The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Section 2

The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England · Part 1 · Section 2

p. 7Concerning Tranſubſtantiation Spectacles chap. 9. Sect. 2. à pag. 132. ad 187.

THE Knight and the Proteſtants commit a great ſinne in adminiſtring the Sacrament of Baptiſme without thoſe Ceremonies which were uſed in the Church from the Apoſtles times.

Elfrick was not the Authour of the Homilie and Epiſtles, 2the Knight citeth againſt Tranſubſtantion, in which notwithſtanding there is nothing againſt Tranſubſtantiation, but much for it, if the Knight had not ſhamefully corrupted the Text by falſe tranſlating it, in five ſeverall places.

The difference of Catholique Authours about things not defined by the Church maketh nothing for Proteſtants, 3becauſe they vertually retract all ſuch opinions by ſubmitting their writings to the cenſure of the Catholique Church.

Cajetan is falſely alledged by putting in the word ſuppoſed, and Tranſubſtantiation: 4he denied not the bread to bee tranſubſtantiated into Chriſts body, though hee conceived that thoſe words, This is my body, doe not ſufficiently prove the reall preſence p. 8of our Saviours body for which he is worthily cenſured by Suarez and the whole ſchoole of Divines.

Biel affirmeth that it is expreſly delivered in holy Scriptures, 5that the body of Chriſt is contained under the ſpecies of bread, &c. Which former words the Knight leaveth out, becauſe they made clearely againſt him, and in the latter ſet downe by the Knight, he denieth not that Tranſubſtantiation may bee proved out of Scriptures, but that it may be proved expreſly, that is in expreſſe tearmes or ſo many words.

Alliaco his opinion maketh nothing for the Knight being a Calviniſt, 6though hee ſeeme to favour the Lutherans tenet: and though hee thought the Doctrine of conſubſtantiation to be more poſsible and eaſie, yet therein hee preferred the judgement of the Church before his owne.

B. Fiſher denieth not that the reall preſence can be proved out of Scripture; 7for the fourth chapter of the booke cited by the Knight, is employed in the proofe thereof againſt Luther: but that laying aſide the interpretation of Fathers, and uſe of the Church, no man can be able to prove, that any Prieſt now in theſe times, doth Conſecrate the true body and bloud of Chriſt.

Durand B. of Maundy doth not deny Tranſubſtantiation to bee wrougnt by vertue of the words, 8This is my body; For though in the firſt place hee ſaith that Chriſt then made the bread his body when he bleſſed it, yet hee after addeth that wee doe p. 9bleſſe, illâ virtute quam Chriſtus indidit verbis, Durand. rat. c. 41. n. 14.by that power which Chriſt hath giuen to the words.

Odo Cameracenſis calleth the very forme of Conſecration, 9a benediction both becauſe they are bleſſed words appointed by Chriſt, for ſo holy an end, and becauſe they produce ſo noble an effect, or becauſe they are joyned alwayes with that benediction and thankeſgiving, uſed both by our Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament, and now by the Prieſt in the Catholique Church, in the Conſecration of the ſame.

Chriſtopherus de capite fontium is put in the Roman Index of prohibited bookes, 10and in the words cited out of him by the Knight, there is a groſſe hiſtoricall errour in this that hee ſaith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councell of Trent, and all Writers did agree till the late time of Caietan, as if Caietan were ſince the Councell of Trent; and in citing this place, the Knight is againſt himſelfe, for whereas hee maketh Cardinall Caietan, and the Archbiſhop of Caeſarea his two Champions againſt the words of Conſecration, as if they did both agree in the ſame: here this Archbiſhop ſaith quite contrary, that all are for him but onelyonly Cajetan.

Salmeron relateth it indeed to bee the opinions of ſome Graecians that Chriſt did not conſecrate by thoſe words, This is my body, 11but by his benediction: but this opinion of theirs is condemned by him as Chamier ſaith expreſſely in the p. 10place coted by the Knight, l. 6. de Eucha. c. 7.

Bellarmine in the place alledged ſaith nothing, 12but what is granted by all Papiſts,De Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. to wit, that though the words of Conſecration in the plaine connaturall and obvious ſenſe inferre Tranſubstantiation: yet becauſe in the judgement of ſome learned men, they may have another ſenſe, which proveth only the reall preſence, it is not altogether improbable, that without the authority of the Church, they cannot inforce a man to beleeve Tranſubſtantiation out of them.

Alfonſus à Caſtro affirmeth that of Tranſubſtantiation there is rare mention in the ancient Fathers: 13yet of the converſion of the bread into the body of Chriſt, there is moſt frequent mention; and the drift of Caſtro in that place is to ſhew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing, or plaine teſtimonie of Scripture, that yet the uſe and practice of the Church is ſufficient, bringing in for example this point of Tranſubſtantiation, and the proceſsion of the holy Ghoſt from the Son.

The meaning of Yribarne and Scotus, 14ſaying Tranſubſtantiation of late was determined in the Councell of Lateran is only this, that whereas the words of Conſecration may bee underſtood of the reall preſence of our bleſſed Saviours body either by Tranſubſtantiation, or otherwiſe; ſo the ſubſtance of bread doe remaine: the Church hath determined the words are to be underſtood in the former ſence. And moreover Yribarne ſaith, that p. 11Tranſubſtantiation 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, 15but 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, 16that 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, 17but 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; 18for 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.

p. 12Durand affirmeth not, 19that 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, 20though 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, 21ſpeake 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 argumentū 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 p. 13anſwer 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. 1Whereas hee taxeth the Proteſtants for leaving out ceremonies in Baptiſme uſed in the Church, ſince the Apoſtles time, hee ſhamefully abuſeth his re…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.)

p. 14To 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,aaCic. Phil. 2.Phil 2 Viste, aſine, literas doceam, ſaith Tully to Anthony, non opus eſt verbis ſed fuſtibus: yea p. 15but the Authour of this Homilie is ſo farre from condemning Tranſubſtantiation, that hee profeſſedly teacheth it in theſe words,bbSicu… 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 …errâ in ſuam carnem, & ſa…gui…e… cō 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 …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 cc1 Cor. 10.41 Cor 10:4ſpirituall 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 p. 16other 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. 3The 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 p. 17the 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.Judg 13 and the late conventicle of Trent hath pinned unto it.

To the fourth, 4Cajetan is truly alledged by the Knight; for though neither the words Tranſubſtantiation, p. 18nor 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. 5The 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, p. 19whether 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, p. 20that 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. 6Although 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. p. 21If 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. 7Take 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 p. 22Maſſe: 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 ita que ut miſſas, miſſas faciatis; Roff. cont. Luth captiv. Bab. c. 4 ne que ullum poſitū 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 …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 p. 23there 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. 8Durand 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 p. 24the converſion to bee wrought by them, but to prove Chriſts body to be truly there.

To the ninth. 9Though the forme of Conſecration may be called a Benediction for the reaſons alledged by the Spectacle-maker:Odo Camerac. in can. miſ. diſt. 4. benedixit ſuum corpus fecit qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus eſt caro, non enim poſt benedictionem dixiſſet, hoc eſt corpus meum, niſi in benedictione ſieret corpus ſuam. yet it is certaine that Odo Cameracenſis diſtinguiſheth the one from the other, and aſcribeth the converſion of bread into Chriſts body to the vertue of the precedent benediction, and not of the ſubſequent Conſecration, Chriſt bleſſed the bread, hee made it his Body, that which before was Bread by his bleſsing is made fleſh; for hee would not have ſaid after hee had bleſſed it, This is my Body, unleſſe by bleſsing it hee had made it his Body. Yea, but Flood threatneth to bring a place out of Odo expreſly to the contrary, which is this, Take away the words of Chriſt,Odo Camera. expoſ. in Can. miſs. diſt. 5. tolle verba Chriſti, non fiunt ſacramenta Chriſti, vis ſieri corpus, & fanguinem, appone Chriſti ſermonem. and take away the Sacraments of Chriſt, wilt thou have the Body and Bloud of Chriſt made, put thereto the word of Chriſt, but which word of Chriſt? for therein is the cardo queſtionis, whether the word of Benediction going before, or the word of Conſecration following after? In Odo his judgement by the word of benediction; for hee ſaith Benedictione factus eſt caro, by bleſsing it became fleſh, and that before hee uttered the words, This is my Body; which in Odo his apprehenſion as wee heard before, could not bee true: unleleſſe bread had beene turned into Chriſts body, before he pronounced them.

To the tenth. 10I.R.Here Iohannes de Rivis, or Iohn of the Flood ſpeaketh very diſgracefully of his p. 25Father Chriſtopher us de capite fontium, Chriſtopher of the head of the Fountaines: Nay, to a moſt reverend Father, the Archbiſhop of Caeſarea; for the Archbiſhop of Caeſaerea his booke, ſaith hee, De correctione Theologiae ſcholaſticae; I doe not ſo much as looke into him, but remit it to the Roman Index, where you ſhall find this booke by you here cited forbidden, and even the arrogancie of the title ſheweth it to deſerve no better a place. Solinus c. 43. Bonaſus Tauri ſimilis ſi inſequantur Agaſones, vebementiùs fimum emittit per tria jugera & quicquid tangit Vrit.The Bonaſus when hee is hard followed caſts dung in abundance on the purſuer, and brayeth hideouſly; ſo doth I.R. caſt filth, and raile downe right, when he is ſo hard preſſed with a teſtimonie that he hath nothing to reply. The Roman Index Prohibitorum librorum is to Flood like the Philoſophers pons aſinorum in all extremities hee flieth to it. But what is this Index to us? hee might as well alledge the Turkes Alcharon againſt the Knight. This Index of prohibited bookes deſerveth not only a prohibition, but a purging by fire. For in the firſt ranke we find the holy Bibles tranſlated into vulgar languages to bee ſet, and after them moſt of the prime and Claſſick Writers, almoſt in all profeſſions. There is nothing ſo eaſie as to prohibit this or any other booke: but unleſſe our Adverſariee back this Papall prohibition with detection of errours and hereſies contained in ſuch bookes, and a ſolid confutation thereof; this tyrannicall Prohibition of the workes of Authours wil prove an evident conviction, that they forcibly ſmother that truth, the light whereof p. 26dazleth their eyes. Yea, but ſaith Flood, there is a groſſe hiſtoricall errour, in that he ſaith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councell of Trent, and all the Writers did agree till the late time of Cajetan, as if Cajetan were ſince the Councell of Trent. No hiſtoricall errour at all in the Archbiſhop, but a frivolous cavill in Flood. For hee ſaith not that the Councell of Trent was before Cajetan, but that the Councell of Trent, and all Writers (before it alſo) did agree till the late time of Cajetan. Yea, but the Knight maketh Cardinall Cajetan, and the Archbiſhop of Caeſarea his two champions againſt the words of Confecration, as if they did both agree in the ſame, whereas here the Archbiſhop ſaith quite contrarie, that all are for him but only Cajetan. A ridiculous ſophiſme, ex ignoratione Elenthi: the Knight alledgeth both Cardinall Cajetan, and the Archbiſhop of Caeſarea againſt the words of Conſecration, but not ad idem, not to prove the ſame concluſion: hee alledgeth Cajetan to prove that there is nothing in the words hoc eſt corpus meum to enforce Tranſubſtantiation; but the Archbiſhop of Caeſarea to prove that the ſuppoſed converſion is made, not by the words of Conſecration, This is my body, but by the precedent words of Benediction,Chriſtoph. de correct. theoſcholaſt fol. 11.41. uſ que ad 63. niſi prius quàm iſta verba diceret Chriſtus corpus ſuum ex pane factum erat, iſta propoſito non fuiſſet vera, hoe eſt corpus meum, &c. Fol. 23. and this hee proveth againſt all Papiſts ſtrongly after this manner; Vnleſſe before Chriſt uttered thoſe words, this is my body, his body had beene made of bread, this Propoſition had not beene true, This is my body, for when Chriſt p. 27ſaid, take ye, eate yee, if at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed, it will follow that Chriſt did command his Diſciples to take and eate the ſubſtance of bread, and ſo wee muſt denie the article of Tranſubſtantiation; therefore, ſaith he, (certo certius conſtat Chriſtum, non ſolùm per iſta ſola verba non conſecrâſſe, ſed ne quidem illa partem aliquam fuiſſe conſecrationis quam fecit) it is moſt certaine that theſe words were no part of the Conſecration; And this hee proveth to bee the opinion of all the ancient Fathers by name of Iuſtine Martyr, Dionyſius, S. Auſtine, Heſichius, S. Ierome, Gregorie, Ambroſe, Rupert, Alquine, Bernard, Seotus, Landulph, Peter de Aquila, Pelbert, and others.

To the eleventh. 11The Knight alledgeth not Salmerons opinion, but his relation of the opinion of other men: and although his credit bee cracked with Proteſtants, yet it is whole with Flood and his fellow Ieſuits: as Chamierus on the contrarie, his credit is good with Proteſtants, though none with Pontificians.P. 162. Yea but ſaith Flood, Chamier diſcovereth the Knights bad dealing, I would faine know how, or wherein; firſt how? by the ſpirit of propheſie? or by ſome letter ſent to the Knight after Chamier his death; for Chamier was dead many yeares before the Knight wrote. Were he alive what bad dealing could he diſcover in the Knight, Cham. de Euchar. l. 6. c. 7.who out of him truly and ſincerely relateth the words of Salmeron the Ieſuite concerning the Graecians in theſe p. 28words, ſeeing the benediction of the Lord is not ſuperfluous or vaine, nor gave hee ſimply bread; it followeth that when hee gave it, the tranſmutation was made, and thoſe words, This is my Body, did demonſtrate what was contained in the bread. What fault findeth hee in this allegation? If the Greekes had no ſuch opinion, or Salmeron relateth no ſuch thing, the blame muſt light between Salmeron and Chamier; howſoever the Knight is free. For hee truly quoteth Chamier, neither dare Flood ſay that Chamier miſquoteth Salmeron; P. 161.For, ſaith hee, though I found not this place in him, yet I will not ſay but it may bee there. Let this Spectacle-maker put on a better paire of Spectacles, and hee ſhall plainly reade the words alledged out of Salmeron in the place quoted by Chamier. Cie. Orat. pro Roſc. Amerino.The geeſe in the Capitoll, if they gagled without cauſe, were to be beate for it: and the dogges to have their legges broken, if they barked when there was no ſuſpition of a theefe approaching; Some ſuch like puniſhment they deſerve in Tullies judgement, who lay foule aſperſions upon others without any colour of proofe or ſemblance of truth.

To the twelfth. 12At the Knights allegation out of Bellarmine, Flood here nibleth, but can no where faſten his tooth, hee excepteth at the changing of the ſingular number into the plurall, and tranſlating Scriptures for Scripture, and the moſt learned and acute men, ſuch as Scotus for moſt learned and acute men. It ſeemeth this Ieſuite is p. 29deſcended of the race of Domitian; Sueton in Domitian.whoſe greateſt exerciſe was all day to ſtrike at flies with a ſharpe iron bodkin: reade Scriptures in the plurall, or Scripture in the ſingular or moſt acute, Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. Dicit Scotus non extare locū uilum ſoripturae tam expreſſum, ut ſine eccleſiae declaratione evidenter cogat tranſubſtantiationem admittere: at que id non eſt omninò improbabile: nam etiamſi ſcripturae nob is tam apertae videantur, ut cogant hominem non protervū: tamen meritò dubitari poteſt cùm homines doctiſſimi & acutiſſimi qualis imprimis Scotus fuit, aliter ſentiant.or the moſt acute, the confeſſion of Bellarmine maketh ſtill altogether as ſtrongly againſt the grounding of Tranſubſtantiation on Scripture. Scotus ſaith, that there is no place of Scripture ſo expreſſe (viz. for Tranſubſtantiation) which ſetting aſide the declaration of the Church evidently enforceth a man to admit it. For though the Scripture, viz. That text of Scripture brought by him to prove Tranſubſtantiation, ſeemed to bee ſo plaine as to enforce a man not refractorie to beleeve it; yet it may bee doubted whether that text, viz. Hoc eſt corpus meum bee cleare enough to enforce it, ſeeing moſt learned and acute men, ſuch as Scotus was, thought otherwiſe. If it may bee juſtly doubted whether the text, This is my body, inferre Tranſubſtantiation, why doe our Adverſaries blame us for doubting of it? If ſharp-ſighted Scotus, and other moſt learned and acute men thought the text enforceth no ſuch thing: let our Adverſaries give us leave to preferre their opinion before the judgement of Flood and others, neither ſo learned nor ſo acute.

To the thirteenth. 13L. 8 con. haereſ. verb. indulg. de tranſubſlā tiatione panis in corpus Chriſlirara in antiquis ſcriptoribus mentio rara, &c.The Knight regarded not at what Alfonſus à Caſtro aimed, but hee tooke up his arrow where hee found it, and ſhooteth it againſt your Trent doctrine. Of the Tranſubſtantiation, ſaith hee, of the bread into Christs body, p. 30there is rarely or ſeldome any mention made in ancient Writers: What doth I. R. anſwer hereunto? Alfonſus (ſaith hee) ſaith true, and the Knight moſt falſe. For though of Tranſubſtantiation there bee no mention, yet of the converſion of the bread into Chriſts body there is moſt frequent mention;P. 164. Reade my riddle, wats this? rare mention of Tranſubſtantiation, but not rare mention of the converſion of the bread into Chriſts body, pugnantia te loqui non vides? Is not this a flat contradiction? I would faine know, what difference there is betweene Tranſubſtantiation, and the converſion of the ſubſtance of Bread, into the ſubſtance of Chriſts body in the Sacrament. Neither can the Ieſuite free himſelfe here from uttering an evident contradiction in the ſame ſentence, by ſaying that Alfonſus ſpeaketh of the word Tranſubſtantiation, not of the thing it ſelfe. For Alfonſus there ſpeaketh of things not of words, as Flood himſelfe confeſſeth in the ſame page five lines after, ſaying, that Alfonſus his drift in that place is to ſhew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing, or plaine teſtimonie of Scripture, that yet the uſe and practice of the Church is ſufficient, bringing in for inſtance the point of Tranſubſtantiation, and proceſsion of the holy Ghoſt. See here Alfonſus ſpeaketh not of the word Tranſubſtantiation, but of the point or thing it ſelfe; and of this thing or point (hee ſaith) there is rare or ſeldome mention in ancient Writers.

p. 31To the fourteenth. 14Neither Scotus nor Yribarne ſpeake of the interpretation of the words, This is my body, Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. unum addit Scotus, &c. quod ante Lateranenſe concilium Tranſubſtantiatio non fuit dagma fidei. Yrib. in 4. diſt. 11. q. 3. diſp. 42. in primitivâ eccleſiâ de ſubſtantia fidei erat cotpus Chriſti ſub ſpeciebus contineri: tamin non erat de fide ſubſtantiam panis in corpus Chriſti converti. Aug. de doct. Chriſt. l. 2. c. 9. omnia quae continent fidem, & mores in illis inveniuntur quae apertè poſita ſunt in ſeripturâ. Chryſoſt. in 2. ad Theſſ. hom. 3. manifeſla ſunt in divinis Scripturis quaecun que , ſunt neceſſaria. Rivet Cathol. orthod. q. 18.138 Gat. diſcourſe of Tran. pag 60.61. Scotus 4. Sent. diſt. 11. ad hoc multùm expreſsè videturloqui Ambroſius.nor of the manner of the deliverie of the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation in former times, but de dogmate fidei, of a doctrine of faith, which they expreſly denie Tranſubſtantiation to have beene, and what they ſay, may bee confirmed by Flood his owne anſwer in this place. For if Tranſubſtantiation in former ages was not plainly delivered, as hee confeſſeth, p. 167. it could not bee then dogma fidei, or de ſubſtantiâ fidei, any doctrine of faith. For all doctrines of faith are plainly and evidently ſet downe in holy Scriptures, as S. Auſtine and S. Chryſoſtome joyntly teach. As for the paſſage alledged by Scotus out of S. Ambroſe it is fully anſwered, & retorted by Andrew Rivet, M^r. Gataker, and others; Whereunto I thinke fit to adde nothing, but that Scotus in the place alledged ſpeaketh not confidently of S. Ambroſe, that hee held the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation: but that in words he ſeemed to favour that opinion.

To the fifteenth. 15Albeit S. Auſtine in the place alledged by the Knight ſpeaketh not expreſly againſt your carnall preſence, yet by conſequence hee quite overthroweth it; for if the unbeleeving Iewes in the Deſert, and Iudas in the new Teſtament p. 32died ſpiritually, after 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. 16Gregorie 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 p. 33law, 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 (foreign) 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 p. 34without 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 p. 35ſacred myſterie: as when Waxe is made a ſeale, or bullion the Kings coyne, or money:The…d ibid non mutans … rum ſed …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. 17Cardinall 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 ſubſtātiā. 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 p. 36partium 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: For indeed thoſe bookes of the Cardinall are no other then the exerciſe of his readers patience, or at the beſt of his owne wit or imagination.

To the eighteenth. 18For Wickliff and the Waldenſes, the Knight inſiſted not upon their teſtimonie, though well hee might; (for they were moſt eminent profeſſours of the truth, and moſt free from thoſe foule aſperſions which their ſworne enemies, and bloudy perſecutors caſt upon them) becauſe his purpoſe was in this chapter, as hee profeſſeth in the title, vos veſtris gladijs jugulare, to cut your throat with your owne ſwords, and condemne you out of your owne mouth, as Chriſt doth the evill ſervant in the Goſpell. 'Tis true, Wickliffe was condemned for an heretique in the Councell of Conſtance many yeares after his death, and barbarous inhumanitie was alſo exerciſed upon his bones. Yet will it follow no more from hence that Wickliffe was an heretique, then that Ieremie was a falſe Prophet, or Chriſt and his Apoſtles falſe teachers, becauſe they were condemned by councells of Prieſts. And of all Councells that of Conſtance carries the leaſt credit, becauſe it is not only condemned by all the reformed Churches, but by the Roman Church her ſelfe, and the Decrees p. 37thereof repealed in later Councells. Touching the Waldenſes what the Ieſuite here writeth of them hee confirmeth by no teſtimonie, and the contrarie may be demonſtrated out of Orthwinus Gratius, Hiſtoire des Vaudois.and the Hiſtorie and confeſſion of the Waldenſes lately ſet forth out of authenticall records in French.

To the nineteenth. 19The Ieſuits anſwer to Durand concerning the materiall part of bread remaining in the Sacrament, but not the ſubſtance, implying that the materiall part of Bread, and the ſubſtance are different things is not materiall nor true. For though the materiall part of any ſubſtance be a diſtinct thing, both from the forme & the compoſitum: yet is it a ſubſtance, and hath accidents inherent in it. For according to the axiome of the metaphyſickes, ex non ſubſtantijs non fit ſubſtantia, a ſubſtance or ſubſtantiall compound is not made or compoſed of non ſubſtances. Sith the whole is not diſtinct really from all the parts united together, the compound cannot bee ſubſtantiall, unleſſe the parts of which it conſiſteth be ſubſtances. Durand therefore affirming that the materiall part of the bread remained in the Sacrament after Conſecration: held that ſome part of the ſubſtance of bread remained, and therefore the Knight no way wrongeth Durand, but Flood the Knight. If Durand held that the whole ſubſtance of the bread was turned into the body of Chriſt according to your Trent Decree:De Euch. l. 3. c. 13. why doth Card. Bellarmine cenſure his doctrine as hereticall: p. 38if he taught not that the whole ſubſtance was converted, hee muſt needs hold that ſome part of the ſubſtance remained as it was before; which is all the Knight chargeth him with. As for that the Ieſuite addeth to ſalve the matter, that he acknowledgeth all others to bee againſt him in this point,Durand. in 4. ſent. diſt. 11. q. 1. let him put on his Spectacles and reade the place againe, and hee ſhall ſee there are no ſuch words. Only I find queſt. 3. This modeſt parentheſis ſalvo meliori judicio. Which indeed are reſpective words befitting a modeſt man: but no way amounting to a confeſſion that his opinion in that point was ſingular, and that all others were againſt him, which notwithſtanding Flood puts upon him.

To the twentieth. 20Touching Gaufridus and Hoſtienſis cited by the Knight out of Durand, In 4. ſent. diſt. 10. q. 1. n. 13.it is evident that howſoever they might peradventure incline to that, which the Roman Church determined, viz. the ſecond opinion that the bread doth not remaine, but is changed, yet they no way condemne the third opinion, viz. the ſubſtance of bread remaines, and is together with tho body of Chriſt. For as Durand well noteth, they call it an opinion, not an errour, or an hereſie; neither doe they ſay it is to bee reproved, but let it paſſe without any cenſure, which they would not have done, if they had held Tranſubſtantiation to be a doctrine de fide to be beleeved of all upon paine of damnation.

To the twentie one. 21Cutbert Tunſtall was a Biſhop, p. 39and in great eſteeme among all the learned in his time,In his Epitaph in Lambeth Chancell he is ſtyled Aureusiste Senex. Tunſt. de Euch. l. 1. pag. 46. de modo quo id fieret fortaſſe ſatiùs erat curioſum quemque relinquere conjecturae ſicut liberum fuit ante concilium Lateranenſe. and therefore not lightly to bee filliped off, and ſleighted by a prieſt and Ieſuit de face vulgi, by ſaying that the matter is not great, whether Tunſtall ſaid, that for which hee is alledged or no, becauſe one ſingle Author or two contradicted by others carrieth no credit. For I find not that hee is contradicted by any. His words are theſe, of the manner and meanes of the reall preſence, either by Tranſubſtantiation, or otherwiſe perhaps it had beene bettter to leave every man that would bee curious to his owne conjecture, as before the Councell of Lateran it was left free. Neither did that learned Biſhop of Dureſme ever retract this opinion. For M^r. Bernard Gilpin a holy man, and a kinſman of the Biſhop affirmeth, that the Biſhop his Dioceſan often told him, that Innocent the third had done very unadviſedly, in that he had made the opinion of Tranſubſtantiation an article of faith. Neither doe wee find that any in his dayes or ſince before Flood taxed this Biſhop for this his opinion.

To the twentie two. 22None more ſleight men of worth then thoſe who want it. Eraſmus will live both in his owne workes, and in the writings of the ancient Fathers, and other Claſſick Authours corrected and ſet forth by him, when a thouſand Floods, and Leomelij, and Daniels a Ieſu ſhall bee buried in perpetuall oblivion. Eraſmus was in great eſteeme with Archbiſhop Waram, and Sir Thomas Moore Lord Chancellor p. 40of England, and of divers Biſhops, yea and Cardinalls alſo beyond the Sea, and what Tully ſpake of Ariſtotle may bee truly ſaid of him,A golden river. A helliſh lake. there is in his writings, aureum ſlumen: but in the Ieſuit his adverſarie, lacus averni.