A Case for the Spectacles, Chapter 9 · Section 2

A Case for the Spectacles · Chapter 9 · Section 2

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

THE Knight and the Protestants commit 1a 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 2and Epistles, the Knight citeth against Transubstantion, in which notwithstanding there is nothing against Transubstantiation, but much for it, if the Knight had not shamefully corrupted the Text by false translating it, in five severall places.

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

Cajetan is falsely alledged by putting in the word supposed, and Transubstantiation: he denied 4not 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.

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

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

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

8Durand B. of Maundy doth not deny Transubstantiation to bee wrougnt by vertue of the words, This is my body; For though in the first place hee saith that Christ then made the bread his body when he blessed it, yet hee after addeth that wee doe 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 9Consecration, a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ, for so holy an end, and because they produce so noble an effect, or because they are joyned alwayes with that benediction and thankesgiving, used both by our Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament, and now by the Priest in the Catholique Church, in the Consecration of the same.

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

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

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

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

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

p. 1219Durand 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.

20Gaufridus 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.

21Tonstall 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.

22Erasmus is not an Authour to be answered or named as the Knight hath beene often told.

The Hammer.

In 3. p. Tho q. 61. insolubile est argumentū Suarez propter intricationem & obscuritatem non difficultarem.AS Nugno wrote of an Argument of Suarez the Iesuite, 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 cocts; 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 animad-versions.

To the first Exception. Whereas hee taxeth 1the Protestants for leaving out ceremonies in Baptisme used in the Church, since the Apostles time, hee shamefully abuseth his reader, 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 word 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,Cic. Phil. 2.Phil 2 Vis te, àsine, 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,bbSicut… Paulò antequam pateretur, panis substantiam et vin… creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat, & in suum sanguinem qui p…st fundendus extabat, sic etiam in deserto Manna, & aquam de petrâ in suam carnem, & sanguinem cōvertere 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 Aelfrick 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. 10.4.1 Cor 10:4spirituall rock followed them, and that rock was 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 bloud 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.

3To 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 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 eate, yet 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 present 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, Gajetan is truly alledged by the 4Knight; 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.

5To 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 quod quamvis expressè tradatur in scripturâ 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 cor…us 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 out 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.

6To 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:Cameracē. 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. Take Roffensis his words at 7the 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 Roffensis confesseth, and you beare 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 missà veram fic…i carnis, & sanguinis Christi praesentiam: non potest igitur 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 Roffensis 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. q. 75. dico autem ab ecclesiacum non appareat ex Evangelio coactivum ali…uod ad intelligendum 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. Durand his words are plaine enough 8to 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 coelesti, & virtute verbi qua convertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi. Dur. rat. c. 41. num. 14. This is my body, hee blessed, saith hee, the bread by his heavenly benediction, and by vertue of the Word, whereby the Bread is turned into the substance of Christs body. Yea but saith 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.

9To the ninth. Though the forme of Consecration may be called a Benediction for the reasons alledged by the Spectacle-maker:Odo Camerac in can…mis. di…. 4. benedixit, suum corpus fecit qui prius erat panis benedictione factus est caro non enim po… benedictionem dixisset, hoc e… corpus meum nisi in benedictione fieret corpus suum. 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, …ut Flood threatneth to bring a place out of Odo expresly to the contrary, which is this, Take away the words of Christ, Odo Camera. exp…s in Can. miss. dist. 5. tolle v…rba Christi, non fiunt sacramenta Christi, vis fieri corpus, & sanguinem, 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.

10To the tenth. Here Iohannes de Rivis, or Iohn of the Flood speaketh very disgracefully of his p. 25I. R.Father Christopherus de capite fontium, Christopher of the head of the Fountaines: Nay, to a most reverend Father, the Archbishop of Caesarea; for the Archbishop of Caesarea 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 fi insequantur Agasones, vehementiùs 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 Consecration, 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. theos…holist fol. 11.4…. us{que} ad 63. risi p…us quàm …sta 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 solum per ista sola verba non consecrâsse, fed 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, Scotus, Landulph, Peter de Aquila, Pelbert, and others.

To the eleventh. The Knight alledgeth not 11Salmerons 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. Yea but saith Flood, P. 162.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, who out of him truly and sincerely relateth the words of Salmeron the Iesuite concerning the Graecians in theseCham. de Euchar. l. 6. c. 7. 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. The geese in the Capitoll, if they gagled without cause,Cic. Orat. pro Rosc. Amerino. 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.

12To the twelfth. At 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; whose greatest exercise was all day to strike at flies with a sharpe iron bodkin:Sueton in Domitian. 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 ullum scripturae tam expressum, ut fine ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere: atque id non est omninò improbabile: nam etiamsi scripturae nobis tam apertae videantur, ut cogant hominem non protervū: tamen meritò dubitari potest cùm homines doctissimi & acutissimi qualis imprimis Scotus fuit, cliter 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.L. 8 con. haeres. verb. indulg. de transubstātiatione panis in corpus Christirara 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, nor 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. Neither Scotus nor Yribarne 14speake of the interpretation of the words, This is my body, nor of the manner of the deliverie of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in former times, but de dogmate fidei, Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. unum addit Scotus, &c. quod anie Lateranense concilium Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei. Trib. in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. disp. 42. in primativâ ecclesiâ de substantia fidei erat corpus Christi sub speciebus contineri: tamen 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 scripturâ. Chrysost. in 2. ad Thess. hom. 3. manifesta 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.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. Albeit S. Austine in the place 15alledged 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.

16To 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 con…deratè & 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 minus. 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 substantia 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, wee call a body a substance, Theod. Dial. 2. c. 22.but health and sicknesse an accident. Besides that which hee here calleth signum my sticum, hee in this very Dialogue tearmeth donum oblatum, the gift offered, & cibum 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 feeds, 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 had 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 substance is not changed, but the use,Theod. ibid. non mutans naturam sed naturae adisciens gratiam. 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 17produced 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 substātiâ. Prout quidam 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, Pl…t. in vit. Clement. Sander. l. 1. de seb…sm. Aug. Or in Garnets Apologie by Eud. Iohann. r…bustioribus est proponendus hic cibus Olidus for Cibus Solidus.for Cardinalibus, or that of the Printer of Ingolstade, Wolfeum conatu summo nixum esse primam toties ecclesia 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.

18To the eighteenth. For 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. The Iesuits answer to Durand 19concerning 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.

20To the twentieth. Touching Gaufridus and Hostiensis cited by the Knight out of Durand, it is evident that howsoever they might peradventure incline to that,In 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 1. n. 13. 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.

21To the twentie one. Cutbert 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 Aureus iste 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. None more sleight 22men 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 flumen: but in the Iesuit his …dversarie, lacus averni.