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
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.
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
all the Iesuit beareth us in hand that the Masse being the same continually the people understand it sufficiently for the exercise of their devotion though not to satisfie vaine curiositie which speech of his is partly sencelesse and partly blasphemous it is sencelesse to imagine that a man who never learned his Grammar nor ever was taught Greek or Latine by hearing onely the Masse read over though a thousand times should come to understand it secondly it is blasphemous to say that to desire to understand the particular contents of the Epistles and Gospels read in the Masse or the psalmes of David sung in the Church is vaine curiofitie or hereticall pride Loe here Flood his channell falleth againe into the Stygian lake To the fourteenth There is no contradiction at all in the Knights observations For though this story of the shepheards abusing the words of Consecration and strucke dead for it might peradventure occasion some alteration in those Churches where it was beleeved yet there was no generall command for the practise of the Latine Service in all Christian Churches before Vitalians time who in the yeare 666. verified the number of the name of the beast in himselfe which according to the interpretation of S. Irenaeus who flourished within two hundred yeares after Christ is lateinos as before I noted But for mine owne part I have no faith at all in that legendarie fable of the Sheepheards First because those that coyned it agree not in their tale for some say that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into flesh and bloud and the sheepeheards for their prophane abuse strucke dead others tell it otherwise Cassand liturg c. 28. Honorius in Gem. animae Bellar. l. 2. de Mis c. 22. that neither the Bread nor the Wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heaven nor the sheepheards strucken dead but onely laid for dead As for the Authour of the booke called Pratum spirituale hee is of no credit at all For in his Spirituall meadow as hee tearmeth his worke there are many such Eutopian flowers as this is where I leave the Iesuit to gather him a nosegay till I have leisure to meete with him in the next Section Concerning worshiping of Images Spectacles Sect. 7. a pag. 283. usque ad 319. THe text of Scripture which the Knight quoteth maketh not any mention of Image-worship but Idoll-worship which hee could not but know to bee a different thing having beene so often told it It followeth not the Iewes might not adore Images Ergo wee may not for the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things which wee may If the second Commandement were morall and now in force the Knight could not have his wives picture nor shee his without breach of that Commandement therefore in that sence hee cannot urge it more against our pictures then wee against his Cornelius Agrippa was a Magician and therefore no heed to be given to what he testifieth against the Roman Church Philo Iudaeus saith nothing but that the Iewes admitted no image into the Temple which is true for God cannot bee painted neither could they have the Image of any Saint for there was none as yet which might have that honour to have their images or pictures in the Temple themselves being not yet admitted into the heavenly Temple of God It is no marvaile that the Iewes hate crucifixes sith they could not indure Christ himselfe Notwithstanding the prohibition in the second Commandement were it Morall or Ceremoniall men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple and the Arke and the Temple it selfe There may in the New Testament bee some precept or example both of our Saviour and his Apopostles for the adoration of images though not written in Scripture because as S. Iohn saith that all is not written or rather a very small part is written as his words import Wee have the example of our Saviour and his Apostles testified by good authenticall histories many great and grave Authours make mention of two severall images made miraculously by our blessed Saviour himselfe one was that which hee sent to Abgarus King of Edessa who had a desire to see him the other was that of Veronica which hee made with wiping his face as hee was carrying his Crosse a third was one which Nicodemus gave to Gamaliel all which are testified not only by grave and learned Authours but by God himselfe though not in Scripture yet by great and wonderfull miracles S. Austine taketh not Simulachrum for an image as the Knight falsly translateth him but for an idoll and so commendeth Varro for comming neerer to the knowledge of the true God and going further from idolatrie then other Gentiles Eusebius saith not that images sprang from an heathenish custome but hee meaneth by mos gentilis the fashion of their owne people and kindred who were wont to honour such that had done them any benefit or helpe by erecting statues in memorie of them Moreover Eusebius relateth this storie of the womans statua with approbation upon the basis or foot thereof there grew a certaine strange and unusuall kind of herbe which as soone as it grew up so high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment it had vertue to cure diseases of every kind The Councell of Elliberis was an obscure provinciall Synod of 19. Bishops onely without any certaintie of the time when it was held to which we oppose one of Constantinople another at Rome under Gregorie the third and a third at Nice of 350. Bishops Moreover this Councell forbiddeth not pictures absolutely but painting on walls and soleaving them to the furie and scorne of the Gentiles and it is plaine that the Councell made the Decree out of honour to images because they thought not the walls a place convenient because the plaster breaking off in some places they might become deformed and so contemptible Valens and Theodosius whom the Knight joyneth in making a law against images were not alive together Valens being killed 23. yeares before Theodofius was borne besides Valens was a wicked Arrian heretique upon whom God did shew his judgement by a disasterous end and the law made by him cited by the Knight is fowly corrupted and the meaning wholly perverted for the law was made in honour of the Crosse towit thus wee command that it shall not bee lawfull for any to carve or paint the signe of our Saviour Christ either on the ground or in any stone or marble lying on it Nicolaus Clemanges was himselfe a Wiclefian heretique Cassander Erasmus and Wicelius are of no account in the Roman Church The Councell of Nice held under Constantine and Irene was not condemned at Frankford Nay in that very Councell an Anathema is said to all such as deface Images Polidore Virgill in saying the ancient Fathers condemned the worship of images for feare of Idolatrie speaketh not of the Fathers of the New Testament but those of the Old particularly naming Moses
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
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
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
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
integritie of corporall refection and the example of Christ it were more convenient to have the Communion under both kindes the Knight hearkeneth to him but where hee lispeth in the language of Ashdod saying that in consideration of the reverence due to this Sacrament it is ill and inconvenient to communicate in both kindes the Knight had reason to turne a deafe eare to him for it is cosin germane to blasphemie to say that is ill and inconvenient which Christ and his Apostles and the whole Church in all places for more then a thousand yeares practised the Knight might well say to Tapperus in the words of him in the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will be sober with you but I will not runne madde with you To the twelfth For the statute made in the dayes of that Phoenix of his age King Edward the sixt the meaning is unlesse among the people there bee some that either by a naturall antipathie to wine or other infirmitie cannot receive the Sacraments in both kindes it is ordained that it be delivered to every one in both kindes cessante ferreâ necessitate obtinet haec aurea regula that all receive the whole Sacrament in which the Statute and the articles of Religion published first in the reigne of this blessed Prince fully accord For so wee reade Article the thirtieth both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordinance and command ought to bee ministred to all Christian people alike To the thirteenth That every article of faith ought to have sufficient proofe out of Scripture is proved by innumerable testimonies of antiquitie produced by Philip Morney in his Preface to his booke De Eucharistia Bilson of Supremacie part the fourth Abbot against Bishop chapter the seventh and Laurentius de disp Theolog Neither doth S. Ierome any way contradict them or us for wee beleeve that the consent of the whole Christian Church is an infallible argument of truth Albeit wee teach that any particular Church as namely the Roman or the French or the Dutch or the Greeke Church may erre yet we denie that the catholique Church universally hath ever erred or can erre in matter of faith necessarie to salvation and further I adde for conclusion that as the words of S. Ierome alledged by the Iesuit make nothing against us so if they bee applied to our present subject they make most strongly against him being propounded after this manner Although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting for the Communion in both kindes which is not so yet the consent of the whole world on this side testified by their uniforme practise confessed by Papists themselves ought to have the force of a divine Precept and so there would bee an end not only of this Section as the Iesuit speaketh but of this whole Controversie Concerning Prayer in an unknowne tongue Spectacles Sect. 6. a pag. 259. usque ad 283. THe Knight falsly chargeth the Councell of Trent with approving prayer in the vulgar tongue for though the Councell saith that the Masse containeth great instruction yet it doth not say that it ought to bee in the vulgar tongue nay contrarily it pronounceth an anathema against any whosoever shall say that the Masse ought to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue It hath beene the generall practise and custome in the Church of God of having the Masse and the publike office in Latine all over the Latine and Westerne Church both in Italie Spaine France Germanie England Africa and all other places and so likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent and had as much varietie of languages in it as the Latine Church hath Vniformitie which is fit to be used in such things and unitie of the Catholique Church is excellently declared and also much maintained by this unitie of language in the Church office The use of vulgar tongues in the Masse or Church office would cause not only great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by many severall translations The use of vulgar language in such things would breed a great contempt of sacred things with prophanenesse and irreligiositie besides the danger of heresie which commeth no way sooner then by misunderstanding of holy Scripture The place of Scripture alledged by the Knight concerning announcing our Lords death is not understood by words but by deeds as is most plaine by the circumstances The text of S. Paul where he asketh how hee that understandeth not the prayers shall say Amen is not of the publike prayers of the Church which no man can doubt of either for the truth or goodnesse and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them but of private prayers made by private and Laye men extempore in an unknowne tongue Haymo requireth not that all that are present at Divine service should understand but only that he that supplieth the place of the idiot or Laye-man in answering for the people should bee so farre able to understand as to answer Amen at the end of every prayer Iustinian the Emperour is ordinarily taxed for taking too much upon him in Ecclesiasticall matters yet all that hee saith may bee well maintained without prejudice to the present practise of the Roman Church for in the Decree alledged by the Knight hee requireth nothing more but that Bishops and Priests should pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne Church was to bee spoken aloud The Canon law capite quoniam in plerisque requireth only that where divers Nations are mingled that the Bishop of the Citie should substitute one in his roome to celebrate the divine Office and administer the Sacraments according to their ownerites and language for indeed it is a matter of necessitie in administration of some Sacraments to use the vulgar language as in Mariage and Penance but not so of other things Lyra Belithus Gretzer Harding Cassander and the rest of the Authours quoted by the Knight say indeed that in the beginning Prayers were in the vulgar tongue but the reason was because those three holy languages Hebrew Greeke and Latine dedicated on the crosse of Christ were then most vulgar none of them speake a word of any Precept There is no precept in the Scripture commanding prayers in a knowne tongue or forbidding in an unknowne whose authority or example can you bring for your selfe in this matter name him if you can It was more needfull in the Primitive Church that the people should understand because they were to answer the Priest which now is not so as Bellarmine noteth because that belongs only to the Clarke That the Knight contradicteth himselfe in one place saying That the alteration of the Church service was occasioned by certaine Shepheards who in the dayes of Honorius having learned the words of Consecration by heart pronounced them over their Bread and Wine in the fields and thereby Transubstantiated them into flesh and bloud and for this prophane abuse were strucken
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