of the lawe Exodus that that which in the first Commaundement is forbiden in the Exodus in the 26. of the Leuiticus the same is declared to be idolum sculptile that is an idol a grauen thing And thus wee see the reformers stand single in this matter that the Romanists in their diuision of the ten Commandements proceed vpon a most sound approued foundation it being both conformable to the doctrine of S. Augustin who they more willingly followe then anie other especially to the true sense of the scriptures them selues expounded aceording to the orthodoxe faith and tradition of all succeeding ages A POSTCRIPT OF ADVERTISSEMENTS FOR THE READER I Request the reader of my Censure so take notice of some particulars which occurred since the finishing of it And imprimis touching the homilie and epistles alledged by Sir Humfrey in the 9. section of his safe way against the reall presence and transsubstantion I ansered in the 8. Period of my Censure what I conceiued at that present to wit that ther was not anie doctrine publikly or cōmonly read or preched in England contrarie so the reall presence or transsubstantiation or in anie publik manner deliuered to the people either by Alfric or anie other Bishop or Bishops in anie synod or publik assembly in those dayes since which tyme of the dispatch of that worke some delaye hauing ben made in the cōmitting it to the presse hauing had greater opportunitie leasure to view the histories of our countrie which treate of the affayres of those ages in which Alfric liued which was in some parte of the 10. and leuenth Centuries by more exact examinatiō search in to the matter I finde my selfe assured of the trueth of that which I then deliuered And now for greater satisfaction of the reader and more cleare conuincement of the same I adde that touching Alfrics person and state of life he was first a monke by profession in the monasterie of Abington and as Malesburie relates lib. 1. de gest Pont. Aug. pag. 203. Abbat of the same then Bishop of wilton and after Archbishop of Canterburie Ther is diuersitie of opinions whether Siricius alias sigericus or Alfric did immediately succeed S. dunstan in that seat but that importeth little certaine it he was a Roman Catholique Vid. Harpsf saec 10. cap. 7. for that an ancient Chronicle writ by a monke of the same monasterie of Abington wher of as I alledged our of Malesburie Alfric was Abat conuinceth testifying that he went to Rome for his Episcopall pall as the custome was which iourney Alfric would neiuer haue made nor euer haue obtained his request if he had not ben of the same faith in euerie point which at that tyme the Pope him selfe professed That which also is most plainely demonstrated by an ample testimonie which the church of Canterburie gaue of the same Arcbishop Alfric and at their request sent to the monkes of his order and monasterie Abington for a perpetuall memorie of his faith and manners which for greater sattsfaction of the reader I will here rehearse at it as recorded by the foresaid religious man To the children of the holy church of Canterburie the clergie and the same church after their deuoute prayers It is knowne vnto you all how long since it is that by the successes of diuers and various euents the mother church of England hath ben depriued of her pastor and destitute of her rector which doth pertaine not onely to our losse but alsoe to the detriment of you and all this Iland since it is apparent that the sollicitude and care of the whole countrie is committed to the Metroplican For which cause we haue elected Alfric by name monke of the holy church of Abington most sufficiently knowne vnto vs noble in brith and maners indued with Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall discipline and in faith a Catholique by nature prudente docible patient temperate chaste sober humble affable mercifull learned instructed in the lawe of God cautelous in the senses of the scripture exercised in Ecclesiasticall decrees or determinations And according to the path of scripture orthodox traditions and Canons and constitutions of the Prelates of the Apostolicall seat vnderstanding teaching Praesulum Sedis Apostolica and obseruing the Ecclesiasticall rules in a sound sense and embracing that faithfull worde which is according to doctrine and reprehending with modestie those whoe resist it and hauing power to resiste and redargue them hospitable modest well ruling his house not a neophit hauing a good opinion or testimonie ministering in euerie degree or order according to Ecclesiasticall tradition Prepared for all good workes and to giue satisfaction to euerie one that shall demaunde it of the hope which is in him c. Thus proceedeth the testimonie of the electors of Alfric And to this I ioyne that S. Dunstan his immediate predecessor excepting Ethelgar or at the most according to the opiniō of some writers excepting Ethelgar and Siricius whoe both liued but fiue yeares or ther aboutes as our histories reporte at the tyme of his death spake much of the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist in a sermon he made the same day he dyed Svy S. Dunstan And in like manner of Elphegus Alfrics successor it is reported by our English historians he was such a mortifyed man by reason of his great abstinence and fasting that when according to the custome of the Romā church he eleuated the sacred hoaste in masse the reflected ayre appeared as it were in a glasse throu ' the iunctures of his fingers Now touching the twoe immediate predecessors of Alfric which I mentioned before to wit Ethelgar Sricius neither anie historiographer nor yet anie of our aduersaries themselues doe note them to haue diuulged or admitted in their tyme anie other doctrine concerning the Eucharist then that which was then professed in the Roman church By which it is manifest that both immediately before and immediately after Alfrics dayes the same doctrine of the reall presēce which at this tyme the Romā church maintaines was cōmonly tought practised in England and no other soe that morally speaking it is not apprehensible that in the tyme of Alfrics being Bishop of Canterburie which according to the computation of tymes was but ten yeares or littlemore Godwins Catalogue the contrarie doctrine and the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation could haue bin publikly professed and published by diuers Bishops in their synods as Sir Humfrey Line affirmes Besydes this Lanfranc whoe in the next age succeeded Alfric in the seat of canterburie habetur in vlt. edit Bibl. Patr. tom 11. in his booke against Berengarie of the sacrament of the Eucharist som'at after the midest he speakes thus against his aduersarie Propulsatis iam quantum satis visum est calumnijs c. hauing sufficiētly repelled the calumniations which with cantumely of Bishop Humbert the Roman Church thou hast temerariously vttered it remaines that we
is but onelie one in which it can be sayd with anie coulourable probabilitie that sainct Gregorie in anie of the places heere cited doth contradict the doctrine of the Roman Church that is the point of the Canon of the scriptures in which patricular althou ' he refused to giue the bookes of Machabees the title of Canonicall scripture as yet S. Augustine others did before him the rest of the writers for the most parte euer since haue donne whether it were because he ment onelie they were not contained in the Canon of the Iewes or for that the whole Church had not then declared them for Canonicall vnder that name Neuerthelesse he is not to be iudged more repugnant to the doctrine of the present Roman Church in that point then those who notobstanding that in the primitiue Church certaine bookes of the new Testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes others were doubted of yet now with infallible certaintie faith receaue them for diuine sacred scripture althou ' they were not accounted beleiued for such by all the orthodoxall Fathers of the Church in all former ages since the time of the Apostles who firste published them to the world Especiallie considering that the same sainct Gregorie neuer denyed neyther in the place cited nor in anie other of his workes but that as the declaration of the Church was sufficient to assure all faithfull people that those bookes of which before his dayes there had binne doubt were then trulie Canonicall scripture thou ' not knowne for such in euerie age before him so might the same succeeding Church in later times determine the like of those bookes which in his time so generallie vndoubtedlie were not as yet held for such Neyther according to the rules of diuinitie can that man be reputed not to be of the same religion of which another is because he now beleaueth some thing more in the materiall obiect of faith then the other did in that time in which he liued but at the most it can onelie be truelie verified that he hath the same habit of faith thou ' some what more extended in the obiect as neyther the Apostles were of a diuerse faith when they were firste instructed by Christe before his passion from that they had after his resurrection when yet doubtlesse they receaued more expresse extensiue knowledge in matters of faith then before they had receiued And sure I am S. Gregorie without exception cites both the booke of Tobie Ecclesiasticus sapience most frequentlie none of which bookes neuerthelesse the misreformers admit for the worde of God And till Sir Humfrey or some of his associates can produce out of S. Augustin S. Gregorie as plaine pregnant places either for his owne tenets or against the Roman doctrine as the Romanists haue long since produced for theirs as their workes vpon euerie seuerall controuersie make apparent let them for shame neuer claime them for theirs in anie one point of controuersie for notobstanding they make a plausible vse of some fewe patches of their more ambiguous ill construed ill related sentences yet turne but the iudicious vnpartiall reader to the bookes them selues he will ingenuouslie confesse absolutelie crye a loud all is ours And if it would please his maiestie of his royall clemencie to suffer vs freelie to make tryall of our cause by scripture Fathers I knowe which side would be founde minus habens manie graines to light But it is our great miserie yet in one sense our great happines to be so crossed curbed with seueritie of tēporal lawes that we cannot be safe in the most priuate corners much lesse can we appeare in any publike assemblie for defense of our Religion Vid. Bell. in quatuor Cōtr. tom valēt Anales fid But yet supposing that S. Gregorie had binne contrarie in that particular of the bookes of Machabies for touching the rest mentioned by the knight he is sufficientlie cleered from that imputation by Bellarmine other Romanists yet could it not possiblie proue that monstrous great proposition of our aduersarie to wit that S. Gregorie in his vndoubted writings directlie opposeth the Romish faith in the maine pointes thereof consequentlie from hence it manifestlie appeereth how farre Sir Humfrey hath walked by the way when in the end of his eleauenth section he auouched his reader should plainlie discerne how the later Popes Bishops doe differ from the former how these two Fathers of the Church meaning sainct Augustine sainct Gregorie concurre expresselie with the doctrine professed in the reformed Churches different from the Roman it being most apparent by the premisses that by anie thing which he hath heere produced out of the foresayd Fathers he hath neyther proued anie one point of his owne religiō nor disproued ours but hath onelie prestigiouslie deluded the eyes of the reader with a coulorable florish yet in realitie remaineth still in the same byway in which he hath hitherto walked separate from the royall street of the ancient Doctors of the primitiue Church Sec. 14. The next section being the fourteenth is that the ingenuous Romanists confesse that the Councells which they oppose against the Reformers were neyther called by lawfull authoritie nor to the right ends Heere I finde that to be most true which a pleasant Protestant pronounceth of the Puritans sayeing their religion willinglie admitts no founder but Bragger they flourished much about a time And in sober sadnes the best Sir Humfrey can make of his aduersaries confession throu ' out his whole worke in fauour of his doctrine doth nothing more then plainlie conuince him to be of no other progenie Neyther doe their confessions fit his purpose anie better then if he should put his shooes vpon his handes or his hose vpon his head A patterne of this you may see in this verie section in which how soeuer he vaunteth of the confession of his aduersaries that by two principall conditions as he sayth ancientlie in vse for the authoritie of Councells are both acknowledged to be abrogated by later Councells to wit because quoth the knight now a dayes the Pope calls Councells without right he his assemble them in their owne name for their owne ends for proofe of which calumnious position he cites but onely two authors those scarce held for sound mettle among the Romanists neyther yet doth eyther of them plainlie auerre his position as it is vttered by him but they onelie speake by way of reprehension of such abuses as might be practised in that nature by the malice of men without taxing the Pope or anie other in particular as the knight would maliciouslie inferre out of their wordes for the confirmation of the sinister opinion he hath of the Church of Rome her head in earth The rest which he hath in this section is but eyther his owne bare assertions those not true as that from
onely by an vnautheÌ„ticall history the allegation can be of no more authority theÌ„ is the relatour himselfe who was then a CaluiniaÌ„ sectary called Suauis who hath writ a very corrupted narration of that which passed in the CouÌ„cell as relating the coÌ„tentions or coÌ„trary opinioÌ„s which the Fathers Doctours held whiles matters were in debate vnconcluded as if they had continued after the definitions and decrees were made and so abusing both the Councell his reader egregiously And yet more then this suppose the relation were most true and authenticall yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent videlicet that the Pope denieth reformatlon of Corruptions in faith and manners for that in the wordes related out of the foresaid history there is no mention of any corruptions of that nature but onely of abuses in generall tearmes which Schomberg was of opinion that it had beene better to let them alone yet that was onely his particular dictamen and proposition to which neither the Pope nor the rest of the Councell agreed but resolued vpon a course of reformation as the decrees themselues doe testifie so that this passage of the related historie is impertinentlie alledged by the Knight Finally S. Humfrey doth equiuocate not onely in that which we haue said but alsoe in the very substance of this his whole section For his cheefe or rather whole scope being not onely to proue corruptions in doctrine and manners to be confessed by the Romanists to be in their Church but also that the Pope refuseth to take them away he by his allegations of the testimonies of some Romanists proueth in parte that there were corruptions in manners both before and when the Councell of Trent was assembled but he quite dissembleth the other parte to witte that they were reformed allso by the same Councell and yet not withstanding the very same places which he produceth out of the Romanists doe as plainely auerre the one as the other And so out of those proceedings of Sir Humfrey and the rest which hath bene said it may plainely appeere that he is so farre from recouery of that honour which he lost in the former sections that he hath now stained the same not a little more and so we may conclude this section and include it in the former censure THE III. PERIOD IN the fourth section the knight proceedeth to greater matters to matters I say of life and death for he affirmeth that manny learned Romanists conuicted by the euidence of truth either in parte or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death But let vs see how exactly and sollidly he proceedeth in so weightie a matter He citeth Medâ—cir â— celeberrimus professor D. Venerandus Gablerus tanti comitis exemplum secutus redijt ad Catholicismum Adfuerat is Petro Paulo vergerio è corpore migranti apud quem minor quae dam viderat quae illi animum videbantur perfregisse vt non modo Catholicus sed pientissimus quoque Catholicus fieret Sane aiunt viri graues hunc Apostatam Vergerium sub mortem teterrimos exhalasse faetores ac bouis instar horrendos edidisse boatus c. anno 1567. Surius Com. pag. 733. the Councell of Basill out of Genebrard Aeneas Syluius out of Platina Harding out of Iewell The Rhemish testament out of Causabon The lord Cooke B. Gard. out of Iohn Fox Bellarmins Controuersies And his last will or testament Albertus Pighins Paulus Vergerius and his brother Baptist These are all the authours hee citeth in this section For the proofe of his vast assertion which authours being but ten in number yet three of them are knowen to be no Romanists except he will haue L. Cooke and the two brother Bishops to be Romanists which neuerthelesse he confesseth to to haue protested against the Romish doctrine so that now according to his owne confession the whole number of Roman authours he citeth heere is reduced to seuen which small number I caÌ„not imagin according to what Arithmetick it can truly be accounted many especially if we compare them to the infinite number of the Romanists which haue bene yet are extant in the Christian world constant maintainers of Popery And this I say euen in case it were true that all those seuen had euer renounced the Romish faith either in part or totally as the knight affirmeth which neuerthelesse I will make apparent to be otherwise And first touching the Councell of Basil the very same wordes which Sir Humfrey citeth do conuince the same for saith hee the Councell did allow the cup to the Bohemians vpon this condition that they should not find fault with the contrary vse nor seuer themselues from the Catholike Church Now what is heere to be found in these wordes of the Councell which is any kinde of renuntiation of the Romish faith nay what is there which concerneth the Romish faith at all that which the Councell determineth being but onelie a graunt to one particular nation vpon particular reasons and that in a point of practice not of doctrine which also if our English protestants were as conformable to the Roman Church in all other points of faith and manners as the Bohemians then were might perhaps vpon the like iust reasons and vpon the same condition be graunted in the realme of England and that without any preiudice to either faith or manners But our English sectaries are so farre from conformitie to the Romanists not onely in diuerse other points but euen in this particular that they coÌ„tinually exclaime against them both in their bookes and sermons as violatours of Christs institution in that they do not allwayes and in euerie countrie communicate the people in both kindes Con. Basiliense initio legitimum postea Conciliabulum Scismaticum nullius authoritatis Con. lat sess 11. ex Bell. non refero verba accusing them also that they mangle the Sacrament and vniustlie depriue the laytie of one part there of iudging the same for a laufull cause at the least in parte of their separation from the Roman Church none of which particulars are proued by the testimonie of the Councell of Basil to haue concurred in the case of the Bohemians but rather the contrarie is most plainelie specified so that the knight hath laboured in vaine or rather against himselfe by producing the foresaid testimonie of the Councell of Basil in which noe renuntiation of Popery is to be founde nor anie agreement in doctrine or manners with the pretensiue reformed Churches From whence it is also consequentlie inferred that to be clearelie false which our aduersarie affirmes in the beginning of this section to wit that the reformed Churches haue done nothing in this otherwise then former Councels had anciently decreed He citeth in the second place Aeneas Syluius who was afterwardes Pope Pius the second as if he had renounced the Romish religion in that he saith that as marriage vpon weightie reasons was taken from the Priests so vpon weightie reasons it were wished
aut domi concubinam foueat tammetsi graui sacrilegio sese obstingat grauiùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimonium c. Costerus Enchir. cap. 17. de caelib prop. 9. then he who keepeth a concubine at home as Costerus though incompletlie cited and vniustlie taxed by the knigth doth most truelie affirme And this is a certaine knowen trueth among diuines consequent to the prohibition of Priests marriage which prohibition once supposed he that should marrie should not onelie committe a scandalous sinne of the flesh as that Priest doth who should be a Concubinarie but also he should in that case comit a Speciall irreuerence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of it selfe a more grieuous sinne then is the keepinge of a concubine as all men Aug. de bono vide cap. 11. except the reformed brothers doe easilie apprehend conformable to which S. Aug. saith that mariage after a vowe of continencie is worse then adulterie Planè non dubitauerim dicere lapsus ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae nouetur Deo adulterijs esse peâ—ores ibidem To omit that for a Preist to marrie in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it includes also the scandall of Concubinate it selfe But now Sir Humfrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the poynt of merits Lastly saith hee how many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainetie of their owne workes doe relie wholie vpon the merits of Christ Iesus shewe me that learned man that liueth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sounde Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith Thus the knigth who as you may easilie perceiue by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to perswade his reader that all the learned Romanists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man iustified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdome of heauen by the good workes he doth by vertue of the grace of God and merits of Iesus Christ because forsooth many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainelie of their owne workes at their death doe relie wholie on the merits of their Sauiour whereas indeede these are two farre different poynts of doctrine the first that is the trueth of mans merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church the second which is the confidence in merits being none the one being about the substance of merits the other onelie about the qualitie the one about the absolute acknowledgment of merits the other onely about the ouergreate confidence or presumption in them And so he that renounceth the first renounceth Poperie indeede but he that renounceth the second doth not neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would haue him to be for the onelie deniall of confidence in merits as in it selfe it is most manifest By all which because Sir HuÌ„frey with all his diuinitie had not iudgement to distinguish he proueth nothing but doth onelie hallucinate betweene trueth and falsehood Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he alledgeth anie whit auaile his cause for suppose that be true which he affirmeth of him to wit that in his sicknes he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt Gods Iudgment his owne sinnes yet caÌ„not he thence inferre that therefore the Bishop renounced the trueth of the doctrine of merits in generall nay nor his owne merits in particular but onelie the presumption of them or the confidence in them by reason of the vncertainetie of them as I haue alreadie declared Besides that this which he is affirmed to say of himselfe being but onelie a relation of Fox we may iustlie doubt of the trueth of it For he hath bene long since hunted to his hole by a learned Catholike and his vnright Reuerence manifestlie conuinced to be a Father of lyes Wherefore he is of no credit with vs neither can his testimonie preuaile against vs. We care not for him his acts and monuments are of no moment among vs his testimonie is not the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of a Romanist which is that our aduersary promised in the title of his booke and we expect he should performe and to omit the smale credit which I and all Catholikes giue to the relations of Master Fox yet I fynde that he who hath dealt so falsely with others hath now founde one of his owne profession who dealt not verie sincerelie with him in recounting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardiner at his death for whereas Sir Humfrey will needs proue by the testimonie of Fox that this Bishop renounced Poperie at his death in the pointe of merits yet Fox in his 2622. page onelie saith thus That according to the reporte of one whome he will not name perhaps he could not when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to conforte him great comfort I warant you with wordes of Gods promisse and free iustification in the blood of Christ our Sauiour repeating the scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my lord quoth he will you open that gap now then farewell altogether to mee and such other in my case you may speake it but if you open this window vnto the people then farewell all And now according to this speech of B. Gardiner let the iudicious reader imagin if he can how Sir Humfrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrarie to wit that altho ' dayes wordes might be vttered to him others of learning and vnderstanding without danger of peruersion but not perhaps to the coÌ„mon people who by their ignorance and frayletie might easilie misinterpret them as he did that vttered them and so easilie receiue harme by them not withstaÌ„ding that they of themselues in a founde fense include nothing but truth The knight also citeth to the same purpose yet to no purpose Bellarmine in his sixte booke of Iustif 7. chap. and his testament or last will Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholy on the merits of Christ Iesus But this according to that which hath bene already said of this matter is at the most but onelie a renuntiation of presumption or ouermuch confidence in our owne vncertaine merits as is most apparent out of Bellarmines owne doctrine euen in the verie same chapter where the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey are found thoug much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwardes I will declare Now in the second place the wordes are these I beseech him that is God saith Bellar that he would admitte me into the companie of his Saints and elect not as a valluer of merits but as a giuer of mercie which wordes if the knigth had not bene ouermuch distracted he
enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius And thus the busines being well examined I say no more but that I ame sorie the worthy knight should be so vnfortunate as to stumble vpon the obiection in lue of the doctrine of the author himselfe How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion that I doe not much admire the case The same Durand is alsoe abused by the knight in regarde he produces him to proue that the Roman diuines are diuided in their opinions touching transsubstantiation which neuerthelesse I haue showed by his owne words how plainelie he maintaines it And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirme of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is hereticall touching the maine point of transsubstantiation but onely because by a singular opiniō he houldes that onely the forme of bread and wine and not the matter is conuerted in to the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which altho' it be false yet doth not the author therfore make anie doubt of transsubstantiation it selfe and so this is an other of Sir Hūfreyes trickes by which he cousens his reader and iniureth both these diuines at once But put the case Durand were truely cyted yet I say as I said before that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquitie or vniuersalitie either of the doctrine of transsubstantiation or any other point of faith And if the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humfrey will haue it it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their cappes at it for any such they should euer be able to finde in their reformed congregations it being now euident out of the examen and censure of the former sections that to speake within compasse they haue not I doe not say the tenth parte in number of the auncient Fathers for the proose of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of their whole Creede which the Romanists haue for theirs but not so much as one onely authour before Luther which truely cited and vnderstood doth defend their doctrine in all and euery particular pointe And according to this I answer also to the testimonie of B. Tunstall whom the kinght citeth as houlding the point of transubstantiation to haue bene a matter of indifferencie and not an article of faith within lesse then fiue hundreth yeeres To which I replye first that Sir Humfrey dealeth heere according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie first because he produceth this authours testimonie as if he had bene of opinion that perhaps it had bene better to haue left the doctrine of Transubstantiation vndetermined and free for euery one to vse his owne coniecture as in his Phansie it was before the Councell of Lateran which is most false for that the Bishop doth onely relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not his resolution being in that pointe farre differēt as his booke testifieth in that same place Secondly he dealeth insincerely in that he taketh hould of that onely which maketh for his purpose in some sort but leaueth out not onely that which maketh expressely against him and for the reall presence quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Ecclesiae fides which was the faith of the Church from the beginning but also he leaueth out the very resolution it selfe of the authour in this same pointe of transubstantiation where after the wordes by the knight cited he saith expressely he houldeth it iust for that the Church is a pillar of trueth that her iudgment is to be obserued as throughly firme Adding further that those who contend that that manner of transubstantiation ought to be reiected meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth because the worde is not found in scripture nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt Quasi vero saith hee Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset cuius omnipotentiae spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione videntur By which plaine wordes of this learned Bishop the reader may plainely see how deceiptfullie he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight Secondly I answer that how indifferent soeuer the doctrine of transubstantiation might seeme to our aduersarie to haue beene before the Councell of Latran neuertelesse both this authour and all others truely Catholikes both since and before that councell haold it not for a matter indifferent but for a certaine trueth and verity as appeareth planely by that which hath beene said allready in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which haue in this paragraffe beene produced for the contrary Lastly I answer that there was neuer such indifferēcy in the Romā Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatiō but that so manie authours in all ages folowed the affirmatiue that the reformed flock shall neuer be able to show anie for the negatiue no not one classicall authour He makes vse also of the testimonies of the other Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct Theol. Scholast cap. 11. alib who seeme to say that Christ did not consecrate with those wordes this is my bodie but by his benediction But to these authours I say first that whatsoeuer they held in this particular they all agree in that point which is here in controuersie betwixt Sir Humfrey and the Romanists that is they all accorde and teach the reall presence and transubstantiation and so they are all impertinentlie alledged Secondlie I say that these authours dispute in the places cited onelie by what wordes or action Christ himselfe did consecrate and not of the wordes of Consecration by which the Preists vse to consecrate And altho' they propose a question of this also yet they agree in that the Preists doe consecrate by no other wordes but those This is my bodie That which in durand at the least is most plainelie expressed when in his page 166. he saith Cum ad prolationem verborum istorum hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat d. 11. credibile iudicatur quod Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit By which wordes it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate wordes by which Preists doe consecrate nor yet was of opinion that Christ himselfe did vse anie other how be it he relates an opiniō of some others which thinke that Christ did not consecrate with those same wordes but he saith in the opinion rather of others then himselfe that virtute diuina nobis occulta confecit that he did it by diuine virtue or power himselfe and afterwardes expressed the forme sub
of the false gods being neither capable nor worthie of worship as being either wicked men or plaine deuills And moreouer the honour exhibited to the picture of Christ being not giuen to the picture for the picture or by the picture itselfe I meane nor without relation to the Prototipe nor yet in the picture permanentlie but rather to the Prototipe in and by meanes of the picture or by the picture transitorilie not much vnlike to an arowe or darte which altho' it passeth by the ayre and in the ayre yet doth it not stay there but in the marke onelie whereas one the contrarie the Gentils went grosselie to worke for the honour which they gaue to the statues and figures of their Gods the same they gaue to the images themselues by themselues and for them selues attributing diuinitie or at the least diuine operations vnto them and adoring them with actions of honour proper to the true God alone as sacrifices and the like all which is so farre different not onely from the practice but also from the cogitations of anie Christian man that it can be esteemed no lesse then most grosse ignorance in the reformers to bring it in question And altho' it is true that the leight of nature onely is not sufficient to establish the honour of images which the Councell of Trent decreed as the knight doth captiously inferre out of the wordes of a moderne diuine whom he citeth neuerthelesse the leight of nature doth sufficiently teach vs the difference betweene true and idolatrous worship of images and doth also plainely dictate vnto vs that those are both ignorantly blinde who are not able to conceiue it and temerarious and rash who not being able to conceiue it condemne it as contrary to the lawe of God our as sectarie commōly doe And thus much for the answere to the testimonie of Tertullian and to shewe that antiquity is neither for the reformers nor against the Romanists in this matter as the knight doeth vanely indeuour to prooue but expressely for them in regard that as I haue shewed out of the same authour euen in those most pure and primatiue times ther was vse of the picture of Christ yea and of a grauen image which is that the reformers most directly impugne and exclaime against and that euen in the chalices where of necessitie it must needs haue beene honoured the same authour further affirming that the foresaid image was much vsed in his time being the second hundreth yeare after Christ our Sauiour when idolatrie was not yet extinguished which is an argument cōuincing that it was not a thing then first inuented but long before established nor offensiue to the most sincere and intire Christians of those prime ages as nowe it is to the Nyce nouelists of our dayes many of which are so superstitiously precise that as an honest Protestant writer affirmeth Sir Th. Ouerb Caract of a Precis they had rather see Antichrist then the picture of Christ in the Church Windoe And now let this suffice for a breefe Scantlin of the antiquitie of the reuerent vse of images to omit others as S. Augustin who in his booke of the Trinity calleth images religious signes Lib. 3. cap. Greg. l. 7. epist 53. And S. Gregory who speaketh of prostration before thē which is one of the greatest actions of honour that the Romanists vse to exhibit towarde any image So that by this the reader may plainely see the Romanists want neither antiquity nor vniuersalitie for their doctrine in this point as contrariwise the misreformers want them both for their pure negation of the same And if they demaunde scriptures of vs besides that which I alledged before we may truely answere them as a graue diuine in the seuenth Synod answered the heretikes of that time If they aske vs saith he in what place of scripture we read that the picture of Christ is to be honoured we answere that there where we read that Christ himselfe is to be honoured And if nowe the reformers demaunde of vs what reason we haue for the honour of the images of Christ and his Saincts we may answer them that we haue the same reason that they haue to honore the image of their King or his dearest fauorits For as in ciuill honour to respect or honore the Kings picture doth not diminish the honour due vnto the King himselfe but increaseth it so it passeth in the worship of the image of Christ and if the Puritans deny this there we leaue them as guiltie of treason against God and man And now here before I conclude I must of necessitie aduertice the reader of such abuses as Sir Humfrey hath committed in his citations of some of the authours he produceth in this place Wherefore in the first place I put the two councells he alledgeth as being as I suppose of greatest authoritie in our aduersaries conceipte The one is the Councell of Francford which because it is corruptedlie rehearsed by Chemintius we may iustelie disclame from it if ther were no other reason Yet Sir Humfrey knowes besides this that the Romanists hould that councell for illegitimate As for the Councell of Eliberis it is not absolutelie reiected by Romanists yet they knowe it was but Prouinciall consisting of 19. Bishops which whatsoeuer they defined in this matter which as yet is vncertaine yet could it not be anie Generall doctrine or practise for the vniuersall Church but at the most for their owne whole Countrye as the circunstances of that time and place required But of what authoritie soeuer they were neither of those two councels condemned the adoration of images as it is vnderstanded and vsed in the Roman Church for vnlawfull and much lesse for wicked and blasphemous as the knight here contendes but if they truely condemned anie worship of images it was onelie diuine not honorarie worship they condemned and so they neither of them preiudicate the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the Roman doctrine in this point and much lesse doe they establish the antiquitie or vniuersalitie of the misreformed Churches which for the most parte will not suffer anie images either painted or vnpainted to appeare in their sinagoge either vpon walles or windowes And yet besides this it is well knowne the Councell of Nyce as consisting both of Latin and Grecian Fathers was much more generall then either the Francfordian or Eliberitan Sinod and in the Nycene it is certaine that the honor of Images was defended and established as our aduersarie not vnwillinglie confesse and the decrees of it plainelie testifie wher as in the other two it remaines doubtfull and ambiguous euen till this day what was truely deliuered in them touching this point ther being onelie some certaine fragments of them extant touching this matter out of all which incertaintie it is plaine that no assured antiquitie or vniuersalitie can be extracted for Sir Humfreys cause In the citation of Clemang is he takes onely that which seemed most for his
expounde the faith of the holye church the opinion of this sect that hauing expounded them we approue one reproue the other by a fewe authorities breefe reasons For neither epistolar breuitie doth permit nor anie reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation For such as ar faithfull people but seduced doe not pertinatiously insist in defence of their deprauation but rather hauing heard vnderstanded reasons desire humbly to returne to the way of truth fewe things will suffice But those whoe ar addicted to contentions determined to persiste in their infidelitie would not be satisfyed althou manie reasons should be proposed vnto them Diuinitus Wherfore we beleeue that the terrestriall substances which in the table of our lord ar diuinely sanctifyed by preistlie ministration ar infallibly incomprehensibly admirably by operation of supernaturall power conuerted in to the essence of our lordes bodie the species or formes of the things thē selues remaining with some other qualities least the receiuers should abhorre crude cruent things Cruda cruenta to the end that the credents or beleeuers might receiue more ample rewardes of their faith the bodie of Christ it selfe existing neuerthelesse in heauen at the reight hand of his Father Illeso immortall vnuiolated intyre incontaminated vnhurt soe that it may truely be affirmed that we receiue the bodie of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin and yet not the same The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue but not the same if you respect the species or formes of bread and wine and the rest before comprehended This faith from ancient tymes did hould and now holdeth that Church which diffused throù the whole world is named Catholique whence it is that as it is said before our lord said in the Euangill Receiue and eate this is my bodie And this is the chalis of my bloud c. In this cleare manner speaketh Lanfranc of the reall presence in this place And page 346. of the same booke he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiasticall histories Which Scriptures saith he altho' they doe not obtaine that most excellent tower of authoritie which those doe which we cal Propheticall and Euangelicall scriptures yet they ar sufficiēt to proue that this faith which now we haue all faithfull people which haue gone before vs haue had the same from priuatiue tymes A primis temporibus And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus more ower if that be true which thou beleeues and maintaines of the bodie of Christ vbique gentium it is false which the church beleeues of the same matter in euerie natiō For all those whoe reioyce to be called and to bee Christians doe glorie in that they receiue in this sacrament the true flesh and bloud of Christs bodie receiued from the virgin Inquire of all such as haue knouledge of the latin tongue and of our writings Inquire of the Grecians Armeniās or of Christian people of anie nation what soeuer they will with one mouth testifye that they haue this faith Furthermore if the faith of the vniuersall church be false either ther neuer was Catholique church or she hath perished nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of soules then a pernicious error But no Catholique will graunt that the church either was not or that she hath perished In this plaine sorte testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the vniuersall church in which it were madnes to imagine he did not include his owne I meane the church of England And supposing he liued writ this the verie next age following the age in which Alfric dyed to wit in some parte of the leuēth centurie it is more then monsterous impudencie in our aduersaries to affirme that in the dayes of Alfric the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation was commonely preached and beleeued in the Realme of England Further more Pascasius Rathbertus writ a booke intituled of the bodie and bloud of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram as is cōmōly supposed althoù I finde him not named by Pascasius he hath alsoe an Epistle of the same subiect to one Frudegard with an exposition of those wordes of the Euangelist Math. 26. Caenantibus autem illis c. In all which writings Pascasius most plainely defendeth both the reall presence and transsubstantiation most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same bodie and bloud which Christ receiued of the Virgin Marie and the same in which he was crucifyed is really and truely present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice I need not relate his wordes for euerie particular because I knowe our aduersaries can not denye but that this Author is plainely for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine onely I will rehearse some generall wordes of his in which he declares the faith of the vniuersall church in and before his tymes for after testimonies of diuers āciēt fathers alledged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid wordes of S. Mathewe thus he saith Ecce habes amantissime c. Behould most louing brother thou haste in the end of this little booke the sentences of the Catholique Fathers compendiously noted by which thou maist learne that I haue not seene such things in rashnes of speech when I was a child but that I haue proposed them by diuine authoritie and by the authoritie of the holye Fathers to such as demaunded them But now it being cleare that Since that tyme the faith of all men is not one and the same then cease I praye to beleeue with such as they bee if as yet they can not vnderstand that nothing is impossible to God and lett them learne to assent vnto the diuine wurdes in all things to doubt nothing of those For till this present no man is read to haue erred in them except those whoe erred aboute Christ himselfe notobstanding manie doubted or haue ben ignorant of the Sacraments of soe great a Mysterie And afterwardes the same author in the same treatise saith thus Qua expleta voce c. Which wordes being pronounced meaning the wordes of consecration we all with one consonant voyce say Amen And soe the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confesse that it is that thing which she prayeth for wherby let him whoe will rather contradict this then beleeue it regarde what he doth against our lord him self against the whole Church of Christ Therfore it is a nefarious and detestable villanie to pray with all and not to beleeue that which truth it self doth testifye and that which vniuersally all in euerie place doe teach Whence it is that since he him selfe affirmes it is his bodie and his bloud doubt ought not to be made in anie thing altho' we see not with carnall yes that which we beleeue We haue seene alsoe what Pope Gregorie houldeth of this what
by way of diuertion breefly to signifye to the reader how common a practise it is euen among the most famous of our aduersaries to maintaine their doctrine by lyes and false dealing of which I perceiue by a breefe vewe I tooke of some parte of his worke an industrious reader may discouer no smale stoare in the great primate doctor Vsher as well as his fellowes But now to returne to my direct purpose I yet more efficatiously confirme that which I haue said of Alfric by the chronologie of our English historians In his cata wulstan dunst For first according to the computation of Bishop Godwin ther passed onely some six yeares betwixt the decease of wlstā in the Archibishoprie of yorke the promotiō of S. Dūstan to the seat of Canterburie in which space as likewise in the tyme of wulstan himself it is quite incredible that ther was anie doctrine cōtrarie to the reall ptesence cōmōly toucght in England since S. Dunstan at the day and houre of his death expressely professed the same as out of our owne histories I haue alreadie showed by the relation of Harpesfeld Vid. Osborne in vita dunst Besides this it is certaine ther were but onely twoe wulstans Archbishops of yorke as appeareth by Godwins Catalogue the one as he reporteth deceased the yeare 955. which was at the least fortie yeares before Alfric possessed the seat of Canterburie according to the account of the same catalogue The other wulstan as the same Goduin recounteth began not his seat at yorke till the yeares 1003. which was more then 50. yeares after the death of the first wulstan now this conographie being thus established euen by one of our aduersaries Safe way sect 9. §. 2. I argue in this manner against knight Humbrey affirming that the homilie and Epistles which he alledgeth were translated by Alfric and appointed to be read to the people in his dayes my argument is this If this supposed homilie and Epistles were euer translated written or published by Alfric either it was when he was Abbat or Archbishop But neither of these is true Therfore it is not true that the homilie and Epistles were euer translated or published by Alfric The Minor which onely hath need of prose I conuince by the testimonie of my aduersarie whoe affirmes the translation and publication of the freifaid writings to haue ben a boute the yare 996. Sir Humf. page 92. and directed to wulstan Archbishop or yorke and wulfstius Bishop of sherborne by Alfric Abbat I meane the Epistles And yet at this tyme neither was Alfric Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie neither was either of the two wulstans Archbishop of yorke at that tyme. the one being dead 40. yeares before and the other not inuested in that dignitie vntill the yeare 1003. as Godwin doth witnesse soe that by this argument it manifestly appeares that the knights relation touching this matter of the publishing of the homilie and Epistles alledged by him against the reall presence and transsubstantiation is contradictious voyde of truth More ouer I finde in our English histories that aboute the yeare 950. which was some fortie and od yeares before Alfric was preferred to be Archbishop of Canterburie Vid. Harps in the tyme of Odo Archbishop of the same seat ther were some conuented before him whoe were in an erroreous opinion aboute the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the maintainers of it how soeuer Fox doth fable neither were manie nor did it long continue but was miraculously at an instant exstinguished For the pious zealous pastor Odo much lamenting the illusion of those miserable people prayed God with teares in masse that his diuine maiestie would be pleased by his infinit power manifestely to shewe some thing by which both the truth of the reall presence might appeare and the contrarie error might be confounded when sodainely at his seruants petition God almightie turned the consecrated bread in to visible flesh and the wine in to visible bloud Which wonderous spectacle being seene the incredulous persons presently complained of their owne perfidie and misbeleefe and all the rest of their dayes conserued their faith intire and sounde now this hauing happened aboute the same tyme at which that wulstan was Archbishop of yorke whoe hauing ben in that place some yeares deceased the yeare 955. as Godwin relateth it clearely appeares incredible that Alfric then Abbat should direct anie doctrine repugnant to the reall presence to wolstan Archbishop of yorke and to vlsine vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of sherbourne as our aduersaries affirme since that Odo Archbishop of Canterburie and Primate of England at the verie same tyme as of out of histories I haue rehearsed did by the power of God operate soe strange a miracle in confirmation of the same and confutation of the contrarie error More then this Vlsin or vlsius whome the knight calles wulfstius of which name neuerthelesse I finde none in Malesburies Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne could not possible haue anie Epistle directed unto him by Alfric while he was Abbat of Malesburie or Abington as Sir Humfrey and the rest of these tryfelers alledge for that while Vlsine or wulfstius was Bishop of Sherbourne which was but onely fiue yeares as our histories doe testifye Hrapsfeld saec 10. c. 9. being Abbat onely of westminister in the dayes of S. Dunstan and by his procurement whose death happened the yeare .988 as Stowe relates Alfric was no more Abbat but Bishop of wilton and consequently he could not as Abbat write to Vlsine Vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of Sherbourne but if he had writ anie such letters as our aduersaries attribute vnto him to that Bishop he should haue styled him selfe not Abbat but Bishop as in deed he was all the tyme yea and some yeares before the foresaid wulfstius was by king Ethelred preferred to the Episcopall seat of Sherbourne But that which doth strik this quite dead is that ther hauing ben but onely twoe wolstans Archbishops of yorke the first wolstan dyed before euer Alfric was Abbat to wit the yeare of our Lord 955. wher as Ingulphus in Edgar relates Alfric to haue ben created Abbat onely aboute the yeare 970. at the soonest soe that he could not possible write anie Epistles to the first wolstan while he was Abbat as our nouellists pretend bebause this wolstan was departed out of this life before Alfrics tyme of being Abbat And as for the second wolstan it is well knowne and testifyed by Godwin that he was not Archbishop of yorke before the yeare 1003. At which tyme Alfric was not Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie as our aduersaries them selues refuse not to graunte And soe this computation and collation of tymes vtterly destroyes the machination of our abuersaries in attrituting the foresaid writings to Abbat Alfric And touching Vlsius or Vlsinus I adde to this that Alfric was consecrated Byshop of wilton in the yeare 985. or ther aboutes some fourteeme yeares
Sir Humfrey passeth to another matter that is to the testimonies of the ancient fathers where he chargeth the Romanists that they eyther openly reiect them or secretly decline their authority by euasions in particular pointes This is the tenth section a great part of which is repeated out of his firste booke ansered by me in my censure He makes a large preamble touching the clayme the Romanists make to the ancient fathers as patrons of their doctrine as if they did arrogate that which is not their owne but the discourse is very idle mutatis mudandis may be verie iustely verified of the knight his predecessors especiallie Iewell Plessis who both of them were the greatest braggars in that kind that euer were yet none so shamelesse in corrupting the Fathers workes abusing their sense as themselues The rest of this section is verie meane stuffe consisting of captious constructions of the sayeings of some Romanists contorting them to this matter as if they did disesteeme or reiect the ancient Fathers authoritie which is impossible to be true as is manifestlie conuinced by the continuall vse they make of them much more then the Nouellists as it is well knowne to the world And the truth is that the Romanists onelie modestlie confesse especiallie when they are vrged to it by the clamours of the sectaries that some of the Fathers in their single opinions or in such cases as they did not all consent together did sometimes perhapps fall into some erroneous point of doctrine that they are not alwayes in euerie point to be followed in their expositions of scriptures or otherwise in matters nothing concerning the controuersies of these tymes But onelie when they all agree in matters of faith or by graunting that in pointes of practise for example about the Communion in one kinde or priuate Masse they are not all in all matters expreslie for them How beit they knowe they neither are against them all things considered Which if it be duelie pondered is no inconuenience at all in regard that these things such others be mutable according to the diuersitie of times persons consequentlie might be otherwise thē by practised thē by vs. Neyther doe the Romanists when they affirme the Fathers to be for them teach as the knight doth falselie deceitfullie suppose that all the Fathers in euerie point of faith be it transubstantiation or anie other are positiuelie for them but onelie that the whole streame nay nor anie part of them is positiuelie against them in anie such doctrine that in the most pointes they are expresselie wholie for them against the reformers in all Pag. 290. Out of which the reader may collect how impudently the kinght doth belye the foresaid Romanists when he affirmeth that they are reputed no good Catholikes by their owne tenets that teach not contrary to the vniforme consent of Fathers especiallie considering that he himselfe hath already related how the same Romanists take an expresse oath to follow that consent Sect. 4. init And by this it may in like fashion be easilye perceaued how little credit this man deserues when he accuseth his aduersaries of citation of counterfeit authors wheras he himselfe doth deale so vniustly in that nature especially with Bellarmine that he doth not onely mutilate his wordes but also citeth that which is not to be found as by way of example you may see page 290. where he affirmes Bellarmine to professe that they are not to be numbred among Catholiques that thinke the Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne for hauing deligently passed ouer two seuerall times the 15. chap. of the 4. booke de amiss grat which is that same Sir Humfrey citeth I find no such sentence nor words in it but rather the quite contrary doctrine as by his owne words in my margen related clerely appeares Neque desunt qui impudenter affirment ab Ecclesia Romanae defendi cōceptionem immaculatam Virginis Mariae tanquam articulum fidei Bell. loco cit neither is it lesse plainly false which he affirmeth for the conclusion of this section to wit that Bellarmine the Romanists in generall some times condemne the Fathers as counterfeit some times they purge them as if they were full of corruptions that according to seuerall occasions they haue their seuerall deuices to produce them or auoyd them at their pleasure yea that they cōfessing thē to be counterfeit yet produce them for their doctrine all which particulars are so farre from truth that they cry shame on the author so much the more in regard that he his brothers are not a little guiltie in this busines but doe daily offend in the same kinde as by many instances might be proued particularly in that one for example of the Imperfect which passing vnder the name of S. Chrisostome is conuinced by Bellarmine others not to be his in regard it houldeth the Homousians for heretikes yet is it commonly cited by our aduersaries euen by Sir Humfrey himself in diuers places of his workes in which they verifie most fitly that of the Apostle Rom. 2.21 in that while they preach to others that they must not steale they steale themselues Neyther yet doe any of the testimonyes which the kinght produceth for his accusation of Bellarmine in this nature proue his intent nor any thing more then that both Bellarmine other Romanists doe indeed some times produce such authors in fauour of their doctrine as are not by all Romanists held to be of certaine vndoubted authority or at the least not certainly iudged to be the workes of those authors whose names they beare thou ' otherwise althose who cite them hold them for workes of ancient standing not counterfeit at least in the substance of theie authority as the knight doth counterfeitly indeuore to perswade his reader nay Bellarmine whome the knight particularly taxeth in this behalf showeth himself so iust sincere in this point that he is not content eyther alwayes or for the most parte to aduertise the reader when he cites doubtfull authors in his tomes of controuersies but also to take away all occasion of scruple in himself of calumniation in others he hath made a particular censure of such authors as are in anie sort held for doubtfull or Apochriphal or otherwise called in question And so to conclude this the reader may see by what indirect courses Sir Humfrey huddles vp this parte of his by-way for himself freinds to spend their tyme in Sec. 11. In his eleauenth section he indeuoureth to proue that the substantiall pointes of the Romane faith as they are now receiued taught by the Church of Rome were neuer taught by the primitiue Church nor receiued by the ancient Fathers these are the contents of the section but it containes so little substance that we may trulie say it stands onelie for a
annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesijs successores eorum vsque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognouerunt quale ab his deliratur By which wordes it is manifest that S. Irenaeus doth confute his aduersaries the heretikes not by scripture onely but alsoe cheefely by traditionarie authoritie of the Bishops succeeding frome the Apostles which is directly opposite to the tenets especially of the purer sorte of nouellists whoe neither admitte traditions nor Episcopall authoritie but the onely written worde for absolute and sole Iudge of all Controuersies confutation of heresies Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the historian bookes of the old Testament as I am persuaded doth not plainely affirme neither doth Canus charge him with that error that the bookes of Machabies are not absolutely Canonicall as Sir Humfrey alledgeth but he onely reprehendeth him for vsing a vaine distinction of Canonicall scriptures as if there were some Canonicall onely for instruction of manners and not for matters of faith against the infirmitie or vnsoundnesse of which distinction Canus vseth this reprehensiue conclusion saying Cum sub eodem contextu omnes illi libri nullo facto discrimine definiantur esse Canonici scilicet Ecclesiasticus Sapientia Tobias Iudith Machabaeorū libri duo Baruch ridiculum est vt partim in vna significatione partim in alia libros Cenonicos habeamus Ac si hāc semel distinctionem admittimus authoritate Conciliorum atque Pontificum nullus liber Sacer constare poterit And presently after Id quoniam absurdum omnino est retineamus potius eam rationem oportet quam Caietanus voluit evertere vir vt saepe iam dixi cum primis eruditus pius sed qui in libris Canonicis constituendis Erasmi nouitates ingeniumque secutus dum alienis vestigijs voluit insistere propriam gloriam maculauit And soe you see Canus doth not confesse that directly Caietan maintained the Machabies not to be Canonicall but onely with that distinction neither did in deed Caietan more denye the authoritie of those bookes then he did the Epistle to the Haebrewes that of S. Iames which neuerthelesse he held absolutely for Canonicall tho' not perhaps in the same rigorous sense in which he iudged all the rest of the bookes of scripture to be in the Canon by reason those as alsoe some other partes of scripture haue ben by some ancient authors doubted of in which doubt onely he seemeth to founde his distinction Touching the Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament Sir Humfrey doth most falsely alledge the authoritie of S. Isidore persuading his reader that he reiecteth those same bookes which he and his companions in the newe religion condemne for Apochripha Weras in deed that ancient author numbereth them all in the Christiā Canon And to the end the knights impudencie may more plainely appeare I will rehearse S. Isidores expresse wordes concerning the same whoe in his 6. booke of origenes or etymologies saith thus Quartus est apud nos ordo veteris Testamenti eorum librorum qui in Canone Haebreo non sunt quorum primus sapientiae liber est Secundus Ecclesiasticus Tertius Tobias Quartus Judith Quintus Sextus Machaboeorum Quos licet Haebraei inter Apochrypha separent Ecclesia tamen Christi inter diuinos libros honorat praedicat By which wordes it is soe euident that this holie Father standes for the Romanists and against the pretensiue reformers in this point that I much maruell how Sir Humfrey could haue the face to produce him in fauor of his cause Nay more then this out of the distinction which he maketh betweene the the Hebrewes vs Christians in receiuing the foresaid bookes for Canonicall I frame a firme coniecture that either all or most of these ancient authors whoe seeme to exexclude them out of the Canon doe onely intend to declare that they were not included in it by the Iewes as S. Hilarie S. Hierome S. Epiphanius other authors concerning which point the reader may please to reade the same S. Isidore in lib. Prooemiorum de libris veteris noui Testamenti In the 431. page of his by-way the kinght abuseth Canus whome he there cites lib. 12. cap. 13. For he foysteth in by a parenthesis of his owne the worde reall which neither Canus hath nor yet putteth the force of his reprehension of the bishop of Bitont in that he affirmed in the Councell of Trent that Christ did not offer his reall bodie in his last supper but because he affirmed that Christ did not offer his owne bodie absolutely abstracting frō reall or not reall the question not being in that passage of the reall presence but of the Sacrifice of Christs bodie bloud in the Eucharist which as it seemes by Canus relation the foresaid Bishop in the discussion of this point by way of proposition was of that priuate dictamen how beit after wardes he willingly conformed him selfe to the rest of the Fathers to the decree of the Councell By which it is plaine that this Bishop was not of anie firme setled opinion which might fauor Sir Humfreys doctrine in that particular Illud primum animaduerto iure Cornelium Episcopum Bitontinum in Conelio apud Tridentinum à Patribus Theologis vniuersis explosum qui dixerit Christum in Coena non suum corpus sanguinem obtulisse Canus loco citato And soe you see this is one of Sir Humfreyes prittie pettie trickes which omong other greater will serue to replenish his pages The kinght alsoe in his 157. page of his deuia corrupteth the same author cited in his third booke third chapter Where for these wordes in sacrificio Eucharistiae simul cum corpore sanguinem sacerdotibus esse conficiendum sumendum c. Sacrae litterae nusquam forte tradiderunt he translates the consecrating receiuing of ehe bodie bloud of Christ by the preist c. Are nowhere happily to be found in scripture In which passage the attentiue reader may easily see that the knight plaieth the iugler most nimblely For wheras Canus putteth the force of his sentence in the wordes simul together or at once in the other worde sumendum making an hipotheticall proposition of all his wordes ioyned togither our craftie Circulator soe hādleth the matter that his reader may imagin that Canus affirmed that the consecration of the Eucharist according to the custome of the Roman Church is not found in the bible That which that author neuer dreamed but onely intended to produce as an instance of Apostolicall traditions that copulatiue of the practice of the preists consecrating actuall receiuing both the bodie bloud at one the same tyme in the vse of the Eucharist which Canus supposeth rather to be a tradition then expressely contained in the text of scripture More ouer Sir Humfrey cites Gretzerus but onely twise first in his defense of the tenth