Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	body_n	bread_n	transubstantiation_n	2,166	5	10.9952	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

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

Maldonate the Iesuit affirming that he confesseth Saint Augustin in the doctrine of transubstantiation to be wholie theirs citing the foresaid Maldonat's words vpon the 6. chapter of Saint Iohn the 5. verse For the same which although they be truelie rehearsed by the knight yet haue they no such sense or meaning as he doth either ignorantlie or malitiouslie suppose nor doth he treate in them either of the reall presence or transubstantiation but onelie of the exposition of the wordes of the foresaid verse Patres vestri manducauerunt Manna mortui sunt qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum Making a question whether in them there be made by Christ a comparison betweene the seuerall persons that did eate or betwene the seuerall kindes of breades which they did eate And whereas Maldonate citeth Saint Augustine and others to follow that opinion which houlds the comparison to be betwixt the eaters he with other authours who liued since the tyme of S. Augustin reiecting that as lesse probable more neere to the exposition of the Caluinists leaueth it so and imbraceth the contrarie and in this point onelie and in this manner doth Maldonate persuade himselfe that Saint Augustin as a most greate enimie to heretiks would haue bene of another mynde if he had liued in these our daies and seene his owne exposition of the foresaid wordes come so neere the glosse of the Caluinists And this being all yet our learned knight is so curious an Alchimist that he will needes drawe out of Maldonate by arte that he confesseth S. Augustin to haue bene wholie for the reformers in the doctrine of transubstantiation and also that which is further fetched that the Romanists haue neither antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine But alas his worke hath succeeded so vnfortunatelie that insteede of gould he hath extracted drosse I meane that in lieu of one single trueth he hath vttered a double lye falsifying most shamefullie Saint Augustine and maldonate both at once and with in the space of a verie few lines And the like Circulatorie and circumuenting tricks the knight also vseth in the citations of Alfonso de Castro Gregorius de Valentia and Cardinall Cusanus As if they did testifie that there is no antiquitie nor vniuersallitie in the Fathers touching the doctrine of transubstantiation where as in deede they haue no such matter as appeereth euen out of the verie same wordes which he citeth in this place Castro onelie affirming that there is seldome mention of the transubstantiation of the bread into the bodie of Christ in antiquis scriptoribus in the auncient writers not in the auncient Fathers as the knight doth falselie translate And that which is yet much falser he translates conuersion for transsubstantiation where it is also to be noted that Castro speakes there onelie of the worde transubstantiation not of the thing signified by the worde as is euident by his other wordes which presentlie fellowe saying thus Who but an heretike will dare to denie these things because they are not mentioned in auncient Fathers vnder such names So that both Castros wordes and sense are grosselie corrupted by Sir Humfrey Valentia onelie affirmeth that it is not to be marueled if one or two or some of the auncients not Fathers as our aduersarie yet somat more corruptedlie then before traduceth before the question of transubstantiotion was throulie debated in the Church haue tought lesse consideratelie and lesse weigtilie of this matter In which wordes the knight also translates palam throulie for openlie and leauing vnmentioned the other ansers which Valentia giues to the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret vpon whose occasion he speakes in that manner Haec ergo tam multa tantorum virorum testimonia satis esse debent vt osteÌ„ damus Luthero transsubtiationem non esse nouaÌ„ nec trecentenariam vt ipse asserit sed multo vetustiorum nempe ab ipsis Ecclesiae primordijs proditam Castro li. 6. haer 5. f. 178. and yet further omitting the conclusion of the sentence to wit maximÃ¨ cum non tractarent ex instituto questionem as also other wordes which follow to the same purpose Cusanus lastlie saith no more but that certaine of the auncient diuines if we may giue credit to the knight not heere citing his wordes are found to be of this minde that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantiated in nature but still remayneth and is clothed with another substaÌ„ce more noble then it selfe In which wordes as you see whatsoeuer those innominated men and as it seemes vnknowne to Cusanus himselfe whatsoeuer I say they did hould touching the trueth of transubstantiation yet certaine it is that they were not Caluinists in the point of the reall presence as plainelie appeereth by that noble substance which they held to clothe the bread after consecration which doubtlesse could be nothing els but the most pretious and noble bodie of Christ which the reformers denie to be present in the Sacrament This therefore is all that the cited authours affirme And to omitte that none of them vseth the name of Fathers as the knight would haue them translating and transforming the wordes scriptotes veteres and antiqui Theologi or the like into Fathers or at the least citing the foresaid authours as if they spake planiely of the auncient fathers which neuerthelesse their wordes doe not showe I say to say nothing of this which though it is a trick to deceaue the reader yet it is so poore a one as it cannot much aduantage his cause And to admitte that by those formes of speech the foresaid moderne authours meane the auncient Fathers yet doth not this argue want of antiquity or vniuersallity of the Fathers in that pointe in regard it is not required to the argument of antiquitie that all auncient Fathers in all ages none excepted agree in the pointe for which that kinde of argument is vsed especiallie before the matter be sufficientlie declared determined by the Church in case of doubt or opposition of heretikes or otherwise but onely it is required and sufficient that the most parte of them doe consent therein the rest not obstinatelie contradicting the same or carrying themselues at least indifferent according to the aduise of Vincent lyr Contra prophanas haeres nouit saying that si in ipsa vetusttate discrepantes senteÌ„tias reperiamus sequamur sententiam plurium illustriorum Doctorum That is if in antiquitie it selfe we finde different opinions let vs followe the opinion of the more famous Doctours And this is therefore true because that if such methaphisicall antiquitie vniuersality were necessarie for all points of faith noe Church in the world could truely be said to haue antiquitie and vniuersalitie in all points of doctrine or to haue beene alwaies Catholikes it being a thing manifest that not any Church either is nor was nor euer will be so auncient and vniuersall as that ail and euery one of the auncient

enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae Ã 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 opinioÌ„ 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 HuÌ„freyes 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 differeÌ„t 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 indiffereÌ„cy in the RomaÌ„ Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatioÌ„ 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 opinioÌ„ 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

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 Osseni which I haue shewed all readie out of S. Epiphanius to haue beene of a farre different nature notwithstanding out aduersarie doth indeuoure falselie to persuade the same to his simple reader neither was this as the knight vntruelie affirmes to introduce seruice in a strange language but rather in the most knowne in the world that in which most nations agree and so this may serue to demonstrate that the Romanists deriue not this parte of their Pedagane froÌ„ auncient heretikes as our aduersarie doth calumniate but froÌ„ the practise of the most auÌ„cient Church at the least in the west partes of the world to wit the Apostolicall Church And heare we see also that Sir Humfrey in steede of deriuing the Pedegree of the Roman faith from Iewes and heretikes he deriues his owne from the Father of lyes that is from the abuse of both scriptures and auncient Fathers of the Catholike Church In the next braunch of the Pedegree he plaplaceth transsubstantiation going about to proue that it was the doctrine or at least the practise of certaine heretikes named Helcesaitae who faigned a two fould Christ as saith Sir Humfrey the Masse Preists doe who admit one bodie with all his dimentions and properties in heauen and other in the Sacrament which hath noe properties of a true bodie Thus Sir Humfrey talkes most absurdely ignorantly and falsely Ignorantly for that according to this discourse he houldes the want of locall dimensions or properties of a bodie sufficient to cause an absolute indiuiduall sustantiall diuersitie in it and to distinguish it really from it selfe and so to make it an other distinct bodie which is so voyde of reason that if he had not bene grossely ignorant in Philosophie haue he would neuer vttered such doctrine vnworthie of other confutation them a schoole stampe or hisse He speake also falsely first in that he either affirmes or supposes Preists to admit that Christs bodie in the Sacrament is without anie properties of a true bodie For they all contrarily teach and beleeue that as Christs bodie in the Sacrament is the same which is in heauen so hath it all the same properties excepting locall extension Secondly he speakes falselie in that he Fathereth that on Preists which none of them either thought or tought and so makes them guiltie if the Helcesaits heresie onelie for that which he hath forged in his owne phantasticall braine Also abusing the authority of learned Theodoret in misaplying his words in which he vtters not anie iot or title by which it can be gathered that these heretikes meant of Christ in the Sacrament when they faigned a double Christ but of two visible Christs the one aboue I knowe not where and the other belowe in the world or I knowne not where els adding that the supernall Christ did in former times liue in manie but at being descended from aboue And more they sayde he passed into other bodies other such like fabulous stuffe they haue of Christ which neuer enterd into the cogitations of any people of learning and iudgement and therefore it is as great dotage in Sir Humfrey to impose this vpon Catholike Roman Preists as it was in the authour to inuentit as will yet more plainely appeare by the formall words of Theodoret which here I put in the margin Christum autem non vnuÌ„ dicunt Helcesaitae sed huÌ„c quidem infernÃ¨ illum verÃ² supernÃ¨ eum olim in multis habitasse postremÃ² autem desceÌ„disse Iesum auteÌ„ aliquando ex Deo esse dixit Elxai aliquaÌ„do vocat spirituÌ„ quandoque autem Virginem matrem habuisse in alijs autem scriptis ne hoc quideÌ„ Rursus autem eum etiam dicit transire in alia corpora in vnoquoque tempore diuerse ostendi Theodor. heret fab to 2. lib. 2. pag. 380. And the like absurditie Sir Humfrey commits in that which immediatly followees attributing the doctrine of transsubstantiation to one Marke an heretike because forsooth he by some kinde of inchaunting inuocation ouer the Sacramentall cuppe caused the wine to appeare like bloud which sacrilegious example and practise of Marcus what force it can haue to proue the Romanists to be of that fellowes Pedegree let any indifferent man be iudge And moreouer to take away all doubt and assure himselfe the more let the reader but consider what S. Irenaeus in the same place cited by Sir Humfrey videlicet libr. 1. cap. 9. saith of that Marcus I doubt not but he will see most clearely how egregiously our aduersarie abuseth the Romanists in this matter Marcus saith S. Irenaeus pro calice vino mixto fingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermonem inuocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit vt putetur ea gratia ab ijs qui sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare per inuocationem eius valde concupiscere presentes ex illo gustare poculo vt in illos stillet quae per magum hunc vocatur gratia By which words let the reader if he vnderstand Latin iudge how voyde of grace is he who so shamelesselie applies this to the Consecration of the Eucharist by Preists of the Roman Church And yet the preposterous knight not being content to haue spoken so irreasonably yet further addes that the authours of transsubstantiation were those disciples that beleaued the the grosse carnall eating of Christs Flesh. From whence he would deduce that the Romanists descend from the Iudaicall Capharnaits in this point But this is a most grosse and ridiculous conceipt of him to imagin that they can be successours to such as refused expressely and absolutely to beleeue that same which they hould for a matter of faith tho' not in the same grosse manner which those incredulous disciples of Christ did apprehend and as you also not like reformers but deformers out of the madnesse of your noddles grossely conceiue them to doe but in a much more spirituall manner and yet truely really and substantially and not onely in spirit as your priuate spirits would haue it Which if it were so onely it were not the true Sacrament which necessarily requires to containe really and not by faith onely that which it represeÌ„ts but it were onely a meere shadowe or figure of a Sacrament as the sacrifice of Melchisedech the manna and bread of Proposition were signes and figures of the Sacrament of the holie Eucharist as not containing but onely representing the body and bloÌ„de there contained And supposing that Sir Humfrey himselfe absolutely denies the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and supposing also that as S. Iohn doth testifie the Capharnaits did also refuse to beleeue the same this fable of Sir Humfrey mutat o nomine may much more aptely and truely be verified of him and his companions I will not say then of the Romanists but euen then of the Capharnaits themselues in regarde the Capharnaites as farre as can be gathered by the

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

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

that nature And now of this and the rest of the testimonies which haue beene discussed in this paragraffe which if it had not beene for the satisfaction of the common people which may easily be deluded by them I would neuer haue prosecuted so largely as containinge noething worthie of a scholers labour it may I say be easily collected and perceiued how fondly he concludeth his whole discourse as if he had made it appeare that the reformed faith touching the spirituall and sacramentall participation of Christs bodie had beene generally beleeued and taugh both in the former and later ages and as if the doctrine of transsubstantiation had noe vnity among the Romish authours nor vniuersalitie among the auncient Fathers nor certainety in the scriptures This I say is a most impudent vaunt of the bragadocho knight for that it hath beene already made manifest by the same testimonies which he produceth against the Roman doctrine that not onely the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the same in those two points stands firme and sound but that there is no antiquitie or vniuersalitie at all to be found in the doctrine of the reformed Churhes in those particulars to say nothing of other points of theit deformed faith and so this shall suffice for the censure of this paragraffe which as it is larger in wordes then the former so deserueth it a larger sentence of condemnation as conteining noething more but a greater multitude of diuerse sorts of ill proceeding The third paragraffe is of priuate Masse in which for the honour as I suppose which he beareth towards the mother Church he placeth her definition in the first ranke and then afterwardes the article of his owne Church The decree of the councell of Trent ses 22. can 8. is this If ame shall say that Masses in which the Priest alone doth communicate are vnlawfull and therefore ought to be abrogared let him be accursed but the article of the reformed Church will not haue it so but protesteth that priuate Masses that is the receauing of the Eucharist by the Priest alone with out a competent number of communicants is contrarie to te institution of Christ and the practise of the primatiue Church Thus the knight setteth downe the matter of disputatioÌ„ thus he placeth the two armies in battle aray with their contrarie collours one confronting the other And this speciall difference I note in them that the one armie consists of milites veterani that is of ould Roman souldiers gathered out of the whole Roman Empire and Christian world the other of fresh men fetched from a corner of the world that is from Ireland Loe heere the armies set in order now let vs see who carries away the victorie You may perceiue by Sir Humfreys relation that the Councell speaketh with authoritie it intimateth those aged Synods of the primatiue Church it doth so fulminate that it maketh the reformed brothers tremble to heere it Naye it seemes it so daunteth the valiant knight that he found no other refuge then to flie to IrelaÌ„d for an article of his faith A man would rather haue expected that to confront the Councell of Trent and it definition Sir Humfrey would haue had recourse to the Councell of Gapp or of Dort or to some consistorie assemblie of Geneua or to an Acte of an English Parleament But alas the poore Caualier found so small hope of assistance in these that he was constrained to saile to Ireland for an Irish article as he himselfe doth tearme it True it is the Irish article directlie opposeth the definition of the Councell but by what authority I know not yet certaine it is that in the CouÌ„cell of Trent there were assembled by themselues or their legates or at the least conuented all the Princes both of the ould and newe Religion and Prelates of the Christian world as the Bull of indiction and the oration had in the last session most plainelie testifie And so the authoritie of this Synod euen in common sense must needes be verie great but the authoritie of the articles which our knight opposeth to the Councell what authoritie they had is yet vnknowne neither could they possible haue anie authoritie of greate moment for that they were gathered onelie out of a verie small corner of the Christian world and farre inferiour in vertue learning and other naturall parts to the most greate graue and venerable number of the members of the foresaid Synod Wherefore let the indiffereÌ„t reader iudge whether of these two armies is to be followed The authours of the article protest that priuate Masse is contrarie to the institution of Christ and the practice of the Church and hence the knight inferreth that it is vnlawfull and therefore to be abrogated and farther that the Councell of Trent by cursing those who hould that masses in which the Priest alone doth comunicate are vnlawfull and ought to be abrogated doth cursse Christ that ordeined it and God that commaunded vs to obserue it Heere you see the knight talketh with as greate authoritie as if he were the greatest graduate either in Oxford or Cambridge neuerthelesse he must giue him leaue who is no graduate to let him knowe that he fayleth mightilie in his colection yet not so much in the gradation it selfe as in the premises which being either false or at the least aequiuocall the conclusion must of necessitie be faultie That which deceiued him is his Irish article of faith in that it affirmeth the receiuing of the Eucharist without a competent number of comunicants is contrarie to the institution of Christ For though it is true that when Christ instituted the Sacrament he did actuallie comunicate those that were present yet it is not true that he included in the institution of it that iust so in all occasions it should be practized neither gaue he anie negatiue precept therein in that respect but onelie an affirmatiue which according to it nature not allwayes but onelie according to time place and persons obledgeth So that the distribution is neither anie essentiall parte of the Sacrament nor yet anie necessarie propertie of it to be in all occasions exercised but rather appertaineth onelie to the due administration of it according to the foresaid circumstances and heerein consists the aequiuocation of the first article Now touching the second part which affirmeth that the receiuing of the Priests alone is coÌ„trarie to the practice of the primatiue church is also equiuocall for if it meanes that the primatiue Church did in all circumstaÌ„ces of time place and persons practice the same either by virtue of Christs institution or commaund so it is false as we haue alreadie showed but if it meanes onely that indeede so it was practized in the primatiue Church either alwaies or for the moste parte yet not as a thing alsolutely necessarie either by virtue of Christs institution or precept so we cannot deny but that it is true which the second parte of the article affirmeth but then this

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

Fathers agree euer actually with her in euery point as it is most cleare in the auncient Father Sainct Cyprian and yet more cleere in Tertullian and origen who by reason of some points of doctrine which either were not in their time sufficiently and expresselie determined by the Church or of which they had not occasion to treate may seeme in some sorte to dissent from the present Church euen in such doctrine as now is knowne and beleeued for matter of faith euen by the nouelists themselues as appeares in the point of rebaptization defended by S. Cyprian his adhereÌ„ts in those times Which if it were not so its euident that the reformers were yet in farre worse case then either the Romanists should be vpon that supposition or then now they are if in worse they can be imagined to be whoe neither haue nor euer can haue any kinde of vniuersalitie or aÌ„tiquity of Fathers either metaphisicall or morall on their side And now this being all in substance are rather more then those three cited authours affirme it hence appeereth how smale reason Sir Hum. had to cite them in his fauour especiallie considering that one of them that is Alfonsus a Castro doth onely say that there is seldome mention made of transubstantiation in the Fathers not denying as it is manifest their agreement in that point but rather insinuating their consent therein tho' not so frequentlie expressed Furthermore the knigth addeth for the conclusion of this pointe that many writers and schoole men in their owne Church are so farre from grauÌ„t of antiquity vniuersalitie to this doctrine that they professe the tenet of transubstantiation was latelie receaued in the Church for a point of faith And for this he citeth Scotus as affirming that before the councell of Lateran transubstantiation was not beleeued as a point of faith and that the doctrine of it is not verie auncient in the Church Thus Sir Humfrey Tho which I answer that all tho' Bellarmin affirmes that Scotus sayde transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the councell of Lateran yet I finde he speakes not so absolutely but at the most he saith it was not soleÌ„nly declared as an article of faith before that CouÌ„cell not denying but that it minght be also declared in other particular couÌ„cels as in deed it was declared by the Roman couÌ„cell vnder Nicolas the secoÌ„d aboue a hundreth fifty yeeres before and more expressely in another Roman councell vnder Gregorie the seuenth yea and maintained in the Church time out of minde Neuerthelesse by way of argument I am content to grauÌ„t to the aduersaries that which Bellarmin affirmes of Scotus Et tunc ad tertium vbi stat vis dicendum quod Ecclesia declarauit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo simbolo edito sub In. 3. in Consilio Later vbi ponitur veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quam habeantur in simboloo rum vel Atha vel Nyceni breuiter quicquid ibi dicitur esse credeÌ„dum tenendum est esse de Substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationeÌ„ solemnem factam ab Ecclesia Paulo post Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectuÌ„ Ã Deo traditum Ecclesia declarauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 in resp ad arg yet not withstanding this liberall graunt I doe affirme with all that our Church wanteth neither antiquitie nor vniuersality either in this or any other point of her doctrine and the reason is because allthough some points of her faith were not in all ages and times knowen expresselie for articles of faith yet were they in themselues such indeede and for such beleeued with an implicite faith at the least that is with such a faith as all conteined in the worde of God is belieued by all true Catholikes as an infalible trueth altho' no one particular were knowne vnto them For as it is most certaine that euery faithfull Christian which cannot reade beleeueth many things conteined in scrpture with be knoweth not in regard that altho' he is ignorant of them in particular yet in that he belieueth all that they include he allso belieueth truely euen those particular trueths which he knoweth not so allso it is certaine that euery faithfull Christian beleeuing vniuersally all that which the word of God conteines hath an vniuersall faith of whatsoeuer points of doctrine either was is or shall be declared for matters of faith by the most vniuersall Church in any difference of time and consequently he hath as ancient and vniuersall a faith of those particular points so declared as he hath of those which euen both in the Apostles time in all succeding ages were expressely knowne for articles of faith to all the Christian world And let this suffice to declare that noe point of doctrine definde by the most vniuersall Church as matter of faith conteined in the worde of God can truely be tearmed new but hath as much antiquity and vniuersality as the greatest mysterie of the ChristiaÌ„ faith also that if any noueltie it hath it is onely in the declaration of it quoad nos that is in respect of that new or expresse knowledge which we receiue of it by the proposition of the holy Church Which infalible manner of arriuing to a new knowledge of matters of faith because the sectaries neither haue it nor admitte it it necessarily followes that whatsoeuer doctrine they discouer in these later times must of necessity want both the foresaid properties of antiquitie and vniuersality as we haue declared in regarde they can not show as much as an implicite perpetuallie succeeding faith in the articles they haue newly broched Sir HuÌ„frey further more citeth allso Hostiensis and Gaufridus out of Durand in 4. d. 10. q. 1. n. 23. whoe as he affirmeth saith there were others in those daies whoe taught that the substance of bread remaines and that their opinion was not to be reiected so the knight relateth But how false and corrupted this relation is I know out of Durand himselfe for that I finde in his 10. d. of the 4. of sent q. 1. n. 15. that this passage cited by him is neither Durandes owne doctrine nor yet theirs whome he cites aboute it but onely related by them and taken out of them by Durand to frame his obiection in the begining of his question as he vseth to doe which he afterwardes solues in plaine termes saying in his 25. number Quod ante inducitur de Glossatoribus Gaufrido Hostiense super decreta dicendum quod licet recitent tres opiniones nullam tamen approbant vt veram nisi illam quod corpus Christi sit in altari per transsubstantiationem panis vim si expresse non dicunt aliquam aliam erroneam non propter hoc non est erronea non

I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authours true sense in which I was forced to inlarge my selfe more then the substance of the matter required the more plainelie to discouer vnto him the fraude of the aduerfarie both in detorting the sense and mangling the tenor or continuation of the text of this most Catholike and renowned Prelate Moreouer Sir HuÌ„frey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par q. 75. ar 7. as also the RomaÌ„ Cathecisme at randome as affirming that the substance of the bread remaines till the last worde of the consecration be vttered But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long souer the substance of the bread remaines if at lenght it ceaseth as they both confesse they both agree with vs Romanists and not with the nouellists in the faith of transsubstantiation so professedly that it was more then ordinarie impudencie and madnes once to mentione them for the contrarie Now for coÌ„clusion of the secoÌ„d paragraffe of his 9. section Sir Humfrey affirmes in his 115. p. out of Bell and suauez that manie writers in our Roman Church professe the tenet of transsubstantiatien was lately receiued for a point of faith Which affirmation neuerthelesse is not iustifiable but false and calumnious to the authours he cyteth for it videlicet Scotus Durand Tunstal Ostiensis and Gaufridus Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce supposing Erasmus whome he likewise alledgeth is no Romanist in much of his doctrine in what faith soeuer he ended his life of which I am not able to iudge yet none of these Romanists I say euer affirmed the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be no point of faith as I haue aboue sufficiently declared in my answer to euerie one of their testimonies in particular And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alledged by our aduersarie as affirming Scotus to haue said that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not dogmafidei a decree of faith before the Councell of Lateran the other as aduising to haue him and those other schoolemen corrected who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not verie auncient I professe I haue diligentlie read Scotus in this matter and I sinde he onelie saith that what soeuer is auerred to be beleeued in the Councel of the Lateran capite firmiter is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemne declaration yet he in no place hath this negatiue transsubstantiation was not a point of faith before that Councel not obstanding our aduersaries allegation to the contrarie out of the Cardinal who if he conceiued right of his whole discourse could not iudge Scotus to haue absolutelie denyed transubstantiation to haue beene a point of faith in it selfe as Sir Humfrey will haue it but at the most quoad nos or in respect of our expresse and publike faith of the same For that some of Scotus his owne wordes plainelie importe that traÌ„ssubstantiatioÌ„ is included in the institution of the Eucharist howe be it it was not explicitly or expresselie declared for such in all ages before the solemne declaration as he termeth it made in the Generall Councel of Lateran The wordes of Scotus to this sense and purpose are these Scot. d. 11. q. 3. ad ar Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectum Ã Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis That is For it was not in the power of the Church to make this the point of transsubstantiation true or not true but of God the institutour And according to the vnderstanding deliuered by God the Church did explicate it directed as it is beleeued by the spirit of trueth By which ratiocination or discourse of Scotus it is most cleare and apparent that the point of transsubstantiation was in it selfe a matter of faith euer since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ in regarde that it being now a point of faith it must of necessitie in substance haue beene ordained for such by God himselfe for that it is not in the power of the Church to make but onelie to declare and propose to beleeuers the articles of Religion And according to this I say that suarez sauing the due respect I owe vnto them both had yet lesse reason then Bellarmin had concerning Scotus to taxe the same Scotus and some other diuines as if they had tought that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is not verie auncient For neyther Scotus as his wordes which I haue related doe testifie nor anie other approued diuine of the Roman Church doe vse anie such manner of speech or at the least haue no such sense in their wordes as euen by all those their seuerall passages which our aduersarie could alledge doth manifestlie appeare How be it some of them haue not omitted to say that the worde transsubstantiation hath not beene auncientlie vsed in the Church but eyther inuented by the Fathers of the Lateran Councel or not long before or at the most that there haue beene some in the world of a contrarie opinion to the trueth of transsubstantiation in itselfe which altho' we Romanists should graunt to be true yet doth it not argue anie noueltie in the doctrine but rather the nouellitie of some fewe extrauagant wits as heretiks or corrigible Catholikes in opposing the same which otherwise was generallie maintained by the rest of the Orthodox diuines in all succeeding ages the antiquitie of which doctrine euen those same authorities which the same Scotus himselfe professeth to be produced by him out of S. Ambrose Scot. d. 11. quest 3. Â§. quaÌ„t ergo to the number of 11. doe euidentlie conuince yet further adding that manie others are alledged cap. de consecrat and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better haue spared to passe their censures in that manner vpon anie Catholike diuines supposing such reprehensions serue for little or no other vse then to aforde our aduersaries the nouelists newe occasion and matter of contention without eyther necessitie or conueniencie of which the present fact of Sir Humfrey lind euen in this place doth alreadie yealde vs some experience In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might haue saued the labour for that the Romanists hould him absolutely for none of theirs as in like manner neither doe they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which neuertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though onely by waye of omission howbeit in this particular Erasmus onely affirmeth that it was late before the Church definde it which is not contrarie to the certainetie of the doctrine in it selfe but onely a superficiall relation of the time when it was declared expressely for a matter of faith or infalible trueth in

meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstaÌ„ding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was bouÌ„d vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questioÌ„ diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knoweÌ„ for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all ChristiaÌ„s but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of TreÌ„t and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the RomaÌ„ Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of

psalleret NuÌ„c alia est ratio antiquato vulgari linguae Latinae vsu quam linguaÌ„ propter intermissum communeÌ„ vsum ex Ecclesia diuinisque osficijs minime conueniebat exturbari inque locuÌ„ eius vulgares vernaculas substitui Multa etiam dicta Patrum c. Gretzerus defens lib. 2. c. 16. and how repugnant Gretzerus is to Sir Humfreys tenet in this particular as professedly he must of necessitie be as being a professed defender of Bellarmins doctrine in matters of Controuersie But now because I haue already treated in part of this before and breifly giuen sentence already of that which Sir Humfrey produceth for the defense of his doctrine I will include the contents of this whole paragraph in the same censure and so passe along to the next which is of the worship of images where we are to examine whether the knight bringeth any sounder matter then he hath donne heere where as I should haue noted before he falsely relateth a historie of certaine shepheardes out of his false frend Cassander which shepherds he affirmeth according to his emendicated relation to haue transubstantiated bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ by pronuntiation of the words of consecration which they had learned whereas indeed the authenticall historie of that strange accident written by Sophronius saith onely that the bread and wine were suddenly burnt by fire from heauen and the shepheards struken speachlesse for a time But this howsoeuer it happened being it can serue Sir Humfrey for no greater purpose then to replenish his pages I leaue it to the reader to consider of this his proceeding as he pleaseth Presently in the entrance of the 7. Paragraph Sir HuÌ„frey pronouÌ„ceth a very sharpe sentence against the CouÌ„cell of Trent for decreeing that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to the images of Christ and his Saintes condemning it for a wicked and blasphemous opinion Loe heere the sentence of condemnation which is to be iudged so much the more rash and temerarious in respect the peremptorie Iudge leaueth out the greater part of the doctrine he censureth which if he had added at large as it standeth in the Councell it would sufficiently haue iustified it selfe and because Sir Humfrey for reasons of state would not take so much paines I will doe it for him The Councell therefore in the 25. Sess page 202. decreeth in this manner The images of Christ the Virgin the Mother of God and other Saintes are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and due honour and veneration is to be giuen vnto them not that it is beleiued there is in them any diuinity or virtue for which they are to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or that confidence is to be put in them as in times past the Gentiles did who put their trust in Idols but because the honour which is exhibited vnto images is referred vnto the Prototipes which they represent so that by the images which we salute and before which we vncouer our heads and kneele we adore Christ and reuerence the Sainctes whose similitude they haue that which by the decrees of councels especially of the second Nicene Synod hath binne established against the oppugners of images thus the decree of the Councell of Trent in which we finde not one word either wicked or blasphemous nay rather euery word soundeth nothing but piety and religion towards Christ and his Sainctes whom it will haue honoured not only in themselues but also in and by their images which manner of honour as it is declared by the Councell is not onely not contrary to scriptures as Sir Humfrey falsely affirmeth but also very conformable to them both in regard the scriptures make mention of honour due vnto materiall things for the relation of representation which they haue to God or other his holie creatures Psal 95. Matth 5. as also for that we vse no other reuerence to images theÌ„ the Church doth teach vs whose authority the same scripture commendeth and commandeth vs to follow and obey more then this the CouÌ„cel is so farre froÌ„ attributing to images anie vnlawfull manner of honour that it doth not once vse either the worde worship or adore except where it speaketh of Christ himselfe which wordes neuerthelesse if they be taken in the sense in which diuines doe commonlie take them include no offence at all as signifying an exteriour action of honour indifferent euen according to the phrase of scripture both to God and creatures and being distinguished onelie according to the diuersitie of the internall affection and submission of the minde which submission and affection in the honouring of an inanimate creature as an image is is neuer by the worshipper exhibited to the image it selfe but onelie to the thing it representeth nay nor yet the exteriour signe of adoration as genuflectioÌ„ or inclination of the bodie is giuen to the image itselfe for itselfe and to remaine in it but rather by the image which we salute or before which wee prostrate our selues the same signe of honour is transferred ioyntelie with the affection of the mynde to the thing which is adored Which doctrine is both so cleare in itselfe and so plainelie declared by the Councell expreslie teaching that the honour exhibited vnto theÌ„ is referred to the Paterne CoÌ„c Trid. Sess 25. decret de imag that a verie child may conceiue it to be free from all superstitious worship and adoration in so much that it is but grosse ignorance malice and madnesse in our aduersaries to exclaime against the Romanists as idolaters for the honour they giue to images And I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey or anie other of his reformed companions in what place of scripture this proposition The images of Christ and his saints are to be duelie honoured is condemned for wicked blasphemous and the same I say of the auncient Fathers And if they cannot produce as much as one onelie place either out of scripture or Fathers which doth truelie serue to that purpose I meane which doth truelie condemne the foresaid proposition in that manner as I knowe neither they nor the knight can performe let him confesse that is censure of the Romanists is temerarious and false and nothing els but a renouation of an old Iewish complainte against the Christians of more auncient ages It is true I knowe the reformers vse commonlie to alledge for their denyall of honor to images both scripture and Fathers as also Sir Humfrey doth in this paragraffe and particularlie they vse to produce the wordes of that which they call the second cammaundement to wit thou shall not make to thy selfe anie grauen image But touching this I haue showed aboue In the 4. Period that according to the doctrine of S. Augustin there is no such second commaundement those wordes being onelie a parte of the first Secondlie howsoeuer the matter stands certaine it is that except the sectaries

testifies in these wordes quoted in the margen In Thomae Caietani commentarijs in D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 122 art 4. omnino corrigantur errores qui fraude haereticorum irrepserunt vt notatur in expurg Index lib. prohib p. 89. Geneu impres The Epistle of Walricus is suppositious which is paoued to be so because it is superscribed to Pope Nicolas to whom according to the computation of times the first Pope Nicolas was before Walricus was borne and the second Nicolas was not borne till after he was dead Neither is it any way probable that such a holie Bishop as Walricus was should commend marriage in other Preists who liued and dyed in vnmarried chastity himselfe and so the foresayd Epistle being a false record as containing an improbable yea a morally impossible relation it was iustely condemned with a deleatur To omit that if this Epistle wer authenticall the reformers would gaine nothing by the bargen for that it teacheth expressely that the Roman Bishop is head of the Church and that Preists at the least after ordination cannot lawfully marrie Sixtly it is false that Bertram's whole booke is condemned as may appeare by the iudgement of the Vniuersitie of Doway approued by the Censurers of bookes inserted in the Index of Quiroya published by Ioannes Pappus a reformed deformed diuine with certaine odious prefaces of his owne coyning printed at Argentin 1609. In the 17. page of which Index it is manifest that the whole booke was not commaunded to be blotted out but onely some fewe things to be corrected or altered in the reading or to be expounded benigneously And as for the doctrine of transsubstantiation the foresaid Doctours of Doway expressely declare that Bertram often times in the first parte of his disputation teaches Catholike transsubstantiation plainely enuffe vsing the words conuertere mutare commutare permutare transponere creaturam in Christum in corpus Christi c. in so much that Illiricus compelled with the plainesse of those wordes confesseth there are in Bertram semina transsubstantiationis seeds of transubstantiation And also the same Dowacene Doctors conclude that those difficult places which are founde in him touching the reall presence which cheefely are two to wit that he seemeth to haue ben of opinion that Christs bodie is no more in the Eucharist then the bodie of the people and that that thing which is celebrated or done in the Church caÌ„not be called God are either to be vnderstood of the externall formes of bread and wine or els that those sentences be inserted by heretiks who printed that booke first at Colen 1532. after at Basil 1550. 1555. so that this is no recorde of the reformers except it be vpon supposition of their owne corruptions or false glosses added vnto it but rather may serue for a pregnant testimonie against them and consequeÌ„tly he that should haue blotted it out had done them no iniurie but a verie great fauor Seuenthlie I say to the sentence taken out of the booke of baptizme vnder the name of Anselme that manie passages be blotted out by the Censurers of bookes by reason they are such as may easilie be taken in an erroneous sense so scandalize or giue occasion of errour either to the simple or malicious reader which neuerthelesse in a sounde sense containe no false doctrine so might be lefte vncorrected if it were not for the corruption malignitie of the tyme. And of this nature be the wordes of the booke of the visitation of the sicke Baptisme if they be ritely recited by Sir Hum. Doest thou beleeue that the Lord Iesus Christ dyed for our saluation that there is no meanes to be saued by owne merits Which sentence in a true meaning is no recorde of the reformers in a false meaning it is better blotted out theÌ„ lefte in And such diligence argueth no ill conscience but a motherlie care of the Church towardes here children 8. We haue sayd sufficient alreadie touching the credit of Cassander whose doctrine the Romanists hould for false recordes either in parte or totalitie And he maketh such preposterous glosses vpon the Ecclesiasticall himnes as the Index noteth in one place that all his whole scholium is repugnant to the same like a commentarie contrarie to the text Yet to giue the reader a taste What truelie this man was who is so farre in Sir Humfreys bookes I say that altho' we hold not Cassander for a Romanist as being in the Index of prohibited bookes for diuers singular positions neuerthelesse the knight cannot iustelie brag of him in regarde it is manifest by his workes which I haue seene read in parte that he expresselie defendes the Roman doctrine in most points of CoÌ„trouersie betwixt vs the Reformers as also because in a greater parte euen of the same places which Sir Hum. cites in his fauour he is not a little abused either corrupted or detorted by him coÌ„trarie to his meaning Howbeit in respect he professeth the parte of a Pacifer mediator betwixt vs he could not but leane some thing to their side yet is it so little that I perceiue by one of his writings that he had smale thankes for his paines from some of the faction therefore was most sharpelie handled by them accusing him of dissimulation imposture interruption of the course of the Gospell the like An infortunate man who by his great labours earnest endeuours to content both parties contended neither a iuste punishment due vnto such as destitute of true knowledge in diuinitie which he himselfe in parte confesseth in his generall Preface presume to treat of those sublime subiects sans a guide The Basilean edition of Polidor virgill printed in the yeare 1544. compared with other former the most ancient editions is founde to haue ben corrupted by the sectaries so no true recordes can be taken out of it for Sir Humfrey his confraternitie And such is that passage which the Inquisitours commanded to be blotted out which is this All most all ancient Fathers condemned images for feare of idolatrie This sentence as false foysted into the foresayd Basilian edition is iustelie cast out as none of the authours doctrine or at the least vehementlie suspected for none of his And touching the doctrine of honour of images it selfe it is cleare that he can aforde no recorde at all for the reformed diuinitie for that he expresselie relateth the vse of images in Churches deduceing it historicallie from the most primatiue tymes Langius or Langus is of no authoritie among the Romanists so he yealdes no recordes of credit And at the best he is but a pedanticall Annotator as I take it a Lutheran that is neither of Sir Humfreys religion nor of ours As for Ferus certaine it is that some of his editions haue ben founde to be mightilie corrupted particularlie that of Mogunce Which the knight citeth so the recordes drawne out of him are of

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 coÌ„monly 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 coÌ„mitting 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 examinatioÌ„ 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 opinioÌ„ 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 RomaÌ„ 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 preseÌ„ce which at this tyme the RomaÌ„ church maintaines was coÌ„monly 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 sufficieÌ„tly repelled the calumniations which with cantumely of Bishop Humbert the Roman Church thou hast temerariously vttered it remaines that we

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

aboute the yeare 996 neuerthelesse in two seuerall respects he proceedes most deceitefully and quite contrarie to common honestie and reason First for that he feigneth and prefixeth a title against the reall presence and transsubstantiation to the said homilie secondly because in his rehearsall of the tenor of the same he leueth our the relation of two most manifest and palpaple miracles for the proofe of both those points of the Catholique faith in it alledged by the author which craftie and vulpine trickes of Fox with which and manie others of like nature he farceth his huge volumes as it appeares seemed soe shamefull that his successor the late diuulger of the same homilie was ashamed to imitate him yea and not obstanding he was bounde vnder paine of losse of the labor of his translation and publication of that worke which otherwile he well considered would haue ben in vaine to taxe the said miracles of fiction as he did in a marginall note yet was he not soe impudent nor frontlesse as to raze theÌ„ quite out of the copie inexcusable deceipt in Fox And how be it I caÌ„ not denye but ther is a great difference belweene these twoe actions yet must they giue me licence to tell them that neither of them both is cleare of ill proceeding the one being guiltie of plaine imposture the other of plaine temeritie For supposing they would venture to make vse of the homilie for the aduantage of their denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation for all that they ought to haue taken it as they founde it for better or for worse not goe a boute to pick out what they finde for their purpose and cast a may the rest like such vnreasonable caterers as will needes buye flesh without bones And in deed those twoe bones that is those twoe most pateÌ„t cleare miracles by which both the reall preseÌ„ce of the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ar manifestly demonstrated against the new doctrine of these our tymes were too harde for old Father Foxs teeth to chewe or for his stomake to disgeast therfore doubtlesse he left them out both in his saxon and English transsumpte But these sycophants as they deale with the scriptures them selues soe they deale with ancient authorities testimonies lib. de bono person c. 11. Suo quidem priuilegione dicam sacrilegio vtquod volunt accipiant quod nolunt reijciant as S. Augustin said of the Manichies Againe concerning the Epistles attributed to Alfric ther is yet more discorde among our aduersaries For the publisher of them and the homilie aboue mentioned in his preface vnto them affirmes ther were certaines lines rare zout of a booke extant in the librarie of worceter which lines saith he which contained the cheefe point of coÌ„trouersie that is as he supposeth against the reall presence and transsubstantiation were taken out of twoe Epistles of Alfric written by him as well in the Saxon tongue as in the latin But Doctor Iames and Sir Humfrey tell vs that the foresaid passage was razed in a latin Epistle manuscript of Bennitts Colledge in Cambrige yet there to be seene And wheras the author of the publication saith that the lines razed ar to be restored by twoe other Epistles of the same Alfric in latin extant in the librarie of Exceter contrarily D. Iames tolleth vs they ar to be restored not by anie latin copies but by certaine Saxon copies of the same Epistles which he affirmeth to haue ben in the publike librarie of Oxon when he writ his booke which was the yeare 1611. Besydes this the same Iames out of Fox saith the Epistle which he affirmes to haue ben thus mangled and torne was to wulfstan Archbishop of yorke and hath for title de consuetudine Monachorum wheras yet the foresaid publisher of Alfrics new founde writings intileth that Epistle of Alfric de consuetudine monachorum of the order or manner of monkes Egneshemensibus fratribus to the fryres or brothers of Egnesham Which iarres I confesse I am soe vnable to compose that I can not but vehemently suspect these mens reportes to be false and counterfet Especially considering that Iames affirmes the latin Epistle soe razed as they reporte to haue ben directed by Alfric to that wulstan whoe was Archbishop of yorke aboute the yeare 954. wher as yet the author of the pamphlet in which these writings ar contained in his prefate to the same saith that this Alfric to whome he attributes them was equall to Alfric Archbishop of Canterburie which he alsoe affirmes to haue ben in that seat six yeares before that wulstan to whome Alfric's Epistle was writen was Archbishop of yoke soe that the one reportes this Epistle to haue ben wriren to the first wulstan and the other to the second not obstanding all histories and Cathologues of Bishops among which is Godwins doe testifye soe long a space of tyme to haue passed betweixt their standings as it is from the yeare 955. and 1003. soe that these twoe relators drawe back warde and fore ward like twoe ill match asses More ouer the foresaid publisher will needs haue Alfric the supposed author the homilie and epistles to haue ben a distinct man from that Alfric whoe was Archbishop of Canterburie wheras neuershelesse Iohn Leland whoe professedly writ of the writers of England relating the seuerall workes of Alfric the Archbishop of Canterburie maketh noe mention of anie other writers of that name but of him onely neither doth he put anie epistle among his writings but onely one intituled de consuetudine Monachorum of the maÌ„ner or custome of monkes which subiect how farre it disagreth froÌ„ the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation I leaue to the iudgement of the reader to consider In fine to conclude my whole discourse touching this matter I say first that if it were true as our aduersaries pretend that in the foresaid writings ther weere anie thing contained contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation yet haue I coÌ„uinced by insoluable reasons that neither Alfric could be the author of them neither could anie such doctrine haue ben publikely maintained in the Church of England in or aboute his dayes But what soeuer doctrine was then published and tought in our countrie was canformable in all points with the doctrine and faith then professed in the Church of Rome with which the English Church and her Pastors had correspondence and subordination as I haue manifestly declared Secondly Althou I am not able to iudge determinately whoe might be author of those writings because I haue noe meanes to come to the view of them otherwise then in that patched and mangled manner in which they are published by our aduersaries neuerthelesse I persuade my selfe they were writ by some Romane catholique author soe that taken in their innocencie and prime puritie and piously interpreted they containe no vnsounde or erroneous doctrine but rather expresse testimonie and proofes of diuers points controuersed

betwixt the nouellists of these our tymes and catholike Romanists As appeareth in the mention they make of masse miracles the signe of the Crosse and other particulars which I haue noted in my censure Thirdly the iudicious reader may easily persuade him self that supposing these writings according to the relation of our aduersaries haue remained in publike places and libraries for the space of aboue 600. yeares if they had coÌ„tained anie doctrine repugnaÌ„t to that faith of the Eucharist which I haue historically demonstrated aboue to haue ben professed in our countrie of England euer since and before that tyme it s more then morally euident they would haue receiued long a fore this tyme reprehension or censure according to their desert Finally Supposing it were true that the foresaid writings did in deed containe doctrine contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation as they ar beleeued and defended by the professors of the Roman Religion wheras yet they doe not soe but onely exclude the carnal palpaple or Capharnaitical presence of Christ in the Eucharist and instruct the people in the inuisible presence of his bodie and bloude in the Sacrament in an obuius and easie maÌ„ner yet in reasoÌ„ ought not anie iudicious Catholique to alter his faith of the same for anie argument which can be drawne or deduced from such testimonie as is voyde of other credit then is to be giuen to aduersaries in fauor of their owne cause which is iust none at all especially they being no other then these whoe not onely in this particular but alsoe in other matters of controuersie haue vsed much partialitie deceipt as in an other place I haue demonstrated out of their seuerall workes And in particular the publisher of the same pamphlet in which the homilie Epistles of which I heare treate are contained besides diuers vntruthes which he vttereth as well touching the author and tyme of his writing as alsoe his titles and marginall notes and likewise in that he couningly and couseningly publisheth in the same volume a treatise of the ould and new testament in the name of Alfric as if it included a different canon of scripture to that which is now vsed in the Roman Church and agreeable to their now English Bible which is yet most apparently false for that as I remeÌ„ber it putteth in the number and order of the Canonicall bookes Ecclesiasticus Sapience Tobie Iudith and the Machabeis which yet our aduersaries reiect for Apocryphal As alsoe in that more ouer the same Pampheter addeth a testimonie to shewe that in tymes past the lords prayer the creed and the ten commaundements were extant and vsed in the vulgar tongue a worke most impertinently performed by him and as it seemes onely or cheefely to enlarge the bulke and price of his pamphlet it being certaine that the Romanists neuer neither held that matter vnlawfull or at this present prohibit the vse of the vulgar language for the ten commaundements and priuate prayer of the common people but rather the contrarie as both their Catechismes and their daylie practise most plainely witnesse By all which particulars and the rest of this my aduertissement it is euidently apparent that the glorious which the nouellists of our countrie make by their publication of the homilie epistles and o writings in the name of Alfric be no other then certaine prestigious impostures to persuade the simple sorte of people by these false florishes that their denyall of the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation is not quite voyde of antiquitie but hath ben preached and professed in our countrie before the dayes of luther And now let this suffice to repulse this fictitious and deceitefull calumniation of our aduersaries touching these putatiue wrings of Alfric by the publication of which and the like counterfeit wares they pick simple peoples purses whoe take all for as true as gaspell that is put in print by anie of their owne brothers The second aduertissement I giue to the reader is that wheras the kinght page 205. of his fafe wais cites Agobard for a denyer of honor of image in his booke of that subiect Agobardus Episc Lugdun li. de pict imag I haue dilgently perused the same and finde that in deed this author speaketh more harshely of this matter then anie other catholique writer of these dayes how be it this was the age in which images had their greatest enimies Neuerthelesse it is most certaine this author onely confutes the exhibition of diuine honor and the like vnto images as is sacrifice or confidence in them or prayer vnto them reprehending the error of some particular persons whoe superstitiousely adored them for soe he discourseth a boute the end of his booke saying But none of the ancient Catholiques did euer thinke them to be worshiped or adored yet now the error by increase is become soe perspicuous that it is neare or like to the heresie of the Antropomorphits to adore figments and to put hope in them and that by reason of this error faith being remoued from the harte all our confidence be placed in visible things And a little after Soe alsoe if we see penned or fethered Angels painted the Apostles preaching martyres suffering torments we must not expect anie helpe from the pictures which we behould because they can neither doe good nor ill rightly therfore these are the wordes cited by the kinght to euacuate such superstition it was defined by orthodox Fathers that pictures should not be made in churches least that which si worshiped and adored be painted in the walles which wordes being not his owne but alledged out of a fragment of the Prouinciall councell of Eliberis in Spaine and hauing ioyned them imediately to his owne in which he onely treates of diuine honor as not due to images it is cleare and euident he intendes to proue nothing else by their authoritie then that which he there proposeth To omit that this passage of the Eliberitan couÌ„cell was deliuered in a sense much different from this in which Agobardus construeth it as I haue conuinced in others places and occasions And that this author intendes to teache nothing else but onely that images must not be honored with worship due to God the seuerall testimonies which he largely produceth out of S. Augustin S. Hierome other ancient writers doe manifestly demonstrate not one of which can be taken if they be truely vnderstanded in anie other sense as clearely may appeare to the diligent reader of their wordes which expressely exclude onely honor of Sacrifice prayers directed vnto the images them selues or religion proper to God onely in the worship of saincts and their pictures and alsoe Agobardus him self vppoÌ„ occasioÌ„ of the places which he citeth doth auerre plainely declaring that he graunteth some sorte of honor to images wher thus he exhorteth Let vs behould the picture as a picture destitute of life sense and reason let the eye

Dieu du quel ne sorte rien qui ne soit tel Parquoy tout ce que Du Plessis dict scauoir est qu'elle est perfecte suffisante a salut que IESV son autheur est la perfection c'st en vain car cela a este enseigne par nous deuan luy ne fut iamais dict par les Catholiques chose au contraire quant a l'obscuritÃ© doubte ambiguite nous n'en parlons pas de tout si cruement mais nous disons bien franc hement deux choses l'auons asses dict monstrÃ© cy dessus que l'scriture est fort difficile a entendre qu'elle est prisÃ© employee de touts indifferemment bons mauuais en caution defense de toutes opinions a la ruine de plusieurs Thes ar Charons expresse wordes which I english in this maÌ„ner Let vs come to particulars wich they make vs speake althou ' they propose theÌ„ wrong and otherwise theÌ„ we vtter theÌ„ to make vs odious first that we saye the scriptures ar imperfect on the contrarie wee beleeue confesse and preache them to be perfect compleat and entire sufficient as being the worke of God from whome nothing proceeds which is not such for which cause al that which Plessis saith viz. that the scripture is peafect sufficient to saluation that Iesus the author of it is perfection it selfe is in vaine For that hath ben taught by vs before him neither was anie thing to the contrarie euer spoken by the Catholiques For as much as concernes obscuritie doubtfulnes ambiguitie we doe not spaeke altogither soe crudely or rawly yet we say freely twoe things of which we haue sufficiently said and demonstrated them before that the scripture is verie hard or difficult to vnderstand that it is taken and applyed by euerie one indifferently good and bad in caution and defence of all apinions and to the ruine of manie This is that I finde in this author to this purpose which how repugnant it is to our aduersaries purpose the reader can not be ignorant except he be affectedly ignorant as the knight seemes to be euen in this particular onely this excuse I conceiue he may haue if it be as I persuade my selfe to wit that trusting to that pitt of corruption Plessis he deliuered this passage to vs by retaile as he receiued it from him which if he did I shall not besorie for that I desire not to charge my opposites more then I must of necessitie neither is ther anie need of amplification in that nature where the matter is soe copious and aboundante Touching Christophorus de cap. fontiuÌ„ alledged by Sir Humfrey in the 108. page of his safe way for a denyer of transsubstantiation althou ' I haue said something alreadie in the place cited it selfe yet hauing since had a seight of that authors worke against the sacramentaries I haue further discouered he is falsely and with manifest iniurie to his person produced by our aduersarie supposing he is soe farre from vttering anie doctrine against either the reall presence or transsubstantiation that he professedly defendeth them both in his foresaid treatise in which particularly touching transsubstantiation I finde these plaine wordes in the 58. chapter of his fourth Action Transsubstantiationis articulum verbi Dei authoritate probaturi illud in primis tanquam basim ac fundumentum immobile ponimus haec Christi verba hoc est corpus meum in literali sensu esse verissima proinde supernacaneum ne dicam impium esse haec ita deprauare detorquere mutare vt corpus in corporis figuram verbum est in significat conuertatur quasi haec sententia alioquin vera esse sibique nisi ad hunc modum mutata constare non possit dicimus igitur singulae dominicae sententiae verba in sua naturali significatione sumenda esse Hoc ita coÌ„stituto vt verborum Christi veritas constet primum necessariÃ² consequens esse dico vt panis essentia conuertatur mutetur We being saith Christophorus to proue the article of transsubstantiation by authoritie of the diuine worde Jn primis we put it were for an immoueable foundation or graunde worke that thefe wordes of Christ this is my bodie are most true in a literall sense for which cause it is I will not say impious but at the least superfluous soe to detorte depraue and change them that the worde bodie be changed into a figure of his bodie and the verbe is into signifye as if this sentence could not other wayes be true and hang togither vnlesse it be altered in this manner Wherfore we say that euerie worde of our lordes sentence is to be taken in their naturall signification This being thus established to the end that the trueth of Christs wordes may stand firme J say first that it is necessarily consequent that the essence of bread be conuerted and changed c. Thus clearely speaketh the Archbishop which if perhaps it be not sufficient to conuince our aduersarie that this author was noe denyer of transsubstantiation let him but take a breefe view of his booke and he will be sure to finde both that point and the reall presence most exactely and copiously proued by such a multitude of testimonies both of scriptures and ancient Fathers as I knowe he will not be able to look vpon them without confusion It is true I must confesse this author in his first Action of this worke hath broached an extrauagant opinion touching the wordes of consecration for which cause principally as I suppose the expurgatorie Index prohibiteth his booke till it be corrected for in his 264. and 265. pages he endeuoreth to proue that preists doe not consecrate by virtue of those wordes hoc est corpus meum but by virtue of those hoc facete in meam commemerationem In confirmation of which his opinion althou ' he discourseth in an vnaccustomed manner among deuines both ancient and moderne yet hauing diligently conferred one of is passages with an other and duely pondered the whole sense and meaning of them I perceiue his intention was onely to dispute against and disproue those whoe hould that by the virtue and operation of these wordes hoc est corpus meum onely materially and literally accepted pronounced the consecration is performed he him selfe earnestly contending that those wordes haue their virtute force from the precept Christ hoc facite in meam commemorationem And therfore in his page 263. where he stateth his question he hath these wordes fellowing permulti sunt qui horum verborum hoc est corpus meum materialiter pronunciatorum operatione ac virtute consecrationem fieri putant Vnde nonnullos equidem vidi qui cum ad consecrationem peruentum esset miris modis halitum suum cum dictis iam verbis super panem vinum conijcerent non secus ac si in quantum nuda tantumiuodo verba sunt nihil aliud in ipsis considerando

consecrationem fieri arbitrantur Ego vero consecrationem horum verborum operatione hoc facite in meam commemorationem fieri existimo Christus enim c. There be verie manie saith this author who think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these wordes this my bodie materially pronounced Whence it is that I haue seene some whoe comeing to consecrate doe in a strange manner cast their breath with the foresaid wordes vpon the breade and wine as if in as much onely as they be naked wordes not considering anie thing else in them they did hould consecration to be performed by them But I think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these wordes doe this in rembrance of mee For Ghrist c. By which wordes it clearely appeareth that Christophorus did not absolutely denye that preists doe consecrate by these wordes this is my bodie but he onely affirmeth that they haue not their consecratiue virtue or force included in their owne materiall sounde but receiue it from the precept of Christ contained in those other wordes of his Doe this in remembrance of mee That which I yet further conuince by o other wordes of the same author in this same Action wher thus he discourseth in confirmation of his position Nemo proinde existimet haec verba hoc est corpus meum technice materialiter prolata consecrationem efficere sed ipsius Sacerdotis orationem in qua haec ipsa recitantur mandati huius hoc facite virtute atque operatione irrogatam ac spirituali virtute roboratam Let noe man therfore think saith hee that these wordes this is my bodie artificially and materially pronounced doe make the consecration but the prayers of the preist in which these same wordes alsoe are recited proceeding from the virtute and operation of this precept doe this and strenthened by virtue of the same Thus Christophorus By which it is manifest he had noe intention to denye these wordes this is my bodie to be them by which preists doe consecrate since he expressely affirmes that they are included and rehearsed among those prayers benedictions and gratiarum actions by which according to his tenet they dayly consecrate But he onely in his owne priuate opinion houldes that as well those wordes this is my bodie as the rest of the prayers which the preists vse haue their virtue and efficient force of consecration not from their owne materiall sounde but from the precept of Christ doe this in remembrance of mee Which altho' as it hypothetically or totally soundes it is an extrauagant and singular placet or dictamen of his yet is it not repugnant to the Catholique Roman faith either in the point of the reall presence or transsubstantiation as may plainely appeare to anie iudicious reader But onely hath some affinitie with the tenet of the moderne Grecians in this particular whoe not obstanding constantly defende both the one and the other as I haue shewed in an other place by the doctrine of their late Patriarch in his responsion to the lutherans And now I hence inferre as a thing more directly for my purpose that the wordes which Sir Humfrey produceth against transsubstantiation out of a certaine treatise intuled de Correctione Theologiae Scholasticae are not truely the wordes of this author But that Treatise is falsely ascribed vnto him and forged in his name how soeuer our aduersaries make great estimation and vse of it That which I clearely demonstrate because it containeth doctrine repugnant to that which he him selfe teacheth in his owne vndoubded worke against the Sacramentaries For wheras according to the citation of the knight in his 108. page of his safe way in his Treatise inscribed de correct Theol. Schol. Christophorus hath these wordes Therfore it most certaine that Christ did not consecrate by those wordes this is my bodie neither ar they anie parte of consecratioÌ„ And yet in his Treatise against the Sacramentaries he directly affirmeth the contrarie saying thus Christus enim horum verborum hoc est corpus meum vi operatione consecrationem confecit panis natura in verum ipsius corpus sese mutante c. Which is in English Christ did consecrate by virtue and operation of the wordes this is my bodie the nature of the bread being changed or changeing it selfe in to his bodie c. Now it is plane that these wordes plainely contradict the other rehearsed by our aduersarie these directly and expressely affirming that Christ did consecrate by these wordes this is my bodie the other directely and expressely denying the same In soe much either we must of necessitie grante that the Archbishop plainely contradicted him selfe which is not to be admitted especially in a graue learned diuine as he was or else that the Treatise in which is soe expressely contained a denyall of that same which the same author affirmeth in his owne knowne acknowledged worke is not truely his but falsifyed and falsely published in his name and consequently what soeuer our aduersarie produceth out of it proueth nothing but is to be registred in the list of such other coÌ„terfeit wares as he selleth to his reader for curreÌ„t in the rest of his worke And touching his Treatise against the sacrameÌ„taries some other of his workes althou ' they coÌ„taine some extrauagant positions and therfore were iustely condemned to be expurged by the authors of the Index yet because particularly in his booke against the denyers of the reall presence the author exprssely submitteth his doctrine to the censure of the Roman Church purposely placeing in the frontispice of his booke omnia sanctae Eccesiae Catholicae ac sanctae sedi Apostolicae Romanae iudicio submissa sancto therfore his authoritie can not anie way preiudice the Roman faith And now let this suffice to shewe the falsitie of this citation onely the reader must further suppose that if I had seene the Treatise it selfe I could haue cleared the matter more exactely But our aduersaries take an order for that keeping closse all such obscure workes and reseruing them for their owne pallates as great nouelties and most daintie dishes Some fewe more authors remaine vnexamined by reason I could not haue them as Cardinal Carapha IoaÌ„nes Marius twoe or three others But I assure the reader the allegations drawne out of them by my aduersarie containe no matter of importance which is not sufficiently cleared without anie further searche of the places as they stand in the bookes Onely this inconuenience ther is in this matter viz. That if I had obtained a sight of the authors theÌ„ selues I should probably haue discouered some more of the alledgers ill proceding In respect of which and my other more triuial defectiuenes I will vse the same excuse which S. Augustin hath for a certaine worke of his concluding thus Si quid ab eis dici solet quod forte disputando non attigi tale esse arbitratus sum cui mea responsio necessaria non

Romanists make the husband the spouse the head the bodie of the Church This man is so full of falsity vntruth that it seemes his whole liuing is by lyeing I am perswaded he hath had his breeding in brasen faced College where impudency vntruth are the cheefe lessons in the schooles And heere the kinght hath in a manner gone beyonde if not beside himself in that faculty For I finde no lesse then there lyes euen with in the narrow limits of the title of his section nay there is not any one part or parcell of it true by which alone althou ' the reader might make a strong coniecture of the rest yet will I giue him an instance or two in particular which doubtlesse will quite conuince his iudgment of the authors knauish dealing In his 502. page now at last saith he they haue made him meaning the Pope the whole Church in so much that some are not ashamed to professe that the Pope may dispense against the Apostles yea against the new testament vppon good cause also against all the precepts of the old This lye is so exorbitant monstrous that it seemes he who made it doubted it would not be taken vppon his owne bare word wherfore he fled to the authority of his frend Iewell whome he quotes in the margent to make it more authenticall as if that famous Father of false dealing could sufficiently supply all that which in that nature is wanting in himself But I hope the iudicious reader will register them both in one predicament giue no more credit to the one then the other but send them togeather to the whetstone Another instance I giue the reader out of the 504. page where the knight chargeth Bellarmine to teach that if the Pope should so much erre as to command vices forbid virtues the Church were bound to beleiue that vices are good virtues euill vnlesses she will sinne against her conscience It is true the Cardinall hath the same wordes which Sir Humfrey cites hitherto but yet he vseth most dishonest double dealing in regare that if he had either rehearsed the whole place intirely as it lieth in Bellarmine or else had veiwed his recognition he might easily haue found the authors true meaning to be not that in generall euery matter all occasions but onely that in doubtful cases in things not necessarily good or ill of themselues in matters indifferent such obedience is to be giuen to the Pope least otherwise men should proceed against their consciences therfore saith he Si Papa If the Pope should command that which is cleerly knowne to be a vice or should prohibite that which is cleerly knowne to be a virtue then we ought rather to obey God then men And so we see that taking away the imposture cousinage of the kinght there is nothing in Bellarmines doctrine that may either iustly offend the reader or that makes for the purpose heere intended of prouing that the Pope ought to be obeyed whether his doctrine be true or false as our aduersary doth falsely calumniously affirme All the rest which the knight hath in this section is onely sophisticall fopperies crackes of his crazed braine abusing the doctrine of diuers Romanists framing such sense to their words as coÌ„meth neerste to his owne purpose is farthest from theirs so falsely fathering it vppon them confounding the faith of the whole Church with matters disputable in opinion he concludes discourse of all which let the reader consider whether the Romanists or he himself rather be not in the by-way he hath fallaciously framed for his aduersaries Sec. 20. In the section followeing which is the 20. in order he affirmes that the Church which he saith is resolued finally into the Pope hath neither personall nor doctrinall succession neyther in matter of faith nor fact It appeeres by the knights proceedings in this whole section that he hath met with his greatest enimie against whome he vseth all his art cunning hoping to haue the mastrie by striking most stronglie at the head that is the Pope whome to make his bloue the fuller he feignes to be the whole bodie like a venemous spider gathering poyson from the fragaÌ„t flowers of the Roman doctrine spits the verie quitessence of it against his sacred person Yet a great part of his matter is but loathsome inculcations of that which he hath a hundred times repeated which haue binne as often anseared by my selfe others But because his importunitie is so great I will giue the reader a taste thou ' I confesse it is most tedious vnto me to eate so often of the same Crambe The knights cheife plot in this place is by confronting the doctrine of the ancient Popes not onelie in matters of fact but of faith also with the moderne doctrine of the Roman Churches Popes he beginnes with priuate Masse sayeing that Pope Anacletus did decree that after consecration all present should communicate according as the Apostles set downe the Roman Church then obserued Now this Sir Humfrey compareth with the doctrine of the late Councell of Trent which determines vnder paine of excommunication that Masses in which the Preists alone communicates are not vnlawfull or to be abrogated as if this decree were contrarie to the other which directlie it is not for that althou ' the wordes of Anaclet doe shewe the common custome of his time yea of the Church of his time notwithstanding they also insinuate that the contrarie had binne practised at the least in some places to haue binne that all present at Masse did de facto communicate yea that those that did not should be put out Yet in regard the Councell of Trent doth neyther denie nor dissallowe of that custome nay rather expreslie desires the continuation of it but onelie defineth that such Masses as are celebrated without more communicants besides the Preist are not to be condemned abollishhed as the clamorous sectaries of our daies doe contend it is more then euident that there is no contrarietie to be founde betweene the one the other nor more then if the same Councell had defined that those Communions are not vnlawfull or not to be condemned in which infants are not admitted to receaue the Sacrament notobstanding the custome was in the primitiue Church to admitte them To omitte that Sir Humfrey is verie ignorant in the doctrine of the Roman Church if he knoweth not that althou ' in matters of faith there can be no chaunge yet in matters of manners alteration may be made so that according to diuersitie of times places persons that which once hath binne practised yea commanded by one Pope Councell at one time may be otherwise practised in another that without anie preiudice but rather with great profit in some cases to the vniuersal Church which doctrine because the knight wanteth eyther witt or will

Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Text snippets containing the quad