attributed by heretikes to ancient and good authours among which we may number one cited by Sir Humfrey in some parte of his worke intitled de fiducia misericordia Dei which Bell. in his booke de Scrip. Eccles declares to be counterfait and suppositious and none of Bishop Fishers on whom it is imposed Neuerthelesse how so euer the matter standes touching the truth of the foresaid homilie and admit it be neuer soe true and authenticall yet I am confidently assured that the wordes by Sir Humfrey cited out of it against the reall presence are not so obscure but that they admitte such a comodious exposition as doth not in any sort fouour the denyall thereof but rather impugne and it confute it First for that there is not one worde which includeth a denyall of the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the wordes onelie showe a differēce betwene the body in which Christ suffered and the bodie which the faithfull receiue which difference is not reallie in the substance of the bodie it selfe it being one and the same in nature in euery place where it existeth but onely in the properties and manner of existence or being in place it hauing beene in the passion visible mortall and with it entire locall extension but in the Sacrament inuisible impassible and vnextended in which sense allso it may rightly be called spirituall yea and not altogether improperly especially taking it with a relation or respect vnto the same body perfectly extended in the manner aboue declared it may be said to be without bloud bone sinn woe limbe or soule that is without extensiō or motion of these partes as the cited wordes doe signifie which by reason of the foresaid maner of being of Christs body in the Sacrament doe call it his spirituall bodie from thence as it were inferring concluding that noething is to be vnderstood there bodily but spiritually all which is noething contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point but rather most agreeable to the same which teacheth that Christs body though it be truelie in the Sacrament yet without extension and not in a Corporall but in a spirituall manner yea and very cōformable to the doctrine of S. Paul who speaking of the resurrectiō of the flesh douteth not to call one the same humane bodie both corruptible spirituall 1. Cor. 15. Seminatur corpus animale surget corpus spirituale and that not for the difference of the bodie in it nature and substance which it hath not but onelie by reason of the accidentall difference which it hath in it properties and māner of existence which the same bodie receiueth in the resurrection not hauing had them in this mortall life True it is ther is one passage in the homilie which in my opinion hath more difficulty showe of repugnance to the reall presence transsubstantiation then the former wordes to wit where the authour makes a comparison betwixt the manna and water which flowed from the rocke in the desert both which he affirmes to haue beene figures of Christ bodie and bloud as the Eucharist also is Neuerthelesse he hath consequenter an other passage or two which plainely declare that similitude to be nothing contrarie either to the reall presence or transsubstantiation For so he addes The Apostle Paul saith that the Israelists did eate the same gostely meake and drinke the same gostely drinke because that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeares and shat water which frome the stome did follow had signification of Christs bodie his bloud that now be offered daylie in Gods Church it was the same saith he which we offer not bodily but gostely But which wordes it is euident that Alfric puts a maine difference betwixt that spirituall meate and drinke of the Iewes the spirituall foode which Catholike Christians receiue in the Sacrament that being but a signification as the authour of the Homilie expressely affirmeth of Christs body bloud it being the same not bodilie but onely spiritually or figuratiuelie with that bodie and bloud of Christ which he auerreth Preists to offer daylie and of which he also teacheth the foresaid water to be a representation not the bodie and bloud themselues which as being euerie day sacrificed in the altar euen according to common sense they must of necessitie be reallie and truelie in the Eucharist And altho' the authour of the Homilie calleth if a figure of Christs bodie bloud yet doth he not say it is a figure of thē absent as the water flowing out of the rock was but truelie and reallie present as those his wordes in which he saith and diuers time repeateth that Christs bodie and bloud are offered in the same Eucharist by Preists in sacrifice doe euidently conuince supposing it is impossible to conceiue the authour of the homilie should affirme that Christs bodie and bloud be offered in the altar and yet not beleeue the same to be reallie truelie and substantially present in the Eucharist Moreouer the same Homilie saith in plaine termes the wine which in the supper by the Preist is hallowed shewe one thing without to humane vnderstanding and another thing with in to beleeuing minds without they seeme bread and wine both in figure and tast and they be truely after their hallowing Christs bodie and his blood throu ' gostelie misterie And afterwardes these wordes doe followe we said vnto you that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housell before his suffering and said this his my bodie and my bloud yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned trou ' in visible might the bred to his owne hodie the wine to his bloud which wordes how plaine they be for the reall presence and transsubstantiation anie one that is not violently partiall in his owne cause may easilie perceiue considering that for Christ to turne by inuisible might the bread and wine into his bodie and bloud is nothing els but that which both the definitions of the Roman Church and Catholike diuines call by the names of reall presence and transsubantiation Thirdlie it is manifest that the foresaid testimonie cannot in reason be alledged in fauour of the reformers doctrine in this particular for that they denie the bodie of Christ either to exist or to be receaued really in the Eucharist otherwise then by faith figure neither of which neuertelesse is denied by the words aboue cited but contrarilie they expressely and absolutelie auerre that the bodie of Christ is receaued by the faithfull and altho' they call it his spirituall bodie yet doubtlesse they doe it onelie for the reason alledged as also for that it nourisheth the receiuers spirituallie yet they neuer denie it to be a true bodie or to be trulie present in the Sacrament or affirme it to be receiued by faith onelie as the reformers commonlie doe and Sir Humfrey in particular most expresselie in diuerse places of his booke Fourtlie the wordes alledged call
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
meaning of this authour both the title of his chapter out of which our aduersarie taketh the wordes he cites which is this Of the interpretation of scripture by Fathers And the whole tenor of his discourse doe sufficiently declare so that if the matter comes to scanning the fraude will easily appeare with shame enuffe to this our professed aduersarie of truth who not content with this hath also like a cheating gramster to mende his ill game dropt a carde I meane the worde nostra which he hath left out in his translation but this but a pore trick and so let it passe And perhaps it was onely the negligence of the printer But for the readers better instruction I will punctually rehearse the authors wordes concerning his true meaning as well those which Sir Humfrey hath omitted for his owne aduantage as the rest Thus he saith Doceamus quod citra Patrum interpretationem vsum ab eisdem nobis traditum nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis Euangelij verhis sacerdotum quempiam his temporibus verum Christi Corpus Sanguinem consecrare non quod res haec ambigua fit sed quod eius certitudo non tam haheatur ex Euangelij verbis quam ex Patrum interpretatione vsu tanti temporis quem illi posteris reliquerunt That is let vs teach that without the interpretation of the Fathers and the practise by thē deliuered vnto vs noman can proue by the bare wordes of the Gospell them selues that anie man in these our times doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ not because this thing is doubtfull but because the certainetie of it can not be had so much by the wordes of the Euangell as by the interpretation of Fathers and the practise of so long time which they left to posteritie By which wordes it is voyde of all doubt and tergiuersation that the authour of them neuer made question but that true Catholike Prests as he him selfe was truly consecrate and make present the uerie bodie and bloud of Christ the contrarie of which our aduersarie pretendes to proue onely intending by this pasage and others to declare against his aduersarie Martin Luther that scriptures alone without the expositiō of the Fathers and practise of the Church are not sufficient to conuince the trueth expecially when the wordes are obscure and subiet to diuers senses And therefore in his page 172. giuing the reason of this he saith Hoc idcirco dixerim ne quis ipsis Euangelij verbis pertinacius adhaereat spreta patrum interpretatione quemadmodum Lutherus fecit vsum interpretationem a patribus traditam nihili pendens nuditati verborum infistens quae non sufficiunt ad id quod velint conuincendum Therefore quoth B. Fistier I said these thinhs least anie one should ouer obstinately adhere to the wordes of the Gospell themselues as Luther did not esteeming the vse and interpretation deliuered by the Fathers and insisting in the nakednes of the wordes which are not sufficient to conuince that which they desire And in the insuing page he concludeth in this manner Therefore that is manifest which afore we promised to sbow to wit that long continuing custome and concording exposition of Fathers none dissenting doth yeald more solid certainetie how anie obscure place of the Ghospell must be vnderstood then the bare wordes which may be varioufly detorted by contentious people at their pleasure By all which wordes it is more then certaine and manifest that this authour neuer intended to show that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can not be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse as our false aduersarie doth endeuore to persuade his reader for he onely affirmes that this can not be conuinced by the bare text of scripture without the exposition of Fathers if anie contensious person should obstinately denie it as his wordes aboue cited euidently declare And as for those wordes which Sir Humfrey quotest in his margent which in English are these Neither is there anie worde put there by which the verie presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ may be proued in our Masse I say that he dealeth not honestlie in the recitall of them in regarde he omittes the next wordes following not obstanding they belong to te integritie of the same discourse and also are a plaine explication of the former as the reader of the whole discourse may more clearely vnderstand the wordes being these For altho' saith he Christ made his flesh of the bread and his bloud of rhe wine it doth not therfore follow by virtue of anie worde here set downe that we as often as we attempt the same doe effect it In which as the reader may plainely perceiue the authour absolutelie affirmeth not that Preists doe not effect that which Christ effected concerning the reall presence of his bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely saith there that is among the wordes of the institution of the Sacrament as they are related by S. Math. and in which those wordes doe this in remembrance of me are not contained there is not anie worde by virtue of which the same can be concluded of Preists which is ther affirmed of Christ our Sauiour yet not denying but expresselie auerring that by other wordes of the scripture and particularlie by those wordes rehearsed by S. Luke and S. Paule doe this in remembrance of me interpreted according to the exposition and practise of the auncient Fathers the making of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrement is firmelie proued and established And hence it is that after he had vttered those wordes which Sir Hūfrey also citeth tho' not intirely to wit non potest igitur probari per vllam scripturam it can not therfore be proued by anie scripture that either laie man or Priest as often at he shall make triall of the busines shall in like manner make the bodie and bloud of Christ of bread and wine as he him selfe did since that neither this is contained in the scripture immetiatelie after this I say he subionines for conclusion of his discourse this insuing clause By these things I thinke no man will be ignorant that the certaintie of this matter the faith of consecration as the note in his margen doth declare doth not so much depende vpon the Ghospell as vpon the vse and custome which for the space of so manie ages is commended vnto vs by the first Fathers themselues For it seemed to them the holie Ghost teaching so to interpret this parte of the Euangell and iudged it was so to be vsed in their times that whosoeuer now would introduce either an other sense or an other vse he should vtterlie resist the holie Ghost by whose instinct the former Fathers did deliuer this rite and ceremonie in the consecration of the Eucharist Thus plainelie doth Bishop Fisher explicate his owne meaning in that which he had before deliuered somat more obscurelie so that now
S. Cyrill with all his fellow Bishops assembled in Ephesus what Greece with them what Egipt and what S. Hierome him self whoe published the liues of the holye Fathers in latin And therfore not obstanding some erre in this by ignorance neuerthebesse as yet ther is none that openly contradictes that which the whole world doth beleeue confesse Thus Pascasius a learned and venerable and virtuous Abbat testifyeth the faith of the vniuersall Church in his dayes touching the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Whoe altho' he was not English nor liued iuste in the tyme of Alfric yet he liued within the compasse of the same age in which Alfric was Bishop of wilton and Archbishop of Canterburie that is the yeare 900. yea it may be Pascasius was yet aliue whē Alfric was Abbat and consequently when he is supposed by our aduersaries to haue writ those epistles which they produce in his name concerning this matter Soe that by this testimonie of Pascasius a forcible argument is made that the contrarie doctrine of the reall presence cauld not possible haue ben soe publick and common in anie parte of the Christian world in soe shorte a space of tyme as passed if anie passed betwixt Pascasius and the writing of the homilie and Epistles attributed to Alfric if he did euer write them And how beit is may appeare by the writings of Pascasius that ther were some in or aboute his tyme whoe argued writ in an vnacustomed and new manner touching the doctrine of the presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament as particularly Ioannes Scotus Bertrame and Frudegarde yet as much as I can perceiue by reading Pascasius Fulbertus Stephanus Eduēsis others whoe writ of this matter the broachers of this question did neuer absolutely auerre and maintaine anie assertion directly repugnant to the true and reall existence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely made a schoole question of it arguing the matter pro and contra and that not determinately of the reall presence but whether the same bodie bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie was crucifyed vpon the Crosse was contained vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament not rather some other kynd of Christs bodie and bloud yet truely his and truely present in the Eucharist thou in a figuratiue and tropicall manner And that neither the named authors nor anie other in or aboute Pascasius tyme did plainely or of set purpose impugne the reall presence it plainely appeares by his wordes aboue cited affirming that not obstanding some erred by ignorance yet that none did openly contradict that which the whole world did beleeue and confesse That which is yet further confirmed for we read not that either Scotus Frudegard or Bertrame were euer condemned by the Church in their persons in anie Councell or otherwise which is an euidēt signe they were not obstinate in defence of their opinions but onely deliuered their doubts by way of proposition as at the least in Frudegard in particular doth manifestly appeare by the responsion of Pascasius to his Epistle saying thus Quaeris enim de re ex qua multi dubitant You inquire of a thing of which manie doubt And for conclusion of his owne Epistle Pascasius saith to Frudegard Tu autem velim relegas libellum nostrum de hoc opere For I would haue you read my booke of this matter which you say you haue read in tymes past And if you reprehend or doubt of anie thing in it let it not be tedious vnto you to reuiewe it And finally towardes the end of his exposition of the wordes of the institution of the Eucharist he speaketh to Frudegard in this manner Quapropter charissime Wherfore most dearely beloued doe not doubt of this Mysterie which Christ the truth it self hath of him self bestowed vpon vs. For altho' he sits in heauen at the reight hand of his Father yet doth he not disdaine to be Sacrifyced dayly by the preist in the Sacrament as a true hoaste Now that the same Frudegardus doubt was onely whether the bodie of Christ contained in the Sacrament was the same bodie which he assumed of the Virgin Marie is plaine by Pascasius anser saying thus almost in the beginning of his Epistle Ergo cum ait Wherfore when he saith this is my bodie or my flesh or this is my bloud I think he intimated no other flesh then his owne propter bodie which was borne of the Virgin Marie and hanged en the Crosse Nor anie other bloud then that which was spilt vpon the Crosse and which then was in his bodie No man therfore which is soundly wise doth beleeue that Iesus had anie other flesh or bloud then that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and suffered vpon the Crosse And for conclusion of his foresaid exposition he saith thus to the same Frudegard Ad vltimum quaeso te Lastely I praye fallow not the fooleries of the tripartite or triple bodie of Christ. Doe not mingle salt nor hunnie in it as some would doe not adde nor substracte anie thing but beleeue and vnderstand it all as Christ instituted c. As for Scotus and Bertrame althou ' their bookes haue hen reproued yet it doth not fallow that their authors did directly and absolutely impugne the reall presence or transsubstantiation but they onely deliuered their myndes in a doubtfull obscure and ill sounding manner for which cause and for auoyding of danger they were iustely prohibited the onely the Councell of vercelles the other by the purgatorie Index Howbe it I find nothing in Bertram which with a pious interpretation might not passe among the learned sorte of people And thus much may suffice for proofe that in Pascasius tyme ther had ben no plaine denyall of the reall presence or transsubstantiation in the Christian world but onely some incident doubts made by some particular persons and that in a discussiue manner not as obstinate maintainers of such Doctrine And now by this same and the rest which I haue aboue produced out of the same Pascasius Lanfrāc and others the false Archbishop and Primate of Ireland is conuinced of an apparent falsitie for that in the 79. page of his anser to a Iesuits chalenge he had the face to affirme that til the dayes of Lanfranc this question of the reall presence continued still in debate and that it was as free for anie man to followe the Doctrine of Bertram he calles him Ratrannus or Ioannes Scotus as that of Pascasius This audatious affirmation of vsher I say is clearly condemned of falsitie by the same Pascasius whome he citeth and whoe as I haue alledged testifyes that the doctrine of the reall presence in his tyme was not as yet contradicted by anie except those whoe denye Christ but beleeued and professed by the whole world althou some saith he did erre in the same by ignorance And this onely
by our aduersarie the knight both before and after these which clearely declare his mynde touthing the reall presence The precedent wordes are these Dominus enim illa nocte accepit panem gratias egit fregit dixit accipite comedite non dixit hoc est azinum aut typus corporis sed hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus that is our lord that night tooke bread gaue thankes brake it and said take and eate He said not this is vnleauined bread or this is the figure of my bodie but this is my bodie this is my bloud And then immediately ensue the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey after which alsoe immediately followes Sed tunc nunc inuocatione gratia omnipotentis illius sacrorum rituum Antistitis Spiritus sancti sacrarum precationum diuinorum oraculoruÌ„ interuentum panis quidem in ipsum Domini corpus vinum vero in ipsum Domini sanguinem conuertitur transmutatur But both then and now by inuocation and grace of that omnipotent Prelate of sacred rities the holie Gost by interuention of sacred prayers and diuine oracles the bread truely is counuerted and changed into Christs bodie it selfe but the wine into to his bloud In which wordes the learned and prudent reader can not but see both the reall presence and the conuersion or change of the elements of bread and wine which is nothing els but transsubstantiation into the bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ most plainely specifyed Which may abundantly serue to demonstrate the truth of the Patriarkes meaning and that no man liuing excepting such a lad of mettall as the coragious knight would haue had the face to make vse or rather abuse of such a testimonie as this soe quyte opposite to his purpose multa enim de illâ Caena audiuÌ„tur apud vas quae nobis displicent Ierem. Patriarchâ—… especially the second place being taken out of that chapter in which the author him selfe in the begining of the same doth expressely affirme that ther are manie things maintained by the lutherans in the supper of our lord which displease the Grecians one of which doubtlesse and not the least is the point of transsubstantiation which the Lutherans reiected in their remonstrance to the Greeke Church and Ierimie the Patriarcke maintaines in his anser to the same To all which may be added yet more expresse wordes of the same Patriarke saying thus Statuit igitur Catholica Ecclesia mutari conseeratione facta panem quidem in ipsum corpus Christi vinum vero in ipsum sanguinem eius per spiritum sanctum c. The Catholique Church therfore saith he defins that the consecration being made the bread is changed into the bodie of Christ but the wine into his bloud by the holie Gost c. And it is to be noted that he vseth the worde Metauallomena in these places in which he speakes of the conuersion or transmutation of the bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ which doth manifestly de monstrate the Grecian Patriarch to maintaine that same change of the bread and wine in the consecration of the Eucharist which the Romanists in Latin call transsubstaÌ„tiation which is sufficient to coÌ„uince the preposterousnes of the iniudicious knight in makeing vse of this great Prelate for his owne contrarie position Touching inuocation of saincts and their worship Sir Humfrey in the 232. page of his deuious way alledges against the Romanists the confessioÌ„ of the Greeke Church quoting in the margen the same Patriarch of Constantinople and relating his wordes in his anser to the German Doctors cap. 1. Wher according to his relation the Patriarch sayth in the name of him selfe and fellowes that they doe not properly inuocate saints but God fot neither Peter nor Paule heare anie of those that inuocate them but the gift and grace that they haue according to the promisse I am with you till the consummation of the world Thus the knight rehearses that authors wordes but yet corruptedly for first the Patriarch hath not those negatiue wordes We doe not properly inuocate saints but this affirmatiue inuocation doth proporly agree to God onely and it doth agree to him primarily and most immediately which wordes Sir Humfrey leaueth out but inuocation made to saints is not properly inuocation but accidentally and as if we should say by grace or fauor which latter words alsoe the knight partely mangled and partely omitted Secondly the Patriarch dot not saye Peter and Paule doe not heare their inuocators but he sayth they doe not exaudire that is they doe not heare and graunt by their owne power the petitions of those that inuocate them And ther is soe much betwixt audire exaudire that his hearing and graunting that which is heard that althou ' the one vndoubledly agree to the saints both in the doctrine of the Grecian Church and the Roman yet of the exaudition or hearing with a graunt doubt may be made euen according to the doctrine of the Roman Church whether it is proper to saints or noe in regarde it may be coÌ„ceiued that altho' the saints be truely intercessors betweene vs and God yet haue they not power to graunt out requests but onely to mediate for vs by way of impetration And therfore the same author saith that Peter and Paule doe not exaudire that is not soe heare vs as they them selues graunt our petition which they heare but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according or by the fauor they haue by virtue of the promisse of our Sauior I will be with you till the end of the world as the Grecian Patriarch doth sufficiently declare And that the Grecians doe in generall termes graunt inuocation of saints which is that which both agrees with the Roman doctrine and differs from the doctrine of the pretented reformers it is manifest not onely out of this place but alsoe out of other places of the Patriarkes anser as particularly in the 13. chapter pag 102. wher it is said by him that in the sacrifice or masse mentionem beatissimae Virginis facimus laudes eius praedicantes intercessione sanctorum omnium petentes misericordiam Dei implorantes pro viuis mortuisque supplicantes c. And yet more plainely in the verie 21. chapter cited by our aduersarie where the Patriarke hath these wordes Haec meditatio nunc in Ecclesia fit depraedicatur ad sanctos exclamamus ad dominam nostram ad sanctos Angelos ad dominam quidem nostram tersancta domina Deipara pro nobis intercede peccatoribus ad sanctos autem Angelos omnes caelestes potestates sanctorum Angelorum Archangelorum orate pro nobis c. This meditation is now made preached in the Church we both crye aloud to the saints and to our ladie and to the Angels and to our ladie truly thrise holie ladie mother of God intercede for vs sinners But to the holie Angeles all you Celestial Powers of holie
the bodie which the faithfull receiue in the Eucharist a bodie gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule But the reformers professe to receiue no such bodie in the Sacrament but the verie same bodie which sitteth on the right hād of God in heauē indued with all the properties and dimensions of a true bodie though by faith onelie and so there being such small affinitie betweene both the words and sense of the foresaid place and the reformers doctrine in this point neither S. Humfrey nor those from whom he receiued it had any reason to produce it as a testimonie wherebie to proue their Church to haue bene visiblie extant and their faith publikelie professed before the daies of Luther And from hence we may further deduce how vaine a flourish the knight maketh in the end of his 97. page were by way of conclusion he affirmes that the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie published not in pryuate corners but in publike libraries not in obscure assemblyes But in open Churches and generall congregations of our owne countrye in the darkest ages long before Luthers dayes All which deduction is most friuolous and idle first for that suppose it were most true and certaine that the denyall of the reall presence were contained in the foresaid writings the contrarie to which I haue made most manifest yet is it a most vaine and false brag of the knight to saye that therefore the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie professed in his countrie longe before the dayes of Luther it being manifest that with all the Arethmatik he can vse The deniall of the reall presence and transubstantiation confessed by Sir H. to be the most substantiall points of his religion the whole some of substantiall points of his religion falselie pretended to be sounde by him in the foresaide epistles and homilie doe not passe the number of two whereas yet on the contrarie ther are truelie and vnfainedlie aboue twise as manie against him and for the Romanists as masse prayers in Latin water mixed to the wine in the chalis offering of the same sacrifice the pronouncing of Agnus Dei in the masse the signe of the Crosse As also because there are no certaine premisses out of which anie such illation of the knights can be collected but the quite contrarie as hath beene alreadie showed and so for Sir Humfrey to say the most substantiall points of his faith haue beene generallie published not in priuate corners but in publike libraries before the dayes of Luther grounding his saying onelie vpon the foresaid writings is most absurde and voyde of truth To omit that if as the knight affirmes there is a copie of the foresaid Epistle mangled in the foresaid librarie a man may doubt how the pretēsiue reformers could come by anie more true manuscript then that razed copie out of which they could by comparing the one with the other discouer that that which was so blotted defaced did containe anie doctrine contrarie to the reall presense or transubstantiation or agreeing with their owne copies now of late translated in to English and printed by them And also we may further suspect that the copie which Sir Humfrey mentioneth as mangled and razed is the onelie true originall and that the transsumpts of Alfrickes sermon now published in English are altered and changed from the puritie of their first copies all which I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader and my owne further examen of the matter as opportunitie shall serue And yet besides this I cannot conceiue how this businesse hangs together to wit that Sir Humfrey produces the foresaid homilie against transubstantiation and yet the same Sir Humfrey page 98. affirmes that they I knowe not who haue in that same homilie suggested transubstantiation by two faigned miracles Now if in that homilie there be two miracles to proue transubstantiation as indeed there bee howe can it then be truly produced by the knight against the same So that here must of necessitie be some iuggling in the matter And more for my parte I cannot possible imagin howe that ould mustie copie of the homilie being in the saxon language could make two such monsterous iumpes as first to leape out of ould saxon in to English and then out of exiter into Oxon euen iuste at that present time when M. Fox had need of them for the fornishing of his moulie monumēts Certainelie I hould this for one of the greatest miracles that anie of the reformed brothers euer committed Besides this in my opinion it sauoures rancke of forgerie to say that the wordes razed in the Latin copie of Alfricks Epistle to Wolstan Archbishop of yorke were supplied by the saxon copie of Exiter as some of our aduersaries doe affirme not-obstanding others say they had the supplie from worcester And I demaunde further whether it is not much more probable that the sentence which he mentioneth if anie such there were in that Epistle was neuer taken away in the Latin but rather added by Swinglius Oecolampadius or Bucer or some other greater Doctour of that potatorie Confraternitie More D. Iames saith that the Latin Epistle so razed is intituled De consuetudine monachorum and yet the same Doctour out of Fox relates it to be against the bodilie presence Quibus speramus nos quibusdam prodesse ad correctionem quamuis sciamus aliis minime placuisse sed non est nobis consultum semper si lere non aperire subiectis eloquia diuina quia si praeco tacet quis Iudicem venturum enuntiet D. Iames detect part 2. pag. 55. Now what connexion the bodilie or vnbodilie presence of Christ in the sacrament hath with the custome of monks I am persuaded that excepting these two great Doctours all the world beside can not imagin Especiallie considering that in the wordes related by Iames there is no mētion at all of the bodie of Christ but of correction of some certaine persons And surelie Alfrick being an Abbat himselfe it is to be iudged farre more proper to him to haue writ of things appertaining to the profession of religious persons thē of the Eucharist or transubstātiation or as they will haue it against the same Finallie Fox referres the translation and publishing of the Homilie and Epistles to the yeare 996. Yet Iames affirmes that the Archbishop wolstan to whome Alfrick writte his Epistle concerning that businesse was a boute the yeare 1054. which yeare differeth much from the other Wherefore let Sir Humfrey be assured that till he cleares these difficulties this his new-founde writing caries no authoritie against the Romanists And so for conclusion of this matter I say that till Sir Humfrey or some of his companions can produce some authenticall authour before Luther who without their owne glosses or illations doth teach plainelie these negatiues Christs bodie and bloud are not reallie present in the Eucharist
species or kindes euen in respect of both his bodie and bloud Thus sainct Thomas By which it is cleare howe farre he was from patronizing Sir Humfreys new tenet maintaining that the communiō of the laitie in the Roman Church is but a halfe communion Now touching Lyra Sir Humfrey hath deceiptfullie omitted those wordes of his which include the verie reason approbation of the change which the Roman Church hath made it being the same which sainct Thomas alledgeth in parte as his wordes in the margen declare Fit autem hic mentio de duplici specie nā in primitiua Ecclesia sic dabatur fidelibus sed propter periculū effusionis sanguinis modo datur tantū sub specie panis Sacerdos tamen celebrans accipit sub vtraque specie non tantum pro se sed etiam pro alijs Lira in 1. Cor. 11. So that both these authours are so plaine against Sir Humfrey and for vs that a man may almost perceiue that he now repents that euer he cited them as also the authours following To the wordes of Arboreus but now the communion of both kyndes is abolished Sir Humfrey ought to haue added that authours reason of the abolishment to wit this Propter scandala quae contigerunt adhuc contingere possūt Arb. Theos lib. 8.11 For the scandals which haue happened and which yet may happen And the like I say of Taper to whose wordes should haue beene ioyned that which followes videlicet This communion of the people in both kindes hath danger of Sacriledge annexed vnto it in sheding the bloud of Christ and in the omission of the chalis no danger doth occurre nor anie losse of Spirituall grace The Councell of Constance is impertinentlie alledged as I haue declared before Bellarmin in the same place and wordes cited by Sir Humfrey doth directlie impugne that for which he is alledged by the knight to wit for the Communion of all the people in both kindes For so he saith Bellar. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. And besides all did not receiue in both kindes As for Cassander altho' we haue him not in the rancke of Romanists Ex his itaque confici puto hanc integram in vtraque panis vini communicationē etsi simpliciter necessaria non habeatur ei cōmunicationi quae in altera tantū specie fit etiamsi mandato contraria non putetur multis nominibus esse anteponēdam c. Cass loco cir yet for anie thing I can perceiue hee doth not absolutelie stand for Sir Humfrey in the subsustance of this Controuersie as neither houlding it absolutelie necessarie for the laytie to communicate in both kyndes nor yet contrarie to Christs institution as his owne wordes in that treatie page 1046. Doe plainelie either suppose or insinuate And for as much as concernes priuate or extraordinarie communion he himselfe relates diuers examples of it So that the reader may perceiue how smale reason Sir Humfrey hath to vse Cassanders authoritie for diuers respects in this matter especiallie if he consider his owne drift in this place altho' I cannot denie but the same Cassander leanes vnto him in that he desires the present practice of the Roman Church might be changed as lesse perfect legitimate then the contrarie in his conceipte And this being all I need to say touching the testimonies of the cited authours and of Sir Humfreyes proceedings about them I will now conclude the censure of this whole Paragraph that directly it containeth nothing which requires so exacte a discussion as I haue made of it And that I haue oftentimes maruailed why the reformers should stand so peremptorily against the Communion in one kinde supposing that euen according to their owne principles neither the words of Christ nor the intention of the minister nor both these together are of force and efficacy to make any change or alteration in the matter of the Sacrament but that when they haue said and done all they can they shall remaine bread wine as truely as if they had receaued them in the tauerne especially if we consider yet farther that according to the reformed doctrine the intention of the minister is not necessarily required to the constitution of any Sacrament and yet without the same it is cleerly vnpossible to conceiue how the Eucharist can be receaued by them in remembrance of the death and passion of Christ more in both the formes of bread and wine then in one alone especially supposing that by virtue of the institution and commaunde of Christ each of them in particular is to be receiued in memorie of him And this I say hath caused me many times to wonder euen yet persuading my selfe the Nouellists can haue no other motiue then the satisfaction of their owne contentious spirits to stand so nicely vpon this puntillio with the Church of Rome which refractory proceeding of thē in this matter may yet seeme more vnreasonable to the reader if he consider that altho' Vasquez and some other Romane diuines are of opinion that greater fruites of grace are reaped by the communion in both kindes then in one yet doth it not thence followe that the communion in one kinde cannot be lawfully practized as our Precisians will needes haue it nor yet that the communion vnder one kinde is but a halfe Communion as the knight doth heere malitiously inculcate but in either of the two kinds it is most euident there is a perfect and intire Sacrament according to the true definition thereof in regard there is found in either of the consecrated formes a visible signe of an inuisible grace instituted by God as also because the body of Christ euen according to the tenet of our aduersaries being truely really and substantially receiued vnder the forme of bread onely altho' they meane onely by faith it doth follow infallibly that vnlesse they graunt that Christ can dye againe by separatiō of his bloud from his body or that his perfect and intire body is not there receaued but onely a part of it it doth I say necessarily follow that vnder the forme of bread alone there is Christs bloud with his body and so a perfect communion of them both receaued in that one kinde The Parahraph following is about prayer and seruice in an vnknowne tongue in which point Sir Humfrey saith true in that he affirmeth that the Roman Church celebrates Masse and publick seruice in Latin and it is also true that the Councell of Trent hath declared it not to be expedient that it be celebrated euerie where in the vulgar language But yet it is false to say that either the Church or Councell hath commaunded it to be celebrated in an vnknowne language for Latin cannot trulie be said to be an vnknowne language but rather it is a generall language a knowne speech more vsed then anie one language in the world And altho' it be not vnderstood of the ignorant sort of people yet it is lesse vncoth vnto them then
testifies in these wordes quoted in the margen In Thomae Caietani commentarijs in D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 122 art 4. omnino corrigantur errores qui fraude haereticorum irrepserunt vt notatur in expurg Index lib. prohib p. 89. Geneu impres The Epistle of Walricus is suppositious which is paoued to be so because it is superscribed to Pope Nicolas to whom according to the computation of times the first Pope Nicolas was before Walricus was borne and the second Nicolas was not borne till after he was dead Neither is it any way probable that such a holie Bishop as Walricus was should commend marriage in other Preists who liued and dyed in vnmarried chastity himselfe and so the foresayd Epistle being a false record as containing an improbable yea a morally impossible relation it was iustely condemned with a deleatur To omit that if this Epistle wer authenticall the reformers would gaine nothing by the bargen for that it teacheth expressely that the Roman Bishop is head of the Church and that Preists at the least after ordination cannot lawfully marrie Sixtly it is false that Bertram's whole booke is condemned as may appeare by the iudgement of the Vniuersitie of Doway approued by the Censurers of bookes inserted in the Index of Quiroya published by Ioannes Pappus a reformed deformed diuine with certaine odious prefaces of his owne coyning printed at Argentin 1609. In the 17. page of which Index it is manifest that the whole booke was not commaunded to be blotted out but onely some fewe things to be corrected or altered in the reading or to be expounded benigneously And as for the doctrine of transsubstantiation the foresaid Doctours of Doway expressely declare that Bertram often times in the first parte of his disputation teaches Catholike transsubstantiation plainely enuffe vsing the words conuertere mutare commutare permutare transponere creaturam in Christum in corpus Christi c. in so much that Illiricus compelled with the plainesse of those wordes confesseth there are in Bertram semina transsubstantiationis seeds of transubstantiation And also the same Dowacene Doctors conclude that those difficult places which are founde in him touching the reall presence which cheefely are two to wit that he seemeth to haue ben of opinion that Christs bodie is no more in the Eucharist then the bodie of the people and that that thing which is celebrated or done in the Church cānot be called God are either to be vnderstood of the externall formes of bread and wine or els that those sentences be inserted by heretiks who printed that booke first at Colen 1532. after at Basil 1550. 1555. so that this is no recorde of the reformers except it be vpon supposition of their owne corruptions or false glosses added vnto it but rather may serue for a pregnant testimonie against them and consequētly he that should haue blotted it out had done them no iniurie but a verie great fauor Seuenthlie I say to the sentence taken out of the booke of baptizme vnder the name of Anselme that manie passages be blotted out by the Censurers of bookes by reason they are such as may easilie be taken in an erroneous sense so scandalize or giue occasion of errour either to the simple or malicious reader which neuerthelesse in a sounde sense containe no false doctrine so might be lefte vncorrected if it were not for the corruption malignitie of the tyme. And of this nature be the wordes of the booke of the visitation of the sicke Baptisme if they be ritely recited by Sir Hum. Doest thou beleeue that the Lord Iesus Christ dyed for our saluation that there is no meanes to be saued by owne merits Which sentence in a true meaning is no recorde of the reformers in a false meaning it is better blotted out thē lefte in And such diligence argueth no ill conscience but a motherlie care of the Church towardes here children 8. We haue sayd sufficient alreadie touching the credit of Cassander whose doctrine the Romanists hould for false recordes either in parte or totalitie And he maketh such preposterous glosses vpon the Ecclesiasticall himnes as the Index noteth in one place that all his whole scholium is repugnant to the same like a commentarie contrarie to the text Yet to giue the reader a taste What truelie this man was who is so farre in Sir Humfreys bookes I say that altho' we hold not Cassander for a Romanist as being in the Index of prohibited bookes for diuers singular positions neuerthelesse the knight cannot iustelie brag of him in regarde it is manifest by his workes which I haue seene read in parte that he expresselie defendes the Roman doctrine in most points of Cōtrouersie betwixt vs the Reformers as also because in a greater parte euen of the same places which Sir Hum. cites in his fauour he is not a little abused either corrupted or detorted by him cōtrarie to his meaning Howbeit in respect he professeth the parte of a Pacifer mediator betwixt vs he could not but leane some thing to their side yet is it so little that I perceiue by one of his writings that he had smale thankes for his paines from some of the faction therefore was most sharpelie handled by them accusing him of dissimulation imposture interruption of the course of the Gospell the like An infortunate man who by his great labours earnest endeuours to content both parties contended neither a iuste punishment due vnto such as destitute of true knowledge in diuinitie which he himselfe in parte confesseth in his generall Preface presume to treat of those sublime subiects sans a guide The Basilean edition of Polidor virgill printed in the yeare 1544. compared with other former the most ancient editions is founde to haue ben corrupted by the sectaries so no true recordes can be taken out of it for Sir Humfrey his confraternitie And such is that passage which the Inquisitours commanded to be blotted out which is this All most all ancient Fathers condemned images for feare of idolatrie This sentence as false foysted into the foresayd Basilian edition is iustelie cast out as none of the authours doctrine or at the least vehementlie suspected for none of his And touching the doctrine of honour of images it selfe it is cleare that he can aforde no recorde at all for the reformed diuinitie for that he expresselie relateth the vse of images in Churches deduceing it historicallie from the most primatiue tymes Langius or Langus is of no authoritie among the Romanists so he yealdes no recordes of credit And at the best he is but a pedanticall Annotator as I take it a Lutheran that is neither of Sir Humfreys religion nor of ours As for Ferus certaine it is that some of his editions haue ben founde to be mightilie corrupted particularlie that of Mogunce Which the knight citeth so the recordes drawne out of him are of
expounde the faith of the holye church the opinion of this sect that hauing expounded them we approue one reproue the other by a fewe authorities breefe reasons For neither epistolar breuitie doth permit nor anie reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation For such as ar faithfull people but seduced doe not pertinatiously insist in defence of their deprauation but rather hauing heard vnderstanded reasons desire humbly to returne to the way of truth fewe things will suffice But those whoe ar addicted to contentions determined to persiste in their infidelitie would not be satisfyed althou manie reasons should be proposed vnto them Diuinitus Wherfore we beleeue that the terrestriall substances which in the table of our lord ar diuinely sanctifyed by preistlie ministration ar infallibly incomprehensibly admirably by operation of supernaturall power conuerted in to the essence of our lordes bodie the species or formes of the things thē selues remaining with some other qualities least the receiuers should abhorre crude cruent things Cruda cruenta to the end that the credents or beleeuers might receiue more ample rewardes of their faith the bodie of Christ it selfe existing neuerthelesse in heauen at the reight hand of his Father Illeso immortall vnuiolated intyre incontaminated vnhurt soe that it may truely be affirmed that we receiue the bodie of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin and yet not the same The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue but not the same if you respect the species or formes of bread and wine and the rest before comprehended This faith from ancient tymes did hould and now holdeth that Church which diffused throù the whole world is named Catholique whence it is that as it is said before our lord said in the Euangill Receiue and eate this is my bodie And this is the chalis of my bloud c. In this cleare manner speaketh Lanfranc of the reall presence in this place And page 346. of the same booke he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiasticall histories Which Scriptures saith he altho' they doe not obtaine that most excellent tower of authoritie which those doe which we cal Propheticall and Euangelicall scriptures yet they ar sufficiēt to proue that this faith which now we haue all faithfull people which haue gone before vs haue had the same from priuatiue tymes A primis temporibus And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus more ower if that be true which thou beleeues and maintaines of the bodie of Christ vbique gentium it is false which the church beleeues of the same matter in euerie natiō For all those whoe reioyce to be called and to bee Christians doe glorie in that they receiue in this sacrament the true flesh and bloud of Christs bodie receiued from the virgin Inquire of all such as haue knouledge of the latin tongue and of our writings Inquire of the Grecians Armeniās or of Christian people of anie nation what soeuer they will with one mouth testifye that they haue this faith Furthermore if the faith of the vniuersall church be false either ther neuer was Catholique church or she hath perished nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of soules then a pernicious error But no Catholique will graunt that the church either was not or that she hath perished In this plaine sorte testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the vniuersall church in which it were madnes to imagine he did not include his owne I meane the church of England And supposing he liued writ this the verie next age following the age in which Alfric dyed to wit in some parte of the leuēth centurie it is more then monsterous impudencie in our aduersaries to affirme that in the dayes of Alfric the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation was commonely preached and beleeued in the Realme of England Further more Pascasius Rathbertus writ a booke intituled of the bodie and bloud of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram as is cōmōly supposed althoù I finde him not named by Pascasius he hath alsoe an Epistle of the same subiect to one Frudegard with an exposition of those wordes of the Euangelist Math. 26. Caenantibus autem illis c. In all which writings Pascasius most plainely defendeth both the reall presence and transsubstantiation most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same bodie and bloud which Christ receiued of the Virgin Marie and the same in which he was crucifyed is really and truely present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice I need not relate his wordes for euerie particular because I knowe our aduersaries can not denye but that this Author is plainely for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine onely I will rehearse some generall wordes of his in which he declares the faith of the vniuersall church in and before his tymes for after testimonies of diuers āciēt fathers alledged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid wordes of S. Mathewe thus he saith Ecce habes amantissime c. Behould most louing brother thou haste in the end of this little booke the sentences of the Catholique Fathers compendiously noted by which thou maist learne that I haue not seene such things in rashnes of speech when I was a child but that I haue proposed them by diuine authoritie and by the authoritie of the holye Fathers to such as demaunded them But now it being cleare that Since that tyme the faith of all men is not one and the same then cease I praye to beleeue with such as they bee if as yet they can not vnderstand that nothing is impossible to God and lett them learne to assent vnto the diuine wurdes in all things to doubt nothing of those For till this present no man is read to haue erred in them except those whoe erred aboute Christ himselfe notobstanding manie doubted or haue ben ignorant of the Sacraments of soe great a Mysterie And afterwardes the same author in the same treatise saith thus Qua expleta voce c. Which wordes being pronounced meaning the wordes of consecration we all with one consonant voyce say Amen And soe the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confesse that it is that thing which she prayeth for wherby let him whoe will rather contradict this then beleeue it regarde what he doth against our lord him self against the whole Church of Christ Therfore it is a nefarious and detestable villanie to pray with all and not to beleeue that which truth it self doth testifye and that which vniuersally all in euerie place doe teach Whence it is that since he him selfe affirmes it is his bodie and his bloud doubt ought not to be made in anie thing altho' we see not with carnall yes that which we beleeue We haue seene alsoe what Pope Gregorie houldeth of this what
Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers and because also he put a croune vpon it and worshipped it in an Ethnicall manner and not according to the custome of Christians but as S. Epihanius heres 27. explicateth those heretikes Gentilium ministeria perficiebant they sacrified vnto all those images to wit of Pithagoras Aristotle together with Christs image after the manner of the Gentiles and so this parte of the Pedegree containes an errour in in heraldry and proueth no true descent In the next passage which is aboute the CommunioÌ„ in both kinds Pope Leo tells vs saith the Knight that the Manicheis a sorte of heretikes in his time vsed the Sacrament in one kinde videlicet in bread onely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam Videlicet Manichei nostris audeaÌ„t inesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt tutius lateaÌ„t Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae omnino haurire declinant Leo ser 4. in quad It is true S. Leo saith so but he doth not condemne them for heretikes for that reason but be cause they abstained froÌ„ wine as from an vncleane creature and because they did not beleeue that Christ had bloud in in his body and so that which Pope Leo did when he gaue commaunde that those should be diligeÌ„tly obserued who vsually receiued but in one kind was done purposely for discouerie of the Manicheis who crastily to conceile their heresie touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholikes dissemblingly the Custome of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kinde and in both as now the Grecians practise and therefore that holy Pope did discretely commaunde those should be diligently obserued who in all occasions did vse to receiue vnder the forme of bread onely houlding that for an euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t of their aborring of the bloud of Christ By which it is euident that euen that same time the communioÌ„ was lawfully vsed by some in one kinde otherwise S. Leo needed not to haue vsed any great diligence for the dicouerie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had bene obledged to coÌ„municate in both the Manicheis who frequented the Communion would haue beene discouered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell toutouching a proofe of his taken from the example of the Nazarites as if he had deriued wholy or chiefly the communion of one species or kinde from the practise of their communion whereas he doth not so but hauing by other arguments of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons sufficieÌ„tly established the doctrine of the Church in that particular he bringeth that of the Nazarites onely as a confirmation of the same Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those wordes of S. Luke drinke you all of this whereby he would proue that the communion in both kindes came from Christ and so it did indeede but not by precept giuen to all in generall but onelie to those then present and to those whome they represented as to be their successours that is the Apostles and all Priests after them but not to anie Puritan or Puritannicall minister as not hauing from them anie true succession After these passages Sir Humfrey proceeds to inuocation of Saints and Aungels the founders of which he affirmeth to haue bene the heretikes called Angelici and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretikes not for the inuocation of Angells but either for that they held them to haue bene creatours of the world or in regard they vsed to boast of their owne Angelicall manner of life or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels Erant in Angelorum cultum inclinati quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur Aug. haeres 29. that they did vse to worship them with latria or diuine honour all which kinde of adoration the Romanists with the same Saint Augustin giue to one onelie God And so the knight doth peruert the trueth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. vpon the Genes explicating that passage of Apocalips 19. in which the Angell prohibited S. Iohn to adore him saith neither let it moue the that in a certaine place of scripture the Angell doth prohibite a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God for the Angell did so appeere that he might haue adored him for God and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin teacheth that the Angelici were heretikes because they were inclined to adore Angels he meanes because they adored them with diuine honour and not because they gaue that due inferiour worship vnto them which the Romanists vse For workes of merit and supererogation hee produceth for authours the heretikes named Cathari and Puritans but the heresies of these sectaries were farre different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points Nay they were neuer defenders of either merit or workes of supererogation that euer I read but that for which they were condemned by the Catholike Church was chiefelie for their defence of the errours of Nouatus and particularelie for denying remission of sinnes and the authoririe of the keyes in the Church and for that they affirmed their owne pretended puritie to be aboue the doctrine of the Apostles as not conteyned in it but farre exceeding it and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones Cathari qui seipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant Secundas nuptias non admittunt paenitentiam denegant NouatuÌ„ sectantes haereticum vnde etiam nouatiani appellantur S. Aug. haeres 38. And S. Isidor in the verie place cited by Sir Humfrey saith of them That they named them selfes Cathari for their puritie for glorying saith hee in their merits they denie pennance c. And so it appeares by this that the knight belyes Saint Isidor in two respects Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres Christian as if he did testifie that these heretikes were the first authours of doctrine of merit and workes of supererogation Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other Nor yet makes anie mention in that place of workes of superogation And so according to this lette our Puritans of England and Sir Humfrey him selfe as none of the least of them examen their consciences well and doubtles they will finde themselues to haue farre more affinitie with the foresaid fellowes then the Romanists who both graâ—nt remission of sinnes by vertue of the Ecclesiasticall keyes and allso denie and renounce all such puritie of Spirit as the Puritans pretended He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to haue bene the heresie of the Collyridians Quaedam mulieres currum quendam siue sellam quadratam
thy whole confidence in his death onelie haue confidence in no other thing that which is so farre from the deniall of merits as that it is counselled aduised euen by those who are most professed defendours of the Roman doctrine in that point as out of Bellarmine and other diuines we haue showed before Period 4. Nay and besides this it is most plaine in my iudgment that the foresaid rituall in certaine other words following in the same place did neuer intend to exclude all kinde of merit from the workes of man performed by Gods grace and assistance for that it expressely saith in the person of that sick man I offer his merits that is the merits of Christ in steede of the merits I ought to haue for if he ought to haue merits as he affirmeth euen vpon his death bed though he haue thē not euident it is that he denied not the same but plainelie supposed the truth of them And thus we see that the words of the order of baptizing benigniouslie interpreted make nothing for S. Hūfreyes position nor against the Romā doctrine of merits How be it the same was iustelie corrected by the Inquisitors both because the manner of phrase which it vseth might easily giue occasiō of errour especially in these our dayes as also because it is iustelie suspected to be Apochryphall in regarde it containes certaine ill sounding sentēces not onely in the doctrine of the Roman Church but also according to the tenets of the Reformers As where it saith thus These protestations of such as lye a dying were reuailed to a certaine religious man And those wordes he that shall protest such things as followe from his harte cannot be damned c. All which propositions and some othgers are commaunded by the authours of the Index to be blotted as well as the wordes which Sir Humfrey here cites And yet more ouer it is to be aduertised that there is not a worde in all that which our aduersarie produceth against merits which doth proue iustification by faith onelie which is that which he intendes to proue in this place as the title of his paragraph doth declare And so by this meanes he hath quite fled from his text And so this may suffice to demonstrate the falsitie of the knights assertion and the nullitie of the proofe thereof by the testimonies of his aduersaries seeing plainelie that he doth no thing therein but partlie by vntrueths and partlie by equiuocations deludes his reader not citing anie one authour either Romanist or reformer in all this paragraffe more then the wordes rehearsed out of the foresaid Rituall which neuerthelesse hauing bene as suspected of corruption chasticed by the Inquisitours the vncensured coppies which doubtlesse he and his fellowes onelie vse haue no authoritie nor credit in the Roman Church or at the most verie little and consequentlie he proceedeth most weakelie in produceing for a testimonie of his aduersarie that which they doe not acknowledge for theirs especiallie considering he alledgeth nothing els for the proofe of his tenet The second paragraffe is of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation As concerning the Sacraments of the Lords supper saith the knight In the dayes of Alfrick about the yeare 996. There was a Homilie publikelie to be read to the people one Easter day wherein the same doctrine which saith hee our Church now professeth was publikelie taught and receaued and the doctrine of the reall presence which in that time had gotte some footing in the Church was plainelie cōfuted and reiected The wordes which he citeth are these There is a greate difference betwixt the bodie wherein Christ suffered and the bodie which is receaued of the faithfull the bodie that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of marie with bloud and with bone with skinne and with sinewes in human lims with a reasonable soule liuing and his spirituall bodie which nourisheth the faithfull spirituallie is gathered of manie cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodilie but spirituallie c. Thus farre out of the homilie And this doctrine faith the knight was deliuered in those times not by one onely Bishop but by diuerse in their Synods and by them commended to the Clergie who were commaunded to reade it publikelie to the people one Easter day for their better preparation and instruction in the Sacrament and for the same cause translated into the saxon language by Alfrick and to the same purpose the Knight also citeth two other writinges or Epistles as published and translated also into the vulgar tongue by the same Alfric But to this I answer first that whatsoeuer doctrine is conteynd in the Hom. Epistles cited the Romanists are not boūd to beleeue it because the knight onely citeth them out of his owne authours and as printed by the members of his owne Church to wit out of B. Vsher and Doctour Iames and so it is both absurd and impertinent to produce thē as testimonies of his aduersaries as he professeth to doe in the title of his section especially supposing that he hath not aledged any one author of the Romanists religion where by to proue them authenticall nor yet any other indifferent witnesse but onely those two reformers whom we haue named whoe by the Romanists may iustly be suspected of partiallity in fauour of their owne cause especially if we consider that Sir Humfrey himselfe graunteth that the Latin epistle written by Alfric is to be seene mangled and razed in a manuscript in Benet colledg in Cambridge And certainely the English coppies being found not to aggree with the Latin manuscript which is either the Originall it selfe or at the least cometh much neerer the time in which the authour of it liued then any other coppie the knight could possible haue there is farre greater euidence that the latter translations and impressions are corrupted by the reformers then that either the Index expurgatorius or any other Romanist hath made any alteration or chaunge in the originall coppies or first authenticall manuscripts or in any other except it were onely to restore them to their prime innocenty and originall trueth cheefely supposing that the inquisitors in their expurgation of bookes intend no other thing more then to reduce such as be corrupted to the former purity of their originalls Thirdly I answer that admitte the editions which are published in England be true and sincerely translated and printed which neuerthelesse may iustly be suspected by reason of the manifould corruptions found to haue bene vsed in that nature by diuerse of the reformed profession as by the expurgatory Index doth plainely appeare the authours of which Index haue discouered diuers workes Fathered partely by auncient and partely by moderne sectaries vpō those who neuer writ them which was the cause as I suppose why Antonius posseuinus in the preamble to his select Bibliotheke saith that Sixtus Bellarmine and others haue manifested very maine pestilent bookes
qua posteri benedicunt by which the succeeding Preists doe blesse or consecrate Now Sir Humfrey in his citation of this authour lefe out the latter parte of his text which doth plainelie declaire his minde to wit the wordes scilicet hoc est corpus meum which durand includes in the benediction or cōsecration of Christ chimericallie ioyning to some of the authours former wordes others which belonge to another opinion related by durand which houldes that Christ repeated the wordes twise first to giue them power and vertue of confection or consecration and afterwardes to teach the Apostles the forme of consecration by which the reader may easily perceiue that the knight insteed of making durand his owne he both lost him his owne reputation by either most ignorant or malitious peruerting of that Catholike authours wordes and sense The like to which proceeding he vseth also in the testimonie of Odo whome he cites to proue that Christs bodie is made in the Sacrament by his benediction and not by the wordes this is my bodie For he neither sincerelie relates nor trulie construes them And first whereas that authour by may of exposition of that worde benedixit saith benedixit corpus suum fecit meaning that Christ blessed the bread that is to say made it is bodie Sir Humfrey doth English the wordes both with a false interpretation of them and a false separation so Math. 26. and then made that his bodie adding the worde then of his owne stampe Secondlie he makes a false construction of Odos wordes in that whereas Odo vnderstands by benediction consecration as diuers other diuines doe and as it manifestlie appeares by his owne wordes vttered presentlie after to wit those which Sir Humfrey cytes saying virtute sermonis Christi factum est corpus sanguis Christi that is by virtue of Christs speech the bodie bloud of Christ are made the ignorant knight imagined that because he affirmed before that Christ by benediction made his bodie therefore he made it without those wordes this is my bodie which neuerthelesse are the verie wordes of benediction or consecration which Christ himselfe vsed True it is Odo speakes some thing intricatelie and obscurelie by reason of his breuitie yet those plaine wordes which followe in the same place and matter videlicet virtute sermonis Christi fiunt corpus sanguis Christi doe sufficientlie explaine the authours mynde and serue for a cleare exposition of the rest as the iudicious reader of his whole text will easilie perceiue Concerning the citation of Christopher De capite fontium I suspect there is some legerdemaine vsed in it because it seemes not to me a thing credible that anie man of learning and iudgement as he is held to be should be so farre out of temper as peremptorilic to conclude for an infallible truth to which scriptures Councels and all antiquitite yeald an vndeniable testimonie and consent that the wordes this is my bodie are not the wordes of consecration how be it the might say with the opinion of some others that those are not the wordes by which Christ himselfe consecrated which point as it is not yet declared by the Church as a matter of faith so neither is it pertinent to the matter we here treat if so it were as being no denyall of transubstantiation which onelie is here in question and not the wordes of consecration and consequentlie if that authour whome I could not haue whereby to examen the truth if I say he speakes in that sense onelie then his testimonie was cyted in vaine As also I may not rashelie auouch that especiallie if he meanes in the other sense and as according to their rehearsall of our aduersarie the wordes doe sounde That surelie he had tasted of a wrong fountaine when he spoake in such an exorbitant manner if so he euer spoake I haue exactelie examined Card. Aliaco and finde he speakes in those wordes cyted by Sir Hūfrey onely of the possibility of the coexistēce or presence of the substance of the bread the bodie of Christ vnder the same accidēts which possibilitie he affirmes neither to repugne to reason nor to the bible no more then that two quantities or qualities may possiblie stande together vnder one matter videlicet de potentia absoluta that is by the absolute power of God which is true in regarde that no text of scripture can be found to such contrarie possibility nor implicatiō of contradictiō in reason But all this how true soeuer it is yet is it out of the purpose and state of our question which is not about the possibilitie but aboute the fact of transsubstantiation in which point the resolution of this authour is plainelie for vs saying that altho' it doth not euidentlie followe of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth absolutelie cease to be nor yet as it seemes to me of the determination of the Church neuerthelesse because saith he it doth more fauore the determination of the Church and the common opinion of the holie Fathers and Doctours therefore I hould it And this same is that which the Councell of Trēt declares to which doctrine if Sir Hūfrey would consent as farre as Aliaco this disputation were at an end for that here is nothingels required either of him or any other of his profession but that they obey the authoritie of the Church in her definition Ses 15 c. 4 Secundum hanc viam dico quod panis transsubstātiatur in corpus Christi ad sensum expositum in descriptione transubstantiationis Alic in 4. q. 6. art 2. In his 111. page the knight proceedes most sophisticallie in this same matter where vpon a false if or conditionallie false supposition that neither according to the doctrine of S. Thomas the Roman Cathechisme and the Masse-Preists as he pleaseth to terme them the consecrated bread is transubstantiated by Christs benediction before those wordes this is my bodie be vttered nor by the same wordes vttered after benediction as saith he the Archbishop of Cefarea and others doe affirme he presentlie thence inferres that absolutelie there are no wordes at all in the scripture to proue transubstantiation for an article of faith which collection of his neuerthelesse is no other then to deduce for conclusion of his discourse an absolute proposition from a conditionall and this also grounded vpon a meere equiuocation for admit it is true that the foresaid authours doe not agree whether determinately transubstantiation be made by the benediction or by the wordes of consecration yet they all accorde most constantlie and conformablie in this that by one of the two to wit either by benediction or consecration or at the least by both the one and the other the transubstantiation is vndoubtedlie effected and consequentlie they agree vnanimouslie against the position of Sir Humfrey affirming that there be no words of scripture to proue the same And the trueth is that Sir Humfreys captious ratiocinatiō proues no more
thē if two should argue the one that the colour of the sea water is greene and the other blewe that some ignorant Cockes-come should step in and tell them that it followes on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all Which who so euer should presume to doe he deserued to be soundlie hist at for his audacious follie so doth Sir Humfrey And as for Biell whome the knight cites saying it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament he hath indeed those wordes which are quoted by him tho' not in his 49. as he puts it but in his 40. lection vpon the Canon but yet this his saying is not contrarie to the Romanists who easilie admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christs bodie in the Eucharist is neither expressedlie declared in the Scripture nor yet in all ages and by all authours expressedlie tought in the Church as matter of faith neuerthelesse this authour himselfe in the same place addes in plaine wordes that now that opinion which defendes transubstantiation is receiued by all Catholikes yealding for a reason of the same because saith he we ought to hould of the Sacraments as the holie Roman Church doth hould And afterwards he addes Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holie Fathers we ought to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is in the Sacrament by conuersion of the bread into it we are to fee c. And the like I say of Scotus Yribarne his Scholar who altho' they seeme to diminish the antiquitie of transubstantiation yet their meaning onelie is that it was not in auncient times declaredlie proposed by Publike authoritie of the Church as an article of faith yet both of them expresselie beleeuing and defending the same professedlie as a matter of faith And by occasion of this I desire the reader to take notice that whensoeuer he findes anie Catholike authours to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time their meaning is not that the obiect in it selfe was no matter of faith in anie one time since it was first reueiled by God either expresselie in it selfe or as included in some other veritie but onelie that it was not expresselie and generallie knowne and beleeued for such by all faithfull people by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publikelie vnto them by the Church in anie Generall Councell For that as much as concernes the doctrine in itselfe it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church then it was euen before it was so defined as may appeare in the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his eternall Father in the vnitie of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like which in them selues were reueiled verites and matter of faith euer since the newe Testament and the lawe of Christ was published to the world not obstanding they were not declaredlie and vniuersallie knowne for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene Ephesin Chalcedon Councels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian Nestorian Euthycian heretikes And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this breefe obseruation may suffice to satisfie anie indifferent mynde Nowe as I said of Scotus and Yribarne the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez in his comment vpon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it vpon the first art Of the 15. quest he saith transubstantiation which ther he calles conuersion is not in the Euangell expresselie conuersio non habetur explicitein Euangelio and before he saith we expresselie receiued from the Church that which the Gospell did not explicate Yet afterwardes the same authour expresselie teaches and inculcates that those wordes this is my bodie cause both the reall presence and transubstantiation For thus addes Et perhoc verbae Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scrilicet conuersionis continentiae c. That is And by this because the wordes of Christ this is my bodie doe effect both nouelties videlicet of the conuersion and the containing By which wordes it is manifest what this authours meaning was absolutelie touching the reall presence transubstantiation howsoeuer he spoake of the manner in which it is cōtained in scripture which is not our questiō And in this sense speakes Aliaco when he saith in the place cited by our aduersarie that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remaine still a possible neither it is contrarie to reason nor to the authority of the scriptures c. For he meaneth onely it is not repugnant to anie such expresse scripture as doth conuince the transsubstantiatton plainely to euerie one without the authoritie and declaration of the Church and therfore he addeth if it could stand with the determination of the Church in which Aliaco showes such obedience to the Church as Sir Humfrey and his fellowes obstinately denie vnto her most piously captiuating his vnderstanding euen in that which he held more easie and conformable to reason and scripture according to humaine intelligence and discourse More euer touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl cap. 10. His intent in that place was onely to proue that meerly by the bare wordes of scripture without the traditionarie interpretation of the Fathers no certaintie can be had in questions of controuersie or matters of faith And to proue this which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humfrey and the rest of our nouelists he argueth exhiposthesi or vpon supposition saying that not obstanding it is true and certaine that our Sauiour by vertue of those wordes this is my bodie did make his owne bodie really present in the Sacrament yet if one were obstinate standing preciselie to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers and sense of the Church he might denie that it doth thence followe that in our Masse Prests make really present the bodie of Christ Not meaning to affirme that they doe not in deed for that the rest of his booke doth demonstate him to beleeue the reall presence in Masse especially the fourth chapter but onely intending to declare by examples and reasons that it can not be conuinced that Catholike Prests doe so by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctours of the Church and her infallible authoritie And now this being the true sense of B. Fishers discourse Sir Humfrey verie coningly by leauing out the precedent and subsequent wordes of the authour so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse And that this is the true
or receiuing of the Preist alone without other cōpanie is affirmed to be repugnant to Christs institution nor condemned as vnlawfull eyther by Sainct Augustin or anie other Orthodox writer But yet I must further aduertise the reader that I perceiue Sir Humfrey hath not dealte so faithfully as he ought to haue in his recitall of S. Paules wordes putting in by parenthesis and in the same letter those to eate the lords supper which wordes neuerthelesse S. Paule hath not at the least in that place and then omiting the first wordes of the next verse he connecteth them with the latter parte of the same verse to wit that you come not together to iudgement Procuring by this fraude to persuade his reader that those wordes containe the penaltie due to those whoe communicate not with the Preist and the rest of the people which directly they doe not but rather the punishment amenaced by the Apostle to such as by excluding vncharitably ther fellowes from participation of the oblations or common supper then vsed in the Church and by other abuses and sinnes mentioned in this Epistle indignelie receiue the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist And yet not to stand vpon these particular circumstances certaine it is that none of them could yeald anie warrant at all for Sir Humfrey to alter the tenour of the Apostles wordes either by addition or transposition of them Sir Humfrey addeth also that Sainct Paule 1. Cor. 10. calleth the Eucharist the communion But he might haue saued labour in citing scripture the commonly receiued phrase both by vs and them being sufficient to prooue that And yet he might much better haue spared the interpretation of the worde it selfe for whether his etimology be true or false which I will not stand to examen certaine it is that no iudicious man can thence inferre that all the people present at Masse must of necessity communicate but it onely foloweth that when they actually receiue the Sacramēt they receiue the Communion as a common vnion not onely of Preist people but also and ceefly of the people among themselues according to the wordes of the same Apostle in his next chapter and 33. verse cum conuenitis when you come together to eate expect one-another c. And much like as he did proceede in the former place of S. Paule so doth he in this The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ Where for communication he puts communion And yet the scope and sense of the Apostle in this place is not of the communion of Preist and people nor prescribes he anie rule in that nature but onelie reprehendes those who voluntarily and without ignorance eate idolothytes or meates sacrifyced to Idols saying that as those who receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ comunicate or are ioyned in societie with him so they who of knowledge eate things offered to Idols are made companions of the deuill And therefore the same Apostle in the latter parte of his 20. verse saith thus And I will not haue you become fellowes to deuils And presentlie in the next verse he addes You can not drinke the chalis of our Lord and the chalis of deuils So that the whole tenour of the chapter afordeth not a worde or letter for Sir Humfreyes purpose Wherefore let him examen his conscience diligentlie and he will easilie finde that neyther the one place nor the other proue anie thing else in this matter then his owne dishonest dealing and his abuse of the sacred text of scripture Especiallie considering that in the first place the Apostle reprehendes not the Corinthians so much because they did not communicate together but cheefelie because the rich did vnchristianlie exclude the poore Which case as the reader may easilie perceiue hath no place in the Masses of the Roman Church where none are excluded but rather expresselie exhorted vnto the communion as the verie same decree of the Tridentine Councel which our aduersarie him produces doth sufficientlie declare in these wordes Optaret quidem sacrosancta Synodus c. The Sacrosaint Synod could wish that the faithfull people which assiste at euerie masse would communicate with the Preist not onelie spirituallie but also by Sacramentall reception Thus the Councel Which wordes alone doubtlesse were sufficient not onelie to iustifie the practise of the present Roman Church in this particular but also to satisfie the aduerse parte if their importunitie were not so exobbitant that they will rather suffer pore Christians to passe out of the world without that diuine viaticum ordained by God for the confort of their soules defense against their enimies in that dāgerous trance then suffer them to receiue it without a competent number as they tearme it which impious order of theirs may be seene in their booke of common prayer title of the communion of the sicke not obstanding our Sauiours most strict and generall charge affirming that vnlesse we eate his flesh and drinke his bloud we cannot haue life in vs. But certaine it is that in this as is in other matters the pretensiue reformers may ritelie be compared to the Pharisees exolantes culicem camelum autem glucientes I who straine a gnat and swallowe a camel in that they stande so peremptorilie vpon the communion of the people with the Preist in all occasions which is but a circumstance of the precept and yet make no scruple of violating the precept itselfe euen in time of it greatest necessitie and obligation But this I speake onelie vpon supposition their communion were sounde and according to Christs instition for taking it as it is the want of it is no losse to the not receiuers of it and so I leaue them to the generall liberty they vsurpe as well in this as in other matters of Religion and auncient practise of the Church Furthermore the knight citeth the coūcell of Nāts to proue his tenet but most ridiculously For that there is not a worde touching the cōmuniō in all that text which he citeth Definiuit Sanctum Conciliū vt nullus presbyter praesumat solus missam cantare Cassander p. 83. And the trueth is the councell onely reprehendeth the saying of Masse with out a clarke or Minister as it seemes some cloisters of monkes did accustome to doe in those times so you see this is quite out of the purpose as is also another citation out of Innocent the third libr. 2. c. 24. Illos igitur Angelos quos habemus in oratione participes habemus in glorificatione consortes Innoc lib. 2. 24. fine he onely saying that it is piously to be beleeued that the Angells of God doe assist at Masse accompaning those that praie Not speaking a worde good or bad of the communion of the people in that place Lastlie Sir Humfrey alledgeth the testimonies of diuerse Romanists which hee calleth the confession of his aduersaries that priuate Masse was altogether vnknowne to the primatiue Church
alowe of yet doth he not affirme that ther are no more yea in other seuerall places he mentioneth three more Pennance Order matrimonie And of them all he treates onely occasionallie not professedlie as the reader may easilie perceiue and therfore doubtlesse there is no mention of Extreme vnction among the rest of which neuerthelesse he was not ignorāt how plainelie S. Iames describes it neither would haue omitted it if occasiō had serued to treate of it Of Pennance he treates lib. 8. orig page 83. lib. 2. de offi Eccles of Order in his 2. booke de offic Eccles page 597. and 598. and of matrimonie he hath expresse wordes in the same booke page 69. Touching S. Chrysostome Ambrose Cyrill and Theophilactus it is false that they maintained onely two Sacraments and as for Chrysostome and Theophilactus vpon the 6. of S. Paule to the Hebrewes they both make mention of Confirmation S. Ambrose lib. 1. de Penit makes a kynde of comparison betwixt Baptisme and Pennance saying vnum in vtroque ministerium est c. and S. Cyrill of Ierusalem lib. 12. in so cap. 56. doth alsoe compare these two Sacraments together and both of them mention the Sacrament of Chrisme the one Catech. 3. the other lib. 3. de Sacra cap. 2. de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur cap. 7. so that none of thes Fathers which Sir Humfrey produced for the number of 2. onely Sacraments doe agree with his doctrine and yet more not one of them treates in anie one place of their workes of the precise number of Sacraments but onely soe farre as their matter and drift required Pascasius also is falselie dealt with by Sir Humfrey both in his meaning and in the translation of his wordes for the doth not saye the Sacramets of Christ are Baptisme Chrisme and the bodie and bloude of our lord as Sir Humfrey doth put in English but. Sunt autem Sacramenta Christi in Ecclesia that is but Sacraments of Christ in the Church be Baptisme Chrysme c. Meaning onelie that Baptisme Chrysme and the Eucharist are such Sacraments as he treates of makeing mention of those onely not to showe the precise number but the nature of a Sacrament in generall especiallie touching the signification and effects of the same and therfore he doth exemplifie in those onely which are most notoriouslie knowne for such and their matter and formes most obuious omitting the rest as being lesse to the purpose he ther handleth And for Sir Humfrey to affirme that Chrisme is crept in to the text of the later editions that is but an idle imagination of his owne otherwise sure he would haue produced some other more auncient edition in which the worde Chrysme is not found And certainelie he that should compare the faithfulnes and sinceritie of the Romonists in that nature and the care they haue to publish authours purely with the insinceritie of the sectaries he would presentlie iudge that copie which wantes the worde Chrisme to be razed by them that haue of late yeares abolished the vse of it in their Church rather then haue the least suspiciō in the world that the same should be added by Romanists whose doctrine and practice in that particular is so frequent and auncient Especially considering that it makes no more to our purpose of maintaining the septenarie of Sacraments against the pretended reformers whether the worde Chrysme be in Pascasius or no then if it were vndoubtedlie true that he had made no mention of it Supposing it is sufficient for vs to knowe that this author in that place neither intended to proue the number of three Sacraments nor yet to exclude the number of seuen Howbeit I doe not denie but that the worde Chrysme being in the text it suffices to conuince that the Sacraments of Christ are more then two And in deed I maruell why the sectaries especiallie those of the English Church should labore so much to exclude Cōfirmation frō the number of the Sacramēts supposing they either doe practice if or at the least ought to practise it according to their owne ordināces altho' ther is nothing prescribed by them touching the vse of Chrysme but onely or cheefelie mētion is made of the blowe which the confirmer giues to the confirmed with a certaine phrase or forme of wordes Concerning which ceremonie I haue heard that vpon a time a certaine nominall Bishop of theirs at the time of administration was so extraordinarie well pleased with one of the cōpanie of the feminine gender that in steed of the ceremoniall stroake he gaue her a kisse of kindenesse by which the yonge maide assured her selfe she receiued more grace thē if she had receiued Confirmation it selfe accordnig to their ordinarie manner And now this may be sufficient for the true meaning of Pascasius Hugo a sancto Victore is most peruerselie dealt with when out of Perkins he is produced by Sir Humfrey against the Sacrament of Pennance For I haue read him lib. 1. de Sacramentis cap. 12. where he sayes thus in expresse termes Septem sunt principalia Sacramenta quae in Ecclesia ministrantur ther be seuen principall Sacraments which are ministred in the Church And he numbers them in particular and Pennance for one And in his summa sentent tract 6. cap. 10. he saith Sacramentum Paenitentiae redeuntibus ad Deum semper est necessarium Est enim secunda tabula post naufragium quia post baptismum si quis vestem innocentiae peccando amittit per paenitentiam recuperare poterit And by this you plainelie see this Romanist is groaslie abused both by Perkins and his imitatour as if he were a denier of the septenarie number of Sacraments who soe particularlie doth acknowledge them As in like manner the same authour is abused by the knight page 128. Touching the custome of the communion of the people at euerie Masse in the Primatiue Church by omission of his ensuing wordes which are these Sed propter peccatum circumstans nunc statutum est vt communicaremus solum semel in anno That is to saie But by reason of sinne which doth compase vs aboute it is now decreed that we communicate thrice a yeare Whereas likewise neither in the former wordes of this authour cited by Sir Hūfrey ther is a iot against priuate Masse as he would haue it but onelie a relation of diuers customes of the Church in that particular point of practice as I haue declared in the paragraph of that matter Bessariō in his wordes rehearsed by Sir Hūfrey doth not denie the septenarie nūber nor doth absolutely affirme that there are onelie two Sacramēts but onelie saith that we read of two onely manifestly deliuered in the Gospell which is not contrarie to the Tridentine Councell nor yet that which the knight intendes to proue to wit that the doctrine of seuen Sacraments is no article of faith And what if Bessarion should saie that some of the seuen Sacraments are found not
in both kindes is hereticall but onely that it is heresie to condemne the communion in one kinde for vnlawfull or repugnant to Christs institution and so his position is both false and calumnious as appeares not onely by the decree of the same councell but also by the tenour of the decree of the Councell of Trent neither of which councels defined communion in both kindes either conformable or disconformable to anie precept of either God or man in the nature of faith but they onely declare the practise of the communion in one kinde as a thing not vnlawfull or cōtrarie to Christs institution or precept but otherwise conueniēt for the present state of the Church in respect of the reuerence due to the Sacrament Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christi fideles vtrāque speciē sāctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit Cōc Trid. de cōmun sub vtraq specie can 1. vid. can 2. and for other iuste causes also condemning them that shall affirme that all and euerie faithfull person is bound to receiue both kindes either by the commaundement of God or as necessarie to saluation by vertue of Christs institution or that the communion in one kinde is vnlawfully appointed by the Church or that the Church did erre therein Which doctrine is so plainely declared by the two foresaid Councels and especially by the Councell of Trent and so often repeated and inculcated by moderne diuines to say nothing of the more auncient that if our aduersaries were not ouer much disposed to cauill they would neuer haue the face to calumniate the same by their misconstructions as Sir Humfrey doth in this place The knight cites some ten or eleuen Roman diuines and among them to increase the number he foysteth in Cassander whom yet he either knowes or ought to know he is none of ours but the matter is not great because neither he nor the rest teach any thing here cōtrarie to the doctrine of the Romā Church in this point but they onely relate the custome of the Primatiue Church to haue beene that the lay people commonly receiued in both kindes yet not denying but that the same succeeding Church hath vpon iuste reasons altered that manner of communion Yea and the same authours here cited defending the lawfullnes thereof either in the verie same or in other places of their workes nay and Cassander consult de vtraque specie some of them if not all teaching with all that some times the communion in one kinde was practized in auncient ages so that it was great madnesse in Sir Humfrey to produce then either as confessers of want of antiquitie and vniuersalitie in the Roman Church or for the proofe of them in the doctrine of the pretensiue reformed Churches since that out of their testimonies as shall be declared neither the one nor the other can with anie colorable probabilitie possible be collected and for this reason and because I haue in an other place ansered what our aduersarie can say in this matter I knowe I haue no need to proceed to particulars but onelie pronounce my sentence of this whole Paragraph in generall termes yet because I finde all or manie of the authours cited to haue their sentences and meaning mangled and peruerted therefore I deemed it conuenient to giue the reader notice in particular of the authours ill proceeding And first altho' Vasquez with some others is of a contrarie opinion to Taper manie other diuines to wit houlding as more probable that those who receiue the Sacrament in both kindes doe receiue some more spirituall frute then the receiuers of one alone yet neither doth he condemne the contrarie opinion and practice not yet doth he conclude that it is absolutelie better or safer for the laytie to receiue both formes then one onelie but rather defendes the quite contrarie expresselie in his 216. disputation and last chapter where not obstanding his owne opinion defended in one of his former questions yet he solues the sectaries argument in this latter place and so cleareth the difficultie of their obiection that it is impossible for Sir Humfrey or anie of his confederates to gather anie thing in fauour of their position out of that authour as his owne wordes doe make apparent to the reader of them as here I place them in the margen Licet secundum aliquorū opinionē quam praecedenti disput defendi laici aliquo fructu priuētur dum ipsis calix denegatur tamen cū sumentes tantum vnam speciem nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem careāt vt notauit Conciliū omissis alijs causis postulantibus recte potuit Ecclesia laicis alterā speciem denegare Vasq to 3. in 3. p. disput 216. cap. vlt. Salmeron is abused by Sir Humfrey in regarde he takes onelie some certaine wordes of his which seeme to make for his purpose and omits others which make against him which follow in the verie next leafe and doe so temper the sense of the former that taking them together neither the one nor the other fauoure the reformed doctrine For thus he saith Nos enim c. For we quoth hee doe so confesse the custome to haue beene of communicating the laye people vnder both kindes that yet allwayes in some cases the vse of one kinde hath beene practized Which wordes quite dashe Sir Humfreys designe of prouing that the Church of Rome in this particular hath created a newe article of faith manifestlie repugnant to Christs worde institution practice of the primatiue Churh except hee will be so audacious as to condemne here also of sacriledge for her practice in those cases as he doth our present Church In which passage I much wonder at the slownes of him that otherwise vseth to be so nimble and actiue as that in this place he tooke not paines to turne one leafe further for the discouerie of the truth And the same I say of Valentia who speakes iuste to the same sense and purpose de legit vsu Eucharistiae cap. 10. as also did Father Fisher and Castro in the places cited by our aduersarie And as for sainct Thomas vpon the 6. of sainct Iohn And lyra in 1. Cor. 11. they neither of them disproue communion in one kinde as Sir Humfrey doth alledge but expresselie defendit Vide S. Thom. in 3. part S. Thomas relates that the custome of the auncint Church was to communicate in both formes which custome he saith was obserued euen till his dayes in some Churches where also quoth hee the ministers of the altar doe continuallie communicate the bodie bloud But for danger of effusiō saith he in some Churches it is obserued that the Preist onelie receiue the bloud and the rest the bodie Neither is this saith he contrarie to the sentence of our Lord because he that communicates the bodie communicates also the bloud since that Christ is whole in both the
how smale probabilitie there is to imagin that those glorious champions of Christ who so valerouslie suffered torments died for him in the Roman Church manie of them at Rome it selfe could possiblie belong to anie other Church in the world then to that Church which as in that tyme it had the name of Roman Church so doth it still remaine with the same appellation not otherwise then by a continuall succession of the Popes of Rome three thirtie of which as eloquent Campian trulie obserueth were put to death for their faith which their faith as it is manifest partlie by their owne workes partelie by the authenticall histories of their martyrdomes was the verie same according to the manner I haue before declared which nowe is tought in the present Church of Rome And if this be not so if those glorious martyrs were not defenders of that Roman faith which by succession of pastours is deriued arriued to this our time I demaund of our aduersaries of what other faith they were for of the reformed faith they could not possible bee in regarde that none of them either tought in their life or died for the defence of Iustification by faith onelie or for the deniall of the reall presence of the bodie blood of Christ in the Eucharist nor for denying that there is anie other worde of God but onelie scripture Nor for affirming that the images of Christ his Saints are Idols or that they who honore them adore idols or stickes stones or that the Pope was Antichrist nor doe wee finde in anie historie either anie of this nor yet that the foresayd martyrs suffered for these or anie other point of the reformers doctrine which is contrarie to the faith of the present Roman Church Wherefore the sayd reformers must necessarilie confesse that the ancient martyrs died either for ours or for no other Christian doctrine consequentlie that they are eyther ours or no martyrs at all And if they were Popes of Rome as you Puritās your selues cānot denie how could they possible be yours who beleeue the Pope is Antichrist are so farre from that kynde of gouernemēt that you doe not willingly admit eyther Pope Prince or Prelate but onelie a consistoriall Anarchie without head or feet And he that shall duelie ponder these particulars doubtlesse his conscience will tell him howe vniustelie Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to wreist from the Roman Church those rich prises And let this suffice for the censure of this section to shewe that the Romanists by their claime to the martyrs of the primatiue Church pretend nothing but their due THE XVI PERIOD THE 17. section containeth an ansere to an obiection of the Romanists drawne from the opinion of Protestants touching the Saluation of professed Romanists where Sir Humfrey telleth vs he is come to the greatest wonder And I confesse the wonder which the knight proposeth is great but it being of his owne making it is not hee that ought to wonder at it but rather in my opiniō he should leaue that to others And truelie it is most wonderfull to mee to heare that the Romanists themselues should confesse their owne doctrine to be different from the ancient Church in manie principall points of faith but this hauing alreadie ben demonstrated to be false feigned by Sir Humfrey the greatest wonder of all wonders is that he should haue the face to make a wonder of his owne so often repeated vntruthes It is true the Romanists constantlie hould that neyther Lutheran nor Caluinist nor anie other heretike or Scismatike dying in his heresie obstinatelie can be saued for so they say with him that could commit no rashe iudgement he that doth not beleeue is alreadie iudged Qui autem non credit iam iudicatus est Ioan. 3.18 Neuerthelesse wee Romanists doe not denie but that probably some simple people may liue in heresie yet not be damned at the least for heresie yet be saued by ignorance if with all they be free from other mortall sinnes eyther because they neuer lost their baptismall grace or if they lost it by contrition they recouer it againe which altho' it be not impossible yet is it verie full of dangerous difficultie morallie speaking almost a Metaphisicall case for such I leaue it Sir Humfrey proceedeth on babling aboute a Citie seated vpon seuen mountaines which he fondelie houldeth for a marke of the false Church applyeth it to the Roman Church But if Rome were the seate of the false Church because it is planted vpon seuen mountaines then how scaped it from that staine all those fiue hundreth yeares in which the reformers themselues graunt it was the mother Church Iacobus Rex epist monit Neyther hath the Roman Church anie such marke of assuming supreme authoritie ouer Kings Princes as the knight doth odiouslie affirme but onelie with due respect humility vseth that authoritie ouer them which Christ himselfe did conferre vpon her in such manner as is most conducing to the Saluation of their owne soules their vassals according to the rules of Christian prudence the precept of charitie Yet not to dominier ouer them or their subiects in anie sorte much lesse to approue or allowe of their oppression either by Massacre or anie other vnlawfull meanes as the sectaries especiallie the Puritans doe vse calumniouslie to obiect notobstanding that none in the world are more guiltie then them selues in those practices of which we haue too manie examples in Scotland France other places euen against Kings Princes which doubtlesse caused King Iames of great Britanie to speake so plaine as he did both in his bookes ordinarie discourses of that particular Nihil nisi calumniam seditionem spirātes Basilic dor After this Sir Humfrey descends to diuers particulars demaūdeth whether he his fellowes be accursed for maintaining them or no and whether the Romanists be blessed for such such points which they defende against the sectaries And thus he runneth a long betweene blessing cursing till he concludes casting the curses vpon the Romanists the blessings vpon his owne Congregation But because ther is little or nothing but such false stuffe as I haue alreadie examined cēsured because I haue quite surfeited with so frequēt repetitiō of the same subiect I onely saye in generall as he is blessed whoe heareth or obeyeth the Church in all things in regarde that by obeying the Church he obeyeth Christ whoe blesseth them that obey him So contrarily he that disobeyeth the Church in one onely thing he is accursed according to the wordes of Christ him helfe if he will not heare the Church let him be vnto to the like an Ethnike or Publican Mat. 18. And so Sir Humfrey had no reason to maruell if the Romanists accounte him his fellowes accursed because they refuse to imbrace obey anie point of that doctrine which the most
by way of diuertion breefly to signifye to the reader how common a practise it is euen among the most famous of our aduersaries to maintaine their doctrine by lyes and false dealing of which I perceiue by a breefe vewe I tooke of some parte of his worke an industrious reader may discouer no smale stoare in the great primate doctor Vsher as well as his fellowes But now to returne to my direct purpose I yet more efficatiously confirme that which I haue said of Alfric by the chronologie of our English historians In his cata wulstan dunst For first according to the computation of Bishop Godwin ther passed onely some six yeares betwixt the decease of wlstā in the Archibishoprie of yorke the promotiō of S. Dūstan to the seat of Canterburie in which space as likewise in the tyme of wulstan himself it is quite incredible that ther was anie doctrine cōtrarie to the reall ptesence cōmōly toucght in England since S. Dunstan at the day and houre of his death expressely professed the same as out of our owne histories I haue alreadie showed by the relation of Harpesfeld Vid. Osborne in vita dunst Besides this it is certaine ther were but onely twoe wulstans Archbishops of yorke as appeareth by Godwins Catalogue the one as he reporteth deceased the yeare 955. which was at the least fortie yeares before Alfric possessed the seat of Canterburie according to the account of the same catalogue The other wulstan as the same Goduin recounteth began not his seat at yorke till the yeares 1003. which was more then 50. yeares after the death of the first wulstan now this conographie being thus established euen by one of our aduersaries Safe way sect 9. §. 2. I argue in this manner against knight Humbrey affirming that the homilie and Epistles which he alledgeth were translated by Alfric and appointed to be read to the people in his dayes my argument is this If this supposed homilie and Epistles were euer translated written or published by Alfric either it was when he was Abbat or Archbishop But neither of these is true Therfore it is not true that the homilie and Epistles were euer translated or published by Alfric The Minor which onely hath need of prose I conuince by the testimonie of my aduersarie whoe affirmes the translation and publication of the freifaid writings to haue ben a boute the yare 996. Sir Humf. page 92. and directed to wulstan Archbishop or yorke and wulfstius Bishop of sherborne by Alfric Abbat I meane the Epistles And yet at this tyme neither was Alfric Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie neither was either of the two wulstans Archbishop of yorke at that tyme. the one being dead 40. yeares before and the other not inuested in that dignitie vntill the yeare 1003. as Godwin doth witnesse soe that by this argument it manifestly appeares that the knights relation touching this matter of the publishing of the homilie and Epistles alledged by him against the reall presence and transsubstantiation is contradictious voyde of truth More ouer I finde in our English histories that aboute the yeare 950. which was some fortie and od yeares before Alfric was preferred to be Archbishop of Canterburie Vid. Harps in the tyme of Odo Archbishop of the same seat ther were some conuented before him whoe were in an erroreous opinion aboute the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the maintainers of it how soeuer Fox doth fable neither were manie nor did it long continue but was miraculously at an instant exstinguished For the pious zealous pastor Odo much lamenting the illusion of those miserable people prayed God with teares in masse that his diuine maiestie would be pleased by his infinit power manifestely to shewe some thing by which both the truth of the reall presence might appeare and the contrarie error might be confounded when sodainely at his seruants petition God almightie turned the consecrated bread in to visible flesh and the wine in to visible bloud Which wonderous spectacle being seene the incredulous persons presently complained of their owne perfidie and misbeleefe and all the rest of their dayes conserued their faith intire and sounde now this hauing happened aboute the same tyme at which that wulstan was Archbishop of yorke whoe hauing ben in that place some yeares deceased the yeare 955. as Godwin relateth it clearely appeares incredible that Alfric then Abbat should direct anie doctrine repugnant to the reall presence to wolstan Archbishop of yorke and to vlsine vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of sherbourne as our aduersaries affirme since that Odo Archbishop of Canterburie and Primate of England at the verie same tyme as of out of histories I haue rehearsed did by the power of God operate soe strange a miracle in confirmation of the same and confutation of the contrarie error More then this Vlsin or vlsius whome the knight calles wulfstius of which name neuerthelesse I finde none in Malesburies Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne could not possible haue anie Epistle directed unto him by Alfric while he was Abbat of Malesburie or Abington as Sir Humfrey and the rest of these tryfelers alledge for that while Vlsine or wulfstius was Bishop of Sherbourne which was but onely fiue yeares as our histories doe testifye Hrapsfeld saec 10. c. 9. being Abbat onely of westminister in the dayes of S. Dunstan and by his procurement whose death happened the yeare .988 as Stowe relates Alfric was no more Abbat but Bishop of wilton and consequently he could not as Abbat write to Vlsine Vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of Sherbourne but if he had writ anie such letters as our aduersaries attribute vnto him to that Bishop he should haue styled him selfe not Abbat but Bishop as in deed he was all the tyme yea and some yeares before the foresaid wulfstius was by king Ethelred preferred to the Episcopall seat of Sherbourne But that which doth strik this quite dead is that ther hauing ben but onely twoe wolstans Archbishops of yorke the first wolstan dyed before euer Alfric was Abbat to wit the yeare of our Lord 955. wher as Ingulphus in Edgar relates Alfric to haue ben created Abbat onely aboute the yeare 970. at the soonest soe that he could not possible write anie Epistles to the first wolstan while he was Abbat as our nouellists pretend bebause this wolstan was departed out of this life before Alfrics tyme of being Abbat And as for the second wolstan it is well knowne and testifyed by Godwin that he was not Archbishop of yorke before the yeare 1003. At which tyme Alfric was not Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie as our aduersaries them selues refuse not to graunte And soe this computation and collation of tymes vtterly destroyes the machination of our abuersaries in attrituting the foresaid writings to Abbat Alfric And touching Vlsius or Vlsinus I adde to this that Alfric was consecrated Byshop of wilton in the yeare 985. or ther aboutes some fourteeme yeares
aboute the yeare 996 neuerthelesse in two seuerall respects he proceedes most deceitefully and quite contrarie to common honestie and reason First for that he feigneth and prefixeth a title against the reall presence and transsubstantiation to the said homilie secondly because in his rehearsall of the tenor of the same he leueth our the relation of two most manifest and palpaple miracles for the proofe of both those points of the Catholique faith in it alledged by the author which craftie and vulpine trickes of Fox with which and manie others of like nature he farceth his huge volumes as it appeares seemed soe shamefull that his successor the late diuulger of the same homilie was ashamed to imitate him yea and not obstanding he was bounde vnder paine of losse of the labor of his translation and publication of that worke which otherwile he well considered would haue ben in vaine to taxe the said miracles of fiction as he did in a marginall note yet was he not soe impudent nor frontlesse as to raze thē quite out of the copie inexcusable deceipt in Fox And how be it I cā not denye but ther is a great difference belweene these twoe actions yet must they giue me licence to tell them that neither of them both is cleare of ill proceeding the one being guiltie of plaine imposture the other of plaine temeritie For supposing they would venture to make vse of the homilie for the aduantage of their denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation for all that they ought to haue taken it as they founde it for better or for worse not goe a boute to pick out what they finde for their purpose and cast a may the rest like such vnreasonable caterers as will needes buye flesh without bones And in deed those twoe bones that is those twoe most patēt cleare miracles by which both the reall presēce of the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ar manifestly demonstrated against the new doctrine of these our tymes were too harde for old Father Foxs teeth to chewe or for his stomake to disgeast therfore doubtlesse he left them out both in his saxon and English transsumpte But these sycophants as they deale with the scriptures them selues soe they deale with ancient authorities testimonies lib. de bono person c. 11. Suo quidem priuilegione dicam sacrilegio vtquod volunt accipiant quod nolunt reijciant as S. Augustin said of the Manichies Againe concerning the Epistles attributed to Alfric ther is yet more discorde among our aduersaries For the publisher of them and the homilie aboue mentioned in his preface vnto them affirmes ther were certaines lines rare zout of a booke extant in the librarie of worceter which lines saith he which contained the cheefe point of cōtrouersie that is as he supposeth against the reall presence and transsubstantiation were taken out of twoe Epistles of Alfric written by him as well in the Saxon tongue as in the latin But Doctor Iames and Sir Humfrey tell vs that the foresaid passage was razed in a latin Epistle manuscript of Bennitts Colledge in Cambrige yet there to be seene And wheras the author of the publication saith that the lines razed ar to be restored by twoe other Epistles of the same Alfric in latin extant in the librarie of Exceter contrarily D. Iames tolleth vs they ar to be restored not by anie latin copies but by certaine Saxon copies of the same Epistles which he affirmeth to haue ben in the publike librarie of Oxon when he writ his booke which was the yeare 1611. Besydes this the same Iames out of Fox saith the Epistle which he affirmes to haue ben thus mangled and torne was to wulfstan Archbishop of yorke and hath for title de consuetudine Monachorum wheras yet the foresaid publisher of Alfrics new founde writings intileth that Epistle of Alfric de consuetudine monachorum of the order or manner of monkes Egneshemensibus fratribus to the fryres or brothers of Egnesham Which iarres I confesse I am soe vnable to compose that I can not but vehemently suspect these mens reportes to be false and counterfet Especially considering that Iames affirmes the latin Epistle soe razed as they reporte to haue ben directed by Alfric to that wulstan whoe was Archbishop of yorke aboute the yeare 954. wher as yet the author of the pamphlet in which these writings ar contained in his prefate to the same saith that this Alfric to whome he attributes them was equall to Alfric Archbishop of Canterburie which he alsoe affirmes to haue ben in that seat six yeares before that wulstan to whome Alfric's Epistle was writen was Archbishop of yoke soe that the one reportes this Epistle to haue ben wriren to the first wulstan and the other to the second not obstanding all histories and Cathologues of Bishops among which is Godwins doe testifye soe long a space of tyme to haue passed betweixt their standings as it is from the yeare 955. and 1003. soe that these twoe relators drawe back warde and fore ward like twoe ill match asses More ouer the foresaid publisher will needs haue Alfric the supposed author the homilie and epistles to haue ben a distinct man from that Alfric whoe was Archbishop of Canterburie wheras neuershelesse Iohn Leland whoe professedly writ of the writers of England relating the seuerall workes of Alfric the Archbishop of Canterburie maketh noe mention of anie other writers of that name but of him onely neither doth he put anie epistle among his writings but onely one intituled de consuetudine Monachorum of the māner or custome of monkes which subiect how farre it disagreth frō the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation I leaue to the iudgement of the reader to consider In fine to conclude my whole discourse touching this matter I say first that if it were true as our aduersaries pretend that in the foresaid writings ther weere anie thing contained contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation yet haue I cōuinced by insoluable reasons that neither Alfric could be the author of them neither could anie such doctrine haue ben publikely maintained in the Church of England in or aboute his dayes But what soeuer doctrine was then published and tought in our countrie was canformable in all points with the doctrine and faith then professed in the Church of Rome with which the English Church and her Pastors had correspondence and subordination as I haue manifestly declared Secondly Althou I am not able to iudge determinately whoe might be author of those writings because I haue noe meanes to come to the view of them otherwise then in that patched and mangled manner in which they are published by our aduersaries neuerthelesse I persuade my selfe they were writ by some Romane catholique author soe that taken in their innocencie and prime puritie and piously interpreted they containe no vnsounde or erroneous doctrine but rather expresse testimonie and proofes of diuers points controuersed
betwixt the nouellists of these our tymes and catholike Romanists As appeareth in the mention they make of masse miracles the signe of the Crosse and other particulars which I haue noted in my censure Thirdly the iudicious reader may easily persuade him self that supposing these writings according to the relation of our aduersaries haue remained in publike places and libraries for the space of aboue 600. yeares if they had cōtained anie doctrine repugnāt to that faith of the Eucharist which I haue historically demonstrated aboue to haue ben professed in our countrie of England euer since and before that tyme it s more then morally euident they would haue receiued long a fore this tyme reprehension or censure according to their desert Finally Supposing it were true that the foresaid writings did in deed containe doctrine contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation as they ar beleeued and defended by the professors of the Roman Religion wheras yet they doe not soe but onely exclude the carnal palpaple or Capharnaitical presence of Christ in the Eucharist and instruct the people in the inuisible presence of his bodie and bloude in the Sacrament in an obuius and easie māner yet in reasō ought not anie iudicious Catholique to alter his faith of the same for anie argument which can be drawne or deduced from such testimonie as is voyde of other credit then is to be giuen to aduersaries in fauor of their owne cause which is iust none at all especially they being no other then these whoe not onely in this particular but alsoe in other matters of controuersie haue vsed much partialitie deceipt as in an other place I haue demonstrated out of their seuerall workes And in particular the publisher of the same pamphlet in which the homilie Epistles of which I heare treate are contained besides diuers vntruthes which he vttereth as well touching the author and tyme of his writing as alsoe his titles and marginall notes and likewise in that he couningly and couseningly publisheth in the same volume a treatise of the ould and new testament in the name of Alfric as if it included a different canon of scripture to that which is now vsed in the Roman Church and agreeable to their now English Bible which is yet most apparently false for that as I remēber it putteth in the number and order of the Canonicall bookes Ecclesiasticus Sapience Tobie Iudith and the Machabeis which yet our aduersaries reiect for Apocryphal As alsoe in that more ouer the same Pampheter addeth a testimonie to shewe that in tymes past the lords prayer the creed and the ten commaundements were extant and vsed in the vulgar tongue a worke most impertinently performed by him and as it seemes onely or cheefely to enlarge the bulke and price of his pamphlet it being certaine that the Romanists neuer neither held that matter vnlawfull or at this present prohibit the vse of the vulgar language for the ten commaundements and priuate prayer of the common people but rather the contrarie as both their Catechismes and their daylie practise most plainely witnesse By all which particulars and the rest of this my aduertissement it is euidently apparent that the glorious which the nouellists of our countrie make by their publication of the homilie epistles and o writings in the name of Alfric be no other then certaine prestigious impostures to persuade the simple sorte of people by these false florishes that their denyall of the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation is not quite voyde of antiquitie but hath ben preached and professed in our countrie before the dayes of luther And now let this suffice to repulse this fictitious and deceitefull calumniation of our aduersaries touching these putatiue wrings of Alfric by the publication of which and the like counterfeit wares they pick simple peoples purses whoe take all for as true as gaspell that is put in print by anie of their owne brothers The second aduertissement I giue to the reader is that wheras the kinght page 205. of his fafe wais cites Agobard for a denyer of honor of image in his booke of that subiect Agobardus Episc Lugdun li. de pict imag I haue dilgently perused the same and finde that in deed this author speaketh more harshely of this matter then anie other catholique writer of these dayes how be it this was the age in which images had their greatest enimies Neuerthelesse it is most certaine this author onely confutes the exhibition of diuine honor and the like vnto images as is sacrifice or confidence in them or prayer vnto them reprehending the error of some particular persons whoe superstitiousely adored them for soe he discourseth a boute the end of his booke saying But none of the ancient Catholiques did euer thinke them to be worshiped or adored yet now the error by increase is become soe perspicuous that it is neare or like to the heresie of the Antropomorphits to adore figments and to put hope in them and that by reason of this error faith being remoued from the harte all our confidence be placed in visible things And a little after Soe alsoe if we see penned or fethered Angels painted the Apostles preaching martyres suffering torments we must not expect anie helpe from the pictures which we behould because they can neither doe good nor ill rightly therfore these are the wordes cited by the kinght to euacuate such superstition it was defined by orthodox Fathers that pictures should not be made in churches least that which si worshiped and adored be painted in the walles which wordes being not his owne but alledged out of a fragment of the Prouinciall councell of Eliberis in Spaine and hauing ioyned them imediately to his owne in which he onely treates of diuine honor as not due to images it is cleare and euident he intendes to proue nothing else by their authoritie then that which he there proposeth To omit that this passage of the Eliberitan coūcell was deliuered in a sense much different from this in which Agobardus construeth it as I haue conuinced in others places and occasions And that this author intendes to teache nothing else but onely that images must not be honored with worship due to God the seuerall testimonies which he largely produceth out of S. Augustin S. Hierome other ancient writers doe manifestly demonstrate not one of which can be taken if they be truely vnderstanded in anie other sense as clearely may appeare to the diligent reader of their wordes which expressely exclude onely honor of Sacrifice prayers directed vnto the images them selues or religion proper to God onely in the worship of saincts and their pictures and alsoe Agobardus him self vppō occasiō of the places which he citeth doth auerre plainely declaring that he graunteth some sorte of honor to images wher thus he exhorteth Let vs behould the picture as a picture destitute of life sense and reason let the eye
be fed with this vision but let the mynde reuerence God whoe both giues to his saints a crowne of victorie and to vs the assistance of their intercession And the like he affirmes of honor of saincts a little aboue in this same page Wher althou ' he iustely reserueth the supreame worship of Sacrifice to God a lone yet he expressely grauntes an other inferior honor to Saints and Angels saying Adoretur colatur veneretur a fidelibus Deus c. Let God be adored worshiped or serued and reuerenced by faithfull people let Sacrifice be offered to him a lone either in the mysterie of his bodie and bloud or in the Sacrifice of a contrite and humble harte let Angels or holye men be loued honored with charitie not with seruitude let not Christs bodie be offered vnto them And according to this sense Agobardus speakes throu ' his whole booke particularly in his second leafe wher he reprehendeth certaine idolaters whoe imagined a certaine sanctitie to reside in images saying In which nature these alsoe whoe call images holye are founde not onely Sacrilegious for that they giue diuine worship to the workes of their handes but alsoe foolish in attributing sanctitie to images which haue no life or soule By all which wordes it is cleare that Agobarde onely condemnes the exhibition of such honor to saincts or images as is due to God a lone Which doctrine is soe farre from being anie way contrarie to the honor of images practised in the Roman Church that it doth rather exactely agree with the honor of the Councell of Trent in this particular which in the 25. Session defines that due honor is to be giuen to images not because it should be beleeued that ther is anie diuinitie or virtue in them for which they ar to be worshiped or that anie thing should be craued of them or that confidence or hope should be put in thē as in tymes past the Gentiles did whoe placed their hope in Idols but because the honor which is exhibited vnto them is referred to the prototypes or persons which they represent soe that by the images which we salute or kisse and before which we vncouer our head and prostrate our selues we adore and reuerence Christ and the saints whose representations or similetudes they beare True it is I haue noted in reading his booke that Agobard purposely refuseth to vse these wordes adorare colere adore or serue yet I plainely gather by his whole discourse he doth not soe to signifye ther by that images ar not to be vsed with anie honor at all as I haue alreadie declared by his owne text but onely declineth the vse of those wordes in regarde he takes them in a strict sense as they signifie religion or honor proper to God him self and not due to anie creature and perhaps alsoe because at that tyme as it may seeme by his nicenes and some others of that age the worde adoration was offensiue euen to some whoe otherwise were both Catholique and learned men to say nothing of the common people some of whome peraduentute out of ignorance and weakenes of iudgement euen at this day make danger to vse it and scruple to heare it yet neither the one nor the other omitting to honore images according to the approbation and practise of the Church Wheras yet if it be taken in the sense in which the Roman Church according to the definition of the 7. Synod and custome of diuines accepteth it that is for a kynde of inferior honor distinct from proper latrie and religion and as euen according to the vse of scriptures it signifyes worship common alsoe to creatures then doth it include no manner of scandall or offense at all Cumque introisset in conspectu Regis adorasset eum pro nus in terram c. 3. Reg. 1. 24. And now in that rigorous meaning Agobard takes the worde adoratiō when alledgeing the same wordes of the Eliberitan Councell which Sir Humfrey here researseth he intendeth onely to proue that images ar not to be adored or serued in which passage he proueth nothing against the Roman Catholique honor of images but onely disputeth either against some reliquies of the Antropomorphitan heresie or against some other superstitious and idolatrous adorers of Saints images of those dayes from both which kyndes of errors as Agobardus him self was soe alsoe the Roman Church with her cheefe Pastors and rulers to which he then was a subordinate member and prelate as other of his workes doe witnesse were free and innocent as likewise now they be in this our present age not obstanding the frequent calumniations of our moderne sectaries to the contrarie Finally I adde to this that in the verie conclusion and last period of his booke Agobard expressely teacheth that genuflection is to be made to the name of Iesus which yet our Puritan aduersaries out of their singular puritie or rather pure singularitie reiect as idolatrous not obstanding by Gods commaundement not onely men but deuils alsoe ar enioyned and compelled to bowe their knees at the sounde of that soueraine name And surely he who holdes this for lawfull as Agobardus doth must for the same reasons hold it likewise lawfull to honor the images of Iesus supposing that the name of Iesus being to be honored onely for the representation it hath of him much more lawfully may his image be soe honored in regarde it doth more permanently and ferfectly represent him then doth his name which consists in carracters and a transitorie sounde of letters Besides this Agobardus as the verie first wordes of his booke doe declare doth not directly and professedly treate in it of the honor and vse of images as it is practised in the church but of the sense of the first commaundement in which he includes the prohibition of the adoration of images deliuered by God in the old Testament as a parte of the same onely intending to proue in his whole worke that by virtue of this precept diuine honor is not to be tendered to anie creature but to God alone not to either idoles or images And Therfore in his laste page the same Agobardus expressely speaketh of honor proper to God him self applying to his purpose the wordes of Isaias honorem meum alteri non dabo by all which it is most clearely apparent that what soeuer Agobarde seemes to vtter against the adoration of images is onely spoken against such as attributing ouer much honor vnto them worship thē in an idolatrous or superstitious fashion contrarie to the tradition of Fathers and practise of the Catholique Church as his wordes quoted in my margen sufficiently declare haec est sincera religio hic mos Catholicus haec antiqua patrum traditio c. Agobardus fol. vlt. post authoritates Patr. citatus And soe I leaue him as no enimie to the Catholique cause nor anie fauorer of the disalawers of the same in this particular point how be it the ambiguitie of
operation effect of the Sacraments depend cheiflie principallie vpon the institution of Christe yet they say withall that both for the securitie of the consciences comfort of the receauers c. The Preist must haue a sincere intention to minister the Sacrament not in ieast as Luther some other sectaries doe teach this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the Reformers teach that onelie the instistitution of Christe is sufficient the Preists sincere intention not required this is an vncertaine by-way Nintly the Romanists teach that Christe is our onelie mediatour of redemption who onelie of himself by his owne power knoweth the secrets of our hartes yet withall they say that his Saintes in heauen who in by him doe assuredlie knowe the secrets of our hartes in such things especiallie as cōcerne the good of our soules are our mediatours of intercession by offering our vnworthie prayers to God this is a certaintie safe way to saluation But the reformers calle vpon Christe onelie exclude neglect his saintes seruants whome neuerthelesse he himselfe doth promise to honore in heauen condemning also for impious sacrilegions the saintes intercession for sinners which notwithstanding he doth not condemne for such in anie parte of holie scripture this is an vncertaine by-way Tenthly the Romanists teach we ought to adore Christes bodie present in heauen where he sits on the right hand of his diuine Father yet withall they say it is lawfull yea we ought to adore him whersoeuer he is particularlie in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach that the bodie of Christe ought not to be adored in the Eucharist but onelie in heauen this is an vncertaine by-way Eleauenthly the Romanists as the word of God instructs them confesse themselues to be vnprofitable seruants in regarde neyther they nor their actions bring anie profitte to God who hath no need of anie thing yet they say withall that no man liuing can be iustified by his owne merits that is such merites as proceed purelie from his owne naturall forces actions more then this that all those who expect saluation must beleiue in Christe with a liuelie faith wholely relie vpon his meritts satisfaction as vpon the proper principall cause of their saluation yet they say besides this that altho' they may not relie vpon their owne merits or the satisfactions of the saintes alone neuerthelesse they may vse both the satisfaction of saintes their owne merits as a meanes to saluation by virtue application of the merits satisfaction of Christes passion also that they can by the grace assistance of God obserue his commandements yea by virtue of the same diuine grace performe some workes of supererogation or not commanded by precept of God but counselled by his aduise this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach they are vnprofitable seruants which I confesse that in deed they are both to God his Church as euer were anie in the world that no mans good workes altho' they proceed from the speciall grace of God can in anie sort iustifie him before God that euerie Christian must so wholie relie vpon the merites of Christe that he beleiue also that no man can haue anie of his owne euen by the power grace of God that he is bound to expect hope for saluation without anie such workes or merites meerlie by a sole bare faith that his sinnes are remitted in Iesus Christe this is an vncertaine by-way Heere you see a plaine confrontment of diuers particular pointes of controuersie betwixt the Romanists the reformers by way of affirmation negation because I knowe that my aduersarie I are not agreed of a Iudge of our cause I for for my part remit my selfe to the indifferent reader as our onelie vmpiere to determine of the matter not onelie for as much as concernes the contents of this particular section but also of the whole worke who if he consider with due ponderation the proceedings of both parties compare the sincere plaine dealing which I haue vsed with the insincere and double dealing of my aduersarie who hath so perseuered in his indirect courses that euen in the end conclusion of his worke he hath practised no smale partiallitie and fraude in the rehearsall of the doctrine of the Roman Church as particularlie where he affirmes that the Romanists teach that diuers traditions of faith and manners whereof there is no ground nor euidence in the scripture are to be reeeaued with equall reuerence and respect with the scriptures themselues and that they relie partelie vpon their owne merites and satisfaction of Saintes for their saluation and the like I say if the iudicious and vnpartiall reader duelie ponder all the particulars I doubt not but he will easilie discerne the house of truth and safe way to saluation to be where he findes honestie and plainenes and in the contrarie the house of falsitie the by-way where he findes tricks cousinage And therfore the more to facilitate rectifie his iudgment in the businesse I will reduce the whole argument of the knightes booke to a forme of sylogisme in this manner That Religion is a by-way leading the weake vnstable into dangerous pathes of error which is founded vppon coulourable showes of Apochriphall scriptures vnwriten traditious doubt full Fathers ambiguous Councells and pretended Catholique Church But the religion of the Church of Rome is founded vppon colourable showes of apochriphal scriptures vnwritten traditions doubtful fathers ambiguous Councels pretended Catholique Church Therfore the relgiō of the Romā Church is a by-way leading the weake vnstable in to the dangerous pathes of error Now the minor of this sylogisme in which the whole force of the conclusion and by consequence the whole scope and authoritie of the worke depēdes not onely hauing binne in the discourse of my anseere to euerie seuerall section disproued for false counterfeit but alsoe more appeare to be such ex ipsis terminis euen of it selfe by the termes propositions of which it consists to all such as shall consider it with due attention I persuade my selfe the iuditious reader will presently perceaue determine with him selfe that the author of the worke hath quite fayled of his proiect that by composing a by path with a sinister intention to father it Falsely vppon his aduersaryes he hath in stead of that onely framed an ingen for his owne torment And thus hauing attayned not onely to an accomplishment of myne owne desires in finishing my labours but also in some sorte to a satisfaction of the request of my aduersary in regard that at the least in showe as I perceaue by the conclusion of his preface he desireth nothing more then
in ansere to his booke I now conuert my speech vnto him tell him that as now according to his owne petition I haue impartially read his booke clearely faithfully yea as moderately or more moderately then his owne immoderate proceedings require discouered vnto him not one or two but a multitude of errors vntruthes corruptions and false applications both of scriptures Councells particular authors as well ancient as moderne soe doe I in contemplation of the same expect from him the retractation which he promiseth vppon condition his faultes be showne vnto him which if he shall accordingly performe I will not onely as he professeth with holy Iob of the ansere of his aduersary binde it as a Croune vnto me but alsoe saying with the same renowned saint I will read it pronounce it at euery step I make yea and offer it to my vnderstāding as a most princely present earnestly praying in the meane tyme with the same Iob vt desiderium meum audiat Omnipotens That the omnipotent may heere my desire of his reclamation reduction to the most vniuersally florishing Catholique Roman faith A SVPPLIMENT OF ADDITIONS TO THE APPPENDIX I Haue alreadie noted diuers most foule corruptions and falsifications in Sir Humfrey linds pretented safe way in soe much that I am almost quite surfeted with the multitude of them yet in my opinion ther is scarce anie amōg all those which comes neare to the false dealing and cousinage which the same Sir Humfrey vseth in the 205. page of his Deuia which if it were for noe other reason yet for this a lone it might most iustely deserue the name not as it is falsely applyed to the Romanists but as it is his owne proper worke which if the reader will but please to haue a little patience I will plainely set before his eyes Wherefore Sir Humfrey in the place now cyted vndertaking to proue that trāssubstantiation wants antiquitie vniuersalitie and succession hauing first cited some testimonies both out of Greeke and Latin authors which neuerthelesse are either of noe force for his purpose or els haue ben ansered partely by Bellarmin and other Catholique diuines and partely by my selfe in my Censure he stumbles last vpon the late Patriarch of Cnnstantinople whome he alsoe produceth to the same intent in the 10. and 13. chapters of his first anser to the Germanes affirming that this author teacheth what is meant by that change or transmutation made in the Sacrament saying he tells vs the bodie and bloud of Christ are truely misteries not that these Metaballomena are changed in to humane flesh but wee vnto thē thus Sir Humfrey soe confidently as if he had ben Greeke Professor in Oxford he coud haue done no more And in deed I must needs confesse that this passage of his is able to make a greate showe especially bringing a Greeke worde in the midest of it But now when I came to examen the matter in the booke it selfe and conferred the Greeke and the Latin togither as I founde it printed at witerberg a place voyde of all suscipition on our syde I found first that the author speakes soe plainely of the reall presence and transsubstantiation that altho' he vseth not the verie same worde yet doth he vse other wordes equiualent as conuersion transmutation or the lyke at the least ten or a dozen tymes onely in those verie chapters Nay and more then this I fynde that where he speakes of the conuersion or transmutation he vseth that verie worde Metauallo which the knight denyeth him to vse where he dinieth the change of the bodie and bloud in to humane flesh which is a forceble argumēt a contrario that the Patriarch speakes of a reall change whersoeuer else in this matter he vseth that worde Secondly I fynde that those wordes which Sir Humfrey cytes are not spoken by the Grecian Patriarke of the proper transmutation in the Sacrament but of an other transmutation which belong onely to the vse of the Sacrament to wit he sayth and that verre truely that when a faithfull person receiues the Sacrament the bodie and bloud which he receiues are not changed in to humane flesh but the receiuers in to them Non quod haec saith the Patriarch in corpus humanum transmutentur sed nos in illa melioribus his praeualentibus and here it is that he vseth the worde Metaballomeua and denyeth it to be verifyed in this kynde of mutation speaking according to that which an ancient Father of the Church sayth to the same purpose Non tu mutaberis in me sed ego mutabor in te That is to saye O lord thou shalt not be changed in to mee but I in to thee Which spirituall change or vnion the same Patriarch doth learnedly prosecute and declare with examples not intending by that to exclude the reall presence of Christs bodie bloude in the Sacramēt by transsubstantiation as Sir Humfrey would willingly persuade his simple reader but supposing and includeing the same as in diuers of his passages in these twoe chapters is most apparent and particularly where he sayth not farre before ac quamdiu panis positus iacet nihil nisi panis est repositus tantum Deo postea verus panis fit reuera transmutatur cuius rei ratio modus nullo ingenio nullo ore humano explicari potest And page 97. Honorabilia haec dora in ipsum Dominicum transmutantur corpus quod haec omnia recepit scilicet quod crucifixum sit quod resurrexit quod in Caelos ascendit Tbe honorable giftes he meanes the bread and wine ar changed into the lordes bodie it selfe c. and in the precedent page qui operationis sanctorum mysteriorum proprium hoc opus statuunt vt dona intellige panem vinum in diuinum Christi corpus sanguinem transmutentur in finem hunc vt fideles sanctificentur peccatorumque remissionem regni haeriditatem id genus alia accipere credant non tales beatos praedicamus Thus the Patriarch soe perspicuously that he who either vnderstādes Greeke or Latin yea or English either may euidently see that the Patriarch is cited by our aduersarie euidently against himselfe and quite contrarie to his true meaning Yet was not Sir Humfray content with that but as a mā runing forwarde in madnesse to his owne confusion he cites the same author in his former tenth chapter intending to proue out of him that it is not the reall and substantiall flesh of Christ which is offered but the Sacrament of his flesh he tells vs sayth the knight that the flesh of Christ which he caried aboute him was not giuen to his Apostles to be eaten nor his bloud to be drunke neither doth the bodie of our lord descend frome heauen for this were blasphemie which wordes I confesse the Patriarke hath excepting these in the Sacrament Which are added to the text by Sir Humfrey but as he hath them soe hath he others omitted
annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesijs successores eorum vsque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognouerunt quale ab his deliratur By which wordes it is manifest that S. Irenaeus doth confute his aduersaries the heretikes not by scripture onely but alsoe cheefely by traditionarie authoritie of the Bishops succeeding frome the Apostles which is directly opposite to the tenets especially of the purer sorte of nouellists whoe neither admitte traditions nor Episcopall authoritie but the onely written worde for absolute and sole Iudge of all Controuersies confutation of heresies Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the historian bookes of the old Testament as I am persuaded doth not plainely affirme neither doth Canus charge him with that error that the bookes of Machabies are not absolutely Canonicall as Sir Humfrey alledgeth but he onely reprehendeth him for vsing a vaine distinction of Canonicall scriptures as if there were some Canonicall onely for instruction of manners and not for matters of faith against the infirmitie or vnsoundnesse of which distinction Canus vseth this reprehensiue conclusion saying Cum sub eodem contextu omnes illi libri nullo facto discrimine definiantur esse Canonici scilicet Ecclesiasticus Sapientia Tobias Iudith Machabaeorū libri duo Baruch ridiculum est vt partim in vna significatione partim in alia libros Cenonicos habeamus Ac si hāc semel distinctionem admittimus authoritate Conciliorum atque Pontificum nullus liber Sacer constare poterit And presently after Id quoniam absurdum omnino est retineamus potius eam rationem oportet quam Caietanus voluit evertere vir vt saepe iam dixi cum primis eruditus pius sed qui in libris Canonicis constituendis Erasmi nouitates ingeniumque secutus dum alienis vestigijs voluit insistere propriam gloriam maculauit And soe you see Canus doth not confesse that directly Caietan maintained the Machabies not to be Canonicall but onely with that distinction neither did in deed Caietan more denye the authoritie of those bookes then he did the Epistle to the Haebrewes that of S. Iames which neuerthelesse he held absolutely for Canonicall tho' not perhaps in the same rigorous sense in which he iudged all the rest of the bookes of scripture to be in the Canon by reason those as alsoe some other partes of scripture haue ben by some ancient authors doubted of in which doubt onely he seemeth to founde his distinction Touching the Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament Sir Humfrey doth most falsely alledge the authoritie of S. Isidore persuading his reader that he reiecteth those same bookes which he and his companions in the newe religion condemne for Apochripha Weras in deed that ancient author numbereth them all in the Christiā Canon And to the end the knights impudencie may more plainely appeare I will rehearse S. Isidores expresse wordes concerning the same whoe in his 6. booke of origenes or etymologies saith thus Quartus est apud nos ordo veteris Testamenti eorum librorum qui in Canone Haebreo non sunt quorum primus sapientiae liber est Secundus Ecclesiasticus Tertius Tobias Quartus Judith Quintus Sextus Machaboeorum Quos licet Haebraei inter Apochrypha separent Ecclesia tamen Christi inter diuinos libros honorat praedicat By which wordes it is soe euident that this holie Father standes for the Romanists and against the pretensiue reformers in this point that I much maruell how Sir Humfrey could haue the face to produce him in fauor of his cause Nay more then this out of the distinction which he maketh betweene the the Hebrewes vs Christians in receiuing the foresaid bookes for Canonicall I frame a firme coniecture that either all or most of these ancient authors whoe seeme to exexclude them out of the Canon doe onely intend to declare that they were not included in it by the Iewes as S. Hilarie S. Hierome S. Epiphanius other authors concerning which point the reader may please to reade the same S. Isidore in lib. Prooemiorum de libris veteris noui Testamenti In the 431. page of his by-way the kinght abuseth Canus whome he there cites lib. 12. cap. 13. For he foysteth in by a parenthesis of his owne the worde reall which neither Canus hath nor yet putteth the force of his reprehension of the bishop of Bitont in that he affirmed in the Councell of Trent that Christ did not offer his reall bodie in his last supper but because he affirmed that Christ did not offer his owne bodie absolutely abstracting frō reall or not reall the question not being in that passage of the reall presence but of the Sacrifice of Christs bodie bloud in the Eucharist which as it seemes by Canus relation the foresaid Bishop in the discussion of this point by way of proposition was of that priuate dictamen how beit after wardes he willingly conformed him selfe to the rest of the Fathers to the decree of the Councell By which it is plaine that this Bishop was not of anie firme setled opinion which might fauor Sir Humfreys doctrine in that particular Illud primum animaduerto iure Cornelium Episcopum Bitontinum in Conelio apud Tridentinum à Patribus Theologis vniuersis explosum qui dixerit Christum in Coena non suum corpus sanguinem obtulisse Canus loco citato And soe you see this is one of Sir Humfreyes prittie pettie trickes which omong other greater will serue to replenish his pages The kinght alsoe in his 157. page of his deuia corrupteth the same author cited in his third booke third chapter Where for these wordes in sacrificio Eucharistiae simul cum corpore sanguinem sacerdotibus esse conficiendum sumendum c. Sacrae litterae nusquam forte tradiderunt he translates the consecrating receiuing of ehe bodie bloud of Christ by the preist c. Are nowhere happily to be found in scripture In which passage the attentiue reader may easily see that the knight plaieth the iugler most nimblely For wheras Canus putteth the force of his sentence in the wordes simul together or at once in the other worde sumendum making an hipotheticall proposition of all his wordes ioyned togither our craftie Circulator soe hādleth the matter that his reader may imagin that Canus affirmed that the consecration of the Eucharist according to the custome of the Roman Church is not found in the bible That which that author neuer dreamed but onely intended to produce as an instance of Apostolicall traditions that copulatiue of the practice of the preists consecrating actuall receiuing both the bodie bloud at one the same tyme in the vse of the Eucharist which Canus supposeth rather to be a tradition then expressely contained in the text of scripture More ouer Sir Humfrey cites Gretzerus but onely twise first in his defense of the tenth
prisci moris which signifyes the custome of celibate to haue ben no newe lawe as he would falsely persuade hir reader but established in ancient tymes And more then this he foysteth in to his translation the worde necessarie in steed of flagitare videntur And thus like a bungling boteher he patcheth togither those vncertainties of Cassander to make himselfe and others a deceitfull safegarde of greater confort and benefit for the soule which he erroneously supposeth rather to be in his misreformed faith them in the Romish And now how vnfaithfull weake pore proceeding of Sir Humfrey this appeares to be let the indicious reader consider The knigh moreouer traduceth Bellarmin in the preface to his booke de Romano Pont. translating in euerie place for Graeci the Greeke Fathers as if the Cardinall did confesse that the ancient and most famous Greeke Fathers to wit S. Chrysostome S. Basil Epiphanius and others did impugne and resiste the supremacie of the Bishop of Romane Wheras it is plaine Bellarmin meaneth onely such Grecians as sate in the Councell of Calcedon whoe frandulently defined in absence of the Popes legates that the Patriarch of Constantinople is soe the second after the Roman Bishop as that yet he hath equall priuiledges whence Sir Humfrey will needs inferre that the supremacie of the Pope wantes succession as if the Popes resistance to this attempte of vsurpation in those Grecians were sufficient to exstinguish a true and estblished succession of all former tymes In his page 104. of the deuia touching Salmeron the knight falsely affirmes out of chamier that he speakes in the person of the Grecians when he vttereth those wordes For as much as the benedictton of the lord is not fuperfluous c. For Salmeron neither mentions Grecians nor Latinists but onely argues for the second opinion which he putteth of those which seeme to hould that Christ did not consecrate his bodie and bloud with those wordes This is my bodie But whose soeuer those wordes bee the matter is not great yet certaine it is that Sir Humfrey dealeth falsely and deceitfully in that he produceth them and Salmeron to proue that the grand point of transsubstantiation as he pleaseth to terme it hath neither foundation in the scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among the Romanists whenas neither those wordes of Salmeron are spoken to proue that the grand point of transsubstantiation as he pleaseth to terme it hath neither foundation in the scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among the Romanists When as neither those wordes of Salmeron are spoken to anie other end but onely to confirme the opinion of such as hould that out Sauior did not consecrate with those wordes This is my bodie Howbeit both he and they agree most vniformely in that how soeuer Christ him selfe did whose power being infinite was not tyed to anie wordes at all for the effecting that which he intended no more then he was in the operation of miracles particularly in the miraculous transsubstantiation of water in to wine in the mariage feast of Cana yet Preists whoe are but his substitutes or instruments in that sacred action doe vndoubtedly consecrate with those determinate wordes This is my bodie in which all Romanists yea Grecians excepting some moderne Grecians whoe adde some other deprecatorie wordes doe consent vnanimously accorde Wher vpon Salmeron before he comes to rehearse opinions touching that point whether Christ him selfe did consecrate with these formall wordes saith plainely Illud igitur tanquam certum constitutum est apud omnes hanc fuisse nobis formam consecrationis praescriptam iure diuino institutam ac nobis traditam Which wordes sufficiently declare that there is no incertaintie among the Romanists aboute the foresaid wordes of consecration Nay if ther were that incertaintie among diuines aboute the forme of the Eucharist which Sir Humfrey pretendeth yet doth it not follow that the Doctrine of transsubstantiation is vncertaine supposing that both Salmerō all the same diuines agree that the bread and wine are truely transsubstantiated or turned in to the bodie bloud of Christ consequently this author is impertinently alledged as hauing nothing for the knights purpose Besydes that parte of the wordes which he cites out of Salmeron whether they be the Grecians or not they include clearely the doctrine of transsubstantiation to wit those in particular when he graue it transmutation was alreadie made soe the vnwarie knight hath alledge this passage against him selfe For if the change of the bread wine was made before Christ gaue the Sacrament to his disciples the Romanists haue their desire intent that Christ did truely transsubstantiate the elements it importing little to this question by what meanes he performed his action Page 547. of his deuia the kinght corrupts Salmeron by a mangled relation false construction of his wordes which he produceth to proue that some Romanists particularly Salmeron hould the Popes iudgement infallible But how soeuer it be that some Roman diuines hould the Popes authoritie euen without a generall Councell infallible in determining controuersies in matters of faith others the contrarie which as Bellarmin noteth is no matter of faith Yet certaine it is that Salmeron is here abused by Sir Humfrey for that in this place cited what soeuer he doth in others he rather attributes all infallibilitie in resoluing declaring matters of controuersie cheefely to the assistance power of the holy spirit then either to the Pope or Church His wordes are these Neque haec sunt satis nisi accedat vnctio eruditio Spiritus Sancti quem Dominus mansurum nobiscum in aeternum qui in generalibus synodis in Christi Vicario Petri successore residens omnes incidentes quaestiones ortas de fide contronersias sua authoritate terminet atque absoluat Thus Salmeron prologom 9. can 1. Wher the reader may perceiue that the kinght hath either ignorantly or malitiously applyed the relatiue qui to the Pope which neuerthelesse is referred by Salmeron to the holy Gost As anie Grammer boy that vnderstands latin may eassely perceiue And yet blinde Sir Humfrey whoe not being yet a perfect Gramarian will needs playe the Doctor of diuinite englisheth rehearseth Salmerons wordes thus The lorde promised his Spirit to Christs Vicar the successor of Peter by his authoritie the determins all matters of faith Let the reader compare the english with the latin he will presently discouer the fraud S. Isidor Pelusiota writ the Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey page 630. to a monke named Zenon complaining vnto him of want of virtue corruption of maners in the Church in comparison of the primatiue tymes all which that holy man affirmes to proceed from dissention wickednesse or malice of these whoe gouerne especially of preists thou ' not of all but he hath not a worde of the Pope or of anie defect or of the
it is euer essentially one the same in it selfe cleare from distinction cleare from error the coÌ„trarie to which neuerthelesse should necessarily be true if ei-faith were diuided in to fundamental not fundamental faith the Church could erre in her propositioÌ„ of the one not of the other And to this I adde that one propertie of the true Church is holines but now what sanctitie integritie or holines can possible be in the Church if it be infected with errors in faith of what nature soe euer they bee For as the scripture affiirmes sine fide that is true pure intyre faith impossibile est placere Deo True faith is the forme fashioÌ„ beautie of the Church which is the immaculate sponse of Christ ' not hauing spot or wrincle In soe much that if she be defaced thus with errors she can not possible be the sponse of Christ as in the cided place like wise in the Canticles she is described all faire or comely but rather she would be like a leaper or most deformed creature Thirdly I confesse for my parte I could neuer perfectly vnderstand what the Nouellists truely meane by fundamental not fundamental points by reason I finde the matter in none of their workes sufficiently explicated I veriely coÌ„ceiue they purposely anoyde the declaration of it to the ende the absurditie may lesse appeare Neuerthelesse it seemes in probabilitie that by fundamentals they meane all those points which according to their owne exposition ar contained in scriptures the three creedes And by not fundamentals the points of controuersie betwixt vs theÌ„ as is the number of Canonical bookes the infallible rule of interpretation of scriptures the real presence transsubstantiation iustification ' c. This beiÌ„g supposed I argue thus Either those points which our aduersaries call not fundamentals ar matters of faith ' to be beleeued by all sortes of Christians according to the diuersitie of their tenets vnder paine of damnation or not to be beleeued If they ar thus necessarily to be beleeued by faith then doubtelesse they ar included in those truthes touching which as I haue declared coÌ„firmed before by both scriptures Fathers Christ promised to his Church the assistance of the diuine Sprit to remaine with it eternally that is till the consummation of the worlde and consequently the Church can not committe anie error in proposing them to the people as being no lesse fundamental in that respect then anie of the rest of the articles of faith But if our aduersaries on the contrarie denye them to be necessarily beleeued vnder paine of losse of SaluatioÌ„ hould theÌ„ onely as matters of indifferencie such as may either be beleeued or not be beleeued without preiudice of faith or maÌ„ners vpon this supposition I graunte the Church may erre in proposing theÌ„ to her flock but yet in this case that parte of our aduersaries distinctioÌ„ affirming that the Church can erre in not fuÌ„dameÌ„tal matters of faith is still false and impertineÌ„t in regarde those particulars aboue telated in which they teache the Church can erre ar soe farre from being either fundamentals or not fundamentals in matter of faith that according to the former supposition they ar not either one way or other with in the circuit of faith and consequently that parte or member of our aduersaries dinstinction viz that the Church can erre in not fundamentals is both false nugatorie and impertinent in which sense soeuer they intend to maintaine it Fourtly I proue directly that the affirmatiues euen of those particulars controuerted betwixt vs and the professors of the English Religion ar fundamental points of faith and by consequence that if the Church can erre in them that parte of their new distinction is false according to which they auerre the Church can not erre in fundamental points of Religion which I conuince in this forme of argument That distinction is false and absurde according to which it necessarily followes that the Church can erre in matters the true faith of which is necessarie to saluation But according to the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith it necessarily followes the Church can erre in matters necessarie to saluation Ergo The distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith is a false and absurde distinction The minor in which the total difficultie consists I proue because according to this distinction the Church may erre in these propositions The Church hath the true complete Canon of scripture The Church hath the true interpretation and sense of scripture Christs bodie and bloud ar truely really substantially and not by onely faith contained in the sacred Eucharist c. And yet the faith of these either affirmatiuely or negatiuely is necessarie to saluatioÌ„ as the aduersaries theÌ„ selues if they will not be occounted obstinate in a matter soe cleare and manifest can not denye Therfore it is hence concluded by forcible sequele that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals in matters of faith is false and absurde Fiftely I reason in this manner against the same distinction If the infallibilitie of the Churches authoritie consistes in fundamental points of Religion onely and not in all that the true Church shal at anie tyme declare vnto her members concerning their faith and Religion then were not tâ—e prouidence of Christ perfect towardes his sponse but more defectiue then God was towardes the synagog of the Iewes neither were this anie other then to imagine that Christ in deede did laye a sounde foundation for his Church but lefte walles and roofe exposed to be deiected or caste to grounde with euerie puffe of winde which how repugnant to reason his owne inuiolable promisse this is the reader may easily consider and censure Sixtly I argue yet more positiuely against the distinction related because our aduersaries frame it either in respect of the greater or lesser dignitie of the obiects of fundamental and not fundameÌ„tal points of faith in them selues or in respect of the greater or lesse necessitie of them to saluation by reason of the necessitie of faith which the members of the true Church haue of them all and euerie one in particular Now if we respect onely the material obiects in them selues and the necessitie of them to saluation precisely soe I confesse ther ar some particular matters of faith which much surpasse orhers and in that respect alsoe the one may not vnaptely be termed fundamental in comparision of the rest which haue not that preheminencie For example that ther is a God and that God is a rewarder of workes quod Deus est remunerator sit That he is one in three persons that the second person in Trinitie became incarnate or tooke humaine nature vpon him was borne of the Virgin Marie suffered death for our dedemption c. are matters both more noble and dignifiable in them selues then those Christ fasted fortie dayes and fortie nights an Angel