alledgeth is falsly translated Ecclesiasticus 3.11 he should have rendred the Greeke thus A Mother in dishonour or defamed is a reproach to her children such a Mother wee grant the Church to be a reproach to all her children To the fourth The number of Sacraments we prove two manner of wayes first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first by demonstrating our two secondly by refuting the five they adde there unto Howsoever the Iesuit here as also Baylie the antagonist of Rivet insult upon us as if it were unpossible to prove the precisenumber of two Sacraments and no more because neither the name nor the number of Sacraments is any where set downe in terminis in Scripture yet they shall find that wee faile not in proofes of this point but they in their answers For to reserve the refutation of their five to the next Paragraph we demonstrate our two by arguments drawne first from the name secondly from the definition of Sacraments thirdly from the example of Christ fourthly from the end of the Sacraments fiftly from the testimonies of the ancient Doctours of the Church 1. From the name Sacramentum is derived from the verbe sacrare to consecrate and signifieth a holy thing a holy Rite whereby wee are consecrated unto God Now it is evident that by Baptisme wee give our names to Christ wee take our militare sacramentum to fight under his banner and that thereby wee are sanctified and consecrated to his service the like wee may observe in the Lords Supper wherein wee offer our bodies and soules as a holy and lively sacrifice unto God we are incorporated into Christs body and made one bread and one body because wee partake of one bread the bread which we breake Is it not the Communion of the body of Christ the Cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ In the rest which our Adversaries tearme Sacraments there cannot bee given the like reason of the name For by them wee neither put on Christ as in Baptisme nor are made members of his mysticall Body as by the Lords Supper 2. From the definition of Sacraments every Sacrament of the New Testament is a seale of the new Covenant Rom. 4.11 Now it is agreed on all parts that he only hath authoritie to seale the charter in whose authoritie it is to grant it But wee find that Christ in the New Testament set only two seales Baptisme the Institution whereof wee have Teach all nations baptizing them Math. 28.19 in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost and the Lords Supper the institution whereof wee have bee tooke bread and brake it saying Luk 22.19 this is my Body doe this in remembrance of mee In these Sacraments wee have all the conditions required first an outward and visible sign in Baptisme water in the Eucharist bread and wine Secondly an Analogie or correspondencie betweene the signe and the thing signified betweene Water which washeth the body and the spirit which washeth the soule betweene bread and wine which nourisheth the body and Christs body and bloud which nourisheth the soule Thirdly a promise of sanctifying and saving grace to all that use the outward rite according to our Lords institution the promise annexed to Baptisme wee find Mar. 16.16 Mtch. 26.28 Hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved to the Eucharist wee find this is the bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you Iohn 6.51 and for many for the remission of sinnes and if any one eate of this bread hee shall live for ever When our adversaries shall prove in each of their five supernumerarie sacraments these three conditions wee will subscribe to their whole number of seven till then wee content ourselves with our two 3. From the example of Christ Christ our head consecrated in his owne person all those holy rites which hee instituted for his owne members Mat. 3.15 This Christ himselfe intimateth when being repelled by S. Iohn from his baptisme saying I had need to bee baptized of thee and commest thou to mee He answered Suffer it to bee so now for thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righteousnesse And S. Austine saith therefore Christ would bee baptized Serm. de Epiph baptizari voluit quia voluit facere quod faciendum omnibus imperabat ut bor us magister doctrinam suam non tam verbis insinuaret quam actibus exerceret because hee would doe that which hee commanded all others to doe that as a good master hee might not so much insinuate his Doctrine by words as exhibit it by acts But this our good Master exhibited by acts the doctrine of two Sacraments only whereof hee participated himselfe of Baptisme Math. 3.16 And Iesus when he was baptized went up straight way out of the water of the Eucharift Matth. 26.29 I will not drinke hence-forth of this fruit of the vine untill the day when I drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome Which words necessarily imply that before hee uttered them hee had drunke of the cup which hee gave to them saying Drinke yee all of this 4. From the end of the Sacraments We need but two things to instate us in grace remission of our sinnes and ablution no more to maintaine us in our christian life but birth apparell food and physick but all these are sufficiently represented and effectually conveied unto us by two Sacraments For we receive ablution by the one absolution by the other wee are bred by the one wee are fed by the other wee are clothed by the one wee are healed by the other 5. From the testimonies of the ancient Doctours of the Church S. Anstine L. 2. de Symb. ad catechumenos c. 6. percussum est latus ut Evangelium loquitur statim manavit sanguis aqua quae sunt ccclesiae gemina Sacramenta aqua in quâ sponsa est purificata sanguis ex quo invenitur esse dotata I sid l. Origin sunt autam Sacramenta baptismus Chrisma corpus sanguis Christi Rupert de vict verb. l. 12. c. 11. quae quot sunt praecipua salut is nostrae sacramenta Sacrū baptisma sancta corporis ejus sanguinis Eucharistia geminum spiritus sancti datum Pasc l. de coena dom sacramenta Christianae Ecclesiae Catholicae sunt baptismus corpus sanguis Domini Fulbert ep 1. lib. part Tom 3. tertium est noscere in quo duo vitae sacramenta continentur Christs side was strucken as the Gospell speaketh and presently there issued out of it water and bloud which are the two twin Sacraments of the Church water whereby the Spouse is purified and bloud wherewith shee is endowed S. Isidore the Sacraments are Baptisme and Chrisme the body and bloud of Christ Rupertus which and how many are the chiefe Sacraments of our salvation Hee answers two holy
use them and therefore wee may administer the Sacrament at another time to a greater or lesser number then twelve we may receive it also with another gesture then Christ or his Apstles used because he no where tieth us to those circumstances but wee may in no wise administer or receive it in one kind because he commandeth us to communicate in both saying drinke ye all of this and what though the Councell joyne not the word notwithstanding to Christs institution in both kindes but to his administring after supper yet this no way excuseth the Fathers in it from confronting Christ and abrogating his commandement by their wicked Decree for notwithstanding Christs command drinke you all of this that Councell by a countermaund forbiddeth any Priest under a great penaltie to exhort the people to communicate in both kindes or to teach that they ought so to doe To the third If the Iesuits forehead had not beene made of the same metall which hee worshipeth in his images hee would have blushed to utter so notorious an untruth contrary to the Records of all ages and the confession of all the learned of his owne side Never any before this Iesuit durst to say that the halfe Communion was the beliefe and practise of the whole Church before the Councell of Constance for besides Salmeron Arboreus Aquinas Tapperus Alfonsus a Castro the Councell of Constance Bellarmine and Cassander alledged by the Knight See grand Sacrilcg Sect. 17. I could adde Estius the Sorbonist Ecchius the great adversarie of Luther Suarez their accomplished Iesuit Soto their acutest Schoole-man and Gregorie de Valentia who of all other hath most 〈◊〉 laboured in this argument all not only affirming but some of them also confirming that the Communion in both kindes was anciently and universally administred to the people It is well knowne that the Easterne Churches in Greece and Asia and Southern in Africa and Northerne in Muscovia have ever and at this day doe administer the Communion to the Laitie in both kindes and in the Westerne and Roman Church it selfe for a thousand yeares after Christ and more the Sacrament was delivered in both kindes to all the members of Christs Church which is manifest saith Cassander Cassand consult art 22. by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greeke and Latine And when the new custome of communicating in one kinde began a little before the Councell of Constance Soto artic 12. q. 1. in dist 12. non modo inter baeretieos verùm inter Catholicos ritus ille multo tempore iuvaluit it was impugned not by heretiques as Flood would beare us in hand but by good Catholiques as Soto a man farre before Flood ingenuously confesseth To the fourth Albeit I grant there is some difference betweene an institution or constitution or command yet our argument drawne from Christs institution in both kindes is of force against the Romish halfe Communion For a command is as the genus and an Institution is as the species every command is not an institution but every institution is a command for what is an institution but a speciall order or appointment in matter of Ceremonie or Sacrament was not the institution of Circumcision an expresse command to circumcise every male child was not the institution of the Passeover a command for every familie to kill a Lambe and eate it with sowre herbes Was not the institution of Baptisme a command to Baptise all Nations in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Was not the institution of the Lords Supper by words imperative Take eate doe this in remembrance of mee and drinke yee all of this Yea but the Iesuit instanceth in Mariage which we acknowledge to be instituted by God yet not commanded I answer all sacred Rites and namely the ordination of Mariage are injunctions and commands to the Church or mankind in generall though they bind not every particular person but such onely as are qualified for them Gen. 2.24 if crescite multiplicamini bee rather a benediction upon Mariage then a command to marrie yet certainly those words used in the Institution of Mariage therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall bee one stesh containe da direct command not to every man simply I grant but to every one that hath not the gift of continencie 1 Cor. 7.2 to avoide fornication saith the Apostle let every man have his owne wife and let every woman have her owne husband And againe if they cannot containe let them marry V. 9. for it is better to marry then to burne To the fist There needs no subtiltie of wit to find out the opposition betweene the Decree of the Trent Councell and Christs institution the dullest wit cannot but stumble upon it For if whole Christ be received in either kind why did Christ who doth nothing superfluously institute the Sacrament in both kindes If the Sacrament can no otherwise exhibit Christ unto us then by vertue of his Institution how can wee be assured that whole Christ is communicated unto us when we violate his institution administring the holy Communion but by halfes the Sacrament exhibiteth nothing but what it signifieth but the bread signifieth Christs body not his blood the wine signifieth his blood not his bodie therefore accordingly the one exhibiteth only his body the other his bloud Againe if Christ bee whole in either kinde then a man might receive whole Christ in drinking of the cup only though he eate not at all of the bread and consequently a man may without sinne at the Lords board drinke only of the Consecrated cup and not eate of the bread which yet no Papist to my knowledge ever durst affirme To the sixt This evasion of the Iesuit is exploded by Philip Morney De Euch. l. 1. c. 10. Chamierus tom 4. resp Bellar. in D. F. his conference with Everard p. 256. and divers others This may suffice for the present for the overthrow of this generall answer of all Papists to the words of the institution Drinke you all of this viz. that by all in S. Mathew and S. Marke Priests only are to be understood First I note at this time the Apostles were not fully ordained Priests For as yet Christ had not breathed on them nor given them the power of remission of sinnes next admit they were Priests yet in the institution of this Sacrament they were non conficients supplying the place of meere communicants and therefore consequently whatsoever Christ commanded them hee commanded all receivers after them Thirdly Christ commanded the same to drinke to whom before hee said Take eate this is my body but the former words take eate are spoken to the Laye-people as well as Priests therefore the words drinke you all of this are spoken to them also Math. 9.6 those things which God hath joyned together let no man put asunder Fourthly I would faine know of
present Binius ibid. in his Annot. on the other side Peter Lombard and Gratian Pet. Lomb. l. 4. Sent. Dist 6. Grat. Can. Mulier de Consecr Dist 4. they have put in their exception nisi necessitate cogente except it be in case of necessitie so that in the absence of the Priest and in case of necessitie women may baptize by the authority of your Church notwithstanding the Councels decree And this is according to Bellarmines confession Although saith he those words of exception nisi necessitate cogente be not found in the Tomes of Councels Bell. de Baptis l. 1. c. 7. yet Peter Lombard and Gratian cite the Canon in that manner And thus by your owne Cardinals profession your Priests have added that exception to the Canon to dispense with women for Administration of the Sacrament which is not found in the Councell Againe the same Councell is razed both by the compiler of the decrees and publisher of the Councels for the Councell saith in the 44. Canon a Clericus nec comam nutriat nec barbam radat Concil Carth. Can 44. Let no Clerke weare long hayre nor shave his Beard The decretals and your late Councels published by Binius have left out the word Radat and have quite altered the sense of the decree and so your Church hath gone directly against the meaning of the Councell in shaving of Priests S. Austin Bishop of Hippo is both purged and falsified in favor of your doctrine First for the purging of him your own men make this declaration b Augustinus nuper Venetiis excusus in quo praeter multorum locorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum exemplarium curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fideliū mentes haeretic â pravitate possent inficere aut a Catholica orthodoxa fide deviare Praefat Ind. lib. prohibit ad Lectorē Genevae impress an 1629. St. Austin was lately printed at Venice in which Edition as we have restored many places accerding to the ancient Copies so likewise we have taken care to remove all those things which might either infect the mindes of the faithfull with Heresies or cause them to wander from the Catholike faith This publike profession your men have made and accordingly the c In hunc modū est repurgatus ut in libri inscripsione testātur qui editioni praefuerunt Ibid. p. 6. Booke was purged as those who were present at that Edition doe witnesse in the Inscription of the Booke but let us returne to the corrupted Editions in our view St. d De Civitate Dci lib. 22. c. 24. Austin in his 22. booke of the Citie of God and 24. Chapter is cyted by e Bell. de Purg. l. 1. c. 4. Bellarmine for the proofe of Purgatory yet in that Chapter saith f Lud. Vives in lib de Civit. Dei c. 8. Vives in the ancient Manuscript Copies which are at Bruges and Colein those ten or twelve printed lines are not to be found And in the 22. booke and 8. Chapter he tells us there are many additions in that Chapter without question foysted in by such as make practise of depraving Authors of great Authority Touching forgeries and falsifications in particular The humane nature of Christ is destroyed if there be not given it after the manner of other bodies a certaine space wherein it may be contained In your Edition of Paris printed by Sebastian Nivelle An. 1571. this passage is wholly left out This is observed by Dr. Moulin but the Authour so printed I have not seene But when neither adding nor detracting could make good your Transubstantiation Fryer Walden thought it the surest way to forge a whole passage in the name of St. Austin which indeed strongly proves the very name and nature of it The words are these Wald. Tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 83. p. mihi 141. No man ought to doubt when Bread and Wine are consecrated into the substance of Christ so as the sabstance of bread and wine doe not remaine whereas we see many things in the workes of God no lesse marvellous A woman God changeth substantially into a stone as Lots wife and in the small workemanship of man hay and ferne into glasse Neither must we beleeve that the substance of bread and wine remaineth but the bread is turned into the Body of Christ and the wine into his bloud the qualities or accidents of bread and wine onely remaining This fo gery was judicially allowed by Pope Martin the fist and his Cardinals in their Consistorie and yet it savours rather of a Glasse-maker than an ancient Father but what answer maketh Walden to this invention * Egoenimreperi trāscripsi de vetustissimo exemplari scripto antiquā valdè manu formatâ Idem Ibid. I found it faith he and transcribed it out of a very ancient Copie written with a set hand Thus one while you adde another while you detract another while you falsifie the ancient Fathers if either they make for us or against you and yet you tell us that we are guiltie of corrupting the Fathers But above all Gratian hath most shamefully and lewdly falsified St. Austin whom he hath made to say Inter Canonicas Scriptur as decretales Epistolae connumerantur Dist 29. In Canonicis fol. 19. A. The decretall Epistles of the Popes are accounted in the number of Canonicall Scriptures The truth is St. Austin in his booke of Christian doctrine informes a Christian what Scripture hee should hold for Canonicall and thereupon bids him follow the greater part of the Catholike Church Amongst which those Churches are which had the happinesse to injoy the seates of the Apostles and to receive Epistles from them Gratian in the Canon Law altereth the words thus Amongst which Canonicall Scriptures those Epistles are which the Apostolicke See of Rome hath and which others have deserved to receive from her and accordingly the title of the Canon is Imer Canonicas Scripturas c. The decretall Epistles of Popes are counted by St. Austin for Canonicall Scriptures Now judge you what greater forgerie nay what greater blasphemie can be devised or uttered against Christ and his Spirit than that the Popes Epistles should bee termed canonicall Scriptures and held of equall authority with the Word of God especially since by your owne men they are censured as Apocryphall and counterfeit Epistles Your owne Bellarmine as a man ashamed of such grosse forgeries would seeme to excuse it Bell. de Concil Author l. 2. c. 12. Primo That Gratian was deceived by a corrupt copie of St. Austin which he had besides him and that the true and corrected copies have not the words as himselfe reporteth Thus Walden excuseth his forgerie by an ancient Manuscript the Cardinall by a corrupt copie and yet by your Cardinals leave this and many other such like forgeries stand printed in the Canon Law no Index Expurgatorius layes hold on them Idem de script Eccles An.
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
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
sence And moreover Yribarne saith that Transubstantiation was not from the beginning de substantiâ fidei because it had not beene so plainely delivered nor determined in any Councell till Gregorie the 7 his time wherein it was first determined against Berengarius It is not the reall presence whereof either S. Austine or Maldonate speaketh but how they that eate Manna have died and they that eate the body of our Lord shall live according to our Saviours saying which is a cleane different thing Gregorie de Valentia having brought two or three severall and substantiall answers to a place alledged out of Theodoret concludeth somewhat roundly with the heretiques in this manner that if no other answer will serve the turne but that they will still stand wrangling that it is no marvell that one or two hee meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius might erre in this point and that Bellarmine Suarez and others answer the place otherwise to whom hee remitteth the Knight Cusanus speaketh not of ancient Fathers but of certaine ancient Divines whose names and errours are set downe in our late Schoole-men and this Cardinall himselfe in the place alledged by the Knight declareth his beliefe of Transubstantiation Excit l. 6. The Waldenses agree not with Protestants in the point of the Sacrament for they had Masse but once a yeare and that upon Maundy Thursday neither would they use the words hoc est corpus meum but seven Pater nosters with a blessing over the bread Durand affirmeth not that the substance of the Bread and Wine remaineth in the Sacrament but the materiall part only and hee acknowledgeth that all other Schoole-men were herein against him Gaufridus and Hostiensis though they recount three opinions concerning the presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrament of which the one saith the bread is the body of Christ another that the Bread doth not remaine but is changed into Christs body a third that the bread doth remaine and is together with the body of Christ yet they approve none for true but only that of the body of Christ being upon the Altar by Transubstantiation Tonstall with Scotus speake either of the word Transubstantiation or of the proofe thereof by determining that sense of Scripture or if they meane otherwise the matter is not great For one single Authour or two contradicted by others carry little credit in matter of beliefe Erasmus is not an Authour to be answered or named as the Knight hath beene often told The Hammer AS Nugno wrote of an Argument of Suarez the Iesuite In 3. p. Tho q. 61. insolubile est argumentuÌ„ Suarez propter intricationem obscuritatem non difficultatem that it was in a manner insoluble not in regard of the difficultie of the matter but in regard of the intricacie and obscuritie in the manner of propounding it so this Section may be truly said to bee uncapeable of a cleare and distinct answer thereunto not in regard of any difficultie in the matter it selfe for there is nothing contained in it but Crambe centies cocta but in respect of the confusion thereof the Adversary following no tract at all but leporis instar viam intorquens purposely like a Hare leaping out of the way that hee might not be caught for which cause I have beene enforced to leave the order or rather disorder in his Paragraphes and cull out of the whole Section here and there what hee materially answereth to the Knights allegations and reduce it to the numbers following whereunto I purpose to referre my ensuing animadversions To the first Exception Whereas hee taxeth the Protestants for leaving out ceremonies in Baptisme used in the Church since the Apostles time hee shamefully abuseth his reâ—der for hee speaketh not of the signe of the Crosse or of Godfathers and Godmothers which ceremonies and custome of the ancient Church hee knoweth that we retaine but of Salt and spittle or baptismall chrisme which can never be proved to have beene used in the Apostles time or many hundred yeares after Of the most ancient of them to wit Chrisme he himselfe else-where Apolog. c. 2. Pag. 57. acknowledgeth that it began but about Constantines time as Aurelius the Sorbonist observeth in his booke intituled Vindiciae censurae wherein the Iesuite is trimmed as such a shaveling deserveth To the second concerning Elfrick That Aelfrick was not the Authour of the Homilies wee acknowledge neither doth this any whit derogate from their authoritie but adde rather For the more ancient the Authour was the more authoritie the Sermons carry Now it appeareth out of an ancient Manuscript that these Homilies were extant in Latine before the dayes of Aelfrick In Bib. Bodelianâ Oxon. who was commanded by the Archbishop of Yorke Wolstanus to translate them into English which after hee had faithfully done the Bishops at a Synod commanded them to bee read to the people on Easter day before they received the Communion As for the shamefull corruption hee objecteth to the Knight by false translating the Homilies in five places I cannot sufficiently pitty the grosse stupidity and blindnesse of the objecter Hee who hath made a paire of Spectacles for the Knight had need to have a Festrawe made for himselfe to spell withall for here hee most absurdly and ridiculously mistaketh a Collation for a Translation and Bertram for Aelfrick Doctor Vsher now Primate of Armath whom the Knight here followed step by step maketh a kind of parallel betweene the words of Bertram and divers passages in the Homilies and Epistles translated by Aelfrick to shew the conformitie of the doctrine in both This parallel by this blind buzzard is taken for a translation a Cic. Phil. 2. Viste asine literas doceam saith Tully to Anthony non opus est verbis sed fustibus yea but the Authour of this Homilie is so farre from condemning Transubstantiation that hee professedly teacheth it in these words b Sicuâ—â— Paulò antequam pateretur panis substantiam et vini creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat sic etiam in deserto Manna aquam de â—errâ in suam carnem saâ—guiâ—eâ— coÌ„vertere praevaluit As therefore a little before hee suffered hee could change the substance of Bread and the creature of Wine into his proper Body which was to suffer and into his Bloud which was there extant to bee afterwards shed so in the Desert hee was able to change Manna and water into his owne body and bloud I answer this passage hee doth well to whet like a sharpe knife to cut the throat of Transubstantiation For let it be granted according to the doctrine of â—lfrick and Bertram that Christ so turned the Bread into his Body at his last supper as hee turned Manna and water into his owne flesh in the wildernesse what will hereupon insue but that the conversion or change which is made in the
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
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
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
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
witnesses for proofe of the Catholike Faith beginneth with Martyrs those particularly who being Pastours of the Roman Church suffered Martyrdome successively one after another to the number of thirty three These saith Campian were ours and nameth some of them as Telesphorus Victor Sixtus Cornelius with the particular points which they held conformably with us against Protestants That these Martyrs are ours notwithstanding they died not for any of those points the Knight mentioneth is plaine because they professed the same Catholike Faith which wee doe which wee also prove by the Faith of their successour Vrban the eigth who as hee holdeth their seat so also their Faith for Peters Chaire and Faith goe together as the very Heretike Pelagius confessed to Pope Sozimus saying to him Tu qui Petri fidem sedem tenes Not to stand here upon the most effectuall and infallible Prayer of our Saviour himselfe Oravi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua which proofe must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell us what Pope began to vary from his predecessors For adoration of Images whereas the Knight asketh whether any of these three and thirty were canonized for it though there be no speciall mention of any of these three and thirty their adoration of Images yet there is very pregnant presumption thereof by this that Pope Sylvester who was the very next after the three and thirtieth and was Pope in time of Constantines conversion had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul which it is most like he received from his Predecessors Moreover it is plaine that those three and thirty were ours by their owne decretall Epistles which are so full of those points which Father Campian citeth that the Heretikes have no other shift but to denie the authority of the same Epistles That the consecrated Bread depending upon the Priests intention is the reall Flesh of Christ or that this Priest Garnet by name hath power to consecrate is no matter of Faith but that in the Sacrament the matter forme intentton and all things requisite concurring the Bread and Wine is really and truely converted into the Body and Blood of Christ this is a matter of Faith and this a man is to die for Neither maketh it any matter whether any man have died for it or not for that is more in the persecutors power to appoint what point of a mans Faith hee will put him to death for than in the Martyrs owne who must be readie to die for all and every one as well for one as for another The Hammer IN this Chapter the Knight pulleth the garland of Red Roses off from the heads of all Papists I meane the Crowne of Martyrdome by three most forcible arguments which may thus be reduced into Syllogisticall forme 1. None of those who suffered death for the common Articles of the Christian Faith which we all professe are to be accounted Popish Martyrs But the 33. Popes and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church suffered death for the common Articles of faith which we all professe Ergo none of them were Popish Martyrs neither can they lay any more or better claime to them then we if so good 2. All that may be tearmed truely Popish Martyrs must suffer death either for the profession of the Trent Faith in generall or some speciall point of it wherein they differ from the reformed Churches But none of the Primitive Martyrs suffered death for the profession of the Trent Faith in generall or any point thereof wherein they differ from the beliefe of the reformed Churches Ergo none of the Primitive Martyrs were Popish 3. If the Articles of the Romish Creed published by Pope Pius were either unknowne to the Primitive Church or not then declared to be de fide none in those dayes could suffer Martyrdome for them But the twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed were altogether unknowne to the Primitive Church or not then declared and defined to be de fide as the Iesuit Page 490. in part acknowledgeth Ergo none in the Primitive Church could suffer Martyrdome for them What wards the Iesuit hath for these blowes we shall see in the examination of the particular exceptions before mentioned To the first It is as true that those 33. martyred Popes were Martyrs of the Romish Religion as that Campion the Iesuit who suffered death for Treason against Queene Elizabeth was a Martyr The truth is that although Campion in his tenth Reason search Heaven and rake Hell also for witnesses to prove the truth of the Romish Religion yet he findeth none as D. Whitaker clearely demonstrateth in his answer to that tenth reason and his defence thereof against Dureus To let others passe those 33. Bishops of Rome the Iesuit mentioneth who now weare Crownes of Martyrdome in Heaven never ware the Popes triple Crowne on Earth P. 486. l. 16. I answer that those Martyrs suffered death not for the points now in controversie with Haeretikes but for the profession of Christianity at the hands of the enemies of Christ They sate as Bishops of Rome they sate not as Lords over the whole Church neither was the cause of their death any contestation with Princes for Soveraignty nor the maintenance of any points now in controversie as the Iesuit himselfe confesseth but the profession of Christianity They were not therefore Martyrs of the Roman Church as she is at this present nor of their Trent Creed but of the Catholike Church and the common faith once given to Saints To the second The Iesuits argument drawne from these 33. Bishops of Rome to Pope Vrbane the eighth fall short at least by 1300. yeares If he should thus argue in the Schooles Pope Vrbane the eighth in the yeare of our Lord 1633. held the Trent faith and beleeved Pope Pius the fourth his Creed therefore the 33. Bishops that suffered Martyrdome under the Heathen Emperours within 300. yeares after Christ held the same faith and subscribed to the same Articles of Trent he would be stampt at and hissed out by all present for who knoweth not that George the Arian immediatly succeeded Athanasius the most Orthodox Bishop and that all the Arian Bishops in Constantius his time held the Sees of those Orthodox Bishops who in the first Councell at Nice condemned that blasphemous haeresie In our memory did not Cardinall Poole a Papist succeede Cranmer a Protestant Bishop and Martyr againe did not Parker in Q. Elizabeths daies a learned Protestant succeed Cardinall Poole an Arch-papist in his Arch-bishoprick of Canterbury What a wooden Argument then is this to inferre succession in Doctrine from succession in the same Chaire This wretched Argument the Iesuit proves as lewdly by the testimonie of Pelagius the Heretike This is indeed to Aske his brother if he be a thiefe or no to aske an Heretike whether your Romish Doctrine be not hereticall Yet so unfortunate is hee in his proofe that even this his onely witnesse how liable
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
1100 de Gratiano Aiph advers haereses l. 1. c. 2. in fine Ad transmarina qui putaverint appellandum a nullo infra Africam in Communione suscipiatur Bin. in Concil Milevit Cā 22 Codex Can. Eccl. Afric Can. 28. v. Nisi forte ad Apostolican sedem appellaverint Grat. causa 2. quest 6. Placuit fol. Mibi 153. Haec exceptio non videtur quadrare Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 24. notwithstanding hee professeth the worke was purged and restored to his integrity by most learned men by the command of Gregory the 13. in the yeare 1580. Your Alphonsus à Castro tells us that this shamefull errour ought to be made knowne to all men lest others by this abuse take occasion to erre in like manner as namely Johannes de Turrecremata and Cardinall Cajetan who both cited this place out of Gratian for the Romish faith and the Popes Supremacie and yet no such thing is to be found in St. Austin The Councel of Milevis alias the African Councell is falsified by Gratian for the Popes Supremacie The words of the Councell are these Those that offer to appeale beyond the Seas let none within Africa receive them to Communion Gratian observing that this was a strong evidence and barre to the Popes Supremacie according to his custome hath thrust in these words into the Canon Except it bee to the Apostolike See of Rome Now what saith Bellarmine to this falsification He confesseth that some say This exception doth not seem to square with the Councell I know not how the squares goe with your men at Rome but I finde that amongst your partie there is no rule without an exception especially if it make against your doctrine St. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria is purged in the Text it selfe and is forged by Aquinas for two principal points of faith viz. Transubstantiation and the Popes Supremacie Touching the first he saith That we might not feele horrour Aquin. in Catena in illud Luc. 22 Accepto pane c. seeing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altar the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmities doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit Bread and Wine converting them into the verity of his owneflesh that the body of life as it were a quickening seed might be found in us Here is a faire Evidence or rather a foule falsification for your carnall presence But what saith your owne Vasques the Jesuit Citatur Cyrillus Alex. in Epistola ad Casyrium quae inter ejus opera non habetur illius tamen testimonium citat S. Thomas in Catena Cyrils testimony is eyted by Thomas but there is no such Tract to be found in all his workes Againe touching the Popes Supremacie hee brings in St. Cyrill saying As Christ received power of his Father over every power a power most full and ample that all things should bowe to him so hee did commit it most fully and amply Aquinas in opusculo contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum quartum Pontificem maximum both to Peter and his Successors and Christ gave his owne to none else save to Peter fully but to him be gave it And the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every doctrine Peter and his Church to bee instead of God And to him even to Peter all doe bowe their head by the law of God and the Princes of the world are obedient to him even as to the Lord Jesus And we as being members must cleave unto our head the Pope and the Apostolike See That it is our duty to seeke and enquire what is to be beleeved what to bee thought what to be held because it is the right of the Pope alone to reprove to correct to rebuke to confirme to dispose to loose and binde Here is a large and ample testimony cited in the name of an ancient Father for the honour and power of the universall Bishop This passage is alledged out of Cyrils worke intituled The Treasurie against Heretiques Thesaurus adversus haeticos Tom. 2. p. 1. but whereas there are 14. Bookes written by him of that Title there are no such words to be found in the whole Tract But observe the proceedings of your good Saint hee conceived the authoritie of one Father though rightly cited was not a sufficient proofe for an Article of faith and thereupon to make good his former Assertion hee summons 630. Bishops who saith hee with one voice and consent made this generall acclamation in the Councell of Chalcedon Aquinas in opusculo ut supra God grant long life to Leo the most holy Apostolike and universall Patriarch of the whole World He tels us further it was decreed by the same Councell If any Bishop be accused let him appeale to the Pope of Rome because we have Peter for a rocke of refuge and he alone hath right with freedome of power in stead of God to judge and try the cause of a Bishop accused according to the keyes which the Lord did give him Without doubt this decree was a good inducement for the Church of England to subscribe to the Popes Supremacie if you could make good this proofe out of the Councell of Chalcedon for it is one of the first foure generall Councels which we subscribe unto by our Acts of Parliament An. 1. Elizab. But where are those words to bee found in that Councell Your Pope Zozimus falsified a Canon in the first Councell of Nice as I have shewed and your Popes Champion St. Thomas hath falsified another and both for the universality of the Pope by which you may easily discerne that you wanted antiquity to prove your faith when your men are driven to forge and faine a consent of many hundred Bishops in an ancient and generall Councell See Concil Chalced. Can. 28. Act. 15. for the supporting of your Lord Paramount when as in truth it decreed the flat contrary doctrine Gelasius Bishop of Rome is corrupted Grat. de Consecr dist 2. c. Comperimus Gelasius Pap◠Majorico Johanni Episcopis Ibid. where hee condemneth halfe Communion as sacrilegious his words are these We finde that some receiving a portion of Christs holy Body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred Bloud which because they doe out of I know not what superstition we command therefore that either they receive the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely with-held from them because the division of one and the selfe-same Mystery cannot be without grand Sacriledge Gratian the compiler of the Popes Decrees borrowed his chapter out of that Epistle of Gelasius saith Bellarmine withall prefixed this Title before it Bell. de sacr Euch. l. 4. c. 26. The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Bloud Ea Epistola Gelasii quae modò fortasse non extat Ibid. that is to say without the consecrated Cup and yet by Bellarmines confession That Epistle peradventure is not now extant and
548. p. 551. but Gretzer your fellow Jesuite extremely wondreth that this judgement of the Booke of Agobardus should proceed from a Catholike for Agobardus in that whole Book doth nothing else but indevour to demonstrate although with vaine labour that Images are not to be worshipped Usher p. 463. and yet I say it is more to be wondred that your men should purge such Authors of Antiquitie contrary to your Trent Decree and when by purging them they have made our Faith and Doctrine invisible in them to the Reader you call upon us to shew where our Church and Religion was visible before Luther Johannes Bertram a Priest of the Monastery of Corbey in France wrote a Booke of the Body and Bloud of Christ This Booke is forbidden to bee read by command of your inquisitors and condemned by the Councell of Trent But the Divines of Doway perceiving that the forbidding of this Book gave an occasion to many to seeke more earnestly after it thought it better policie to allow it and accordingly they publish it with this Declaration Ind. Expurg Belg. p. 5. edit Antwer Anno 1571. Although we care not greatly whether this Booke of Bertrams be extant or no yet seeing we beare with many errors in others of the old Catholike Writers and extenuate them and by inventing some devise oftentimes deny them and faine some commodious sense for them when they are objected in disputations or conflicts with our Adversaries we doe not see why Bertram may not deserve the same equity and diligent revisall lest the Heretikes cry out that we burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for them This is a free and faire confession of your men in our behalf that the Fathers are but pretended for your Doctrine when as oftentimes they make against you and indeed accordingly you have framed a commodious sense for the better understanding of this Author as for Instance where he saith the substance of the Bread was to be seene visibly wee must read it say they invisibly and where he saith the substance of the creature which was before consecration remaineth after consecration by substance say they you must understand accidents These devises howsoever at first they seemingly made some shew of answer to the vulgar people yet they proved harsh untunable to the eares of your learned Proselytes and thereupon your Romanists wisely by way of prevention at length gave up this verdict It were not amisse nor unadvisedly done Ind. Belg. p. 421 Quiroga p. mihi 140. B. that all these things should be left out But it seemes these small pills did not sufficiently purge the Authour and thereupon after more mature deliberation it was at last concluded Totus liber penitùs auferatur Ind. Belg. p. 17. let the whole Booke be suppressed Now what answer doe you thinke can be made in justification of this proceeding Your Jesuite Gretzerus briefly resolves it Dum prohibetur Bertramus Gretz de jure prohib libr. l. 2. c. 10. while Bertram is forbidden I deny that a Father is forbidden for the Father is no naturall Father but a Stepfather who nourisheth not the Church with wholesome food but with darnell and pernitious graine together with the Wheate wherefore as the Popes have dealt with some writings in Origen and Tertullian by the same right may they now according to their wisdome abolish any writing of others either in whole or in part by cutting or blotting them out Thus first they dispensed with this ancient Author and our Doctrine then they correct him in some passages by speaking flat contrary to his owne meaning and when all would not serve the turne they absolutely forbid him to be read or rather command him to be utterly blotted out and totally suppressed In the tenth Age 975. Aelfricus Abbot of Malmesbury wrote an Homily touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist The tenth Age Ann. 900. to 1000. Aelfrichs Sermon on Easter day which was thenread throughout all our Churches on Easter day and consonant to the Doctrine of our Articles This Booke is extant in the Saxon tongue in many Libraries but what is the reason he is not numbred amongst your Bookes prohibited Why surely you have foisted in a Parenthesis which by a miracle inferres your corporall presence which makes some shew for your Religion and yet because it is contrary to the whole scope of his Booke you confesse that Harpsfield in his History shewes That the Berengarian Heresie began somewhat to bee taught and maintained out of certaine writings falsely attributed to Aelfricke and thus for one reason you will not prohibit him or lay a deleatur upon his works but for the other reason there is a deletur upon him and he is a man cleane out of your Bookes In the eleventh Age The eleventh Age An. 1000. to 1100. Ind. lib. prohib pag. 47 p. 93. Huldericus Bishop of Auspurg wrote an Epistle touching the single life of the Clergie wherein he taxeth Pope Nicholas for restraining Priests from marriage and therefore is rejected by your Inquisitours his words be these Assuredly you are not a little out of the way Hulder Episc ep de caelibatu Cleri when you doe compell Clerks by force to keepe themselves from marriage which you should admonish to forbeare for it is violence when any man is constrained to keepe a particular decree against the institution of the Gospell and the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost wherefore wee counsell you by the fidelity of our subjection that with all diligence you will remove such a scandall and by your discipline root out that Pharisaicall Doctrine from the flocke of Christ And whereas it was objected that Gregory the Great long before that time had made a Decree for the restraint of Priests marriage in his first Epistle to Pope Nicholas Ibid. p. mihi 482. Orthodoxagraphia Patrum Tom. 1. p. mihi 481. Piusquam sex millia infantum capita viderit p. mihi 1482. hee tells him There be some which take Gregory for a maintainer of their Sect whose ignorance I lament for they doe not know this perillous Decree was afterwards purged by him when as upon a day out of his ponds were drawne above 6000. childrens heads which after he beheld he utterly condemned his Decree and praised the counsell of Saint Paul It is better to marry than to burne adding this also of his owne It is better marry than be an occasion of death Here you see our Doctrine was taught touching the marriage of Priests and because it is a plaine evidence for our Church your Inquisitours have ranked this Epistle amongst the Bookes prohibited Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury taught our Doctrine in the most substantiall point touching faith and good workes The forme of preparing men for their death was delivered to the sicke man in this manner a Credis nō propriis meritis sed passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi virtute merito ad
sense of the Calvinists and withall confesseth that St. Austins opinion is more probable If this I say may bee deemed raving then will I confesse your railing is a good answer But he despaires say you of his cause who seeth Maldonats saying practised by the Church of Rome against his Church and doctrine I confesse with the blessed Apostle Acts 5.38 39. If our counsell or worke be of men it will come to nought and then I might despaire of it but if it be of God yee cannot overthrow it lest happely yee be found even to fight against God We have no cause blessed be God to despaire of our Religion which in one Age hath spread over the better part of Christendome But I conceive there is little hope of you or your cause who have sold your selves either with Ahab to worke wickednesse and maintaine Idolatrous worship for your owne advantage or like Maldonat See Maldonat Col. 1536. Unum è duobus intelligatur necesse est aut tunc non scandaliz abimini cùm videritis filium hominis ascendentē ubi erat prius aut contra tunc magis scandaliz abimini prioremsensum plerique sequātur Chrysost Augustin c. Yet Maldonat followeth the latter openly to professe greater hatred to Protestants than love to the truth it selfe For it is apparent ex professo he preferreth his owne opinion without any authoritie before St. Austin nay contrarie to St. Austin and hee gives this reason for it Because this sense of mine doth more crosse the sense of the Calvinists But I may say to you as sometimes a Ludov. Viv. de Civ Dei l. 13. c. 24. Ludovicus Vives spake upon the like occasion St. Austin is now safe because of his age but if he were alive againe he should be shaken off as a bad Rhetoritian or a poore Grammarian And yet this good Saint was so farre from defending any opinion against the knowne truth that on the contrarie he preferreth the interpretation of b August contr Cresc Grammat l. 1. c. 32. l. 2. c. 32. p. mihi 218. 241. Cresconius a Grammarian before St. Cyprian the Martyr because it seemed to him more probable and agreeable to the truth CHAP. VI. The summe of his Answer to my Sixth Section THe Knight saith he seemes to acknowledge that he cannot assigne the time and persons when and by whom the errors of the Roman Church came in Good Physitians use to enquire of the causes effects and other circumstances and upon the circumstance dependeth the knowledge of the disease We pleade prescription for our doctrine from the beginning The difference betwixt Heresie and Apostasie The Church cannot fall away without some speciall note and observation The Reply I◠is to be wondered what art and policie your Church doth use to put off the triall of her cause when it should come to hearing If we speake of a depravation of your Faith you crie out it is blasphemie If we shew your owne mens complaints for a reformation of your doctrine you say they meant a reformation onely of Discipline If we plainly prove the noveltie of your Trent Articles by comparing them with the Tenets of ancient Religion you threaten to bring an action of the Case against us for slandering and defaming of your Church except we can assigne the precise time and person when those errors came in Let us use the words of your fellow Campian Can I imagine any to be stuffed in the nose Camp Rat. 2. that being forewarned cannot quickly smell out this subtle juggling Why doe you not rather complaine of the Noveltie of our doctrine and bid us shew the time when and the Authors who first broached our two Sacraments our Communion in both kindes our Praier in a knowne tongue our spirituall presence and the like if I faile in these then say The Knight seemeth to acknowledge he cannot doe it The errors in your Church which wee complaine of are negative Articles amongst us and the proofe lies on your side If you cannot shew Apostolicall Authors for your owne doctrine must we be therefore condemned because we doe not prove the Negative Or otherwise it must needes follow by your Logick that it is the same doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints because we cannot shew the first Author of it You cannot denie that there are many particular errors in the Church whose first Authors cannot be named by you nor us and therefore will you conclude they are no errors The custome of communicating little children in the Sacrament of the Lords bodie and bloud was an error and continued long in the ancient Church yet the first Author of it was not knowne There were many did hold there was a mitigation and suspension of the punishment of the damned in hell by the suffrages of the living this error was anciently received yet the first Anthor was not knowne The opinion that all Catholike Christians how wicked soever shall in the end be saved as by fire was an ancient error but the Author is not knowne Againe Alph. contr haeres verbo Indulgentia p. mihi 354. there are many things saith your Alphonsus knowne to later writers which the Ancients were altogether ignorant of There is seldome any mention of Transubstantiation amongst the Ancients almost none of Purgatorie what marvell if it so fall out with Indulg ences that there should bee no mention of them by the Ancients If therefore such errors crept into the Church in the first and best Ages which are now condemned by your selves and us without enquiring after the time and Authors that first broached them Nay more if your points of Faith as namely Transubstantiation Purgatorie and Indulgences were altogether unknowne to the Ancients as your men confesse why should you require us to shew the first Authors of your doctrines which were utterlie unknowne to the ancient Fathers Or rather why do you not condemn them with us as you do the errors which were received for true doctrines amongst the Ancients If St. Peter were at Rome no doubt the Church received beleeved his Prophesies There shal be false Teachers among you 2 Pet. 2.1 who privily shall bring in damnable heresie If the Apostle both forewarned you and us that errors and heresies must steale in privily sensim sine sensu secretly and by degrees into the true Church and yet would not reveale the Authors of the heresies what madnesse were it in you or us to passe by those damnable Heresies or rather to pleade for them because wee cannot learne the name of the false Teachers Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyr. de haeres c. 15. who was living 400. yeeres after the Apostles time complaines that certaine in his dayes did bring in errors secretly which a man saith he cannot soone finde out nor easily condemne The Serpent hides himselfe as much as hee can saith Tertullian and sheweth his chiefe skill in wreathing himselfe into folds Tertull.
amongst them Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. And so doth Irenaeus also witnesse they all restraining and adjudging it to be Heresie and Idolatrie to cense and bow to the Image even of Paul or Christs But doe you not find a difference say you betweene their adoring the creature of wood and colour in place of the creature and our adoring the Creator represented by the creature If there be any difference in the manner of the Pagan worship and yours it is in this That the Christians who know God and set up an Image unto him offend rather than the Gentiles who know him not and if to worship a creature which is the worke of Gods hands be flat Idolatrie how inexcusable is it to worship the worke of mens hands and the shadowes of Creatures represented by art and applied by mans vaine conceit to resemble the Creatour And in this respect Saint Austine preferred the Pagans and Heathens before the Manichees which were Christians For the Pagans worship things that be Pagani colunt ca quae sunt etc. Aug. contià Faust l. 20. c. 5. though they be not to be worshipped but you saith hee worship those things that be not at all but are fained by the vanitie of your deceitfull fables and tales It is true as you say the Heathen did worship the Creatures of wood in place of the Creator Gentes Ugnum adorant quia Dei Imagmem putant Ambr. in Psal 118. Serm. 10. but the reason is given by Saint Ambrose because they thinke it to be the Image of God And doe not you the like when you worship the picture of Christ in wood or any other metall I most firmly avouch that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God and other Saints are to be worshipped Bulla Pij 4 Act. 9. because it is the picture of Christ Those that worshipped the golden Calfe knew wherof it was made neither could there be such a Calfe amongst them to thinke it was a true God Tertullian up braideth the Pagans That in their owne consciences they knew well enough that the Gods which they worshipped were but men that it was to be proved in what places they were borne where they had lived Tert. Apolog. cap. 10. Provocamus ad conscientiam vestram c. and left a remembrance of their workes where they were buried and may not the like be proved by many of your Saints which you worship in your Church If the Pagans had adored their Images for God there had beene some difference betwixt you but they could answer the Christians as Celsus the Philosopher did Origen Orig. contrà Celsum l. 7. If the Christians deny things made of wood stone brasse or gold to be God wee grant it for otherwise it were a ridiculous opinion for who but a starke foole did ever account them for gods But in conclusion they joyne hands with you These say you are the services unto the gods or else certaine resemblances of the gods I will come neerer unto you It is the voice of the Heathen man in Clemens Clem. Recognit ad Iacob lib. 5. We worship the Images which we may see in the honor of that God which cannot be seen You may reade the like excuse of a Heathen man in Saint Austine I worship neither the Image nor the devill but by a Corporall figure Aug. in Psal 113. Concion 2. I behold the signe of that which I ought to worship Now change but the name of Pagan into Papist and these sayings will fully agree with your men and therefore if it be flat Idolatry in them that know not God the greater sinne lyeth at your Churches doore who joyne with Pagans and Idolaters which otherwise professe to know him and worship him as hee ought to be worshipped in spirit and truth The difference onely betwixt you and them is this They worshipped the Images of the heathen Philosophers aswelas of Iesus and you say that you worship Images of Christ and not of the Gentiles And herein your later error is greater than the first for if you had told a Carpocratian Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbours wife because God hath forbidden it Clemens saith hee would have replied as you doe By thy Neighbour is understood the Neighbour of the Gentiles Clem. Strom. l. 3. And thus they excuse their disordered Lust and you to decline your Idolatrous worship savour of one and the same spirit and therefore to use part of your owne words This doctrine is too grosse for so subtile a Iesuit as you are To conclude you would know how our Doctrine against Images doth succeed the second Commandement Here you quarrell about the word Succeed when I say no such thing but that it is derived and thus you fight with a Paper-man of your owne making And lastly you say the word Image is not in the Scripture when as your vulgar Translation in Exodus is Sculptile and yours in Deuteronomie Sculpta similitudo both which signifie A graven Image or the likenesse of any thing Take for a Conclusion that friendly admonition which Origen sometimes gave to Celsus the Pagan Communis sensus cogitare nos cogit c. Orig contra Celsum l. 3. Common sense doth will men to thinke that God is not delighted with honour of Images made by men to represent his likenesse or any signification of him yea who saith hee that hath his right wits will not laugh at him who after those excellent and Philosophicall disputations concerning God or the gods doth looke to Images Ibid. l. 7. and either offereth prayers unto them or by the contemplation thereof as of some visible signe goeth about to lift up his mind to the cogitation of God thereby to be understood And thus much may serve touching your Patrons and first founders of Images From your Images you proceed to your Communion in one kind which I shewed was derived from the Manichees c. You to excuse the matter say That before there were Manichees in the world the blessed Sacrament was administred sometimes in one kind sometimes in both You say so but you say nothing to prove it and your ipse dixit will hardly carry it against a cloud of witnesses For confirmation of what I said that in this point of Doctrine you succeed the Heretikes hearken to Leo Bishop of Rome Leo Serm. 4. de Quadrages The Manichees to cover their infidelitie venture to be present at our mysteries and so carry themselves in receiving of the Sacraments for their more safety that they take the body of Christ with an unworthy mouth but in any wise they shunne to drinke the blood of our Redemption which I would have your devoutnesse speaking to the people learne for by this sacrilegious simulation they may be noted by the Godly that they may be chased away by the Priestly power Leo you see speaketh of the Manichees by name and those Lay-men also and calleth the forbearing
the Lords blood a Sacrilegious sleight Against these Heretikes also wrote another Bishop of Rome in the same age Grat. de Consecrat Dist 2. Comperimus namely Pope Gelasius We have intelligence saith hee that certaine men receiving only a portion of the sanctified Body abstain from the Cup of the sacred blood who for that it appeareth they be intangled with I know not what superstition let them either receive the whole Sacraments or be driven from the whole because the dividing and parting of one and the same mystery cannot be without grievous Sacrilege What thinke you of your halfe Communion you that brag so much of the antiquitie of your Church The Manichees without doubt were the first Authors of your Doctrine and by the suffrages of two infallible Popes your Sacrament is sacrilegious But say you as at that time the Church forbad the use of one kind so now it forbiddeth the use of both and may againe give way when it shall seeme convenient for the use of both kinds Thus you It seemes you make no scruple to thwart the Institution of Christ nor the Custom of the Ancient Church but because in this point your Church is branded with Sacrilege I thinke indeed you could be content to joyne with the Protestants and restore the Cup to the Lay-people but I would gladly know how it can be done Is not your Communion in one kind published and decreed by your Pope and Councell for an Article of Faith And is it in your Churches power to alter and dispense with Articles of Faith at her pleasure Bulla Pij 4 Act. 6. Concil Trid Sess 13 Surely this Confession proves that your Church can create new Articles of Beleefe which elsewhere you deny or else this is no Article of Faith being contrary to the practise of the first and best ages and by consequent your infallible Pope and Councell are guilty of Error and Sacrilege in a high degree For a conclusiō of this point you say the words Drinke yee all of this from whence we draw our succession in Doctrine were spoken to the Apostles and in them to Priests not to the Laitie By this reason who seeth not but you may aswell take the Bread from the Lay people as the Cup for that also was given onely to the Apostles but if the Cup were proper for the Priests onely why doe you deny it to your Non-conficient Priests doe they stand in the place of Lay people Nay more were not all Non-conficients at the time of Christs Institution what strange shifts and evasions hath your Church to uphold the Novelty of your faith I will give you but one testimony of Antiquity There is saith St. Chrysostome where the Priests differ nothing from the people Chrys 18. in 2. Corinth as when we must receive the dreadfull mysteries for it is not here as it was in the old Law where the Priest eates one part and the people another neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those things of which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one Body is proposed to all and one Cup to all To passe by innumerable authorities of the Ancients which you know are full in our behalfe I will shut up this haereticall point of doctrine for such is the foundation of it with a testimony of your owne side Gerard. Lorichius de Missa publica proroganda p. mihi There are some false Catholikes that feare not to stop the Reformation of the Church what they can these spare no blasphemy lest that other part of the Sacrament should be restored to the Lay people for say they Christ spake drinke yee all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these Take and eate yee all of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken onely to the Apostles then must lay men abstaine likewise from the Element of bread which to say is an haeresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemy It is therefore consequent that both these words Eate yee Drinke yee were spoken to the whole Church Thus your Ancient Bishop of Rome termed your halfe Communion a Sacriledge and this latter Author of your owne termes it an haeresie and a pestilent Blasphemy and this may serve to prove your descent from the Haeretikes the Manichees in this point From your halfe Communion you proceede to your Invocation of Angels which I derived from the Haeretikes Angelici and for answer to them you say they were Haeretikes swarving from the rule of the Catholike faith by excesse that is honouring Angels more then their due And this is your very case for you doe not onely honour them but religiously worship them and call upon them I will compare your worship with theirs and let the Reader judge if you be not the children of those haereticall Authors called Angelici St. Austin saith Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati Aug. de haeres c. 35. Angelici vocati quia Angelos colunt Isid Orig in l. 8. c. 5. Rhem. Annot. in Apoc. 19. Sect. 4. that those haeretikes were inclined to the worship of Angels or as Isidore noteth they were called Angelici because they did worship Angels The one saith they were but inclined to worship the other saith they did worship On the other side you teach that there is a religious reverence honour and adoration which is not to be denied to Angels nay more you make it a point of Faith and have decreed that the Saints and Angels reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed unto Art 8. in Bulla Pij 4. Thus whereas the ancient Haeretikes were but inclined to adoration your men have made it a doctrinall determination flatly to adore them and whereas they did worship them with a religious honour as a custome learned from the Heathen Philosophers you receive it as a Dogmaticall resolution of your Faith delivered by your Trent Fathers and surely in this if there be any excesse in the worship it is in your selves Againe those Haeretikes learned their lesson from the Gentiles For Celsus the Philosopher had said of the Angels Orig. lib. 8. contrà Celsum that they belong to God and in that respect we are to put our trust in them and make Oblations to them according to the Lawes and pray unto them that they may be favourable untous And is not this your very doctrine and yet these men say you swerve from the rule of the Catholike faith Observe then what was the Chatholike doctrine of those times Origen returnes his answer in the name of all true beleevers Idem Ibid. Away with Celsus councell saying that we must pray to Angels and let us not so much as afford any little audience to it Againe St. Chrysostome was living in the fourth age when Apostrophes began to be used to Saints and Angels yet hee telleth us it was the Devills doing to draw men unto the
is a poore Pedanticall observation for to spend many lines about such toyes and trifling words and to passe by the maine sinew strength of the Citation this is to confesse in plaine termes that you cannot justifie your doctrine and the rather it appeares in this particular point wherein Master Harding doth not onely condemne the people for their neglect but excuseth hereby your Churches ordinance in generall as being not guilty of the coldnesse of the people Nay more hee plainly intimates the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie of our Doctrine in these words Iuel Divis 7. p. mihi 11. In case the people might be stirred to such devotion as to dispose themselves worthily to receive their Howsel every day with the Priest as they did in the Primitive Church what would these men have to say And as touching Safety and Certainty of our Doctrine hee freely expresseth his thoughts and liking of our Communion of Priest and People saying It were to be wished Iuel in Art 1. Divis 9 p. 17. as oftentimes as the Priest doth celebrate the high Sacrifice that there were some who worthily disposed might receive their Rites with him and be partakers Sacramentally of the Body and Blood of Christ with him and hee gives a reason for it Idem Divis 25. p. mihi 45. Because it would be more commendable and more godly on the Churches part And thus much touching your three Authors whom say you I have so egregiously belyed Touching your worshipping of Images I referre it to his proper Section And whereas wee charge you with flat Idolatrie in the adoration of the Sacrament of Reliques of Images and the like howsoever I say you excuse your selves with the manner of your adoration yet to our endlesse comfort be it spoken you cannot charge us in the Positive Doctrine of our Church no not with the least suspition of Idolatrie This I told you before and blessed be God you have not wherewith to charge us in your Reply But you say It is far greater evill for you to be truly charged with Heresie than for us to be charged with Idolatrie yet neither you nor all your fellow-Jesuits could ever prove us guilty of either But what may wee thinke of your Church which is justly charged and highly guilty of both Your Popes which the Jesuits resolve to be the Church are condemned for Heretikes by your Councels acknowledged Heretikes by the Popes themselves and condemned of Heresie by your best learned Divines Your worship of Images and Saints concludes in flat Idolatrie and in particular by the Doctrine of your owne Church the adoration of the Sacramentall Bread and Cup for want of a right intention becomes an Idoll in the Temple These things I have in part proved which in place convenient shall be more fully handled hereafter But it is observable after I had ended my Section with this point of Idolatrie I say after this conclusion you flye backe to the middle of the chapter and now question me where our Church was before Luther but when I answered that from your addition and Articles of Faith The question doth truly result upon your selves Where was your Church that is where was your Trent Doctrine and Articles of the Roman Creed received de fide before Luther You are so farre from shewing it that you cunningly suppressed these words and not so much as mentioned them and thus one while suppressing the point in question other whiles by declining the true state of the question you shew your wit is better than your cause and declare your Sophistrie to be better than your Divinitie But to follow you backe againe you say Wee must shew you a companie of men in former times distinct from yours It were no difficult matter to shew you many that did seperate both from you and the errours of your Church in former Ages The Waldenses were a distinct companie of Beleevers and separate from your Church above 500. yeares since Reinerius the Inquisitor confesseth upon their examination that hee found they had in one Diocese one and forty Schooles in another ten B. pp. Tom. 13. Reiner contrà Wald. cap. 3. p. mihi 299. and withall reckons up forty Churches by name in Lombardy in Province in France and other Kingdomes he protesteth that amongst all Sects There was none more pernitious to the Church of Rome than it and that for three causes First Ibid. because it is of longer continuance for some say it hath continued from the time of Sylvester which is three hundred yeares after Christ others say from the time of the Apostles Secondly because it is more Vniversall for there is scarse any Country wherein this Sect hath not crept Thirdly whereas all other sorts blaspheme God this Sect hath a great shew of godlinesse for they live justly before men they beleeve all rightly concerning God and the Articles of the Creed onely they speake evill of the Church of Rome and hate it and by this meanes draw multitudes to their beliefe after them Thus if you require Antiquity for their Doctrine they derive it either from Christ or from Sylvester 300. yeares after Christ if Vniversality all Countries were filled with their Doctrine if good life they lived well before men and beleeved all rightly concerning God and the Articles of their Faith and this the force of truth hath extorted from your grand Inquisitor Augustus Thuanus Presicent of the Parliament of Paris Thuan. hist Tom 1. 1550. p. 457. 465. tells us that these who are commonly called Waldenses Picards Albigenses Cathari Lollards though by their difference of place they had divers names yet they held the same faith which Wicliffe held in England and Husse in Bohemia and gathered strength at the comming of Luther especially in the Caparienses who professed a Religion agreeing almost in all things with Martin Luther But withall he ingeniously professeth that Cardinall Sadolet did examine them and found many things malitiously fained against them Poplinerius saith that about the yeare 1100. these men did publish their doctrine differing but a little from the Protestants Poplin Hist Franc. l. 1. Bb. Vsher de statu Eccl. c. 8. p. 209. not onely through France but also through all the coasts of Europe For both French Spaniards English Scots Italians Germans Bohemians Saxons Polonians Lituanians and other nations doe peremptorily defend it to this very day And by reason they separated from the doctrines of the Roman Church Pope Innocent the third about the yeare 1198. authorised certaine Monkes who had the full power of the Inquisition in their hands to deliver the people by thousands into the Magistrats hands and the Magistrats to the Executioners Histor of the Wald. c. 3. St. Dominick who instituted the order of the begging Monkes called Dominicans was a great persecutor of them and their doctrine The Mother of this Monke saith your Martyrologe Martyrologe in the life of St. Dominick P. mihi 556.
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
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
properly a Communion but where some people are partakers of the same sacrifice with the Priest And lastly Iohannes Hoffmisterus not only speaketh plainly but cryeth out against your private Masses The thing it selfe doth speake and cry alowd that both in the Greeke and the Latine Church not only the sacrificing Priest but the other Priests and Deacons and the rest of the people or at least some part of the people did communicate together and how this custome ceased it is to bee wondered and wee ought to endeavour that it may bee restored againe in the Church Yea but saith the Iesuit Bellarmine and Durand prove by manifest authoritie that in the Easterne Church in the time of S. Ambrose S. Austine and Chrysostome the people did communicate but once a yeare and yet S. Chrysostome even there where hee complaineth of the peoples coldnesse saith of himselfe that hee celebrated every day though there were none to communicate with him I answer that the publike and solemne time at which all were bound to communicate in the Easterne Church was but once a yeare to wit at Easter yet did the people in those dayes both at other times and especially when they lay on their death-bed receive the Communion which was therefore called Viaticum morientium As for S. Chrysostome 't is true that he much complaineth of the backwardnesse of the people in comming to the Communion and professeth for his owne part that hee neglected not his dutie to celebrate the holy Sacrament though hee were much discouraged therein by the paucitie and raritie of those who presented themselves at the Lords Table yet I find not that he any where saith that he celebrated the Communion when there was none to participate with him For though it may bee at some time especially on the weeke dayes none of the people did communicate with him yet alwayes some of the Clergie who assisted that action communicated with him and therefore the Iesuits inference that by our doctrine the Priest must not say Masse once in seven yeares unlesse the people bee so devout as to receive with him is most absurd For in all Colledges and Cathedrall Churches the Priests and Deacons communicate every moneth at the least though none of the people sometimes receive with them But in parish Churches it were a prophanation and a meere mockerie to administer the Communion without some of the people to say Take eate and drinke you all of this when there is none to eate or drinke but the Priest himselfe none I say neither Layk nor Clergie man To the sixt The Canon of the Councell of Nants is mounted against solitarie Masses and what are solitarie Masses but private Masses the Fathers in that Councell account it a ridiculous superstition in a Priest to say the Lord bee with you and lift up your hearts and wee give thankes unto the Lord or let us pray when there is none to make answer Concil Nan. c. 30. Cassand p. 83. or present whom hee inviteth to pray with him and is it not altogether as absurd and ridiculous for the Priest to say as hee doth in all private Masses Take eate De myster missae c. 15. piè credendum est quòd Angeli dei comites assistant orantibus and drinke yee all of this when there is none to eate or drinke with him Neither will Innocentius evasion serve the turne that wee are piously to beleeve that though there are no men present yet that the Angels accompanie them that pray for neither can the Angels joyne in such formes of prayer as are used looke upon our infirmities and deliver us from fornication and other deadly sinnes neither is it agreeable to sound Divinitie or Philosophie to bid Angels that are spirits receive the body and bloud of our Saviour Here for want of better answer the Iesuit picketh a quarrell with the Knight for not citing the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Cassander Flood p. 197. beyond whom and one or two more such fellowes saith he it seemeth his learning did not stretch I will repay him in his owne coyne For the Iesuit himselfe citeth not the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Bellarmine and Burchard beyond whom P. 197 l. 27. and one or two more such fellowes it seemeth his learning did not stretch Is it no disparagement for Flood a professor in Divinitie and writer of Controversies to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Bellarmine his fellow-Iesuit and is it a disparagement for a Knight no professed Divine to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Cassander a most learned Doctour and great Antiquarie in high esteeme when hee lived in the Roman Church If the Iesuit answer that hee could not cite the originall because that Decree is not now extant in any Councell of Nants that wee have with one and the same answer hee justifieth the Knight as well as himselfe It is no argument of Ignorance but rather of faithfulnesse and sinceritie when a man cannot come to the sight of a record himselfe to transcribe it out of others verbatim who have seene it and avouch them for it To the seventh The Councell of Trent like Satyrus in the Poet bloweth out of the same mouth hot and cold 3. V. 11. or like the fountaine in S. Iames sendeth forth at the same place sweet water and bitter c. 6. can 8. optaret quidem sacro-sancta synodus ut populus qui astat communicaret quòd hujus sanctissimi sacrificij fructus uberior proveniret for the Councell accurseth them who say private Masses are unlawfull and yet wisheth that there might bee no private Masses It is true that it is one thing to wish that the people would communicate because to heare Masse and receive withall will bee more profitable another to say if there bee none to communicate the Priest must not say Masse or that such Masse is unlawfull yet there is such affinitie betweene these two sayings that a good argument may bee drawne from the one to the other For hee that wisheth a reformation in private Masses or which is all one that of private Masses they were made publike Communions consequently acknowledgeth that private Masses are faultie or defective and if faulty so farre as they are faulty unlawfull And thus the indifferent reader may see that the water of this Flood wants ashes and soap to bee mingled with it lavat enim non perluit for it washeth but scowreth not nor fetcheth out foule staines in the Masse-priests linnen Having refuted his sophismes Loemel spong feles unguentorum fragrantiâ Tigres pulsu tympanorum in rabiens aguntur I come now to retort his Sarcasmes Tigers if they heare a drum grow madde in this section the Knight sounded an alarum and caused the drum to beate hard at the sound whereof the Iesuit his adversarie after the manner of the Tiger groweth starke madde and snappeth at
every one hee meeteth First hee falleth upon the Knight for creating a Cardinall to wit Hugo de S. Victore Flood p. 188. of his owne free goodnesse to make up the number of his Bishops and Cardinals I answer for the knight that he created no supernumerall Cardinall for he would not usurpe upon the Poges priviledge but committed a small errour in an 〈◊〉 and cry which was made after one Hugh in stead of another yet peradventure it was not the Knights mistake but the Correctors For Hugh of S. Victor though he hath his Cardinals hat in the margent yet hee standeth bare-headed in the text it is called a Communion Lynd safe way p. 119. because it is a common union of Priests and people otherwise saith Hugo it is called a Communion for that the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day But admit the Knight mistooke Hago de S. Victore for Hugo Cardinalis as Bellarmine confesseth that many learned men of his owne side mistooke Anselmus Laudunensis for Cantuariensis yet Flood should have pardoned or let passe and overseene this small oversight because wee tooke him at a worse fault in the like kind in examining his last Section wherein as I there shewed hee grosly mistaketh Bertram for Elfrick and a collation of two Authours for a translation of one Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus Eras Adag after this hee jeareth at the Knight for saying that the Councell of Trent wished well to our doctrine P. 189. What saith hee have you Masses Sir Humfrey take heed it may cost you money an Informer that should heare this might catch you by the backe and bring you in for so many hundred markes as you have received bits of bread in your Church which truly might prove a deere ordinarie for you The Orator said well Cic. pre Coel. nihil tam volucre quà m maledictam nothing is so easily cast out as a contumelious word and I may adde nothing so easily returned backe The Knight no where saith that wee have any Masses in our Church but only that the Councell of Trent wisheth well to publike Communions wherein the people communicate with the Priest which are not certainly your private Masses but admit hee had said wee have Masses in our Church hee might very well have defended this speech by my Lord of Duresme his distinction of Christ his Masse Tho. Mor. episc Dunelm l. nitit Christ his Masse and the Pope his Masse Wee have Christ his masse at every communion neither is any man merced for being present at it but for being absent from it For Masses are not sold with us as they are with Papists where there is a price set for drie Masses and wet Masses for low Masses and high Masses the ordinarie was but a groat for the one and a tester for the other but now it is raised and so to speake in the Iesuits language the Priests Masses prove a Deere ordinarie for the Laitie After this madde Tiger hath left the Knight hee fastens his teeth upon our Communion Table calling it an emptie Communion nothing but a morsell of bread P. 190. and a sup of wine and a prettie service and good-fellow Communion P. 199. Flood is the same full and fasting in jeast and in earnest for in both hee contradicts himselfe which discouereth an idle and addle braine If our Communion bee emptie and nothing but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine what good-fellowship can there bee in it But in good earnest how can the Iesuit call ours an emptie Communion which is every way full and fuller then theirs both for the signes and the things signified for the signes we have the substance of Bread and Wine they nothing but hungrie accidents and shewes a bit of quantity and a morsell of colours and a soppe of figures neither have the Laitie among them so much as a sup of the consecrated cup. For the thing signified we teach that all communicants by faith feed on the very body and bloud of Christ and all that so feed partake of all the benefits of Christs passion they teach that Infidels and reprobates eate Christs body and reape no benefit at all by it As for his good-fellow Communion let him take it to himselfe for Aquinas noteth that sometimes their Priests are overseene by drinking the liquor in the Consecrated cup Missal in cautel si in casu gulae Eucharistiam evomuerit and the cautels of the Masse appoint what is to bee done in case the Priest being drunke before cast up the host As for our Communion there can bee no excesse or as hee tearmeth it good-fellowship in it For the people have warning a weeke at least before to prepare themselves and they receive alwayes fasting before and the quantitie is so smal that it cannot distemper any which this bone Compaignion could not bee ignorant of But it seemeth hee tooke a cup of vinum Theologicum in the Taverne before hee set pen to paper in this section For besidemanifold contradictions before noted hee tearmeth in it our Commnuion sacrilegious P. 199. not considering that they sacrilegiously take the cup from the Laity and that we have restored it and he concludeth the Section with these words here is enough of such an idle subject Now the subject as appeares by the argument of the Section and the title he putteth throughout is Private Masse Nay which is a most certaine demonstration of his distemper when hee wrote this Section hee forgot that hee was a Priest and reckoneth himselfe among the Laitie saying the union may remaine betweene us and the Priest P. 197. l. 1. though he say Masse and wee not receive Concerning the 7. Sacraments Spectacles paragraph 4. a pag. 199. usque ad 242. THe Knight unjustly chargeth Bellarmine for laying a foundation of Atheisme Concil Trid. Sess 7. can 1. Bell. de effect sacram l. 2. c. 25. si tollamus authoritatem praesentis ecclesiae praesentis concilij in dubiū revocari poterunt omnium aliorum cōciliorum decreta tota fides christiana 1 Eliz. 1. in saying that if wee should take away the credit of the Roman Church and Councell of Trent which decreeth the precise number of 7. Sacraments the Decrees of other Councels nay even Christian faith it selfe might be called in question for if such a generall Councell may erre the Church may erre if the Church may erre the faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently there can bee no certaintie S. Gregorie the great did often say and write that hee did hold the 4 first Councels in the same honour that hee did the 4. Gospels which is the same as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Gospels And the Parliament lawes of England give as great authoritie to those 4. first Councels as S. Gregorie doth acknowledging that for heresie whatsoever is condemned for such by any of
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
and Hezekias nay farther Polydore accounteth him a dissolute and audacious man who judgeth otherwise of the worship of Images then hath beene approved by the Decree of two or three Councels which he there alledgeth Peresius denieth not the worship of Images but that the picture is to bee adored with the same worship as the prototype or thing represented by it which maketh nothing against the doctrine of the Catholique Church touching the worship of Images Agobardus his drift in his booke De picturis imaginibus is onely against the idolatricall use or abuse rather of images against which hee speaketh very much by occasion of some abuses in his time Although it were true that some silly women or ignorant rusticks should bee so blockish as to conceive some Divinitie in pictures and accordingly adore them yet the use of pictures must not bee taken away for the abuse for the axiome of the law is utile perinutile non vitiatur The Hammer AS those who beheld the head of Medusa wereturned into stocks and stones and presently deprived of all life and sense so those who gaze upon with admiration this head of the Romish doctrine concerning Image-worship become so stupid and senslesse as if they were turned into those stocks and stones to which they give religious veneration A notable experiment hereof we have in a conference in France in which a Sorbon Doctour present hearing how absurdly the Patrones of Images maintained the worship of them said of a truth I find the words of Psalmist verified those that make them are like unto them and so are all they that put their trust in them But wee need not goe so farre for an instance the Iesuit in this Section maketh good that observation shewing us a forehead of the same metall the images are made for which hee pleadeth For he loadeth the Knight with shamelesse calumnies and most impudently defendeth such grosse idolattie as the wiser of the heathen were ashamed of hee whetteth his poysonous tooth and like a mad dogge snaps at all hee meeteth with and farre out-raileth Rabsekah himselfe as the Reader cannot but judge if hee peruse but a few passages ensuing namely first page 298. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey wherein you have given so sufficient testimonie of notorious had dealing especially in the two places of Eusebius and of the civill law that if there were nothing else falsified or corrupted in your whole booke this were enough utterly to deface all memorie of you from among honest men And page 301. What say you to all this Sir Humphrey looke now into your owne conscience and see whether it can flatter you so much as to say you are an honest man And page 205. May not you then beare away the bell from all lying and corrupting fellowes that have ever gone before you Hee that seeth such foule stuffe come out of the Iesuits mouth would hee not thinke that he were sicke of the disease called miserere but I leave his Grobian language and come to consider first what hee laieth to the Knights charge and after how hee dischargeth himselfe of the idolatrie and superstition wherewith the Knight in this chapter burdeneth the Roman Church First he chargeth the Knight with false translation of the Councell of Trent Wee teach that the image of Christ the Virgin Mother of God and other Saints are chiefly in Churches to be had and reteined which Decree he might have translated a little better and more clearely by saying that those images are to bee had and reteined especially in Churches the Latine word being praesertim and his translating it chiefly and placing it so odly gives cause to thinke he had an evill meaning therein as if hee would have his reader thinke that the Councell taught that those images were the chiefe things to be had in Churches c. It is a signe of a light head to stumble at a straw yet here lyeth not so much as a straw in the Iesuits way only he wanted a festrawe to point to the accent which is set upon Churches not upon had the meaning of the Councell and the Knights is all one to wit that images by that Decree were to bee had and reteined chiefly or especially in Churches not to bee had or held to bee the chiefe thing in Churches For no man would imagine that the Councell could bee so absurd and impious as to preferre images before the sacred Scriptures the Font and Chalice the Altar or communion Table much lesse the sacred Symbols of Christs body and bloud Secondly he chargeth the Knight with grosse ignorance in Chronologie But I may aske you saith hee how come you to say the Iewes never allowed adoration of Images for foure thousand yeares when as the people of the Iewes were not such a people above two thousand yeares nay Moyses lived not past 1500. yeares before our Saviour so that of your owne liberalitie and skill in Chronologie you have added 2000. yeares to make your doctrine seeme ancient There is a grosse mistake I confesse but in the Iesuit not in the Knight who saith not 4000. yeares but for almost 4000. yeares in the first edition and in the later editions this scape of the presse is mended and the figure altered For the matter it selfe the Knight might truly have said that the people of God who lived partly under the law of nature partly under the law of Moyses never allowed adoration of Images for 4000. yeares so ancient is the doctrine of the reformed Churches in this point Thirdly he chargeth the Knight with Simbolizing with Iewes in the hatred of Christ You saith hee in alledging the Iewes hate of the crosse as an argument why you should also hate the same tacitly confesse that you love Christ so well as they 1 Cor. 16.22 A fearefull charge for whosoever loveth not the Lord Iesus let him bee anathemamaranatha but a ridiculous proofe for a man may hate an idolized crucifix out of love of Christ because hee cannot endure Christ his honour to bee given to graven images Heate of zeale against idolatrie doth no way argue coldnesse of affection to the true religion 2. King 15.4 Witnesse King Hezekiah the non pareil of a religious Prince who demolished the brazen Serpent and stamped it to powder calling it nehustan though it were an image and type of Christ crucified as Christ himselfe teacheth us Io. 3.14 As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse So must the Son of man be lifted up Witnesse Saint Peter who loved Christ more then the rest of the Disciples 1 Pet. 4.3 Diligis me plùs quà m hi and yet hee brandeth all Image worship by the title of abominable idolatrie Nay witnesse S. Iohn the beloved Disciple who went behind none in zeale against idolatrie 1 Io. 5.21 saying babes keepe your selves from idols It is one thing to dislike crucifixes in Churches out of hatred of Christ as Iewes Turkes and Infidels
were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their pots have made so bold with Almighty God himselfe as to drinke a health to him and were not this a fine argument to prove that there is no God It is intollerable presiemption in the Knight to take upon him to censure so great a Councell as that of Trent Wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour of which Councell was so great that your night owle Heretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish Whoreas the Knight saith that it is a senselesse and weake faith that giveth assent to doctrine as necessary to be believed which wanteth authority out of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answer he knoweth not what he saith for all the Fathers agree that there are many things which men are bound to believe upon unwritten traditions whose authority you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei l. 4. c 7. The consent of Doctours of the Catholique Church cannot more erre in one time then another the authority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwayes the same no lesse in one time then another Tertull. de prescript cap. 28. quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratū sed traditum and Tertullians rule having still place as well in one age as another that which is the same amongst many is not errour but a tradition St. Paul thought he answered sufficiently for the defence of himselfe and offence of his contentious enemy when he said 1 Cor. 11. If any man seeme to be contentious we have no such custome nor the Churches of God It is false which the Knight againe repeateth that an article of faith cannot be warantable without authority of Scriptures for faith is more ancient then Scripture to say nothing of the times before Christ faith was taught by Christ himselfe without writing as also by the Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written As no lesse credite is to be given to the Apostolicall preaching then writing so no lesse credit is still to be given to their words delivered us by tradition then by their writings the credite and sense of the writings depending upon the same tradition St. Austine defendeth many points of faith De baptisme l. 2 c. 7. l. 5 c. 25. cont Maximin l. 3. c. 3. et Epist 174. de Genesi ad litteram l. 10. c. 23. l. de cura pro mortuis et Epist 118. de unit eccles c. 22. et tract 98. in Iohan. either onely or chiefely by tradition and the practise of the Catholique Church as single Baptisme against the Donatists consubstantiality of the Sonne the divinity of the Holy Ghost and even unbegottennesse of the Father against the Arrians and the Baptisme of children against the Pelagians to say nothing of prayer for the dead observation of the feasts of Easter Ascention Whitsontide and the like Nay this truth was so grounded with him that he accounted it most insolent madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practise of the Catholique Church In his booke of the unity of the Church he saith that Christ beareth witnesse of his Church and in his Tractates upon John having occasion to handle those words of St. Paul If we or an Angell from Heaven c. wherewith the Knight almost concludeth every Section he thus commenteth upon them the Apostles did not say if any man preach more then yee have received but besides that which you have received for if he should say that he should prejudicate that is goe against himselfe who coveted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith but he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was before these are the Saints very words in that place by which it is plaine that he taketh the word praeter besides not in that sense as to signifie more then is written as you would understand it but to signifie the same that contra St. Paul himselfe useth the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 para besides Rom. 16.17 for contra and you in your owne Bibles translate it so I beseech you brethren marke them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them The Hammer AS Erucius the accuser of Roscius Amerinus having little to say against him Cic. pro Rosc Amer. to fill up the time rehearsed a great part of an invective which he had penned in former time against another defendant so the Iesuit here failing in his proofes for indulgences for which little or nothing can be said to fill up the Section transcribeth a discourse of his which he had formerly penned concerning the necessity of unwritten traditions which hath no affinity at all with the title of this Chapter de Indulgentiis In other paragraphs we finde him distracted and raving but in this he turneth Vagrant and therefore I am to follow him with a whip as the law in this case provideth Touching the point it selfe of Indulgences which Rivet fitly termeth Emulgences but the Iesuit the Churches Treasury whosoever relieth upon the superabundant merits and satisfaction of Saints for his absolution for his temporall punishment of sinne after this life shall finde according to the Greeke proverbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of treasure Eras Adag Thesauri Carbones glowing coales heaped upon his head in hell For neither are there any merits or superabundant satisfactions of Saints Luk. 17.10 Christ saying when you have done all you are unprofitable servants nor were there any could they be applied or imputed to any other men 2 Cor. 5.10 the Apostle teaching that every man shall receive according to that which himselfe hath done in his body whether it be good or evill 2 Cor. 11.15 nor hath the Pope any more power to dispose of this treasury for the remission of sinnes our Saviour Matth. 18. v. 18. and Iohn 20.23 conferring the same power of remitting sinnes upon all the Apostles which he promised to S. Peter Matth. 16. Neither if the Pope had any speciall power of granting Indulgences could it extend to the soules in Purgatory quia non sunt de foro Papae because they are not subject to the Popes court Serm 2. de defunct 9 9. as Gerson rightly concludeth Neither lastly can it be proved that there is any Purgatory fire for soules after this life St. Iohn expresly affirming that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all our sinnes 1 Iohn 1.7 the fire therefore of Purgatory is rightly termed chymerica and chymica chymericall and chymicall chymericall because a meere fiction and chymicall because by meanes of this fire they extract much gold The Apostle saith there is
no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus If no condemnation no punishment Rom. 8.1 eternall or temporall The Prophet saith Mica 7.18 he will cast our sinnes into the depth of the Sea surely there is no fire to purge them if we repent us of our sinnes Ezek. 18.22 God promised us that they shall be remembred no more if they shall not be so much as mentioned surely they shall not be sentenced to be punished with fire either temporall or eternall In that time saith the Lord Ierem. 50.20 the iniquity of Israel shall bee sought for and there shall be none and the sinnes of Iudah and they shall not be found for I will pardon them whom I reserve from which text we thus argue All their sinnes whom God pardoneth shall be found no more if found no more then to be purged no more especially after this life Where there is no spot there needs no purging or clensing but in the soules of all beleevers there remaines no spot as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth L. 2 de Indul. c. 3. cum dicimus ex sancto Iohanne quod sanguis Iesu Christi purgat nos ab omni peccato respondet Apostolum loqui de remissione culpae quae maculam proprie gignit in animâ macula enim est quae ablutione tollitur non paena quae debitorem non sordidum facit shaping this answer to our objection out of St. Iohn that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all sinne the Apostle speaketh of the remission of the fault which properly begets a spot in the soule for it is the spot which is taken away by washing When we say that Christs merits are applied to us our adversaries jeare at us holding it for a most absurd doctrine that the merits of one should be imputed to another and yet what they deny to Christ they attribute to Saints that which they deny to God they attribute to the Pope they will by no meanes heare that God imputeth to us the merits and sufferings of his sonne although the Scripture is expresse for it and yet they teach that the merits and satisfactions of Saints by the Pope may be applied to us and that they satisfie for our temporall punishments But to leave farther prosecution of the point in generall and to graple with the Iesuit in the ensuing particulars To the first The Iesuit playeth the Sophister and faine would deceive the simple Reader with the ambiguitie of the word Indulgence which the Knight accuratly distinguisheth and sheweth that the Indulgences now granted by the Pope are no more like the Indulgences in use in the Primitive Church than an Apple is like to a Nut. The Indulgences wherof we reade in the ancient Fathers were mittigations of some censures of the Church before inflicted on the living for their amendment Cyp ad Demet. postquam hinc excessam est nullus datur penitentiae locus nullus satisfactionis effectus these are reluxations from satisfactorie paines in Purgatorie flames after this life After which notwithstanding as Saint Cyprian truly informeth Demetrian there remaineth no place for repentance no effect of satisfaction here eternall life is either gained or lost To the second As the Iesuit doth sometime answer to that which we object not so he oft proveth that we deny not We attribute more to Christs merits than any Romanist doth for we teach that they are a Treasure of infinite value abundantly sufficient without the additioÌ„ of any Saints merits to them to discharge the infinit debt of all mankind to release all who by faith apply them to themselves from all temporall as well as eternall punishment We professe with that religious Divine Effusio justi sanguinis Christi tam dives fuit ad pretium ut si universitas captivorum redemtorem suâ—m crederet nullum diaboli vincula retinerent The effusion of Christs righteous blood is so rich in price that if all the captives did believe in their Redeemer the devils bands could hold none And in very deed this is one of our mainest exceptions against the Roman Church that they infinitely wrong the infinite bounty of our Redeemer by going about as it were to â—â—ke out his merits by the excrescensie and superabundancie of Saints satisfactions What they arrogate to Saints in this kind they derogate from our Saviour wee acknowledge his merits to be a rich Treasurie containing in it many millions of pure gold whereunto to adde the sufferings of any Saints or Martyrs were no better than to take away pure gold and instead thereof to fill up the roome not the summe to lay a few brasse tokens This seemed so absurd to some of the acutest Schoolemen as by name Durandus a Sancto Portiano Durand in 4. sent dist 20. q. 3. and Iohannes de Mayro that they excluded all Saints satisfactions out of this treasurie their reasons are specially these Nothing needeth or indeed can be added to that which is of infinite value but such are Christs merits and sufferings Secondly the Saints are already abundantly rewarded and that far above their desert as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 8.18 I account that the afflictions of this present life are not worthie the glorie which shall be revealed and 2 Cor. 4.17 our light affliction which is but for a moment worketh for us a farre more exceeding and eternall weight of glorie Wherefore the Saints sufferings being so fully recompensed already cannot helpe towards the expiation of the sinnes of others Ego teneo cum Francisco de Mayro in tractato de indulg quod cum merita sanctorum sint ultra condignum remunerata a deo et sic exhausta quod solum dantur indulgentiae ex merito Christi passionis ejus cujus minima gutta sanguinis vel sudoris sufficeret ad expiationem omnium peccatorum quae unquam fuerunt perpetrata aut perpetrabuntur To which point Angelus de Clavatio verbo Indulg numero 9. I hold saith hee with Francis Mayro in his Treatise of Indulgences that forasmuch as the merits of Saints are rewarded of God beyond their merit and thereby the treasure of them is exhausted that Pardons are onely given for the merit of Christ and his passion the least drop of whose blood or sweat would have been sufficient to expiate all the sinnes that ever have beene or shall be committed Thirdly the intention of him that meriteth is most necessarie required to this that the fruit or reward of his merit redound to another but supposing that the Saints were so rich in merits and sufferings that they had any to bestow upon others yet it cannot be proved that the Saints had ever any such intention to transferre the fruit of their passions upon others Fourthly if the Saints sufferings could expiate our sinnes the Saints might be accounted our Redeemers which Aquinas himselfe blushed to affirme Durand in 4. sent dis 20. q. 3. quia intentio merentis est necessaria
P. 328. Absolution is a iuridicall act to be performed by a superiour and judge towards an inferiour and a subject being under his power which the soules in Purgatory are not in respect of the Pope Here by the way let the Reader observe how the Iesuit unwittingly striketh a blow at the Popes triple crowne For if the soules in Purgatory are none of his subiects where is his third Kingdome Why should he weare a triple crowne if he may not beare his sword in Purgatory the word Mysterium anciently engraven upon the Popes Miter was wont to be thus declared that the three Crownes compassing it signifie the rule he beares in Heaven Earth and Purgatory but if he hath of late lost that kingdom and is not now as the Iesuit saith Superior to the soules that frie in Purgatory What power hath he to mittigat their fine or release their mulct or abate their fire much lesse wholly absolve them from the guilt of temporall punishment there in toto As for that he addeth concerning communion of Saints it yeelds no support at all to his cause for the communion of Saints which all Christians beleeve is partly in the blessings of this life partly in the use of spirituall graces whereby they pray one for another admonish instruct and comfort one the other this communion no way extendeth to inward habits as faith hope charity nor to outward penall sufferings which can be imparted to no other as may be most evidently deduced out of Scriptures and the joynt testimonies of the ancient Fathers First therefore wee say that the Saints have no superabundance of merits or satisfactions as I have proved before next that admitting they had any they cannot dispose of them to others for every one shal beare his own burdens every one shall receive the things done in his body according to that he hath don whether it be good or bad not according to that which he hath don or suffred in the body of another Gal. 6.5 de pudicit c. 22. Quis alienam mortem sua solvet nisi solus fiâ—ius Dei proinde qui illum emular is donando delicta si nihil ipse deliquisti plane patere pro me si vero peocator es quomodo oleum facuiae tuae sufficere tibi mihi porerit In Iohan. tract 24. Et si fratres pro fratribus moriantur tamen in fraternorum peccatorum remissâ—one nullius sanguis martyris funditur Leo ep ad Palest Accepere justi non dedere coronas et de fortitudine fidelium nata sunt exempla patientiae non dona justitiae singulares quippe eorum mertes fuerunt nec alterius quisquam de bitum suo fine persolvit Bernard ep 198 cont Abelard Satisfactio unius omnibus imputatur sicut omnium pecca-ta ille unus portavit nec alter invenietur qui fore fecit alter qui satisfecit satisfecit ergo caput pro membris the wise virgins said to the foolish that begged of them oyle to fil their lamps Not so lest there be not enough for us for you the righteousnes of the righteous shal be upon him the wickednes of the wicked shal be upon him Ez. 18.20 Who ever saith Tertullian satisfied by another mans death his owne death but only the Son of God therfore thou who imitatest him in forgiving sins if thou hast sinned in nothing thy selfe I pray thee suffer for me but if thou artâ—a sinner as I am how will the oyle of thy little lampe suffice for thee and for me If Tertullians coyne be not currant I am sure St Austine St Leos is Although saith St Austine brethren dye for their brethren yet the blood of no Martyr was ever shed for the remission of their brothers sinnes For as St. Leo testifieth the righteous have received they have not given crowns from the fortitude of true beleevers we receive examples of patience not gifts of righteousnes For their death was singular neither did any of theÌ„ by it discharg the death of another the head hath satisfied for the members the satisfactioÌ„ of one is imputed to all Marke he saith of one not of more the head satisfied for the meÌ„bers not the meÌ„bers one for another To the seventh I freely subscribe to the conclusion and beleeve without any scruple that the 56000. yeares of pardon granted by the Pope to every one that shall say seven prayers before the Crucifix and seven Paternosters and seven Ave-maries is no more for the dead then for the living For done to such an intent neither are the better for it neither the living nor the dead are gainers but onely the Pope himselfe and his Agents who sell paper and lead at a deerer rate than any Merchant or Stationer in Christendome Yet by the Iesuits leave Pope Gregory granting 14000 yeares of Pardon and Nicolas the first as many and Sixtus the fourth twice as many which make up the full number of 56000 must needs be thought to intend benefit to the soules in Purgatorie or in hell unlesse you will make the Pope to be so absurd as to suppose that any were to live upon earth so many thousand yeares which had beene an errour 55000 times worse than the errour of the Millenaries For they taught that the Saints should live a thousand yeares with Christ on earth but these that sinners should live in durance here or in Purgatorie 56000 yeares which is 50000 yeares longer than by all computations the World hath or as most thinke shall last To the eighth What Scripture or Tradition hath the Iesuit for this his incredible paradox If wee should grant him such a Purgatorie as hee desires which no man yet could find either in the Map of this world or in the Table of holy Scriptures yet is it impossible to defend with any probability this position of his that in few weekes space a soule might suffer punishment answerable to the Penance of many thousand yeares For the learned Romanists generally accord that Purgatorie fire differeth little from hell but in time that the one is eternall the other temporall they beleeve it to equalize or rather exceed any fiery torment on earth How then can they imagine so much fuell to be laid on that fire and the torments in it so improved that a man may suffer so much punishment in a few weekes which may weigh downe or beare scale with the penance of 56000 yeares or if the torments could be so increased what soule would be able to beare them for those few weekes nay rather a few houres To the ninth The Authours alleaged by the Knight namely Durand Sylvester Prierias Major Fisher Bishop of Rochester Alfonsus a Castro Antoninus Cajetan and Bellarmine speake not as the Iesuit would have it comparatively but positively Durand saith Durand 4. sent dist 20. q. 3. de indulgeÌ„tiis pauca dici possum per certitudinem quia nec scriptura expressè de iis loquitur sancti
Faith or at least send their children to the Donatists to be baptized L. 1. De baptis cont Donat c. 3. Esse vero apud Donatistas baptismum illi asserunt nos concedimus because both parties granted that there was true Baptisme among the Donatists whereas the Donatists denied that there was any true Baptisme among the Catholikes or this the Indian Priests teach that it is unlawfull to take bread from the hand of a Christian the Christians teach that it is lawfull to take bread from an Indian therefore it is safer to take bread from an Indian then from a Christian or have fellowship with an Infidell Indian then with a charitable Christian because a Christian hath a better opinion of the Infidell then the Infidell hath of him as Protestants have a more charitable opinion of Papists then Papists have of them When the Iesuit is sober let him thinke how to give an answer to Bishop Morton his instance whereby he sheweth the invalidity of this mad argument of Iesuits A mad man thinketh other men to be beasts a sober man confesseth that a mad man is a man and no beast is a mad man therefore in the right or in the better case then the sober man because the sober man judgeth better of the mad man then the mad man doth of the sober Concerning the confession of all sides for the safety of the Protestant Religion Spectacles Chapter 18. Ã page 509. usque ad finem THAT the ground of safety which the Knight thinketh he taketh from Catholikes is foolish impertinent and without sense as he setteth it downe for thus he saith it is the safer way to persist in that Church where both sides agree that salvation may be had then where one part standeth single by themselves in opinion for I would know what Church is that wherein there be two sides to agree or disagree or what Church that is that doth not stand single in opinion by it selfe if it be a Church of a different faith as we speake here of a Church A Church must have unity it being a company of men all professing the same faith and Religion therefore it is plaine there is no sense in this principle of his I would aske him whether the Protestants doe not stand single as well as we by affirming of what we deny or denying what we affirme or rather whether he and his Church be not so much more single then we as they have not one on their sides for every million which we have or have had on ours By the Knights argument a man may prove any haeresie that ever was nay Iudiasme and Turcisme to be a safer way then the Catholike or even the Knights Protestant faith for Arius may say he agreeth with us Catholikes in all things save onely in the Divinity of the second Person of Trinity whom he acknowledgeth with us to be an Holy Man and that we stand single by our selves in the assertion of his Divinity Macedonius may say the same of the Holy-Ghost Nestorius of the plurality of persons in Christ Eutyches of the singularity of Natures Sergius Pyrrus and the Monothâ—lites of the unity of will in Christ Ebion Cerinthus Marcion and almost all haeretikes in their severall haeresies may say as the Knight doth of the points controverted that we stand single by our selves in them and so it is the safer way to beleeve onely that wherin they and wee agree nay the Iewes may make the same argument thus That they agree with us that there is one God Creatour of heaven and earth and that the old Testament is Canonicall Scripture for the rest wee stand single and the Turke may say that hee agreeth with us that Christ was an holy man and a Prophet for the rest wee stand single and therefore hee is in the safer way What can the Knight say for defence of his Argument For though Iewes and Turkes doe not agree with us in the profession of the Christian Faith yet I see not why that should be necessary by the Knights Argument and thereby a man may see what a good guide he is and how safe a way he goeth and whether the saying of Salomon be not truly verified of his Safe Way Prov. 14.12 There is a way which seemeth to a man straight and the end of it leadeth to death and consequently to hell for what other is the end of Heresie Judaisme and Turcisme whereto the Knights rule doth leade all such as will be ruled thereby The Hammer SEmper ego auditor tantum nunquam ne reponane Hitherto the Knight held up his Buckler and stood upon his owne defence but here hee setteth upon his Adversarie closeth with him wresteth his owne Sword out of his hand and therewith giveth him as many wounds as Iulius Caesar received in the Senate For besides the 12 Articles of Pope Pius the fourth his Creed in all which the Papists stand single hee inffanceth in eleven points more wherein the Papists agree with us in our affirmative positions but they alone maintaine their affirmative addition wherupon hee condemneth the Iesuit as Christ doth the Evill Servant in the Gospell out of his owne mouth thus That Religion is lesse safe in which the Professours stands single than that in which the parties other wayes dissident agree But in all or most of the affirmative points of Popish Religion they stand single but in all such positive points of the reformed Faith not only Papists but in a manner all Christians of the world concurre with us Therefore the Popish Religion by the Iesuits owne rule is lesse safe To illustrate this by a few instances the positive points of our Doctrine are chiefly these 1. That the three Creeds the Apostles the Nicene and that of Athanasius are to be received upon paine of damnation 2. That religious worship is due to God 3. That God is to be called upon 4. That Christ is head of the Church 5. That hee is our Mediatour and Advocate 6. That hee was conceived without sinne 7. That wee are saved by his merits and satisfaction 8. That the Scripture is a rule of Faith 9. That there are two and twenty Canonicall Bookes of the old Testament 10. That the originals in the Greek and Hebrew are authenticall 11. That there are two Sacraments of the new Testament Baptisme and the Lords Supper 12. That Children of the Faithfull are to bee christened 13. That in Baptisme water is necessarily to be used 14. That Christ is truly present at his Supper and that the worthy Receiver is by faith made spiritually partaker of the true and reall body and blood of Christ 15. That the Sacrament may be administred in both kinds 16. That the Images of Christ and his Saints may serve for Ornaments and Memorials and that there is a lawfull historicall use of them 17. That Peter had a Primacie of Order among the Apostles 18. That there are two places for soules departed
Heaven and Hell 19. That there are three holy Orders in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons 20. That Confession to a Priest in case the Conscience be troubled with any grievous Sin is profitable and behoovefull To all these points and many more like unto these the Papists assent but in all their additions they stand single as namely 1. That a fourth Creed made by Pius the fourth is likewise to be received under paine of damnation 2. That religious worship is due to Saints 3. That Saints and Angels are to be called upon 4. That the Pope is the visible head of the Church 5. That Saints are our Mediatours and Advocates 6. That the Virgin Mary also was conceived without sinne 7. That wee are justified and saved in part by our owne Merits and superabundant satisfactions of Saints 8. That Tradition is a rule of Faith as well as Scripture 9. That besides those two and twenty there are other Books of the old Testament to wit Tobit Judith Baruch The Wisdome of Salomon Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees to be admitted into the number of Canonicall Scriptures 10. That the vulgar Latin translation of the Scripture is most pure and authenticall 11. That besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper there are five other Sacraments Confirmation Order Penance Matrimonie and Extreme Vnction 12. That Gallies and Bels may and ought to be christened 13. That besides Water Creame Salt and Spittle are to be used in Baptisme 14. That Christ is present in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation and that his body and blood is not onely received spiritually by Faith but also carnally by the mouth 15. That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may lawfully be administred to the Laity in one kind onely 16. That besides an historicall there is a religious use of Images and that they are to bee worshipped 17. That Peter had not onely a Primacie of Order but a power also and jurisdiction over the Apostles 18. That besides Heaven and Hell there is a third place of abode for soules to wit Purgatorie and a fourth also termed Limbus infantum 19. That besides those three holy Orders of Bishops Prists and Deacons there are others as namely Exorcists Acolyts c. 20. That confession of every knowne Sin to a Priest is necessarie Now because Negatives are not properly Articles of Faith but Positives or Affirmatives it appeareth evidently that the Faith of the reformed Churches is assented to by Papists themselves and all Christians in the world and therfore is most certain safe by the confession on all sides wheras the Popish additions wherein we stand onely upon the Negative and they are to make good the Affirmative are assented to by none but themselves and therefore by the Iesuits rule are weak doubtful and lesse safe This is Vulcaneum telum et argumentum palmarium the main and principall argument whereby the Knight demonstrateth the title of his Booke and hee is so confident of it that if that be to be accounted the safer way wherein different parties agree both in one as the Iesuit laid it downe in the former chapter hee will joyne issue with all Papists in the world in this very point and if in this hee make not good the title of his Booke that wee are therefore in the safer way because they agree in the principall and Positive points of Religion with our Doctrine hee will reconcile himselfe to the Roman Church and creepe upon all foure to his Holinesse for a Pardon At this the Iesuit is so mad that he fometh at the mouth and raveth saying Pag. 512. That to creepe upon all foure is a very fit gate for men so devoid of reason as to make such Discourses and to use such malicious insinuations as if men used to creepe upon all foure to the Pope Parce sepulto Parce pias scelerare manus be not so inhumane and barbarous in tearing the fame of the dead there is no cause at all given of such rage and furie The Knight doth herein no way blaspheme or falsly traduce Dominum deum Papam for those that ordinarily kisse the Popes toe unlesse his Holinesse be the more courteous to hold up his foot the higher must needs be neere creeping on all foure To say nothing of Dandalus King of Creete and Cyprus who was upon all foure and that under the Table before the Popes Holinesse as Iewell in his Apologie and the defence thereof undeniably proveth out of good Authors against Mr. Harding yet the Knight in this place chargeth not the Pope with any such imperious demand of Luciferian pride but onely professeth what penance hee would willingly enjoyne himselfe if hee should abuse the Reader and not make good the Title of his booke by the argument above propounded against which what the Iesuit here particularly Articleth and objecteth I will now consider To the first The words which the Iesuit would make seem so ridiculous are related by the Knight as their owne words not ours as any may perceive by the Preface to them therefore say they and by this that they are written in a lesser Character and is it not senslesse in the Iesuit and most ridiculous to laugh at himselfe and put his owne nonsense upon the Knight who taking the Iesuits words as he found them scorning to nible at syllables interpreted the Iesuits words at the best and taking his meaning joynes issue with him upon the point in this manner In a Church professing Christianity where the Scriptures of the old and new Testament are received and the two Sacraments instituted by Christ administred suppose we there to be two sorts of Professors either publikely allowed as in France or at least tollerated as in other Kingdomes both these entituling themselves to be members of the pure Orthodox Church and neither of them having beene particularly condemned in any generall Councell received through the Christian world the probleme then is whether of these two that party is not in the safer way who holdeth no positive Article of faith to which both parties besides all other Christians give not their assent unto then the other who maintaineth twelve Articles of faith at least wherein they themselves stand single and are forsaken by all Christians not onely of the reformed Churches in England France Germany Denmarke Swethland Norway Poland Transylvania but also in the Eastern and Greek Churches dispersed through the large Dominions of the Turke in Europe Asia and Africa But thus it standeth betweene us and Papists all the positive Articles which we hold necessary to salvation they themselves and all other Christian Churches in the world assent unto whereunto the Church of Rome hath added many other positive Articles in joyning all under paine of damnation to beleeve them in all which additions she standeth alone by her selfe therefore it is safer to adhere to the doctrine and faith of the reformed churches then the Pope his new Trent Creed The Iesuits exceptions against this argument