Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	blood_n	call_v	cup_n	7,107	5	9.8579	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13322	The vvhetstone of reproofe A reprouing censure of the misintituled safe way: declaring it by discouerie of the authors fraudulent proceeding, & captious cauilling, to be a miere by-way drawing pore trauellers out of the royall & common streete, & leading them deceitfully in to a path of perdition. With a postscript of advertisements, especially touching the homilie & epistles attributed to Alfric: & a compendious retortiue discussion of the misapplyed by-way. Author T.T. Sacristan & Catholike Romanist.	T. T., Sacristan & Catholike Romanist.	1632 (1632)	STC 23630; ESTC S101974	352,216	770

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 differeÌ„ce 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 extensioÌ„ 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 coÌ„formable to the doctrine of S. Paul who speaking of the resurrectioÌ„ 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 maÌ„ner 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 theÌ„ 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

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 theÌ„ 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 throÃ¹ 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 sufficieÌ„t 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 natioÌ„ 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 ArmeniaÌ„s 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 leueÌ„th 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 coÌ„moÌ„ly supposed althoÃ¹ 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 aÌ„cieÌ„t 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 theÌ„ 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. HuÌ„freyes position nor against the RomaÌ„ 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 occasioÌ„ of errour especially in these our dayes as also because it is iustelie suspected to be Apochryphall in regarde it containes certaine ill sounding senteÌ„ces 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 coÌ„futed 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 bouÌ„d 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 theÌ„ 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 vpoÌ„ 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

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 haÌ„d of God in heaueÌ„ 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 preteÌ„siue 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 monumeÌ„ts 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 meÌ„tion 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 theÌ„ of the Eucharist or transubstaÌ„tiation 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

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 coÌ„secration 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 HuÌ„frey onely of the possibility of the coexisteÌ„ce or presence of the substance of the bread the bodie of Christ vnder the same accideÌ„ts 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 implicatioÌ„ of contradictioÌ„ 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 TreÌ„t declares to which doctrine if Sir HuÌ„frey 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 transsubstaÌ„tiatur 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 ratiocinatioÌ„ proues no more

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 coÌ„trarie to Christs institution or precept but otherwise conuenieÌ„t 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 vtraÌ„que specieÌ„ saÌ„ctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit CoÌ„c Trid. de coÌ„mun 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 coÌ„trarie to the doctrine of the RomaÌ„ 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 aliquoruÌ„ opinioneÌ„ quam praecedenti disput defendi laici aliquo fructu priueÌ„tur dum ipsis calix denegatur tamen cuÌ„ sumentes tantum vnam speciem nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem careaÌ„t vt notauit ConciliuÌ„ omissis alijs causis postulantibus recte potuit Ecclesia laicis alteraÌ„ 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 effusioÌ„ 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

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 communioÌ„ 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 naÌ„ in primitiua Ecclesia sic dabatur fidelibus sed propter periculuÌ„ effusionis sanguinis modo datur tantuÌ„ 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 possuÌ„t 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 communicationeÌ„ etsi simpliciter necessaria non habeatur ei coÌ„municationi quae in altera tantuÌ„ specie fit etiamsi mandato contraria non putetur multis nominibus esse anteponeÌ„dam 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 theÌ„ 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 separatioÌ„ 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

it is most false calumnious that either they or the authours of them be called in question and yet more false slaunderous it is that Christ and his Apostles are arraigned condemned at the Popes assises as you odiouslie affirme of obscuritie insufficiencie in their Gospell Bibliorum versiones tam vet quam noui Test Ã dictis damnatis authoribus editae generaliter prohibentur Index ex Purgatorius Regul 3. For that neither Pope nor Prelate of the Roman Church euer vttered more of the sacred scriptures in that nature theÌ„ that which S. Peter himselfe affirmeth to wit that in the epistles of S. Paule there are manie things hard to be vnderstood or that which S. Augustin saith in generall of the written worde That is that certaine obscure speeches of the scripture bring a most dense or thicke miste vpon them And that they are deceiued with many manifould obscurities ambiguities that rashly reade them vnderstanding one thing for an other Lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ c. 6. And as for the Gospell of Christ his Apostles neither the Pope nor anie other Romanist euer condemned it of anie insufficiencie or defect but onelie teach with the same scripture itselfe that it doth not containe all things necessarie so explicitlie that they suffice for the instruction of the whole Church according to all states of people in all particulars without traditions as appeareth by the saying of sainct Paule 2. Thes 2. Therefore brethren stand houlde the traditions which you haue learned whether it be by worde or by our epistle Which wordes of the Apostle neither can truelie be verified nor his commaund obeyed except we graunt that he deliuered more to the Church of the Thessalonians then he left in writing Neither doe the Pope Romanists anie more condemne the scriptures of insufficieÌ„cie by denying that they containe clearely all things necessarie or by affirming that diuine Apostolicall traditions are also necessarilie required then the reformers them selues who besides scripture professe at the least in wordes to beleeue the Apostolicall nycene Athanasian Creed not no more then that man should be thought to condemne the common lawes of insufficiencie who besides them iudgeth it also necessarie to obserue those ancient customes which the lawes themselues commend as by the legislators first authours of the same deliuered to the people by worde of mouth And so to conclude touching the scriptures thus vnderstood the Romanists are so farre from refusing to be tryed by them that they flye vnto them with sainct Chrysostome in all occasions as to most hight montaines in which they finde a most comodious place to plant their ordinance against the enimies of the faith particularlie against the sectaries of this our present age as is most euident in the late Councell of Trent all the decrees of which renouned Synod are founded vpon those heigh hills of the written worde of God according to the true sense meaning of the same And as for Causabon Agrippa whome the knight citeth he they may goe together for their authoritie viz. in lying Agrippa Causabon are alreadie registred in the Predicament of Nouelists Vide Indicem lib. prohib althou ' the knight as yet is not preferred to that honour yet his deserts are such as he may iustelie expect the like aduauncement You aske vs Sir Humfrey whether the worde of God is subiect to alteration or needeth Index expurgatorious but to this your wise demaunde I anser that the worde of God in itselfe is wholelie immutable so pure that it can need no purifying yet as it is expressed by artificiall caracters for the vse of man so it is not onelie mutable corruptible but also de facto it is hath ben corrupted witnesse your owne Bibles in England And witnesse that renowned King Iames your owne soueraine best defender of your faith who was so ashamed of the translations which he founde at his arriuall to the English Crowne that he presently sought a remedy for the same tho' he founde it not as appeareth by his new translation which yet is not as it ought to be publikelie declaring in the Conference of Hampton Courte Anno Domini 1624. ingenuouslie confessing that he had seene no true translation that the Geneua translation is the worst of all others Neither ought the corruptions founde in the reformed Bibles to be called peccadillos or smale faultes as Sir Humfrey would haue them to the end they may be the more easilie winked at for suppose they were neuer so little in themselues yet are they to be esteemed great horrible abuses in regarde of the great reuerence which ought to be had towardes those sacred volumes of the worde of God it being treason in the highest degree to offer to falsifie or alter them anie way whatsoeuer And let the reader be iudge whether it be but a smale faulte to translate images for idols as the English bible of the yeare 1562. hath in the text or as an other of the yeare 1577. hath in the margen vpon the first chapter of the Epistle of S. Iohn in the last wordes Or as the same or other editions vpon the wordes of Iacob Gen. 37. v. 35. descendam ad filium meum Iugens in infernum hath translated the worde infernum hell into the worde Sepulcher or graue notobstanding both the Hebrewe worde Seol the Greeke worde adis signifie not the graue but either properlie hell it selfe or some parte of the earth farre deeper then the graue And in this manner Beza hath done vpon those wordes of the psalme non relinques animam meam in inferno translating for animam Cadauer for inferno sepulchro so Metamorphizeth Christs soule into his bodie hell into his graue And vpn the 22. of sainct Luke where according to the Greeke text the sentence is This is the cup of my blood which cuppe is shed for you Beza to eneruate the force of the argument for the reall presence purposelie translateth the wordes thus This is the cup of my blood which blood is shed for you Also the English bibles whereas sainct Peter in the first chapter of his second epistle v. 10. saith brethren labore the more that by good workes you make sure your vocation election Least here it should appeare that good workes are auayleable or necessarie to saluation they leaue out in their translations the wordes by good workes notobstanding the Latin copies haue them vniuersallie some Greeke copies also as Beza confesseth And if these be the faults which Sir HuÌ„frey calleth but peccadillos surelie he hath a conscience as large as a fryers sleeue if these be his smale faults doubtlesse according to due proporrion his greater sinnes are abomination And this is that Bible which the Romanists say needeth an Index expurgatorie not that Sacred Bible which is truelie sincerelie translated according to

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 wheÌ„ 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 EdueÌ„sis 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 euideÌ„t 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 LanfraÌ„c 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

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 theÌ„ 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 adoratioÌ„ 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 theÌ„ 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

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 vnderstaÌ„ding 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 amoÌ„g 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 traÌ„ssubstantiation 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 theÌ„ 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 argumeÌ„t 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 SacrameÌ„t 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 vnderstaÌ„des 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 maÌ„ 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

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 illÃ¢ Caena audiuÌ„tur apud vas quae nobis displicent Ierem. Patriarchâ—â€¦ 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 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 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

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 SalmeroÌ„ 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

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 tranÌ„ssubstaÌ„tiation 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 veÌ„ture 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 ExpressuÌ„ vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat traÌ„substantia tiationem admittere atque id noÌ„ est omnino improbabile nam etiaÌ„ si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem noÌ„ prosteruuÌ„ ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest caÌ„ homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali ScripturaÌ„ declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifesteÌ„ probari transsubstaÌ„tiationeÌ„ Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse

Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Text snippets containing the quad