration in which the essence of the Sacrament consisteth vertually retracted such opinions because they submitted their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church for so wee may say with better reason that what they held against us they vertually retracted by submitting their judgement to the Catholique Church which we can easily prove not to bee the particular Roman but the Universall which in all times and all places through the Christian world hath professed the common faith once given to the Saints without any of those later Articles which P. Pius the fourth Jud. 13. and the late conventicle of Trent hath pinned unto it To the fourth Cajetan is truly alledged by the Knight for though neither the words Transubstantiation nor supposed are in him yet the sence of them is to be found in him for as both Suarez and Flood himselfe acknowledgeth p. 147. Cajetan said that these words This is my body doe not sufficiently prove the reall presence of our Saviours body without the presupposed authoritie of the Church and if in his judgement they prove not so much as the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament much lesse prove they the presence thereof by Transubstantiation or turning the bread into it By the word supposed which the Knight addeth more fully to declare Cajetans meaning hee intended not suppositions or barely pretended authority of the Church but truly presupposed which maketh not the speech sound at all contemptibly of the Church as Flood would have it whose stomack is so bad that it turneth sweet and wholsome meate into choler Nectar cui fiet acetum vaticani perfida vappa cadi To the fifth The Knight transcribeth so much out of Biel as was pertinent to his purpose with the rest he thought not fit to trouble the reader In Can. Miss Lect. 40. notandum guod quamvis expressè tradatur in scriptur â quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur à fidelibus sumitur tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ accidentibus panis in Canone bibliae non invenitur The whole passage in Biel standeth thus It is to bee noted that though it bee expressely delivered in Scripture that the body of Christ is truly contained under the forme or species of Bread and received by the faithfull yet it is not found in the canon of the Bible how the body of Christ is there whether by conversion of any thing into it or whether it beginneth to be there without conuersion or turning the substance and accidents of bread remaining The former words in which passage make nothing against the Knight Who in this chapter for the most part condemneth Papists out of their owne mouth and therefore taking Biel for such hee maketh use of his testimonie against the Roman Church in point of Transubstantiation Which is very direct and expresse and the Iesuites answer is very weake and unsufficient thereunto to wit that hee denieth only that Transubstantiation is found in Scripture in expresse words For first Biel saith not non invenitur expressum but non invenitur It is not found in Scripture whether Christs body be there by conversion of any thing into it Now many things are found in Scripture as the Trinity of persons the eternall generation of the Sonne the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne the number and nature of Sacraments which yet are not set downe in expresse words Secondly it is evident out of the former words of Biel that hee accounted those things expressely to be delivered in Scriptures which yet are not set downe in expresse words for hee saith that it is expresly delivered in Scriptures that the body of Christ is truly contained under the species of bread and yet those words are not found in Scripure If wee should admit then of Flood his glosse upon Biel Transubstantiation is not found in Scripture that is
the forme of Consecration may be called a Benediction for the reasons alledged by the Spectacle-maker Odo Camerac in can mis dist 4. benedixit suum corpus fecit qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro non enim post benedictionem dixisset hoc est corpus meum nisi in benedictione sieret corpus suam yet it is certaine that Odo Cameracensis distinguisheth the one from the other and ascribeth the conversion of bread into Christs body to the vertue of the precedent benediction and not of the subsequent Consecration Christ blessed the bread hee made it his Body that which before was Bread by his blessing is made flesh for hee would not have said after hee had blessed it This is my Body unlesse by blessing it hee had made it his Body Yea but Flood threatneth to bring a place out of Odo expresly to the contrary which is this Take away the words of Christ Odo Camera expos in Can. miss dist 5. tolle verba Christi non fiunt sacramenta Christi vis sieri corpus fanguinem appone Christi sermonem and take away the Sacraments of Christ wilt thou have the Body and Bloud of Christ made put thereto the word of Christ but which word of Christ for therein is the cardo questionis whether the word of Benediction going before or the word of Consecration following after In Odo his judgement by the word of benediction for hee saith Benedictione factus est caro by blessing it became flesh and that before hee uttered the words This is my Body which in Odo his apprehension as wee heard before could not bee true unlelesse bread had beene turned into Christs body before he pronounced them To the tenth I.R. Here Iohannes de Rivis or Iohn of the Flood speaketh very disgracefully of his Father Christopher us de capite fontium Christopher of the head of the Fountaines Nay to a most reverend Father the Archbishop of Caesarea for the Archbishop of Caesaerea his booke saith hee De correctione Theologiae scholasticae I doe not so much as looke into him but remit it to the Roman Index where you shall find this booke by you here cited forbidden and even the arrogancie of the title sheweth it to deserve no better a place Solinus c. 43. Bonasus Tauri similis si insequantur Agasones vebementiùs fimum emittit per tria jugera quicquid tangit Vrit The Bonasus when hee is hard followed casts dung in abundance on the pursuer and brayeth hideously so doth I.R. cast filth and raile downe right when he is so hard pressed with a testimonie that he hath nothing to reply The Roman Index Prohibitorum librorum is to Flood like the Philosophers pons asinorum in all extremities hee flieth to it But what is this Index to us hee might as well alledge the Turkes Alcharon against the Knight This Index of prohibited bookes deserveth not only a prohibition but a purging by fire For in the first ranke we find the holy Bibles translated into vulgar languages to bee set and after them most of the prime and Classick Writers almost in all professions There is nothing so easie as to prohibit this or any other booke but unlesse our Adversariee back this Papall prohibition with detection of errours and heresies contained in such bookes and a solid confutation thereof this tyrannicall Prohibition of the workes of Authours wil prove an evident conviction that they forcibly smother that truth the light whereof dazleth their eyes Yea but saith Flood there is a grosse historicall errour in that he saith that in that opinion of his both the Councell of Trent and all the Writers did agree till the late time of Cajetan as if Cajetan were since the Councell of Trent No historicall errour at all in the Archbishop but a frivolous cavill in Flood For hee saith not that the Councell of Trent was before Cajetan but that the Councell of Trent and all Writers before it also did agree till the late time of Cajetan Yea but the Knight maketh Cardinall Cajetan and the Archbishop of Caesarea his two champions against the words of Confecration as if they did both agree in the same whereas here the Archbishop saith quite contrarie that all are for him but only Cajetan A ridiculous sophisme ex ignoratione Elenthi the Knight alledgeth both Cardinall Cajetan and the Archbishop of Caesarea against the words of Consecration but not ad idem not to prove the same conclusion hee alledgeth Cajetan to prove that there is nothing in the words hoc est corpus meum to enforce Transubstantiation but the Archbishop of Caesarea to prove that the supposed conversion is made not by the words of Consecration This is my body but by the precedent words of Benediction Christoph de correct theoscholast fol. 11.41 usque ad 63. nisi prius quà m ista verba diceret Christus corpus suum ex pane factum erat ista proposito non fuisset vera hoe est corpus meum c. Fol. 23. and this hee proveth against all Papists strongly after this manner Vnlesse before Christ uttered those words this is my body his body had beene made of bread this Proposition had not beene true This is my body for when Christ said take ye eate yee if at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed it will follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eate the substance of bread and so wee must denie the article of Transubstantiation therefore saith he certo certius constat Christum non solùm per ista sola verba non consecrâsse sed ne quidem illa partem aliquam fuisse consecrationis quam fecit it is most certaine that these words were no part of the Consecration And this hee proveth to bee the opinion of all the ancient Fathers by name of Iustine Martyr Dionysius S. Austine Hesichius S. Ierome Gregorie Ambrose Rupert Alquine Bernard Seotus Landulph Peter de Aquila Pelbert and others To the eleventh The Knight alledgeth not Salmerons opinion but his relation of the opinion of other men and although his credit bee cracked with Protestants yet it is whole with Flood and his fellow Iesuits as Chamierus on the contrarie his credit is good with Protestants though none with Pontificians P. 162. Yea but saith Flood Chamier discovereth the Knights bad dealing I would faine know how or wherein first how by the spirit of prophesie or by some letter sent to the Knight after Chamier his death for Chamier was dead many yeares before the Knight wrote Were he alive what bad dealing could he discover in the Knight Cham. de Euchar l. 6. c. 7. who out of him truly and sincerely relateth the words of Salmeron the Iesuite concerning the Graecians in these words seeing the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine nor gave hee simply bread it followeth that when hee gave it the transmutation was made and those
integritie of corporall refection and the example of Christ it were more convenient to have the Communion under both kindes the Knight hearkeneth to him but where hee lispeth in the language of Ashdod saying that in consideration of the reverence due to this Sacrament it is ill and inconvenient to communicate in both kindes the Knight had reason to turne a deafe eare to him for it is cosin germane to blasphemie to say that is ill and inconvenient which Christ and his Apostles and the whole Church in all places for more then a thousand yeares practised the Knight might well say to Tapperus in the words of him in the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will be sober with you but I will not runne madde with you To the twelfth For the statute made in the dayes of that Phoenix of his age King Edward the sixt the meaning is unlesse among the people there bee some that either by a naturall antipathie to wine or other infirmitie cannot receive the Sacraments in both kindes it is ordained that it be delivered to every one in both kindes cessante ferreâ necessitate obtinet haec aurea regula that all receive the whole Sacrament in which the Statute and the articles of Religion published first in the reigne of this blessed Prince fully accord For so wee reade Article the thirtieth both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordinance and command ought to bee ministred to all Christian people alike To the thirteenth That every article of faith ought to have sufficient proofe out of Scripture is proved by innumerable testimonies of antiquitie produced by Philip Morney in his Preface to his booke De Eucharistia Bilson of Supremacie part the fourth Abbot against Bishop chapter the seventh and Laurentius de disp Theolog Neither doth S. Ierome any way contradict them or us for wee beleeve that the consent of the whole Christian Church is an infallible argument of truth Albeit wee teach that any particular Church as namely the Roman or the French or the Dutch or the Greeke Church may erre yet we denie that the catholique Church universally hath ever erred or can erre in matter of faith necessarie to salvation and further I adde for conclusion that as the words of S. Ierome alledged by the Iesuit make nothing against us so if they bee applied to our present subject they make most strongly against him being propounded after this manner Although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting for the Communion in both kindes which is not so yet the consent of the whole world on this side testified by their uniforme practise confessed by Papists themselves ought to have the force of a divine Precept and so there would bee an end not only of this Section as the Iesuit speaketh but of this whole Controversie Concerning Prayer in an unknowne tongue Spectacles Sect. 6. a pag. 259. usque ad 283. THe Knight falsly chargeth the Councell of Trent with approving prayer in the vulgar tongue for though the Councell saith that the Masse containeth great instruction yet it doth not say that it ought to bee in the vulgar tongue nay contrarily it pronounceth an anathema against any whosoever shall say that the Masse ought to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue It hath beene the generall practise and custome in the Church of God of having the Masse and the publike office in Latine all over the Latine and Westerne Church both in Italie Spaine France Germanie England Africa and all other places and so likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent and had as much varietie of languages in it as the Latine Church hath Vniformitie which is fit to be used in such things and unitie of the Catholique Church is excellently declared and also much maintained by this unitie of language in the Church office The use of vulgar tongues in the Masse or Church office would cause not only great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by many severall translations The use of vulgar language in such things would breed a great contempt of sacred things with prophanenesse and irreligiositie besides the danger of heresie which commeth no way sooner then by misunderstanding of holy Scripture The place of Scripture alledged by the Knight concerning announcing our Lords death is not understood by words but by deeds as is most plaine by the circumstances The text of S. Paul where he asketh how hee that understandeth not the prayers shall say Amen is not of the publike prayers of the Church which no man can doubt of either for the truth or goodnesse and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them but of private prayers made by private and Laye men extempore in an unknowne tongue Haymo requireth not that all that are present at Divine service should understand but only that he that supplieth the place of the idiot or Laye-man in answering for the people should bee so farre able to understand as to answer Amen at the end of every prayer Iustinian the Emperour is ordinarily taxed for taking too much upon him in Ecclesiasticall matters yet all that hee saith may bee well maintained without prejudice to the present practise of the Roman Church for in the Decree alledged by the Knight hee requireth nothing more but that Bishops and Priests should pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne Church was to bee spoken aloud The Canon law capite quoniam in plerisque requireth only that where divers Nations are mingled that the Bishop of the Citie should substitute one in his roome to celebrate the divine Office and administer the Sacraments according to their ownerites and language for indeed it is a matter of necessitie in administration of some Sacraments to use the vulgar language as in Mariage and Penance but not so of other things Lyra Belithus Gretzer Harding Cassander and the rest of the Authours quoted by the Knight say indeed that in the beginning Prayers were in the vulgar tongue but the reason was because those three holy languages Hebrew Greeke and Latine dedicated on the crosse of Christ were then most vulgar none of them speake a word of any Precept There is no precept in the Scripture commanding prayers in a knowne tongue or forbidding in an unknowne whose authority or example can you bring for your selfe in this matter name him if you can It was more needfull in the Primitive Church that the people should understand because they were to answer the Priest which now is not so as Bellarmine noteth because that belongs only to the Clarke That the Knight contradicteth himselfe in one place saying That the alteration of the Church service was occasioned by certaine Shepheards who in the dayes of Honorius having learned the words of Consecration by heart pronounced them over their Bread and Wine in the fields and thereby Transubstantiated them into flesh and bloud and for this prophane abuse were strucken
4. Art 1. betwixt a Councell approved by the whole Christian world and one that is disclaimed by most Christian Kings and Bishops and the major part of Christendome But you would further know a difference betwixt their two Creeds Let me tell you in briefe When a Romanist like your selfe would needs know of a Protestant the difference betwixt his religion and ours Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate salutis Bonifac. 8. in Extr. de Major Obed cap. Unam sanctam because both beleeved the Catholike Church in the Creed the Protestant made answer that wee beleeve the Catholike faith contained in the Creed but doe not beleeve the thirteenth Article which the Pope put to it when the Romanist was desirous to see that Article the Extravagant of Pope Boniface was brought wherein it was declared to be altogether of necessitie of salvation for everie humane creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome This thirteenth Article in your Trent Creed besides the newnesse of the rest makes a great difference Mr. Lloyd betwixt the two Creeds and the rather because it is flat contrarie to the decree of the Nicene Councell besides many other differences as shall appeare hereafter But say you they agree in this that as the Arrians of those times cryed out against that Creed as being new and having words not found in Scripture for example Consubstantiation so our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of faith for the same reasons of noveltie and words not found in Scripture as for example Transubstantiation It is true the Arrians at the time of the Councell cryed out against the Nicene Creed for defining the word Consubstantiall or Coessentiall as being new but it is as true they complained without a cause for long before that time the word was used by Origen Doctos quosdam ex veteribus illustres Episcopos Homousii dictione usos esse cognovimus Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. and other ancient Fathers as appeares by Socrates Wee know saith he that of the old writers certaine learned men and famous Bishops have used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly it was resolved by S. Austin that the name was not invented but confirmed and established in the Councell of Nice The word therefore Consubstantiall was not new August contr Maxim l. 3. c. 14. which they complained of but the word Transubstantiation is so new that it was altogether unknowne till the Councell of Lateran Concil Lateranense Anno 1215. Bellarm. 1200. yeeres after Christ therefore your comparison holds not in the first place But ad nit the Councell had first devised the word Quomodo dicis in Scripturis divinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non inveniri quasi aliud sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quà m quod dicit Ego de Deo patre exivi Ego Pater unum sumus Ambros de fide contra Arrian Tom. 2. c. 5. p. 223. in initio August Ep. 174. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Ep. quod decret Synod Nic. Congruis verbis sunt exposita Nihil refert hanc vocem non esse in Scripturâ si vox id significat quod Scriptura docet Vasq in 1. Thom. Tom. 2. Disp 110. c. 1. sect 4. yet it is agreed on all hands that the meaning of the word is contained in Scripture S. Ambrose writing against the Arrians puts to them this very question How doe you say the word Consubstantiall is not in divine Scriptures as if Consubstantiall were any thing else but I went out from the Father and the Father and I are one the word therefore was a pregnant word agreeable to the sacred word of God And albeit saith S. Austin the word perhaps be not found there yet the thing it selfe is found and what more frivolous quarrell is it than to contend about the word when there is certaintie of the thing it selfe In like manner Athanasius answered the Arrians in those dayes as I must answer you Touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albeit it be not found in Scriptures yet it hath the same meaning that the Scriptures intend and imports the same with them whose eares are entirely affected towards religion We cry not out against you simply because your word Transubstantiation is not found in the Scriptures but because the true sense and meaning of the word is not contained in them for the words Unbegotten Increate the word Sacrament the word Trinitie and the like are not found in Scripture yet wee teach them wee beleeve them because their true sense and meaning may bee deduced from the Scripture and we professe with your Jesuite Vasques Nihil refert c. It mattereth not whether the word be in Scripture or no so as that which it signifieth be in the Scripture To come neerer to you doe you but prove that the words This is my body imply Transubstantiation and let me be branded for an Arrian if I refuse to subscribe to it but that the world may know we condemne you justly both for the newnesse of the word and your doctrine also hearken to the learned Doctors of your owne Church Your Schoole-man Scotus tels us that before the Councell of Lateran Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucbar c. 23. Transubstantiation was not beleeved as a point of faith It is true your fellow Jesuites are ashamed of this confession and thereupon Bellarmine answers Ibid. This opinion of his is no way to bee allowed Suarez in 3. Tom. in Euch. disp 70. sect 2. and Suarez not content with such a sober reckoning proclaimes that for his lowd speaking hee ought to be corrected and as touching the words of consecration from whence you would inferre both the name nature of Transubstantiation Mont. in Luk. 22. your Arias Montanus saith This is my body that is my body is sacramentally contained in the Sacrament of bread and hee addes withall the secret and most mysticall manner hereof God will once vouchsafe more clerely to unfold to his Christian Church The doctrine therefore of your carnall and corporall presence is not so cleerely derived from the Scriptures nay on the contrarie hee protesteth that the body of our Saviour is but sacramentally contained in the Sacrament as the Protestants hold and therefore not bodyily It is more than evident that the word Consubstantiation used by the Fathers was derived from the Scriptures but you have not that infallible assurance for your word Transubstantiation witnes your Cardinall Cajetan Cajet in Thom. part 3. q. 75. art 1. he assures us that there appeareth nothing out of the Gospel that may inforce us to understand Christs words properly yea nothing in the text hindereth but that these words This is my body may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense as those words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ that the words of either proposition may well bee
I cite but three Authors and yet none prove the Antiquitie or Vniversalitie of our Faith Then you goe backe againe and you tell the Reader I say nothing here of the mans notable cunning and falshood in making him beleeve as if we did excuse our selves in those things whereof they accuse us If such extravagant excursions and reproches you call a Reply or a Catholike Answer I will lay my finger on my mouth and say with your Cardinall Qui decipi vult decipiatur Briefely the substance of my Assertion was this The three Creeds the Canonicall Scriptures the Apostolike Traditions the foure first generall Councels and the rest were so generally received in the bosome of the Roman Church that for that reason it might seeme a senselesse question to demand where our Church was before Luther Next I shewed that the positive Doctrines of our Church mentioned in our 39. Articles were contained in a very few points and those also had Antiquity and Vniversality then I shewed that those doctrines which they obtruded upon us were but Additions and Negative Tenets in our Articles and that many of those additions were condemned or at least excused by their owne men And I instanced in three Authors before mentioned for three severall points of their Doctrine and this is the substance and true meaning of that Section and thus much by way of advertisement to the moderate Reader Now to answer you distinctly to that you have produced confusedly Your first exception is touching Pope Adrian the sixth you say It is not as Sr. Humphry putteth it to wit if the consecrated Bread be Christ but if it be rightly consecrated And doe not you still by Adrians confession excuse your adoration by implying a condition and is it not all one according to your doctrine For if it be rightly consecrated it is Christ if not it is a Crust and no man amongst your Communicants knoweth what it is because he knoweth not the Priests intention Take it therefore which way you will yet my assertion stands true we condemne you for adoring the Elements for ought you know of bread and wine because it doth depend upon the intention of the Priest whether Christ be there or no but yet you cannot condemne us for adoring Christs rent body in the Heavens and however the Priests doe consecrate yet saith Gerson when the host is adored that condition is ever at lest to be supposed if it be rightly consecrated that is Gers compend Theol. Tit. de tribus virtut p. 111. if it be truely the body of Christ And this is that Pope Adrian hath delivered by your owne confession and therefore they are not to be cleered from Idolatry because they intended to worship one God as indeede there was but one God but because they adored him there where he was not and in that manner as they supposed him to be The case saith Catharinus is like in the host not consecrated Cathar Annot. in Caiet p. mihi 134. For God and Christ is not adored simply but as he is existing under the formes of bread and wine If therefore he be not there but it be found that Divine worship is given to a creature insteede of Christ there is Idolatry also For even in this regard they were Idolaters who adored Heaven or any other thing supposing with themselves that they adored in it the Divinity whom they called the soule of the world Compare then the certainty of your faith with ours which is the point in question and tell me if in this we are not more certaine and safe then you can be First your owne Bellarmine tels us Bell. de Iustific l. 3. c. 8. that none can be certaine by the certainity of faith that he doth receive a true Sacrament No man saith Andreas Vega can beleeve assuredly that he receiveth the least part of the Sacrament Vega l. 9. de Iustific c. 17. and this is so surely to be credited as it is apparant that we live And both give one and the same reason for it For there is no way except it be by Revelation that we can know the intention of the Minister either by outward appearance or by certainty of faith From this dangerous consequence we condemne your adoration and resolve to let you know from your owne men Th. Salistar de arte Praedicandi c. 25. that No man be he never so simple or never so wise ought precisely to believe that this is the body of our Lord that the Priest hath consecrated but onely under this condition if all things concerning the consecration be done as appertaineth for otherwise he shall avouch a creature to be the Creator which were Idolatry Now as this way in the generall is uncertaine and dangerous so likewise there are many other wayes which may easily occasion this Idolatry and therefore you cannot deny us to be in the more certaine and safe way As for instance Iohannes de Burgo who was Chancellor of Cambridge about 200. yeares since gives us to understand that a Priest may faile in his intention many wayes As for example Pupilla Oculi c. 3. 5. c. If the Bread be made of any other then wheaten flower which may possibly happen or if there be too much water in quantity that it overcomes and alters the nature of wine if the wine be changed into vinegar and therefore cannot serve for consecration If there be thirteene cakes upon the Table and the Priest for his consecration determine onely upon twelve in that case not one of them all is Consecrated Lastly if the Priest dissemble or leave out the words of Consecration or if he forget it or minde it not in all and every of these wayes there is nothing Consecrated and consequently the people giving divine honour to the Sacrament all Bread or Cup commit flat Idolatry When I heare the Apostle proclaime to all Christians that he which doubteth is condemned already I cannot chuse but pitty the state and condition of that miserable man who hath a doubtfull perplexed and uncertaine faith who taketh all upon trust and upon the report sometimes of an Hypocrite sometimes of a malitious Priest who hath no intention at all to administer the true Sacrament History of Trent For saith your Trent history if a Priest having charge of foure or five hundred soules were an Infidell but a formall Hyppocrite and in absolving the Penitent baptizing of children and Consecrating the Eucharist had an intention not to doe that which the Church doth it must be said that the children are damned the penitent not absolved and that all remaine without the fruite of the Communion Now let the Reader judge which doctrine is most certaine and safe either that of your Church which may occasion flat Idolatry in the worshiper or our sursum corda with hearts and eyes lifted up to Heaven where we adore our Saviour Christ in his bodily presence according to the
deliros senes sed qui magis quà m Phormio deliraret vidisse neminem I will leave the application to your selfe and the interpretation to the Reader because you say I cannot translate Latin Some truth or modesty I should gladly heare from you but this is such an impudent Calumny as Bellarmine himselfe would have beene ashamed to have heard it fall from the Pen of any learned Papalin heare therefore what your owne men confesse of Calvin and others and what we professe in the name of our Church Your F. Kellison saith of Calvin Kellis Surney lib. 4. cap. 5. p. mihi 229. That if hee did meane as hee speaketh hee would not dispute with him but would shake hands with him as with a Catholike And then hee repeats Calvins words I say that in the Mysterie of the Supper by the signe of Bread and Wine is Christ truly delivered yea and his Body and his Blood And a little before those words hee giveth the reason Because saith he Christs words This is my Body are so plaine that unlesse a man will call God a deceiver hee can never be so bold as to say that hee setteth before us an emptie Signe This is likewise Bellarmines confession of him Bell de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 1. Non ergo vacuum inane signum It is no vaine and empty signe Thus you see your fellowes and you agree like Harpe and Harrow you say it is an empty peece of Bread they answer in Calvins behalfe and ours that it is not an empty signe Idem ibid. c. 8. Nay saith Bellarmine both Calvin and Oecolampadius and Peter Martyr doe teach the Bread is called Christs Body figuratively as being a signe or figure of his body but they adde withall it is no bare and empty figure but such as doth truely convey unto them the things signified thereby Bilson in the difference betwixt Subjection and Christistian Rebellion Part. 4. p. mihi 779. for which truthes sake Christ said not this Bread is a figure of my body but it is my body To give you an instance in some of our Church God forbid saith our learned Bilson wee should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the Faithfull at the Lords Table It is the Doctrine that wee teach others and wherewith wee comfort our selves Wee never doubted but the Truth was present with the Signe and the Spirit with the Sacrament as Cyprian saith Wee knew there could not follow an operation if there were not a presence before Neither doe I thinke you are ignorant of this but that you have inured your selfe to falsities and reproaches For it is apparently true that the question in these dayes is not of the truth of the presence but of the manner that is whether it be to the Teeth and the Belly or Soule and Faith of the Receiver And therupon our learned and Reverend B. Andrews returned his Answer to Bellarmine Wee beleeve the presence Wee beleeve B. Andrew ad Bell. Apol. Resp c. 1. p. mihi 11. I say the presence as well as you concerning the manner of the presence we doe not unadvisedly define nay more wee doe not scrupulously inquire no more than wee doe in Baptisme how the blood of Christ cleanseth us From the Sacraments you procceed to our two and twentie Bookes of Canonicall Scripture and indeed wee allow but two and twentie But will any Catholike say you allow this to have been Catholike Doctrine Yes without doubt Scil. Orig. in Exposit Psal 1. many good Catholikes did follow the Hebrew Canon of the Iewes which saith Origen compriseth but two and twentie bookes of the old Testament according to the number of the letters among them Melito Bellar. de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 20. Bishop of Sardis was a Catholike and saith Bellarmine hee did follow the Hebrew Canon of the Iewes Hilary Hilar. in Prolog in Psal explanat Bishop of Poictiers was a Catholike and he told us The old Testament was contained in two and twentie bookes according to the number of the Hebrew letters St. Cyril Cyril Catechis 4. Bishop of Hierusalem was a Catholike and hee gave us the like Lesson Peruse the two and twentie books of the old Testament but meddle not with the Apochrypha Athanasius Anthanas in Synops Bishop of Alexandria was a Catholike and affirmes that the Christians had a definite number of books comprehended in the Canon which were two and twentie equall to the number of the Hebrew letters Ruffinus was a Catholike Bellar. de verbo Dei l. 1. c. 20. and Bellarmine confesseth hee did follow the Hebrew Canon which conteined our two and twentie books Gregory Nazianzen was a Catholike Naz. Carm. Iamb ad Seleucum Iamb 3. and hee shewed to Seleucus a Catalogue of the Canonicall bookes and hee cites the bookes in order from Genesis to Malachie the last of the Prophets and leaveth out all the Apochrypha The Fathers of the Councell of Laodicea were Catholikes Concil Laod. cap. 59. and in the 59th Canon they allow onely those two and twenty bookes for Canonicall which wee receive There are others whom you terme Catholikes as namely Damascene Hugo de Sancto Victore Lyranus Hugo Cardinalis Tostatus Waldensis Driedo and Cajetan all which differ from your Tenet of the Apochryphall bookes which are canonized by your Trent Councell such agreement is there amongst your best learned touching the greatest point of your Beleefe and yet forsooth your Church cannot be depraved But here is one thing say you which giveth mee much cause of wonder which is that you talke of Traditions as distinct from Scripture I ever tooke you to be so fallen out with them that you made the deniall of them a fundament all point of your Religion that you would not indure the word Tradition but alwaies translated or rather falsified it into Ordinances Thus you It is a true saying of the Heathen Orator Cicero Hee who once goeth beyond the bounds of Modestie had need to be lustily impudent I protest I onely termed your Additions Traditions and you question our Church for false translating of the word And cannot wee indure the word Traditions Doe not we allow of all the Apostolicall Traditions which agree unto the Scriptures Nay more doe wee not translate the word Traditions in the Scripture when the Text will beare it according to the Greeke originall Looke upon the fifteenth of Matthew Matth. 15. v. 2 3 6. and in three severall verses 2 3 6. wee use the word Tradition Looke upon the seventh of Marke Marke 7. v. 3 8 9 13. and in foure severall places of that chapter you shall find likewise wee translate Traditions Looke upon Saint Paul to the Colossians Galatians and upon Saint Peter Colos 2.8 Galat. 1.14 1. pet 1.18 and in all these in the Translation joyned with your Rhemish Testament you shall find the word Traditions How
is not found expressely Yet our Argument from Biels testimonie is no way disabled thereby because it appeareth out of Biels owne words that hee holdeth that to bee expresly delivered in Scriptures which is either expressed in word or sence the reall presence he saith is expresse not in the letter or forme of words in the text yet in the sence but so saith he is not Transubstantiation the apparant opposition betweene the members of his sentence sheweth that what hee beleeved of the reall presence hee beleeved not of Transubstantiation but the former he beleeved could bee proved out of Scripture though not in expresse words yet in sence therefore the later hee beleeved could not be proved so much as in sense much lesse in expresse words To the sixt Although Petrus de Alliaco inclineth rather to the Lutherans opinion in the point of the Sacrament then to the doctrine of the Church of England yet the Knight upon good reason produceth him as a witnesse for hee speaketh home against Transubstantiation Cameracë in 4 sent q. 6. art 2. patet quòd ille modus sit possibilis nec repugnet rationi nec authoritati bibliae imò facilior ad intelligendum rationabilior est quum c. his words are that the conversion of bread into Christs body cannot evidently bee proved out of Scripture and that that manner or meaning which supposeth the substance of bread still to remaine in the Sacrament is possible neither is it contrary to reason or to the authoritie of the Scripture nay it is more easie to bee understood and more reasonable then that which saith the substance doth leave the accidents If this bee not as Flood will have it so much as in shew for the Knight I am sure it is both in shew and substance against the Trent faith for if it bee granted that Consubstantiation is not contrarie to Scripture nor reason it followeth necessarily that Transubstantiation is grounded upon neither but rather repugnant to both for as trans denieth con so con trans If the remaining of the substance of bread with the substance of Christs body be not repugnant to the authoritie of Scripture nor the meaning of Christs words then doe not these words This is my body signifie or make Transubstantiation which necessarily abolisheth the substance of Bread and putteth in place thereof the substance of Christs bodie If Consubstantiation bee more easily to bee understood and more agreeable to right reason in Alliacoes judgement then Transubstantiation it is evident but for feare of his Cardinalls cap hee would have simply avowed the former and renounced the latter To the seventh Take Roffensis his words at the best the Iesuite is at a great losse admit hee said no more then I.R. here confesseth that no man can bee able to prove that any priest now in these times doth consecrate the true body of Christ see what will follow hereupon that no man is able to prove that your priests and people are not grosse Idolatours adoring a piece of bread for Christ Secondly that none is able to prove that Christ is really and substantially offered in your Masse for if it cannot bee proved that he is there corporally present as Roffenfis confesseth and you be are him out in it it cannot bee proved that hee is corporally offered restat itaque ut missas missas faciatis Roff. cont Luth captiv Bab. c. 4 neque ullum posituÌ„ hic verbum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fi lci carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam non potestigitur per ullam scripturam probari it remaineth therefore that you dismisse your misses or Masses For what can they availe the living or the dead if nothing but meere accidents and shewes of Bread and Wine bee offered which are meere nothing Wee may yet gather farther upon Roffensis his words if it cannot bee proved by any Scripture that Christs body and bloud are present in the Roman masse it cannot bee proved that they are present in any Masse unlesse it bee granted that the Roman masses are of a worser condition then others if not in any masse much lesse must Papists say in any Sacrament without the Masse What then becommeth of the maine and most reall article of the Trent faith which hath cost the reall effusion of so much Christian bloud I meane the reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament To Roffenfis I.R. should have added Cajetan and so hee might have had a parreiall of Cardinalls for the Knight alledged him and his words are most expresse not only against the proofe of Transubstantiation Caje in 3. p. Tho. g. 75. dico autem ab ecclesiâcum non appareat ex Evangelio coactivum aliuod ad intellg â—â—dum haec verba propriè quod evangelium non explicavit expressè ab ecclesia accepimus viz. conversionem panis in corpus but also of the corporall presence of Christ as out of the words hoc est corpus meum The Cardinalls words are that which the Gospell hath not expressed wee have received from the Church to wit the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ I say from the Church because there appeares nothing out of the Gospell that can enforce a man to beleeve that the words This is my body are to bee taken properly How doth this Flood swell in pride that to so great a Cardinal so profound a Schoole-man so eminent a Doctour so divine a Commentatour so golden a Writer all which titles are given by the Roman Church to Cajetan he vouchsafeth not a looke But indeed he held a Wolfe by the eares and was in a quandarie what to doe whether to keepe his holt or to let him goe if hee had taken notice of his testimonie against the Roman Church either hee must have disparaged the Cardinall or given his Trent faith a grievous wound To the eight Durand his words are plaine enough to prove that the conversion of bread into the body of Christ is wrought by the vertue of Christs benediction before hee uttered the words Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua convertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi Dur. rat c. 41. This is my body hee blessed saith hee the bread by his heavenly benediction and by vertue of the Word whereby the Brend is turned into the substance of Christs body Yea but faith Flood hee addeth Wee blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis wee blesse by that power or vertue which Christ hath given to the words true verbis benenedictionis not consecrationis according to Durands mind by that power which Christ gave to the words of benediction going before not those words which you call the words of Consecration ensuing after viz. This is my body which words yet Durand there rehearseth not to prove the conversion to bee wrought by them but to prove Christs body to be truly there To the ninth Though
Service they thought to be fittest and most agreeable to Gods commandement If wee had nothing but their practise for us it alone would prove the visibilitie of our Church in this maine point wherein wee stand at a bay with the Roman Church but the truth is though the Iesuit would bee loath to heare it his owne witnesses Cassander Belithus Waldensis and Aquinas speake home to the point even of a Precept the words of Cassander are the Canonicall prayers and especially the words of Consecration of the body and blood of our Lord the Ancients did so read that all the people might understand it and say Amen according to the precept intimated by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 16. The words of Belithus are that in the Primitive Church it was forbidden that any should speake with tongues unlesse there were some to interpret for what saith hee should speaking availe without understanding Waldensis saith more then that in the Apostles time the giving of thankes was in a knowne tongue he confirmeth the practise with a reason saying There was reason it should bee so because in those times not only the Priests but the people also were wont to answer Amen Aquinas goeth a step farther that it was madnesse in the Primitive Church for a man to have prayed in an unknowne tongue because then the people were rude and ignorant in Ecclesiasticall rites Now if the Iesuit thinke that it was not prohibited in the Apostles time to doe any madde act in time of divine Service he himselfe is bound for the Anticyrae Now for that the Iesuit addeth for the imbellishing of his former answer that none of the vulgar languages but the three learned to wit the Hebrew Greeke and Latine were Dedicated on the crosse of Christ and consequently that they being the best and perfectest of all languages were fittest for divine Service to be said in them it is more plausible then substantiall For though I grant that every devout soule so affecteth the person of our Lord and Saviour that shee loveth the very ground hee trod upon and honoureth those languages above all other in which his titles were proclaimed for the greater advancement of his kingdome yet the reason holdeth not in our present case For though a golden key bee simply better then a key of iron yet a key of iron which will open to us a casket of most pretious Iewells is better for that use then a key of gold which will not open the lock Admit the originall languages of Greeke and Hebrew are simply perfecter and better then any other which are derivatives from them yet the Mother-tongue or vulgar language is better and fitter for the congregation in time of divine Service because it answereth the wards of their understanding and openeth to their capacity the Divine mysteries then celebrated which the learned languages cannot doe As for Pilats writing over the Crosse it is certaine he had no end therein to honour the three Languages with this title but to dishonour our Saviour thereby and put a scorne upon him and therefore that inscription in the three languages was rather a pollution then a Dedication of those tongues If Pilats action herein bee of any force it maketh rather against then for our Adversaries For Pilat therefore commanded the title to be written in those three languages that it might be understood of all or the greater part of those that then were at Ierusalem By which reason people of divers languages ought to have their mysteries for so the Iesuit calleth this title celebrated in their owne severall langurges Praef. in psal his maximè tribus linguis sacramentum voluntatis Dei beati regni expectatio praedicatur ex eoque illud Pilati fuit ut in his tribus linguis regem Iudaeorum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum esse praescriberet S. Hilarie who is alledged by Baylie the Iesuit for the consecration of these tongues neither saith that these tongues were consecrated by that inscription not that Christs kingdome is to be proclaimed in them only His words are in these three languages especially the mysterie of Gods will and the expectation of his blessed kingdome is preached and hence it was that Pilat wrote our Lord Iesus Christ King of the Iewes in those three tongues This testimonie cutteth the throate of our Adversaries for the adverbe maximè or chiefly implieth that the mysteries of Christs kingdome were to be preached in other tongues though in these especially because these were then and are some of them at this day most generally knowne and understood Inc. 15 Marc. Deus voluit ut causa mortis Christi varijs linguis scriberetur quo ab omnibus intelligeretur Et Hieron ib. hae tres linguae in crucis titulo conjunctae ut omnis lingua commemoraret perfidiam Iudaeorum Baron tom 10 Anno Chris 880. ep 147. liter as Slavonicas à Constantino philosopho repertas quibus Deo laudes debitas resonent jure laudamus ut in cadem lingua Christi Dei nostri praeconia opera enarrentur jubemus neque enim trilus tantùm linguis sed omnibus Dominum laudare authoritate sacrâ monemur quae praecepit dicens laudate Dominum omnes gentes nec sanè fidei vel doctrinae allquid obstat five missas in eadem Slavonica lingua canere sive sacrum evangelium vel lectiones divinas N. V. Testamenti benè translatas interpretatas legere out alia horarum officia psallere quoniam qui fecit tres linguas principales Hebraeam scilicet Graecaem Latinam ipse creavit alias omnes ad laudem gloriam suam Lyra and S. Ierome harpe upon this string God would have saith Lyra that the cause of Christs death should bee written in divers tongues that every tongue might declare the trecherie of the Iewes and which marreth all the Iesuits musick the Popes Diapason soundeth out the same note for so wee reade in Bope Iohns Epistle to the King of Moravia we commend the Slavonian letters found out by Constantine the Philosopher whereby those of that countrey set forth the due prayses of God and we command that the preaching and workes of Christ our God bee declared in them for we are admonished by the Divine authoritie which commandeth saying Prayse the Lord all yee Gentiles to prayse the Lord not in three tongues only but in all for hee who made the three principall languages Hebrew Greeke and Latine hee created also all other for his glorie To the twelfth To this insolent interrogation of the Iesuit wee answer that in generall prayer in an unknowne tongue is commanded in all those texts of Scripture which require us to come neere unto God and pray unto him with our heart For by the heart the understanding as well as the will and affections are meants as appeareth by that prayer of Solomon Da mihi cor intelligens in particular and expresse words it is commanded in the 1
Popes superioritie to Councels before the Councell at Laterane under Leo the tenth nor most of Pope Pius the fourth his Articles before the late Councell of Trent wherein those points were first defined Then which what Argument can be more forcible to convince the novelty of the Romish Faith But whether an article of Faith is to be accounted such because it is defined to be such by the Church or whether it be defined to be such by the Church because it is such in its owne nature it will little serve the Iesuits turne to make up the breaches of the Roman Church For certaine it is that their Doctors differ amongst themselves even in points defined by the Church For after the bookes of the Old Testament with all the parts knowne by the name of Apocrypha by the Councell of Trent were defined to be of Canonicall authoritie Sixtus Senensis makes scruple of some of them Sixtus Senens bib Sanct. l. 1. After the immaculate conception of our Lady was defined by Sixtus the fourth and the feast in testimonie thereof authorised by him yet the Dominicans generally hold that shee was conceived in sinne After Justification by inherent righteousnesse De Caus instit l. 7. c. 21. was defined in the Councell of Trent Albertus Pighius and others cited by Vegas held the contrary And though the Councell of Trent stigmatize the doctrine touching assurance of salvation yet Ambrosius Catharinus a learned Papist set forth a learned treatise de certitudine salutis Lastly though Pope Leo the tenth in the Councell of Lateran defineth the Pope to be above a generall Councell yet the Sorbonists at this day maintaine that a generall Councell is above the Pope Therefore as St Thomas Moore said pleasantly of a poore Physitian that he was more then medicus to wit by one letter Mor. in Epigr. meaning that he was mendicus Vna tibi plus est litera quam medico so it may truely be said of the unity Papists brag so much of that it is more then Vnity by a letter to wit Vanity To the fourth If the Knight or any Protestant suspended the efficacy of their Baptisme upon the faith of their Parents or as all Papists doe upon the intention of the Priest the Iesuit might with some colour object to us the uncertainty of our Christendome but let him know if he doth not that we maintaine generally that the effect of Baptisme dependeth not upon the faith of the Parents and God-fathers nor yet upon the intention of the Priest knowne to God onely and himselfe but upon his outward action and his words knowne to all the Congregation We say that the observation of Christs institution in baptizing the partie in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy-ghost and not the Priests hidden intention makes Baptisme effectuall to all that belong to the covenant To the fift The Iesuit most absurdly inferreth absurdities upon his owne Tenet supposing it to be ours whereas we disclaime it affirming that although the Church useth in marriage all meanes possible by questions and answers by joyning hands by plighting their troth in most significant tearmes and confirming their mutuall promises by giving and receiving a ring and denouncing Gods judgments against them in most fearfull manner if they know any thing one by the other why they should not be ioyned in marriage yet because the heart is knowne to God alone the validity of marriage with us dependeth upon the outward profession and sacred action done before sufficient and undoubted witnesse and not the secret intentions of the partie What the Iesuit addeth by way of jeare that a small deale of orders serves our turnes for he seeth not any thing done by vertue of our ordination which any man or woman may not doe without it I hold it not worthy any other answer then that sith he professeth his eye sight to be so dimme he would make use of the Spectacles he made for the Knight by helpe of them if he be not starke blinde he may see that by vertue of our ordination men in holy orders preach the Gospell administer the Sacraments remit and retaine sinnes which if he thinke any man or woman may doe without ordination like the foole in the Poet Dum vitant stulti vitia in contrario currunt he is gone from one extreame to the other and of a Papist become an Anabaptist With us none may execute the Priests office but he that is called thereunto as was Aaron If the Iesuit meane that any man or woman may doe the outward acts of Priesthood de facto though not de Iure may they not doe the like also sometimes among them doth not their Legend tell us that some Boyes getting by heart and pronouncing the words of Consecration hoc est Corpus meum turned all the Bakers bread in the street into flesh Do not Lady Abbesses and Nuns chaunt Mattins together in Romish Chappels Do not Midwives christen children in their Church With what face then can he charge us with those disorders whereof all the world seeth we are free but he and his Church most guilty To the sixt If we can have but a conjecturall and wavering knowledge of our salvation what comfort can a true Christian have in life or death If his hope be onely in this life the Apostle affirmeth expressely 1 Cor. 15.19 that he is of all men most miserable and certainely he is but little better if all his hope in the life to come be no better then a guesse or slender conjecture Iustly therefore did Martin Luther tearme the Romish doctrine concerning uncertainty of salvation non doctrinam fidei sed diffidentiae no doctrine of faith but of diffidence and distrust which if this Iesuit stiffely maintaines I would faine know of him how he interpreteth that Article of the Creed I beleeve the remission of sinnes Is the meaning onely this that there is a remission of some sins in the Church if so then the Devill beleeves as much concerning this Article as he but if as he beleeveth in the Article of the Resurrection the Resurrection of his owne flesh so in the Article of remission of sinnes the remission of his owne sinnes then his owne justification and particular beliefe of his owne saltion is a part of his Catholike faith and if that be but conjecturall then there is no certainty in the Catholike Faith It is true that it is a different thing to dispute of the certainety of the Catholike faith in generall and of every mans private and particular beliefe of his owne justification and salvation yet there is such a dependance betweene them that if the former be uncertaine the latter cannot be certaine Yea but saith the Iesuit we are certaine by the certainty of divine faith not onely that there be seven Sacraments but that they are also truely administred in the Church so as there can be no danger of the failing
soever to exception saith nothing for him Pelagius was not so absurd as to hold this position that Peters Chaire and Faith goe alwaies together but only spake in a glozing manner thus to Pope Sozimus Thou holdest Peters Chaire and Faith and will the Iesuit inferre an universall from a particular Pope Sozimus held Peters Chaire and Faith therfore all that hold Peters Chaire hold his Faith What holdeth these two together Luke 22.32 Quest vet N. Test q. 75. Quid ambigitur pro Petro rogabat pro Iacobo et Iohāne non rogabat ut caeteros taceam manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri a most strong and effectuall Bond saith the Iesuit namely Christs promise to Peter I have prayed for thee that thy Faith faile not The time will faile me to declare particularly how many waies this Argument of the Iesuit failes first Christ prayed not here for Peter onely as Saint Austine affirmeth What doth any man make question hereof did Christ pray for Peter and not for James and John To say nothing of the rest it is manifest that in Peter all the rest are contained This prayer then no more privilegeth the See of Rome from error than of Ierusalem or of Ephesus or any other See of the Apostles Secondly Christ prayed not that Peter might not erre who afterwards erred Gal. 2.14 and was reproved by Saint Paul Galathians the second but that his Faith might not faile that is be overcome in that fearfull temptation in such sort that hee might not rise againe after his fall Thirdly Christs prayer is for Peter himselfe in his person and the Apostles whom Satan winnowed not for his See Fourthly if this promise any way belonged to his Successors certainly no more to those of Rome than Antiochia so infirme is this the Iesuits proofe which yet hee saith Must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell what Pope began to varie from his Predecessours Agreed Sir Humphrey shall presently tell him by name Liberius the Arrian Vigilius the Eutychian Honorius the Monothelite condemned in three generall Councels sixth seventh and eighth Iohn the three and twenty deposed in the Councell at Constance as for other enormous crimes so for this his damnable heresie that Hee denied the immortalitie of the soule and the life to come To which after the Iesuit hath replied instance shall be given in many other Popes which have beene branded with the note of heresie in like manner To the third A strange and loose inference three and thirty Popes adored Images because their Predecessor had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Pope Gregorie allowed of the standing of pictures in the Church Vid. supr yet would have them by no meanes adored Helena the mother of Constantine had the wood of Christs crosse yet adored it not saith Saint Ambrose If to have the picture of Saint Peter or Saint Paul nay or of Christ himselfe maketh a man an Idolater or a Papist then not onely all the Lutherans generally but very many of the most orthodoxe Divines in our and other reformed Churches will be proved as good Papists as Pope Sylvester To the fourth Not only Protestants whom the Iesuit nick-nameth Heretikes but also Contius and other Romanists have disparaged these Epistles and if the Iesuits nose be not very flat and stuffed also hee may smell the forgerie of these Decretals by the barbarisme of the stile disagreeing to those times and many absurdities and contradictions noted in them by Coqueus and others To the fift If it be no matter of Faith that this particular Priest Transubstantiateth the Bread because no man knowes his intention nor that particular Priest Et sic de caeteris It followeth that it is no matter of Faith to beleeve that any Priest in the Roman Church by the words of Consecration turneth the Bread into Christs Body As for that hee addeth that it is no matter whether any ever died for this point in particular I answer it is a matter of great moment for if Garnet would not take it upon his salvation that this Bread hee consecrated immediately before the death was turned into Christs Body nor any ever would or did pawne his life for Transubstantiation it is evident that Papists themselves doubt of the certainty of that Article On the contrarie wee can produce hundreds nay thousands who for denying Transubstantiation have beene put to death and have signed the truth of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning the Sacrament with their blood and therefore the Doctrine of the Protestants in this point is of more credit than the contrarie because it is strengthened and fortified by a Noble armie of Martyrs Concerning the Protestants charitable opinion of the salvation of Papists Spectacles Chap. 17. à page 491. usque ad 508. THE Knights discourse in this Chapter is wholly from his purpose which he pretendeth in the title of his Chapter which is to answer our objections The Knights eight instances in the Doctrine of Merits Communion in both kinds publike use of Scripture Priests marriage Service in a knowne tongue Worship of Images Adoration of the Sacrament and Traditions are all answered before and proved some false for the things wherewith he chargeth us are all absurd if we consider the proofes of Scripture which he bringeth All testimonies from an enemy proceede not from charity but from truth and such are those which Catholikes bring out of learned Protestants to prove that a man dying in the Romish Religion may be saved Free-will Prayer for the Dead Honouring of Relikes Reall Presence Transubstantiation Communion in one kinde Worshiping of Images the Popes Primacy Auricular Confession and the like are all acknowledged some by one Protestant some by another not to be materiall points so as a man may without perill beleeve either way the severall authors are Perkins Cartwright Whitgift Fulke Penrie Somes Sparks Reynolds Bunnie and Whitaker John Frith a Foxean Martyr acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation whether he beleeve it or not John Huz held the Masse Transubstantiation Vowes Freewill Merit of workes and of the haeresies now in controversie held onely one to wit communion in both kindes Dr. Barrow acknowlegeth the Church of Rome to be the Church of God Hooker a part of the house of God and limbe of the visible Church of Christ Dr. Somes that all learned and reformed Churches confesse that in Popery there is a Church a Ministry and true Christ Field and Morton that we are to be accounted the Church of God whose words may be seene in the Protestants Apologie Tract 1. Sect. 6. Whereas the Knight saith that men otherwayes morally good relying wholly on the merits of Christ that is living Papists and dying Protestants in the principall foundation of our faith may finde mercy because they did it ignorantly where hath the Knight learned this Theologie that a man
ad Philadelph In your Edition printed at Colein you have quite altered the sense by a corrupt Translation saying One Cup is distributed for all and in the Margent Unus Calix qui pro omninibus nobis distributus est Bibl. Pp. Tom. 1. Colon Agripp An. 1618. p. 85. Bell. de Euch. l. 4. c. 26. Una Eucharistia utendum And that your corruption may not want an Advocate your Cardinall Bellarmine tells us There is not much credit to be given to the Greek Copies for the Latine reades it otherwise by which reason a man may appeale from the Originall to a Translation which is a thing unheard of Again whereas he saith in the same Epistle Ignat. ibid. ut suprà Oh yee Virgins in your prayers set Christ onely before your eyes and his Father being enlightened by his spirit hereby teaching that we ought to directour prayers to the Trinity only and not to Saints Angels your men in their late Edition printed at Lyons by their corrupt translation have left out the word Precibus Ignat. Lugdun impres An. 1572. and thrustin Animabus soules for prayers by which change of words the sense meaning of the Father is cleane perverted It followeth further in the same Page in speaking of Peter and Paul and other Apostles who betooke themselves to a married life Severinus Binius in his Annotations upon this place tells us that those words viz. Peter and Paul and other Apostles betook themselves to a married life ought to be razed out The third age An. 200. to 300. because saith he it is probable the Grecians in honour of Marriage corrupted the Text A faire warning for us to take notice that in after Editions that passage may also be cleane left out In the third Age Tertullian paraphrasing upon the words of Christ a Caro nihil prodest ad vivificandum scilicet Tert. de Resurrect carnis c. 37. Caro nihil prodest sed ad vivificandum Tertul. Parisiis apud Michaelem Julianum An. 1580. p. Mihi 47. The flesh profiteth nothing saith It is the Spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing namely to quicken your Tertullian printed at Paris hath quite perverted the meaning of the Father and causeth him to speake flat contrary both to himselfe and to the sense of Christ in these words The flesh profueth nothing but to quicken St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage is falsified and corrupted for the circumgestation of your Sacrament and the Popes Supremacie In his Tract of patience he tells us b Nec post gustatam Eucharistiam manus gladio cruore maculentur Sic Cypr. Parisiis apud PetruÌ„ Drovart in vico Jacobaeo An. 1541. fol. 89. Nec post gestatam Eucharistiam c. Cypr. de bono Patientiae Impress Partsiis apud Claudium Chapelet Via Jacobaet An. 1616. p. Mihi 316 Post gustatam Eucharistiam c. After the eating of the Eucharist the hands are not or ought not to be defiled with bloud In your Cyprian printed at Paris and Colein your men have wittingly altered the words saying Post gestatam Eucha ristiam and so by transmutation of one letter doe cite this place for the circumgestation of the Sacrament whereas the Ceremonie of carrying about the Eucharist was not knowne in many hundred yeares after Cyprians time But Pamelius a Canon of the Church of Bruges and Licentiate in Divinity returnes this answer in defence of it Cum manu non gustetur Eucharistia sed olim gestari consueta sit prorsus illud ex Cambrensi Codice substituendum duxi pro eo quod erat gustatam Annot. in lib. de bono Patient pag. Mihi 321 Forasmuch as the Eucharist cannot be tasted with the hand but was wont anciently to be carried with the hand I thought it best to change the word Tasting into Carrying which I borrowed from an ancient Copie in Cambron Abbey The word then we see was changed by his owne Confession and the Cambron Copie is brought for the defence of this forgerie which differing from all other Copies may be justly suspected For his reason that we taste not with our hand it is frivolous For St. Cyprian saith not gustatam manu but simply gustatam which taste yet was not without taking the Sacrament into the hand You have heard Pamelius confession Now let us heare what Manutius hath done in publishing of St. Cyprian for Pamelius tells us that St. Cyprian printed at Rome by Paulus Manutius Indiculus Codicum in Cypriano in the yeare 1563. is a much more bettered and corrected Edition than any other and accordingly your learned Priest Mr. Hart assures us that Pope Pius the 4th Hart Raynolds c. 5. Divis 2. p. 167. being desirous that the Fathers should be set forth and corrected perfectly sent to Venice for Manutius a famous Printer that he should come to Rome to doe it and to furnish them the better with all things necessary he put foure Cardinals wise and vertuous in trust with the worke and for the correcting of Cyprian especially above the rest singular care was taken by Cardinal Baromaeus a Copie was gotten of great antiquity from Verona and the exquisite diligence of learned men was used in it These Testimonies make a faire shew of sincere and plaine dealing and no doubt if there were not double diligence used by them the Roman Cyprian doth exceed all the rest and is freest from corruption That the truth thereof may appeare let us looke into St. Cyprian in his booke touching the Unity of the Church De Veritate Ecclesiae Whereas the ancient and true Cyprian sayth The rest of the Apostles were equall unto Peter both in honour and power the Roman Cyprian printed by Manutius and your late Paris Cyprian Cypr. Parisiis apud Claudium Chapelet An. 1616. hath added these words The Primacie is given to Peter And whereas the ancient Cyprian saith Christ did dispose the Originall of unitie beginning from one the Roman and Paris have added Unam CathedraÌ„ constituit p. 254 He appointed one Chayre And whereas the ancient Cyprian sayth The Church of Christ may be shewed to be one the Roman and Paris have added Cathedra una constituitur ib. and the Chayre to bee one And because the Chayre may bee as well applyed to the Bishop of Carthage Cathedram Petri Ibid. as to the Bishop of Rome the Paris Cyprian hath added Peters chayre And whereas it was in Cyprian even in the Roman print too Hee who withstandeth and resisteth the Church doth he trust himselfe to be in the Church the Paris Cyprian addeth Qui Câ—thedram Petri supra quam fundata est Ecclesia deserit in Ecclesia se esse confidit ibid. He who forsaketh Peters chayre in which the Church was founded doth he trust himselfe to bee in the Church Now as you have heard that Manutius hath added and forged much in his Roman Edition for the Popes Supremacie so
of the ancient Eusebius neither could he say truly that the Colein was translated by a Catholike for indeed it is the property of an Here-ticke to falsifie and corrupt the Text. And thus you have done in your Colein Edition where you have altered the sense in that manner Eusebius Emissenus Bishop of Emesa in Syria is forged by Gratian for the doctrine of Transubstantiation Grat. Dist 2. de Consecrat Quia corpus fol. Mihi 432. his words are these Christ the invisible Priest turned the visible creature into the substance of his body and bloud with his word and secret power saying Take eate this is my Body whereas there are no such words to be found in all his Works The Councell of Laodicea is falsified in favour of your Iâ—vocation of Angels The words of the Originall are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Laod. Can. 35. Bin. Tom. 1. p. 245. Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and depart aside and invocate Angels and make meetings which are things forbidden If any man therefore be found to give himselfe to this privie Idolatrie let him be accursed Now in the same Councell published by James Merlyn and Fryer Crab by transmutation of a letter you are taught a lesson contrary to sense and reason saying b Quod non oporteat EcclesiaÌ„ Dei relinquere abire at que angelos nominare congregationes facere Merlin Tom. 1. Concil edit Col. An. 1530. f. 68. Crab. edit An. 1538. Colon. fol. 226. Verit as non quaerit Angulos It is not lawfull for Christians to forsake the Church of God and goe and nominate or invocate Angels or corners and make meetings and thus Angeli are become Anguli Angels are become Angles or Corners as if truth did seeke Corners when so faire an Evidence is brought against Invocation of Angels St. Basil the great Archbishop of Caesarea was forged by Pope Adrian the first at the second Councell of Nice for the worship of Images his words are these c Pro quo siguras ImaginuÌ„ eorum honoro adoro veneror specialitèr hoc enim traditum est à Sanctis Apostolis necest prohibendum acideò in omâ—ibus Ecclesiis nostris eorum designamus Historias Citat ab Adriano in Synod Nic. 2. Act. 2. p. Mihi 504. For which cause I honor and openly adore the figures of the Images speaking of the Apostles Prophets and Martyrs and this being delivered us by the Apostles is not prohibited but in all Churches we set forth their Histories This Authority was cited by Pope Adrian in the name of Basil the Great in his Epistles when as in all his Epistles of which are extant 180. there are no such words to be found St. Hierome is likewise forged for the same doctrine and by the same Pope the words in the Epistle are these Sicut permisit Deus ador are omnem gentem manufacta c. Citatur ibid. Ep. Adr. p. Mihi 506. As God gave leave to the Gentiles to worship things made with hands and to the Jewes to worship the carved workes and two golden Cherubins which Moses made so hath he given to us Christians the crosse and permitted us to paint and reverence the Images of Gods workes and so to procure him to like of our labour These words you fee are cited by your owne Pope at a generall Councell as you pretend for a point of your Romish faith and yet there are no such words nor the meaning of of them to be found in either of those Fathers and without doubt there was great scarcity of true ancient Fathers to bee found at that time to prove your adoration of Images when your Pope was driven to shifts and forgeries especially when your owne Polydore tells you Polyd. de ReruÌ„ Invent. that the worship of Images not onely Basil but almost all the ancient holy Fathers condemned for feare of Idolatrie as S. Hierome himselfe witnesseth This puts me in mind of Erasmus complaint that the same measure was afforded to Basil Eras in Praefat. lib. de Spirit Sanct. Bas which hee had otherwise observed in Athanasius Chrysostome Hierome that in the middle of Treatises many things were stuffed and forced in by others in the name of the Fathers St. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine is falsified and corrupted Franciscus Junius as an eye witnesse Junius Praefat. in Ind. Expurg Belg. tells us that at Leyden in the yeare 1559. being familiarly acquainted with Ludovicus Saurius Corrector of the Printing house and going to visit him hee found him revising of St. Ambrose workes which then Frelonius was printing after some conference had betwixt them Ludovicus shewed him some printed leaves partly cancelled and partly razed saying this is the first Impression which wee printed most faithfully according to the best Copies but two Franciscan Fryers by command have blotted out those passages and caused this alteration to my great losse and astonishment It may be the discoverie of it by Junius might stay their further printing of it or else might be an occasion to call it in after the printing for otherwise if that Impression may be had it were worthy the examination Bolseus dicit se in manibus Secretarii hâ—c testimonium vidisse inspexisse In disp de Antichristo in Apend Nu. 49. 53. Laurent Rever Rom. Eccl. p. 190. Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri sedem non habent Grat de Paenit Dist 1. c. Potest fieri But for a proofe of this falsified Ambrose Lessius the Jesuit tells us that Bolseck doth confesse he saw the Copie in the hands of a Secretary howsoever their later Editions are sufficient proofe of your manifold falsifications But I will speak of Impressions onely that have been within my view First to prove your succession in doctrine in your owne Church Gratian tells us from St. Ambrose They have not the succession of Peter who have not the Chayre of Peter and thus he hath changed Fidem into Sedem Faith into Chaire This forgery in time may creepe into the Body of Ambrose but as yet the words of Ambrose are agreeable to our doctrine that is a Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri fidem non habent Ambr. de Paenit c. 6. Tom. 1. p. 156. Basil apud Joh. Frob. An. 1527. Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 5. Tom. 4. p. 393. Basilâ—ut supra they have not the succession of Peter which want the faith of Peter These be the words of true and ancient Ambrose hereby declaring unto us and them that they may have the See of Peter and yet want the faith of Peter Againe in his Booke of the Sacrament St. Ambrose saith b Fac nobis haÌ„c oblationem ascriptam c. quod fit in figuram corports sanguinis Jesu Christi Amb. Colon. Agripp An. 1616 Tom. 4. p. 173. Make this Oblation to be a reasonable acceptable one quod est
figura which is a figure of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ Your Ambrose printed at Colein doth mince those words and sayth quod sit in figuram as if it might stand for a figure but were no figure and more particularly in the Canon of your Masse you cite all those former words of Ambrose to prove the Antiquity of your Masse but you leave out the latter which is a figure of the Body and say c Ut nobis corp sanguis fiat dilectissimi fiâ—ii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi Missale Parv. An. 1626 p. Mihi 82. Grant that it may be to us the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ. And lastly that Ambrose might seemingly appeare to be yours in the point of Transubstantiation whereas he sheweth the power and wonders of God in creating all things of nothing by his word only and from thence concludeth d Siâ—ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quant ò magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Idem de sacr l. 4. c. 4. Basil ut suprà p. 392. If therfore there be so great force in the speech of our Lord Jesus that the things which were not begun to be namely at the first creation of all things how much more is the same powerful to make that those things may still be the same they were and yet be changed into another thing Here St. Ambrose sheweth plainly that the Elements of Bread and Wine are the same in substance as they were before although they are changed into another nature Your Inquisitours knowing well that such Doctrine is flat contrary to their Tenet which teach that the Elements are not the things in substance they were before Consecration have wisely left out in their late Edition two poore words Sint and et and accordingly the sense runneth after this manner How much more is the speech of our Lord powerfull to make that those things which were Ut quae erant in aliud commutentur Paris An. 1603 Colon. Agripp An. 1616. Tom. 4. p. 173. should bee changed into another thing And by this meanes St. Ambrose a Protestant is become a Masse Priest and with a clipped tongue lispeth Transubstantiation Fryer Walden in writing against Wickliffe cites this place by the halves ut sint et in aliud commutentur he would have the Elements one thing Wald. de sacr Euch. Tom. 2. c. 82 p. Mihi 138. b. and changed into another but excludes the principall words quae erant shewing that they should be the same which they were before and Lanfranck long before him stormed at Berengarius for citing this place out of St. Ambrose in behalfe of our Doctrine and cryes out against him O mentem amentem c. O mad mind O impudent lyar now truly there is no such words to be found in all St. Ambrose his workes Ed. Parisiis 1632. Ex editione Romanâ In quâ quae vel vitio vel incuriâ erant adjecta sunt rejecta quae sublata restituta quae transposita reposita quae depravata emendata c. In the fift age An. 400. to 500. c. But there is an Ambrose lately printed at Paris which makes a great promise of integrity and purity and yet the words are corruptly printed according to your other of Paris and Colein print In the fift age St. Chrysostome Archbishop of Constantinople is razed and purged touching the doctrine of the Sacrament his words bee these If therefore it be so dangerous a matter to transferre unto private uses those holy Vessels in which the true Body of Christ is not but the mysterie of his body is conteyned These latter words comprehended in the Parenthesis Chrys Antwerpiae apud fohannem Steelsium An. 1537. Paris apud Johannem Roigny An. 1543. Paris apud Audoenum Parvii Anno 1557. in the Editions of Antwerpe and Paris are wholly left out there is not a syllable of them to bee seene for indeed the Author of that worke saith negatively that the irue body of Christ is not there which overthrowes the very ground of your Popish presence and although your men make great brags of Antiquity to prove your reall Sacrifice of the Altar out of St. Chrysostome yet in the 19. Homily upon St. Matthew where hee termes it the Sacrifice of bread and wine Sacrificium panis vini they being also privie to this evidence as against their owne doctrine Sacrificium corporis saÌ„ guinis Christi Paris apud Audoenum Pâ—rvuÌ„ An. 1557. in c. 7. Matt. HoÌ„ 19. in their Edition at Paris have taught him to speake the Trent language in these words It is the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. Touching the Testimony of divine Scriptures St. Chrysostome is purged he tells us in his 49. Homily That from the time that Heresies invaded the Church Nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodò per scripturas Idem Homil. 49 Tom. 2 p. mihi 858. there can be no triall of Christianity nor refuge for Christians who are willing to know the true faith but to the divine Scriptures for at that time there is no way to know which is the true Church but by the Scriptures onely This authority is wholly agreeable to our doctrine and thereupon these times of Controversies and Heresies that have overspread the face of the Church wee say with St. Chrysostome those that be in Judaea let them flye to the Mountaines of the Scriptures But what answer can be made thinke you to the razing of so faire an Evidence Behold a Totus hic locus tanquam ab Arrianis insertus è quibusdam Codicibus nuper emendatis sublatus est Bell de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. Bellarmine tells us that this whole passage as if it had beene inserted into St. Chrysostome by the Arrians is blotted out of the late corrected Editions and as our learned Doctor Crakenthorpe in his answer to Spalatto observed there is above 70. lines in the Antwerpe Edition Crakenth in Spalat p. mihi 59. published 1537. purged in this Homily It seemes then it is hereticall doctrine to have recourse to the Scriptures onely for finding of the truth But sure I am it is the part of Heretikes to raze ancient Records and to avoyd the triall of their cause by the sacred Scriptures The fourth Councell of Carthage where St. Austin was present is in part forged in part razed In the 100. Canon it was thus decreed Mulier baptizare non praesumat Concil Carthag c. 100. Let no woman presume to baptize What answer therefore may we expect to this Canon Binius the publisher of the Councels expounds the meaning of it thus The Councell saith he doth decree that a woman should not presume to baptize that is when the Priest is
for the benefit of the Lay people hee dedicates his Booke to Cardinall Bovadillius and he tells him that wee esteeme it an excellent thing to reade the workes of Greeke and Latine Philosophers and therefore much more ought wee to search and know the will of God out of his sacred Scriptures for the one is a matter of pleasure and the other is a matter of necessity the not knowing of the one may hurt little or nothing at all but to bee ignorant of the other brings a grievous mischiefe besides eternall destruction of the soule Againe what is it saith hee to forbid the Scriptures to bee read in the vulgar tongue than to forbid God his owne purpose and as it were to command God which doth declare himselfe to all by his Word that hee should not be manifested unto us This is the whole scope of the Author and for this cause lest the reading of the Scripture in a knowne tongue should discover Antichristian Doctrine by frequent reading a Ind. lib. proh p. mihi 36. the Book it selfe is forbidden till it bee purged in this and the like places witnessing against your Romane Doctrine Johannes Langus is numbred amongst your Heretiques in the first Classis pag. 51. Yet his Annotations upon b Permittuntur verò ejusdem in D Justinum annotatioÌ„es iteÌ„ in Nicephorum scholia si expurgentur Ind. l. proh p. mihi 51. Justin Martyr and his Commentaries upon Nicephorus are allowed if they bee purged Now let the Reader observe for what cause you would have him purged First touching his Annotations upon Justin Martyr c Multa continet parum Catholicae Religioni consona inter ea autem illud est praecipuum quòd transubstantiationem non agnoscit sed opertè contendat cum corpore sanguine Christi remanere veram panis vini substaÌ„tiaÌ„ They containe many things disagreeing to the Catholike Religion but among those that is chiefe that hee doth not acknowledge Transubstantiation but doth openly maintaine that the true substance of bread and wine doth remaine with the body and bloud of Christ. Againe d Perversè admodum interpretatur illud Malachiae In omni loco offertur sacrificium nomini meo de doxologia benedictione laudibus hymnis Sic Ind. ut upra He doth very maliciously interpret that place of Malachy In every place a sacrifice shall be offered to my name that is saith he in giving of glory blessing laud and praise to the Name of God e Gerardi Lorichii Adamarii collectio triuÌ„ libroruÌ„ c. de missa publicaproroganda Ind. l. proh p. 11. Gerardus Lorichius is prohibited till he be purged for the reproving and condemning your private Masse and Communion in one kinde his words be these There be false Catholikes that are not ashamed by all meanes to hinder the Reformation of the Church they to the intent that the other kinde of the a Dâ— Missa pub Racemationum lib. 2. Canonis pars 7. p. mihi 177. Sacrament may not be restored to the Lay people spare no kinde of blasphemy b Excusum an 1536. For they say Christ said onely to his Apostles Drinke yee all of this but the words of the Canon of the Masse are Take and eate you all of this Here I beseech them let them tell mee whether they will have this word All to pertaine onely to the Apostles Then must the Lay people abstaine from the other kinde of the bread also which thing to say is an Heresie and a pestilent and detestable blasphemie Ambrosius Catharinus Archbishop of Compsa wrote against Cajetan and saith * Bellar. de Ec. Scrip. p mihi 312. Bellarmine hee wrote likewise against Luther e Opuscula verò similiter prohibentur nisi corrigantur Ind. l. prohib p. 4. Yet something hee wrote is disallowed of the Church as namely touching the words of consecration other things are commonly refuted by the Doctours of the Church viz. the certainety of Grace of Predestination c. therefore his Workes are warily to be read Thus you have Cajetan against Luther and Catherinus against Cajetan and Luther both against the Tenets of their own Church insomuch as the Inquisitors have commanded a deleatur upon Cajetan and Catharinus in the second Classis and against f Commentaria in Lucam nisifuerint ex repurgaâ—â— impressâ—â— ab an 1581. vel nisi anteà edita expurgentur Ind. l. prohib p 26. p. 318. Ind-Belg p. 317. Ind. Hisp p. 63. Luthers whole Workes in the first Classis Didacus Stella is prohibited to bee printed before hee be purged The places which are purged are such wherein hee teacheth Protestant Doctrine as may be seen in g See Appendix to the Romish Fisher caught in his owne net Mr. Crashaw and Dr. James and D. F. Observations Andreas Masius in his Commentarie upon Josuah is purged for this Protestant doctrine Ad solam vitae benè actae imitationem non etiam ad religiosum cultum quem adorationem vocant Theologi DivoruÌ„ monumen ta conservare fas est In Comment Jos hist c. ult Ind. l. expurg p. 31. Wee ought to preserve the Monuments of Saints onely for the imitation of their godly life not for Religious worship which Divines call Adoration Againe hee saith a Idem in Jos c. 22. The Church sets before our eyes the figure of Christs Crosse not that wee should worship it which latter words are commanded to bee razed out Lastly Cardinall Bellarmine who was the first and best that ever handled all controversies indifference betwixt us b Ind. Belg. p. 269. was in danger of a prohibition or rather of an absolute suppression of all his workes Your owne Barclay witnesseth of him Barclay of the authoritie of the Pope c. 13. p. 66. Engl. That there is not one of the Popes partie who hath either gathered more diligently or propounded more sharply or concluded more briefly or subtilly than the worthy Divine Bellarmine who although he gave as much to the Popes authority in temporalties as honestly hee might and more than he ought yet could he not satisfie the ambition of the most imperious man Sixtus the 5th who affirmed that he had supreme power over Kings and Prince of the whole Earth and all People Countries and Nations committed unto him not by humane but by divine Ordinance and therefore he was very neare by his Pontificiall censure to the great hurt of the Church to have abolished all the writings of that Doctour which doe oppugne Heresies with great successe at this day as the Fathers of that order whereof Bellarmine was then did seriously report unto me How probable this may seeme his worke of Recognitions doth witnesse to the world wherein he was inforced to recant that doctrine which he had both sincerely taught and published according to the truth As for instance whereas he professed that the Pope was subject to the Emperour in temporall affaires on the
they had received the Sacrament it followeth that neither the one nor the other in S. Austines judgement received Christs true flesh which whosoever eateth shall live for ever Againe it followeth that the true flesh of Christ cannot be eaten but by faith only and doth not this make much for the Knight Yea but saith the Iesuite with due reverence bee it spoken to S. Austines authoritie Maldonat his interpretation is more sutable to the text and discourse of our Saviour in the whole chapter then that of S. Austines And with due reverence bee it spoken here Flood and Maldonat two Iesuites like Mules in the Latine proverbe Mutuum scabunt scratch and claw one the other But let any man examine the interpretation of Maldonat and that other of S. Austins and apply them both to the words of Christ and his maine scope and drift in that sixt Chapter and hee will find S. Austins discourse in that tractate to bee pure gold and Maldonate his glosse to be drosse or Alcumie stuffe which will not indure the fire To the sixteenth Gregorie de Valentia concludeth not roundly with heretiques Greg. de Val. de trans l. 2 c. 7. minimè mirum est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui è veteribus minimè consideratè rectè hac de re senserint as Flood speaketh but dealeth very squarely confessing in effect that Gelasius and Theodoret are against Transubstantiation Yea but saith Flood Bellarmine Suarez and Valentia himselfe bring other substantiall answers to those Fathers Very substantiall answers indeed that by substance are understood accidents like to the glosse in the Canon law statuimus id est abrogamus quo magis id est quo minùs The words of Theodoret are that the mysticall signes after Consecration doe not goe out of their proper nature but continue in their former substance shape and figure and may be seene and felt as before How doth the Iesuite thinke you expound these words P. 175. Theodoret speaketh not saith he of the substance of bread as if that did remaine but hee only saith that the accidents remaine in their owne substance that is their owne entitie nature or being which to them is not accidentall and therefore may be tearmed their substance for it is plaine that accidents have a certaine being of their owne different from that of their subject wherein they inhere or rest I grant that it is plaine they have but it is as plaine or rather plainer that Theodoret in that place by sabstantia understandeth no such thing For in this very Dialogue hee exactly distinguisheth betweene substance and accidents and telleth us that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or substance hee meanes not accidents but substance properly so taken saying Theod. Dial. 2. c. 22. wee call a body a substance but health and sicknesse an accident Besides that which hee here calleth signum mysticum hee in this very Dialogue tearmeth donum oblatum the gift offered eibum ex seminibus bread made of seeds and afterwards a thing visible and tangible but who ever heard of accidents without a subject offered to God for a gift or that dimensions or colours or figures are a nourishment made of seeds or that accidents without a subject can bee felt Againe it is evident and confessed by all that accidents properly so called have not shape or figure For that implies thrt the accidents should bee one thing and shape and figure another whereas shape and figure are meere accidents themselves Lastly if Theodoret had thought that the substance of bread and wine ceaseth and is changed into the very body and bloud of Christ and that the accidents thereof only remained Theodoret ahd not taken the heretique in his owne net by retorting a similitude drawne from the Sacrament upon him but the Heretique had taken Theodoret after this manner It is granted by us both that the body of Christ after his ascension is so changed as the sacred Symbolls after Consecration but the sacred Symbolls are so changed that in the Eucharist there remaineth only the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance therefore Christs body after his Ascension is so changed that the shape and forme of flesh remaineth and not the very nature and substance Of this see more in the Romish Fisher held in his owne net P. 144. Yea but saith Flood Theodoret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by Consecration and which is understood and adored What is this that is made here not the accidents for they remaine the same not the substance of the bread for that was before neither is that said to bee heleeved much lesse adored I answer briefly of bread that was before common a holy Sacrament of Christs body and bloud is made and beleeved and reverenced as a most sacred mysterie as when Waxe is made a seale or bullion the Kings coyne or money Theâ—d ibid non mutans 〈◊〉 rum sed â—â—â—urae adijceers graetiam the substance is not changed but the use significancie or efficacie so in the Sacrament according to the mind of Theodoret there is a change made but accidentall only not substantiall To the seventeenth Cardinall Cusanus is not produced by the Knight as a witnesse speaking plaine against Transubstantiation but as lisping something to that purpose not as maintaining professedly Consubstantiation for that had not beene safe for him the Roman Church from whom hee held his Cardinals hat determining the contrarie Excit lib. 6. si quis intelligeret panem non transubstantiari sed supervestiri nobiliori substaÌ„tiaÌ„ Prout guidam veteres Theologi intellexisse reperiuntur but yet secretly favouring that opinion his words are that some ancient Divines are found to have understood by the words This is my body the Bread not to bee transubstantiated but to be over clothed with a more noble substance Had he held Transubstantiation an article of faith he would have branded those who held the contrarie with a note of heresie and not said some ancient Divines but some old heretiques thought that the words This is my body implyed not Transubstantiation but rather a kind of Consubstantiation As for that errour of the Printer in the marginall quotation at which the Iesuite glanceth as if the Knight had mistaken libros excitationum for exercitiorum or exercitationum I answer the errour is as happy as that in the Colen edition of S. Cyprian cessat error Romanus for error humanus and that in Platina nisi qui duarum partium ex Carnalibus integra suffragia tulerit Plat. in vit Clement Sander l. 1. de scbism Aug. Or in Garnets Apologie by Eud. Iohann rebustioribus est proponendus hic cibus Olidus for Cibus Solidus for Cardinalibus or that of the Printer of Ingolstade Wolfeum conatu summo nixum esse primam toties ecclesiae sedem occupare vanitatis sacerdotalis fastigium conscendere for unitatis
agener all Councell may erre the Church may erne if the Church may erre the faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently there can bee no certaintie How easily are these leaves plucked away and torne in pieces 1. Though such a Councell as the Councell of Trent consisting of a few Bishops swaied by the Italian faction may erre it would not from thence follow that the whole representative Church might erre 2. Though the whole representative Church in a free and generall Councell lawfully called might erre yet many millions in the Catholique Church may hold the orthodox beliefe and consequently the faith of the Church not totally faile Yea but saith the Iesuit take away the infallibilitie of the Church there is no rule of faith This assertion of his is open blasphemie as if God would not bee true though all men were found liars though the Roman Church and Pope erre a thousand times yet the rule of faith remaineth unvariable in the holy Scriptures Yea but S. Gregorie equalizeth the foure first generall Councels to the Gospel and saith in effect that they could as little erre as the 4. Gospels and that upon the deniall of their authoritie the Christian faith might be shaken as well as by the deniall of the Gospels and the like authoritie giveth your Parliament unto them I answer S. Gregorie equalizeth the foure first generall Councels to the foure Gospels not in respect of authoritie but in respect of the veritie of the articles defined in them he saith not they could as little erre but they did as little erre in their decisions or to speake more properly that their doctrine was as true as Gospell because the determinations in those first generall Councels against Heretiques are evidently deduced out of holy Scriptures Our Parliament alluding to the words of S. Gregorie speaketh in the same sense as hee doth Yea but saith the Iesuit your Parliament lawes acknowledge that for heresie whatsoever is condemned for such in any of those Councels which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith and consequently to bee of infallible authoritie and to joyne them in the same ranke with the Canonicall Seriptures Idem jungat Vulpes by the like reason the Iesuit might say we joyne the booke of Articles of Religion and Homilies in the same ranke with the Canonicall Scriptures because we condemne for heretiques all that obstinatly maintaine any doctrine repugnant to them which wee doe not because we hold the Decrees of a provinciall Synod to bee of in fallible authoritie but because wee are able to prove all the Articles there established to be consonant to the holy Scriptures Yea but further saith the Iesuit in the same statute P. 203. you give power to the Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergie in their Convocation to adjudge or determine a matter to be heresie which is the very same as to give it power to declare faith or to be the rule thereof I answer the statute giveth power to the Convocation to declare faith and determine heresie out of Gods word and by the sentence thereof and no otherwise In such sort to declare faith is not to be the rule of faith but to judge and measure things by the rule There is a maine difference betweene these two which yet the Iesuit here confoundeth as if they were coincident to declare faith and to bee the rule of faith every Iudge declareth the Law yet is he not the rule of the Law The Inquisitors in their jndices expurgatorij and the Sorbonists in their censures declare what is heresie yet the y are not Itrow the Rule of popish faith every meater in the market declareth that such or such is the measure of corne and graine yet is not every or any corne-meater the Winchester standerd It is one thing to be the rule and another to measure by the rule and declare what we have measured But to retort the Iesuits phrase upon himselfe hee is not capable it seemes of this discourse which yet every market-woman or boy is Well let the authoritie of generall Councels bee great in the Church and of the foure first Councels greatest of all quid hoc ad Rombum what maketh this for the infallibilitie of the Trent conventicle much saith the Iesuit every way for what saith hee can you say more against the present Church and present Councell of Trent then against the Church and Councels of those times What can we say nay what can we not say what have we not said or what could all the Papists in the world answer to what wee have already said After hee hath taken away the legall exceptions made against this conventicle by the Authour of the historie of the Councell of Trent and of the litterae missivae and Iewel his Treatise affixed to that Historie and Chemnisius his Examen and Doctor Bowles his latine Sermon preached to the Convocation and lately printed after hee hath proved which hee will never bee able that the Assemblie at Trent was a free and generall Councell and called by lawfull authoritie and all the proceedings in it according to ancient Canons yet it will still fall as short of the Councell of Nice in authoritie as in antiquitie that consisted of most eminent learned and holy Bishops and Confessors this for the most part of hungrie animals depending on the Popes trencher as Dudithius a Bishop present at that Councell declareth at large in his letter set before the Historie of the Councell of Trent to which I referre the reader To the second The testimonies alledged by the Knight for the sufficiencie of holy Scriptures are ponderous and weightie and the Iesuits exceptions to them are sleight vaine and frivolous To the testimonie out of the Acts I have kept backe nothing that was profitable unto you and I am pure from the bloud of all men Act. 20.20.27 for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the Councell of God hee saith that S. Paul speaketh of the doctrine by him preached not of the written word of God as in like manner our Saviour saith that what hee heard from his Father hee made knowne unto them Iohn 15.15 and yet delivered not one word in writing It is true S. Paul speaketh of the doctrine which he preached but it is as true that the doctrine which he preached hee confirmed unto them by testimonie of Scripture For S. Luke saith Acts 17.2 that S. Paul as his manner was reasoned with them out of the Scriptures opening and alledging that Iesus whom hee preached unto them was Christ and they that received the word with all readinesse of mind searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Act. 24.14 and again I confesse that after that way which they call heresie so worship I the God of my fathers beleeving all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets If the Iesuit had read the verse immediatly following testifying
Baptisme and the holy Eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ the double gift of the holy Ghost Paschasius the Catholique Sacraments of the Christian Church are Baptisme and the body and bloud of Christ Fulbertus the way of Christian religion is to beleeve the Trinitie and veritie of the Deitie and to know the cause of his Baptisme and in whom the two Sacraments of our life are contained Of all these arguments brought by Protestants the Iesuit could not be ignorant Yet hee glaunceth only at one of them to wit the second which he would make us beleeve to bee an absurd begging the point in question How can saith he Sacraments bee Seales to give us assurance of his Word when all the assurance we have of a Sacrament is his Word This is idem per idem or a fallacie called petitio Principij As S. Austine spake of the Pharisees Quid aliud eructarent quà m quo pleni erant What other things should these Pharisees belch out then that wherewith they were full wee may in like manner aske what could wee expect for the Iesuit to belch out against the Knight then that which he is full of himselfe sophismes and fallacies That which hee pretends to find in the Knights argument every man may see in his to wit a beggarly fallacie called homonymia For the Word may be taken either largely for the whole Scripture and in that sense wee grant the Sacraments are confirmed by the Word or particularly for the word of promise and the Word in this sense is sealed to us by the Sacrament and this wee prove out of the Apostle against whom I trust the Iesuit dare not argue what Circumcision was to Abraham and the Iewes that Baptisme succeeding in the place thereof is to vs but Circuncision was a Seale to them of the righteousnesse of faith promised to Abraham and his posteritie Rom. 4.11 therefore in like manner Baptisme is a seale unto us of the like promise What Bellarmine urgeth against our definition of a Sacrament to whom the Iesuit sendeth us is refuted at large by Molineus Daneus Rivetus Willet and Chamier to whom in like manner I remand the Iesuit who here desiring as it seemed to bee catechised asketh what promises are sealed by the Sacraments I answer of regeneration and communion with Christ His second quaere is what need more seales then one or if more why not seven as well as two I answer Christ might adde as many Seales as hee pleased but in the new Testament hee hath put but two neither need wee any more the first sealeth unto us our new birth the second our growth in Christ If I should put the like question to the Iesuit concerning the King what need he more Seales then one or if he would have more why not seven as well as two I know how hee would answer that the King might affix as many seales to his patents and other grants as hee pleaseth but quia frustra fit per plur a quod fieri potest per pauciora because two seales are sufficient the Privie seale and the broad seale therefore his Majestie useth no other Which answer of his cuts the wind-pipe of his owne objection His last question is a blind one how may wee see saith he the promises of God in the Sacraments S. Ambrose and S. Austine will tell him by the eye of faith Magis videtur saith S. Ambrose quod non videtur that is more or better seene which is not seene with bodily eyes Sacraments saith S. Austine are visible words because what words represent to the eares that Sacraments represent to their eyes which are anointed with the eye-salve of the spirit In the Word we heare the bloud of Christ clenseth us from our sinnes in the Sacrament of Baptisme we see it after a sort in the washing of our body with water in the Word wee heare Christs bloud was shed for us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after a sort we see it by the effusion of the Wine out of the flagon into the Chalice and drinking it In the Word wee heare that Christ is the bread of life which nourisheth our soules to eternall life In the Sacrament after a sort wee see it by feeding on the Consecrated elements of Bread and Wine whereby our body is nourished and our temporall life maintained and preserved To the fift In the former Paragraph we handled those Arguments which the Logicians tearme Dicticall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this we are to make good our Elencticall in the former we proved positively two Sacraments in this privatively we are to exclude and casheere all that the Church of Rome hath added to these two which deviseth Sacraments upon so weake grounds and detorteth Scripture in such sort for the maintenance of them that a learned Divine wisheth that as for the remedie of other sinnes so there were a Sacrament instituted as a speciall remedie against audacious inventions in this kind and depravations of holy Scripture to convince them For of an Epiphonema this is a great mysterie Ephes 5.32 they have made a Sacrament the sacrament of Matrimonie of a promise whose sinnes yee remit Iohn 20.23 they are remitted they have made a second Sacrament the sacrament of Penance of an enumeration of the Governours and Ministers of the Church Ephes 4.11 And hee gave some Apostles some Prophets some Pastours some Evangelists some teachers a third Sacrament the sacrament of Order of a relation what the Apostles did Acts 8.17 In laying hands on them who received the gift of tongues a fourth Sacrament the sacrament of Confirmation Of a Miracle in restoring the sick to their former health by anoynting them with oyle in the name of the Lord a fift Sacrament the sacrament of Extreame Vnction A child cannot be bishopped a single partie contracted a Priest or Deacon ordained a penitent reconciled a dying man dismissed in peace without a sacrament the sacrament of Extreame Vnction If they take Sacrament in a large sense for every divine Mysterie holy Ordinance or sacred Rite they may find as well seventeene as seven Sacraments in the Scriptures if they they take the Word in the strict sense for such a sacred Rite as is instituted in the New Testament by Christ with a visible signe or element representing and applying unto us some invisible sanctifying and saving grace I wish the Iesuit might but practise one of their Sacraments that is doe penance so long till hee found in Scripture that and the other foure Sacraments which they have added to the two Instituted by Christ To begin with them in order and give Order the first place wee acknowledge the ordination of Priests and Deacons by Bishops to be de jure divino and we beleeve where they are done according to Christs Institution that grace is ordinarily given to the party ordained but not sacramentall grace not gratia gratum faciens but gratia gratis data a ghostly power
vpon S. Iohn that out of the side of Christ the Sacraments of the Churchissued he would seeme to answer something First he quarrelleth at the quotation saying I doe not thinke you will find in Chemnitius your good friend S. Ambrose and Bede cited Whereunto I answer that though the Knights good friend Chemnitius cite not Ambrose and Bede yet the Iesuits good friend Card. De Sacram. in gen l. 2. c. 27. Amb. l. 10. in Luc. Bed c. 19. Ioh. intelligunt per sanguinem qui è latere effluxit redemption is pretium per aquam baptismum Bellarmine citeth them both his words are Ambrose in his tenth booke upon S. Luke and Bede in his comment upon the 19. of S. Iohn understand by blood which issued out of our Saviours side the price of our redemption by water Baptisme Next the Iesuit endeavoureth to untwist this triple cord by saying that these three Fathers speake of Sacraments issuing out of Christs side but no way restraine the number to two Whereunto I reply that though the word Sacramenta for the number may bee as well said of seven as two Sacraments yet where S. Austine alludeth to the same text of Scripture and falleth upon the same conceite he restraineth the number to two saying there issued out of Christs side water and blood quae sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta Now I would faine know of the Iesuit where ever hee read gemina to signifie seven or more then two Were the Dioscuri which are commonly knowne by the name of gemini seven or two only to wit Castor and Pollax As for S. Ambrose and Bede though they say not totidem verbis that the two Sacraments of the Church issued out of Christs side as S. Austine doth yet they can bee understood of no more then two Sacraments for there were but two things which issued out of our Saviours side to wit water and blood whereby they understand Baptisme and the Lords Supper Had there issued out of our Saviours side together with water and blood Chrisme or balsamum or had a rib beene taken from thence the Iesuit might have some colour to draw more Sacraments out of it but now sith the Text saith there issued onely two things water and blood and the Fathers say the Sacraments of the Church are thereby meant it is most apparant that by Sacramenta they meant those two only which they there name in expresse words Baptisme and the price of our redemption that is Christs blood in the Eucharist To the seventh The authoritie of S. Ambrose is as a thorne in the Iesuits eye for it cannot but bee a great prejudice to their cause that so learned a Bishop as S. Ambrose writing six bookes professedly of the Sacraments omitteth the Romish five and spendeth his whole discourse upon our two If the Church in his time beleeved or administred seven Sacraments hee could no way be excused of supine negligence for making no mention at all of the greater part of them it were all one as if a man professing to treate of the elements or the parts of the world which are foure or of the Pleiades or the Septentriones or the Planets which are seven should handle but two of that number Bellarmine therefore and after him Flood pluck hard at this thorne but cannot get it out saying that S. Ambrose his intent was to instruct the Catechumeni only as the title of one of the books sheweth For first S. Ambrose hath no booke of that title viz. An instruction to them who are to bee catechized or are beginners in Christianitie The title of that booke is De ijs qui initiantur of those who are initiated or entred into holy mysteries Secondly this is not the title of any of the six bookes de sacramentis alledged by the Knight but of another tractate Thirdly admit that S. Ambrose as S. Austine and Cyrill wrote to the Catechumeni and intended a Catechisme yet they were to name all the Sacraments unto them as all Divines usually doe in their Catechismes because the Sacraments are alwayes handled among the grounds and principles of Christian religion And though the Catechumeni are not presently admitted unto all yet they are to learne what they are that they may bee the better prepared in due time to receive them Fourthly it is evidently untrue which the Iesuit saith that S. Ambrose writeth not to the beleevers of that age but only to some beginners The very front of his booke proves the Iesuit to bee frontlesse For S. Ambrose his first words are I will begin to speake of the Sacraments which wee have received c. In Christiano enim viro prima est fides for the first thing in a Christian man is faith And as hee writeth to all beleevers not beginners only so hee speaketh also of the chiefe Sacraments of the New Testament and not of those only which the catechumeni received as is apparant out of the fourth chapter of the first booke De sacramentis Wherein hee proveth according to the title of that Chapter Quôd sacramenta Christia norum diviniora sint priora quà m Indaeorum That the Sacraments of the Chrìstians are more ancient and more divine then those of the Iewes and hee instanceth especially in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Lastly the Iesuit in this answer apparantly contradicteth himselfe first saying that S. Ambrose intent in that Worke was only to instruct the catechumeni in those things that were to be done in the time of Baptisme p. 210. and within a few lines after he saith Bud. deasse Veritas nonnunquam invitis erumpit as fallens inter mendacia ab audientibus demuns agnoscitur cum interim loquentes adbuc se habere in potestate putent that he writeth of the Sacraments whereby they were so initiated which are three Baptisme Confirmation and the Eucharist So true is Budaeus his observation That lyes dash one with the other and truth breakes out of the mouth of the lyar ere hee is aware Who ever heard of the Eucharist to bee administred in the time of Baptisme or that the Eucharist was administred at all to the punies or catechumeni whilest they were such certainly if the catecumeni or younger beginners to whom hee saith S. Ambrose wrote were capable of the doctrine of the Eucharist containing in it the highest mysteries of Christianitie they were much more capable of Penance Matrimonie and Extreame Unction which are easie to bee understood by any novice in Christian religion To the eight That it may appeare what was the judgement of S. Austine in this maine point of difference betweene the Reformed and the Roman Church I will weigh what is brought on both sides first what the Iesuit alledgeth for seven and then what the Knight for two S. Austine having written divers Catechisticall treatises in which hee had occasion to name and handle the Sacraments yet no where defineth the number of them to bee seven
all the Iesuit beareth us in hand that the Masse being the same continually the people understand it sufficiently for the exercise of their devotion though not to satisfie vaine curiositie which speech of his is partly sencelesse and partly blasphemous it is sencelesse to imagine that a man who never learned his Grammar nor ever was taught Greek or Latine by hearing onely the Masse read over though a thousand times should come to understand it secondly it is blasphemous to say that to desire to understand the particular contents of the Epistles and Gospels read in the Masse or the psalmes of David sung in the Church is vaine curiofitie or hereticall pride Loe here Flood his channell falleth againe into the Stygian lake To the fourteenth There is no contradiction at all in the Knights observations For though this story of the shepheards abusing the words of Consecration and strucke dead for it might peradventure occasion some alteration in those Churches where it was beleeved yet there was no generall command for the practise of the Latine Service in all Christian Churches before Vitalians time who in the yeare 666. verified the number of the name of the beast in himselfe which according to the interpretation of S. Irenaeus who flourished within two hundred yeares after Christ is lateinos as before I noted But for mine owne part I have no faith at all in that legendarie fable of the Sheepheards First because those that coyned it agree not in their tale for some say that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into flesh and bloud and the sheepeheards for their prophane abuse strucke dead others tell it otherwise Cassand liturg c. 28. Honorius in Gem. animae Bellar. l. 2. de Mis c. 22. that neither the Bread nor the Wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heaven nor the sheepheards strucken dead but onely laid for dead As for the Authour of the booke called Pratum spirituale hee is of no credit at all For in his Spirituall meadow as hee tearmeth his worke there are many such Eutopian flowers as this is where I leave the Iesuit to gather him a nosegay till I have leisure to meete with him in the next Section Concerning worshiping of Images Spectacles Sect. 7. a pag. 283. usque ad 319. THe text of Scripture which the Knight quoteth maketh not any mention of Image-worship but Idoll-worship which hee could not but know to bee a different thing having beene so often told it It followeth not the Iewes might not adore Images Ergo wee may not for the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things which wee may If the second Commandement were morall and now in force the Knight could not have his wives picture nor shee his without breach of that Commandement therefore in that sence hee cannot urge it more against our pictures then wee against his Cornelius Agrippa was a Magician and therefore no heed to be given to what he testifieth against the Roman Church Philo Iudaeus saith nothing but that the Iewes admitted no image into the Temple which is true for God cannot bee painted neither could they have the Image of any Saint for there was none as yet which might have that honour to have their images or pictures in the Temple themselves being not yet admitted into the heavenly Temple of God It is no marvaile that the Iewes hate crucifixes sith they could not indure Christ himselfe Notwithstanding the prohibition in the second Commandement were it Morall or Ceremoniall men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple and the Arke and the Temple it selfe There may in the New Testament bee some precept or example both of our Saviour and his Apopostles for the adoration of images though not written in Scripture because as S. Iohn saith that all is not written or rather a very small part is written as his words import Wee have the example of our Saviour and his Apostles testified by good authenticall histories many great and grave Authours make mention of two severall images made miraculously by our blessed Saviour himselfe one was that which hee sent to Abgarus King of Edessa who had a desire to see him the other was that of Veronica which hee made with wiping his face as hee was carrying his Crosse a third was one which Nicodemus gave to Gamaliel all which are testified not only by grave and learned Authours but by God himselfe though not in Scripture yet by great and wonderfull miracles S. Austine taketh not Simulachrum for an image as the Knight falsly translateth him but for an idoll and so commendeth Varro for comming neerer to the knowledge of the true God and going further from idolatrie then other Gentiles Eusebius saith not that images sprang from an heathenish custome but hee meaneth by mos gentilis the fashion of their owne people and kindred who were wont to honour such that had done them any benefit or helpe by erecting statues in memorie of them Moreover Eusebius relateth this storie of the womans statua with approbation upon the basis or foot thereof there grew a certaine strange and unusuall kind of herbe which as soone as it grew up so high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment it had vertue to cure diseases of every kind The Councell of Elliberis was an obscure provinciall Synod of 19. Bishops onely without any certaintie of the time when it was held to which we oppose one of Constantinople another at Rome under Gregorie the third and a third at Nice of 350. Bishops Moreover this Councell forbiddeth not pictures absolutely but painting on walls and soleaving them to the furie and scorne of the Gentiles and it is plaine that the Councell made the Decree out of honour to images because they thought not the walls a place convenient because the plaster breaking off in some places they might become deformed and so contemptible Valens and Theodosius whom the Knight joyneth in making a law against images were not alive together Valens being killed 23. yeares before Theodofius was borne besides Valens was a wicked Arrian heretique upon whom God did shew his judgement by a disasterous end and the law made by him cited by the Knight is fowly corrupted and the meaning wholly perverted for the law was made in honour of the Crosse towit thus wee command that it shall not bee lawfull for any to carve or paint the signe of our Saviour Christ either on the ground or in any stone or marble lying on it Nicolaus Clemanges was himselfe a Wiclefian heretique Cassander Erasmus and Wicelius are of no account in the Roman Church The Councell of Nice held under Constantine and Irene was not condemned at Frankford Nay in that very Councell an Anathema is said to all such as deface Images Polidore Virgill in saying the ancient Fathers condemned the worship of images for feare of Idolatrie speaketh not of the Fathers of the New Testament but those of the Old particularly naming Moses
us of supernaturall truth but Scripture as is abundantly proved by Saint Austine If any thing be confirmed by perspicuous authority of Canonicall Scriptures we must without any doubt or haesitation beleeve it but to other witnesses or testimonies we may give credit as we see cause and in his 97. Epistle to St. Ierome I have learned to yeeld that honour and reverence onely to the Canonicall Scriptures that I most firmely beleeve that no Author of them could erre in any thing he wrot and in his booke de natura gratia I professe my selfe free in all such writings of men because I owe absolute consent without any demurre or staggering onely to the Canonicall bookes of Scripture To the same purpose he writeth against Faustus the Manichee l. 11. c. 5. and ep 48. But what neede I presse St. Austine when the evident letter of Scripture is for this truth Titus 1.2 Rom. 3.4 God cannot lie and let God be true and every man a lier that is subject to error and falsehood Againe the Scriptures are sufficient to instruct us in all points necessary to salvation therefore every article of divine faith is evidently grounded upon Scripture The Antecedent I thus prove 2 Tim. 3.15.16 whatsoever is profitable for doctrine for reproofe for correction for instruction in righteousnesse in such sort that it is able to make a man wise unto salvation and perfect to every good worke is sufficient to instruct in all points of salvation but the Scripture is so profitable that it is able to make wise unto salvation and perfect to every good worke Ergo It is sufficient to instruct in all points necessary to salvation The major is evident ex terminis the minor is the letter of the text and that the adversary may not except that this is my collection onely L. 3. Advers haer c. 1. Non per alios dispo sitionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quam per cos per quos evangelium ad nos pervenit quod quidem tunc preconiaverunt postea per Dei volun tatem nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futuram Aug. l. 3. cont Lit. Petil. c. 6. Sive de Chrlsto sive de ejus ecclesia sive de quacunque re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicom si nos nequaquam comparandi ei quid dixit si nos sed omnino quod seturus adjecit si Angelus de Coelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis Legalibus Evangelicis accepistis anathema sit I will produce to him impregnable testimonies of the ancient Fathers Irenaeus We have not knowne by others the meanes which God hath appointed for our salvation then by those by whom the Gospell came unto us which at the first the Apostles preached by word of mouth but afterwards by the will of God delivered in writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith The second is Saint Austine Whether concerning Christ or concerning his Church or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith and life I will not say if we but even as he going forward addeth if an Angell from Heaven shall preach unto you any thing but what you have received in the Scriptures of the law and the Gospell accursed be hee Yea but the Iesuit objecteth against us and these Holy Fathers that by the Scriptures we cannot prove which bookes of Scripture are Canonicall and which are not I answere first our question here is not of the principles of Divinity but of Theologicall conclusions Now that Scripture is the word of God and that these bookes are Canonicall Scriptures are principles in Divinity and therefore not to be proved according to the rule of the great Philosopher in the same science It is sufficient to make good our Tenet that the Canonicall Scriptures being presupposed as principles every conclusion de fide may be deduced out of them Secondly that such bookes of Holy Scriptures are Canonicall and the rest which are knowne by the name of Apochrypha are not Canonicall is proved by arguments and testimonies drawne out of Scripture it selfe by Whitaker Disputatione de sacrâ Scripturâ controversiâ primâ by Reynolds most copiously in his Censura librorum Apochryphorum Thirdly I retorte the Iesuits argument against himselfe when they teach tradition is part of Gods word how prove they it to be so by Scripture or Tradition by Scripture they cannot prove that unwritten traditions are Gods word if they prove it by Tradition then they begge the point in question and prove idem per idem To the second The Romanists ground some doctrines of their faith upon the letter of Scripture but it is that letter which killeth as for example they ground their carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament upon those words in the sixt of St. Iohn unlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of God and drinke his blood you have no life in you which words if you take according to the letter this letter killeth saith Origen but it is the spirit saith our Saviour that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words which I speake unto you they are spirit and they are life Iohn 6.63 He that pierceth the barke and commeth to the sap runneth not from the tree of life but rather runneth to it so doe we when we leave the barke of the letter upon necessary occasions and pierce into the heart and draw out the sap of the spirituall meaning To presse the letter of Scripture against the spirituall meaning and analogie of faith is not onely Iewish but Haereticall For example The Anthropomorphites ground their haeresie upon plaine and expresse words of Scripture from which to use the Iesuits owne words All Orthodox Divines are faine to flie to figurative and tropicall interpretations To the third First Saint Peter saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in which Epistles of St. Paul but in which points and heads of doctrine many things are hard to be understood Secondly though some points be hard to be understood in themselves or are obscurely set downe in Scripture it followeth not from thence that all things necessary to salvation are not plainely delivered therein For as before I proved out of Saint Austine and Saint Chrysostome Among thuse things which are plainly delivered in Scriptures all such points are found as containe faith and manners all things that are necessarie are manifest Thirdly those things which are obscurely set downe in Saint Pauls Epistles may be and are elsewhere in holy Scriptures more perspicuously delivered Lastly Saint Peter saith not that those things are hard to be understood simply and to all men but to the ignorant and unstable who wrest all Scripture to their owne destruction Among which number the Iesuit must reckon himselfe and his associates before they can fit this text to their purpose To the fourth First this passage out of Saint Iohn hath beene discussed
subject unto in it selfe Lastly the Iesuit taketh himselfe by the nose in saying Heretikes in all Controversies run to the letter of the Scriptures leaving the true sense and spirituall meaning for so doe the Romanists apparantly namely in the Controversie of Supremacie Ecce duo gladii Loe here two swords therefore the Pope hath the temporall and spirituall Sword at command Peter rise up kill and eate therefore the Pope hath power to put Princes to death In the question about the number of Sacraments they alleage the letter of that text in the vulgar translation Hoc est magnum Sacramentum to prove marriage a Sacrament whereas the Apostle in the same place saith that hee speaketh not of corporall marriage of a man and his wife but of the spirituall marriage of Christ and his Church Likewise in the Controversie about the reall presence they run to the letter Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood though Christ in the same place expounding himselfe saith The words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life the like may be observed in other Controversies For answer to all which texts wee tell him out of Saint Ierome whom himselfe quoteth in the next Paragraph That the Gospell consisteth not in the words of Scripture but in the sense not in the supersicies or barke but in the pith not in the leaves of speech but in the root of reason To the tenth How neere neighbours the Romanists are to Marcion who denied or by consequence overthrew the truth of Christs humaine nature as the Papists doe in the Sacrament vailing him under the outside or accidents of a round water and what affinitie the Iesuit hath with the rest of the ancient Heretikes the Knight shewed him before in his seventh Section and if hee desire to know more of his pedegree from them I referre him to an Appendix to Whitakers answer to Sanders his Demonstration page 801. As for the aspersion of old Heresies which hee casts upon us they are washed away by Bishop Morton and Doctor Field in their Treatises of the Church Ad notam sextam But why hee denies that wee have the Spirit arrogating it onely to himselfe I see no reason but the pride of his owne spirit together with the malice of the evill spirit who suggested unto him this uncharitable censure of us To the eleventh The Scripture is a Light Psal 119. and the nature of a light is first to discover it selfe and then all things else therefore Calvin to his fond question how know you Scripture to be Scripture answereth acutely by retortion how know you the Sun to be the Sun If hee say by his bright lustre and beames wee say the same of holy Scripture that it is discerned by its owne light Which if the Papists see hot the fault ought not to be laid upon the Sun-beames but upon their Owles eyes To the twelfth That rule which needeth any thing to be added to it is imperfect but all Papists teach that to the written Word unwritten Traditions must bee added to make a compleat and perfect rule of Faith all Papists therefore teach the Scripture alone to be an imperfect Rule We on the contrary stand for the perfection of Scripture and constantly and unanimously defend that not onely the whole Scripture is perfect but that every part also hath its owne perfection but not the perfection of the whole Because the eyes have not the perfection of the whole head or the head the perfection of the whole body a man cannot conclude that the eye or the head is imperfect no more can the Iesuit conclude that the Gospell of Saint Matthew Saint Marke or Saint Iohn are therefore imperfect because they containe not in them all doctrines in particular necessary to salvation It is sufficient that they together with the rest perfectly instruct us in all points of faith by themselves they perfectly informe us so farre as the Holy Ghost intendeth that we should be informed by each of them in particular and this is their perfection that they have no defect in matter or forme and that they concurre with the rest of the bookes of Scripture to the maine end of the Holy Ghost in committing the word of God in writing for the infallible and perfect instruction of the Church and every faithfull soule in all Doctrines needfull to salvation To the thirteenth Although many Protestants have written de Scripturâ judice and they have warrant our of Scripture so to stile it the words which I have spoken they shall judge you yet in propriety of speech which especially ought to be used in stating questions the Scripture is rather to be termed a rule and law or sentence of the judge then the judge himselfe the supreame and infallible judge of all controversies we teach to be the Holy Ghost speaking to us out of Scriptures and the subordinate or inferior Judge the consencient authority of the Catholique Church To the fourteenth The Iesuit shewed no such thing nor can shew out of Tertullian De praescrip advers haeret c. 17. who convinced the greater part of Haeretikes in his time by Scripture as appeareth in his writings In the place which the Iesuit quoteth he hath no such words as he alleageth out of him viz. that there is no good to be done with Haeretikes by Scriptures He saith indeede in that place that it was but in vaine to conferre with a certaine kinde of Haeretikes by Scriptures alone quia ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas et si recipit non recipit integras et si aliquatenus integras praestat c. That is This haeresie admits not of certaine Scriptures or not intire or if in some sort in ire it perverts them by divising divers interpretations In which words he no way disparageth the holy Scriptures or derogateth from their perfection but discovereth the wicked practise of Haeretikes and their evasions and tergiversations when they are most evidently convinced by Scriptures Will you say that if a Bedlam or willfull malefactor either by puffing out the Candle or shutting his eyes or looking another way will not reade or see the evidence that is brought against him that therfore the evidence is not able to convince him To the fifteenth Though it were granted the Iesuit that the Papists have written more upon the Scriptures then Protestants it will not from thence follow that they more reverence or honour the Scripture sithence in their very Commentaries upon Scripture they derrogate from the authority sufficiency and perfection of them by refusing to referre all points of faith in controversie to their decision by resolving their faith last of all not into them but into the Church by teaching that they are obscure even in points necessary to salvation and that unwritten Traditions are equally to be reverenced with them Secondly compare men with men and oportunities with oportunities it may easily be proved that