it is most false calumnious that either they or the authours of them be called in question and yet more false slaunderous it is that Christ and his Apostles are arraigned condemned at the Popes assises as you odiouslie affirme of obscuritie insufficiencie in their Gospell Bibliorum versiones tam vet quam noui Test à dictis damnatis authoribus editae generaliter prohibentur Index ex Purgatorius Regul 3. For that neither Pope nor Prelate of the Roman Church euer vttered more of the sacred scriptures in that nature thē that which S. Peter himselfe affirmeth to wit that in the epistles of S. Paule there are manie things hard to be vnderstood or that which S. Augustin saith in generall of the written worde That is that certaine obscure speeches of the scripture bring a most dense or thicke miste vpon them And that they are deceiued with many manifould obscurities ambiguities that rashly reade them vnderstanding one thing for an other Lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ c. 6. And as for the Gospell of Christ his Apostles neither the Pope nor anie other Romanist euer condemned it of anie insufficiencie or defect but onelie teach with the same scripture itselfe that it doth not containe all things necessarie so explicitlie that they suffice for the instruction of the whole Church according to all states of people in all particulars without traditions as appeareth by the saying of sainct Paule 2. Thes 2. Therefore brethren stand houlde the traditions which you haue learned whether it be by worde or by our epistle Which wordes of the Apostle neither can truelie be verified nor his commaund obeyed except we graunt that he deliuered more to the Church of the Thessalonians then he left in writing Neither doe the Pope Romanists anie more condemne the scriptures of insufficiēcie by denying that they containe clearely all things necessarie or by affirming that diuine Apostolicall traditions are also necessarilie required then the reformers them selues who besides scripture professe at the least in wordes to beleeue the Apostolicall nycene Athanasian Creed not no more then that man should be thought to condemne the common lawes of insufficiencie who besides them iudgeth it also necessarie to obserue those ancient customes which the lawes themselues commend as by the legislators first authours of the same deliuered to the people by worde of mouth And so to conclude touching the scriptures thus vnderstood the Romanists are so farre from refusing to be tryed by them that they flye vnto them with sainct Chrysostome in all occasions as to most hight montaines in which they finde a most comodious place to plant their ordinance against the enimies of the faith particularlie against the sectaries of this our present age as is most euident in the late Councell of Trent all the decrees of which renouned Synod are founded vpon those heigh hills of the written worde of God according to the true sense meaning of the same And as for Causabon Agrippa whome the knight citeth he they may goe together for their authoritie viz. in lying Agrippa Causabon are alreadie registred in the Predicament of Nouelists Vide Indicem lib. prohib althou ' the knight as yet is not preferred to that honour yet his deserts are such as he may iustelie expect the like aduauncement You aske vs Sir Humfrey whether the worde of God is subiect to alteration or needeth Index expurgatorious but to this your wise demaunde I anser that the worde of God in itselfe is wholelie immutable so pure that it can need no purifying yet as it is expressed by artificiall caracters for the vse of man so it is not onelie mutable corruptible but also de facto it is hath ben corrupted witnesse your owne Bibles in England And witnesse that renowned King Iames your owne soueraine best defender of your faith who was so ashamed of the translations which he founde at his arriuall to the English Crowne that he presently sought a remedy for the same tho' he founde it not as appeareth by his new translation which yet is not as it ought to be publikelie declaring in the Conference of Hampton Courte Anno Domini 1624. ingenuouslie confessing that he had seene no true translation that the Geneua translation is the worst of all others Neither ought the corruptions founde in the reformed Bibles to be called peccadillos or smale faultes as Sir Humfrey would haue them to the end they may be the more easilie winked at for suppose they were neuer so little in themselues yet are they to be esteemed great horrible abuses in regarde of the great reuerence which ought to be had towardes those sacred volumes of the worde of God it being treason in the highest degree to offer to falsifie or alter them anie way whatsoeuer And let the reader be iudge whether it be but a smale faulte to translate images for idols as the English bible of the yeare 1562. hath in the text or as an other of the yeare 1577. hath in the margen vpon the first chapter of the Epistle of S. Iohn in the last wordes Or as the same or other editions vpon the wordes of Iacob Gen. 37. v. 35. descendam ad filium meum Iugens in infernum hath translated the worde infernum hell into the worde Sepulcher or graue notobstanding both the Hebrewe worde Seol the Greeke worde adis signifie not the graue but either properlie hell it selfe or some parte of the earth farre deeper then the graue And in this manner Beza hath done vpon those wordes of the psalme non relinques animam meam in inferno translating for animam Cadauer for inferno sepulchro so Metamorphizeth Christs soule into his bodie hell into his graue And vpn the 22. of sainct Luke where according to the Greeke text the sentence is This is the cup of my blood which cuppe is shed for you Beza to eneruate the force of the argument for the reall presence purposelie translateth the wordes thus This is the cup of my blood which blood is shed for you Also the English bibles whereas sainct Peter in the first chapter of his second epistle v. 10. saith brethren labore the more that by good workes you make sure your vocation election Least here it should appeare that good workes are auayleable or necessarie to saluation they leaue out in their translations the wordes by good workes notobstanding the Latin copies haue them vniuersallie some Greeke copies also as Beza confesseth And if these be the faults which Sir Hūfrey calleth but peccadillos surelie he hath a conscience as large as a fryers sleeue if these be his smale faults doubtlesse according to due proporrion his greater sinnes are abomination And this is that Bible which the Romanists say needeth an Index expurgatorie not that Sacred Bible which is truelie sincerelie translated according to
species or kindes euen in respect of both his bodie and bloud Thus sainct Thomas By which it is cleare howe farre he was from patronizing Sir Humfreys new tenet maintaining that the communiō of the laitie in the Roman Church is but a halfe communion Now touching Lyra Sir Humfrey hath deceiptfullie omitted those wordes of his which include the verie reason approbation of the change which the Roman Church hath made it being the same which sainct Thomas alledgeth in parte as his wordes in the margen declare Fit autem hic mentio de duplici specie nā in primitiua Ecclesia sic dabatur fidelibus sed propter periculū effusionis sanguinis modo datur tantū sub specie panis Sacerdos tamen celebrans accipit sub vtraque specie non tantum pro se sed etiam pro alijs Lira in 1. Cor. 11. So that both these authours are so plaine against Sir Humfrey and for vs that a man may almost perceiue that he now repents that euer he cited them as also the authours following To the wordes of Arboreus but now the communion of both kyndes is abolished Sir Humfrey ought to haue added that authours reason of the abolishment to wit this Propter scandala quae contigerunt adhuc contingere possūt Arb. Theos lib. 8.11 For the scandals which haue happened and which yet may happen And the like I say of Taper to whose wordes should haue beene ioyned that which followes videlicet This communion of the people in both kindes hath danger of Sacriledge annexed vnto it in sheding the bloud of Christ and in the omission of the chalis no danger doth occurre nor anie losse of Spirituall grace The Councell of Constance is impertinentlie alledged as I haue declared before Bellarmin in the same place and wordes cited by Sir Humfrey doth directlie impugne that for which he is alledged by the knight to wit for the Communion of all the people in both kindes For so he saith Bellar. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. And besides all did not receiue in both kindes As for Cassander altho' we haue him not in the rancke of Romanists Ex his itaque confici puto hanc integram in vtraque panis vini communicationē etsi simpliciter necessaria non habeatur ei cōmunicationi quae in altera tantū specie fit etiamsi mandato contraria non putetur multis nominibus esse anteponēdam c. Cass loco cir yet for anie thing I can perceiue hee doth not absolutelie stand for Sir Humfrey in the subsustance of this Controuersie as neither houlding it absolutelie necessarie for the laytie to communicate in both kyndes nor yet contrarie to Christs institution as his owne wordes in that treatie page 1046. Doe plainelie either suppose or insinuate And for as much as concernes priuate or extraordinarie communion he himselfe relates diuers examples of it So that the reader may perceiue how smale reason Sir Humfrey hath to vse Cassanders authoritie for diuers respects in this matter especiallie if he consider his owne drift in this place altho' I cannot denie but the same Cassander leanes vnto him in that he desires the present practice of the Roman Church might be changed as lesse perfect legitimate then the contrarie in his conceipte And this being all I need to say touching the testimonies of the cited authours and of Sir Humfreyes proceedings about them I will now conclude the censure of this whole Paragraph that directly it containeth nothing which requires so exacte a discussion as I haue made of it And that I haue oftentimes maruailed why the reformers should stand so peremptorily against the Communion in one kinde supposing that euen according to their owne principles neither the words of Christ nor the intention of the minister nor both these together are of force and efficacy to make any change or alteration in the matter of the Sacrament but that when they haue said and done all they can they shall remaine bread wine as truely as if they had receaued them in the tauerne especially if we consider yet farther that according to the reformed doctrine the intention of the minister is not necessarily required to the constitution of any Sacrament and yet without the same it is cleerly vnpossible to conceiue how the Eucharist can be receaued by them in remembrance of the death and passion of Christ more in both the formes of bread and wine then in one alone especially supposing that by virtue of the institution and commaunde of Christ each of them in particular is to be receiued in memorie of him And this I say hath caused me many times to wonder euen yet persuading my selfe the Nouellists can haue no other motiue then the satisfaction of their owne contentious spirits to stand so nicely vpon this puntillio with the Church of Rome which refractory proceeding of thē in this matter may yet seeme more vnreasonable to the reader if he consider that altho' Vasquez and some other Romane diuines are of opinion that greater fruites of grace are reaped by the communion in both kindes then in one yet doth it not thence followe that the communion in one kinde cannot be lawfully practized as our Precisians will needes haue it nor yet that the communion vnder one kinde is but a halfe Communion as the knight doth heere malitiously inculcate but in either of the two kinds it is most euident there is a perfect and intire Sacrament according to the true definition thereof in regard there is found in either of the consecrated formes a visible signe of an inuisible grace instituted by God as also because the body of Christ euen according to the tenet of our aduersaries being truely really and substantially receiued vnder the forme of bread onely altho' they meane onely by faith it doth follow infallibly that vnlesse they graunt that Christ can dye againe by separatiō of his bloud from his body or that his perfect and intire body is not there receaued but onely a part of it it doth I say necessarily follow that vnder the forme of bread alone there is Christs bloud with his body and so a perfect communion of them both receaued in that one kinde The Parahraph following is about prayer and seruice in an vnknowne tongue in which point Sir Humfrey saith true in that he affirmeth that the Roman Church celebrates Masse and publick seruice in Latin and it is also true that the Councell of Trent hath declared it not to be expedient that it be celebrated euerie where in the vulgar language But yet it is false to say that either the Church or Councell hath commaunded it to be celebrated in an vnknowne language for Latin cannot trulie be said to be an vnknowne language but rather it is a generall language a knowne speech more vsed then anie one language in the world And altho' it be not vnderstood of the ignorant sort of people yet it is lesse vncoth vnto them then
attributed by heretikes to ancient and good authours among which we may number one cited by Sir Humfrey in some parte of his worke intitled de fiducia misericordia Dei which Bell. in his booke de Scrip. Eccles declares to be counterfait and suppositious and none of Bishop Fishers on whom it is imposed Neuerthelesse how so euer the matter standes touching the truth of the foresaid homilie and admit it be neuer soe true and authenticall yet I am confidently assured that the wordes by Sir Humfrey cited out of it against the reall presence are not so obscure but that they admitte such a comodious exposition as doth not in any sort fouour the denyall thereof but rather impugne and it confute it First for that there is not one worde which includeth a denyall of the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the wordes onelie showe a differēce betwene the body in which Christ suffered and the bodie which the faithfull receiue which difference is not reallie in the substance of the bodie it selfe it being one and the same in nature in euery place where it existeth but onely in the properties and manner of existence or being in place it hauing beene in the passion visible mortall and with it entire locall extension but in the Sacrament inuisible impassible and vnextended in which sense allso it may rightly be called spirituall yea and not altogether improperly especially taking it with a relation or respect vnto the same body perfectly extended in the manner aboue declared it may be said to be without bloud bone sinn woe limbe or soule that is without extensiō or motion of these partes as the cited wordes doe signifie which by reason of the foresaid maner of being of Christs body in the Sacrament doe call it his spirituall bodie from thence as it were inferring concluding that noething is to be vnderstood there bodily but spiritually all which is noething contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point but rather most agreeable to the same which teacheth that Christs body though it be truelie in the Sacrament yet without extension and not in a Corporall but in a spirituall manner yea and very cōformable to the doctrine of S. Paul who speaking of the resurrectiō of the flesh douteth not to call one the same humane bodie both corruptible spirituall 1. Cor. 15. Seminatur corpus animale surget corpus spirituale and that not for the difference of the bodie in it nature and substance which it hath not but onelie by reason of the accidentall difference which it hath in it properties and māner of existence which the same bodie receiueth in the resurrection not hauing had them in this mortall life True it is ther is one passage in the homilie which in my opinion hath more difficulty showe of repugnance to the reall presence transsubstantiation then the former wordes to wit where the authour makes a comparison betwixt the manna and water which flowed from the rocke in the desert both which he affirmes to haue beene figures of Christ bodie and bloud as the Eucharist also is Neuerthelesse he hath consequenter an other passage or two which plainely declare that similitude to be nothing contrarie either to the reall presence or transsubstantiation For so he addes The Apostle Paul saith that the Israelists did eate the same gostely meake and drinke the same gostely drinke because that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeares and shat water which frome the stome did follow had signification of Christs bodie his bloud that now be offered daylie in Gods Church it was the same saith he which we offer not bodily but gostely But which wordes it is euident that Alfric puts a maine difference betwixt that spirituall meate and drinke of the Iewes the spirituall foode which Catholike Christians receiue in the Sacrament that being but a signification as the authour of the Homilie expressely affirmeth of Christs body bloud it being the same not bodilie but onely spiritually or figuratiuelie with that bodie and bloud of Christ which he auerreth Preists to offer daylie and of which he also teacheth the foresaid water to be a representation not the bodie and bloud themselues which as being euerie day sacrificed in the altar euen according to common sense they must of necessitie be reallie and truelie in the Eucharist And altho' the authour of the Homilie calleth if a figure of Christs bodie bloud yet doth he not say it is a figure of thē absent as the water flowing out of the rock was but truelie and reallie present as those his wordes in which he saith and diuers time repeateth that Christs bodie and bloud are offered in the same Eucharist by Preists in sacrifice doe euidently conuince supposing it is impossible to conceiue the authour of the homilie should affirme that Christs bodie and bloud be offered in the altar and yet not beleeue the same to be reallie truelie and substantially present in the Eucharist Moreouer the same Homilie saith in plaine termes the wine which in the supper by the Preist is hallowed shewe one thing without to humane vnderstanding and another thing with in to beleeuing minds without they seeme bread and wine both in figure and tast and they be truely after their hallowing Christs bodie and his blood throu ' gostelie misterie And afterwardes these wordes doe followe we said vnto you that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housell before his suffering and said this his my bodie and my bloud yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned trou ' in visible might the bred to his owne hodie the wine to his bloud which wordes how plaine they be for the reall presence and transsubstantiation anie one that is not violently partiall in his owne cause may easilie perceiue considering that for Christ to turne by inuisible might the bread and wine into his bodie and bloud is nothing els but that which both the definitions of the Roman Church and Catholike diuines call by the names of reall presence and transsubantiation Thirdlie it is manifest that the foresaid testimonie cannot in reason be alledged in fauour of the reformers doctrine in this particular for that they denie the bodie of Christ either to exist or to be receaued really in the Eucharist otherwise then by faith figure neither of which neuertelesse is denied by the words aboue cited but contrarilie they expressely and absolutelie auerre that the bodie of Christ is receaued by the faithfull and altho' they call it his spirituall bodie yet doubtlesse they doe it onelie for the reason alledged as also for that it nourisheth the receiuers spirituallie yet they neuer denie it to be a true bodie or to be trulie present in the Sacrament or affirme it to be receiued by faith onelie as the reformers commonlie doe and Sir Humfrey in particular most expresselie in diuerse places of his booke Fourtlie the wordes alledged call
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
qua posteri benedicunt by which the succeeding Preists doe blesse or consecrate Now Sir Humfrey in his citation of this authour lefe out the latter parte of his text which doth plainelie declaire his minde to wit the wordes scilicet hoc est corpus meum which durand includes in the benediction or cōsecration of Christ chimericallie ioyning to some of the authours former wordes others which belonge to another opinion related by durand which houldes that Christ repeated the wordes twise first to giue them power and vertue of confection or consecration and afterwardes to teach the Apostles the forme of consecration by which the reader may easily perceiue that the knight insteed of making durand his owne he both lost him his owne reputation by either most ignorant or malitious peruerting of that Catholike authours wordes and sense The like to which proceeding he vseth also in the testimonie of Odo whome he cites to proue that Christs bodie is made in the Sacrament by his benediction and not by the wordes this is my bodie For he neither sincerelie relates nor trulie construes them And first whereas that authour by may of exposition of that worde benedixit saith benedixit corpus suum fecit meaning that Christ blessed the bread that is to say made it is bodie Sir Humfrey doth English the wordes both with a false interpretation of them and a false separation so Math. 26. and then made that his bodie adding the worde then of his owne stampe Secondlie he makes a false construction of Odos wordes in that whereas Odo vnderstands by benediction consecration as diuers other diuines doe and as it manifestlie appeares by his owne wordes vttered presentlie after to wit those which Sir Humfrey cytes saying virtute sermonis Christi factum est corpus sanguis Christi that is by virtue of Christs speech the bodie bloud of Christ are made the ignorant knight imagined that because he affirmed before that Christ by benediction made his bodie therefore he made it without those wordes this is my bodie which neuerthelesse are the verie wordes of benediction or consecration which Christ himselfe vsed True it is Odo speakes some thing intricatelie and obscurelie by reason of his breuitie yet those plaine wordes which followe in the same place and matter videlicet virtute sermonis Christi fiunt corpus sanguis Christi doe sufficientlie explaine the authours mynde and serue for a cleare exposition of the rest as the iudicious reader of his whole text will easilie perceiue Concerning the citation of Christopher De capite fontium I suspect there is some legerdemaine vsed in it because it seemes not to me a thing credible that anie man of learning and iudgement as he is held to be should be so farre out of temper as peremptorilic to conclude for an infallible truth to which scriptures Councels and all antiquitite yeald an vndeniable testimonie and consent that the wordes this is my bodie are not the wordes of consecration how be it the might say with the opinion of some others that those are not the wordes by which Christ himselfe consecrated which point as it is not yet declared by the Church as a matter of faith so neither is it pertinent to the matter we here treat if so it were as being no denyall of transubstantiation which onelie is here in question and not the wordes of consecration and consequentlie if that authour whome I could not haue whereby to examen the truth if I say he speakes in that sense onelie then his testimonie was cyted in vaine As also I may not rashelie auouch that especiallie if he meanes in the other sense and as according to their rehearsall of our aduersarie the wordes doe sounde That surelie he had tasted of a wrong fountaine when he spoake in such an exorbitant manner if so he euer spoake I haue exactelie examined Card. Aliaco and finde he speakes in those wordes cyted by Sir Hūfrey onely of the possibility of the coexistēce or presence of the substance of the bread the bodie of Christ vnder the same accidēts which possibilitie he affirmes neither to repugne to reason nor to the bible no more then that two quantities or qualities may possiblie stande together vnder one matter videlicet de potentia absoluta that is by the absolute power of God which is true in regarde that no text of scripture can be found to such contrarie possibility nor implicatiō of contradictiō in reason But all this how true soeuer it is yet is it out of the purpose and state of our question which is not about the possibilitie but aboute the fact of transsubstantiation in which point the resolution of this authour is plainelie for vs saying that altho' it doth not euidentlie followe of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth absolutelie cease to be nor yet as it seemes to me of the determination of the Church neuerthelesse because saith he it doth more fauore the determination of the Church and the common opinion of the holie Fathers and Doctours therefore I hould it And this same is that which the Councell of Trēt declares to which doctrine if Sir Hūfrey would consent as farre as Aliaco this disputation were at an end for that here is nothingels required either of him or any other of his profession but that they obey the authoritie of the Church in her definition Ses 15 c. 4 Secundum hanc viam dico quod panis transsubstātiatur in corpus Christi ad sensum expositum in descriptione transubstantiationis Alic in 4. q. 6. art 2. In his 111. page the knight proceedes most sophisticallie in this same matter where vpon a false if or conditionallie false supposition that neither according to the doctrine of S. Thomas the Roman Cathechisme and the Masse-Preists as he pleaseth to terme them the consecrated bread is transubstantiated by Christs benediction before those wordes this is my bodie be vttered nor by the same wordes vttered after benediction as saith he the Archbishop of Cefarea and others doe affirme he presentlie thence inferres that absolutelie there are no wordes at all in the scripture to proue transubstantiation for an article of faith which collection of his neuerthelesse is no other then to deduce for conclusion of his discourse an absolute proposition from a conditionall and this also grounded vpon a meere equiuocation for admit it is true that the foresaid authours doe not agree whether determinately transubstantiation be made by the benediction or by the wordes of consecration yet they all accorde most constantlie and conformablie in this that by one of the two to wit either by benediction or consecration or at the least by both the one and the other the transubstantiation is vndoubtedlie effected and consequentlie they agree vnanimouslie against the position of Sir Humfrey affirming that there be no words of scripture to proue the same And the trueth is that Sir Humfreys captious ratiocinatiō proues no more
meaning of this authour both the title of his chapter out of which our aduersarie taketh the wordes he cites which is this Of the interpretation of scripture by Fathers And the whole tenor of his discourse doe sufficiently declare so that if the matter comes to scanning the fraude will easily appeare with shame enuffe to this our professed aduersarie of truth who not content with this hath also like a cheating gramster to mende his ill game dropt a carde I meane the worde nostra which he hath left out in his translation but this but a pore trick and so let it passe And perhaps it was onely the negligence of the printer But for the readers better instruction I will punctually rehearse the authors wordes concerning his true meaning as well those which Sir Humfrey hath omitted for his owne aduantage as the rest Thus he saith Doceamus quod citra Patrum interpretationem vsum ab eisdem nobis traditum nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis Euangelij verhis sacerdotum quempiam his temporibus verum Christi Corpus Sanguinem consecrare non quod res haec ambigua fit sed quod eius certitudo non tam haheatur ex Euangelij verbis quam ex Patrum interpretatione vsu tanti temporis quem illi posteris reliquerunt That is let vs teach that without the interpretation of the Fathers and the practise by thē deliuered vnto vs noman can proue by the bare wordes of the Gospell them selues that anie man in these our times doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ not because this thing is doubtfull but because the certainetie of it can not be had so much by the wordes of the Euangell as by the interpretation of Fathers and the practise of so long time which they left to posteritie By which wordes it is voyde of all doubt and tergiuersation that the authour of them neuer made question but that true Catholike Prests as he him selfe was truly consecrate and make present the uerie bodie and bloud of Christ the contrarie of which our aduersarie pretendes to proue onely intending by this pasage and others to declare against his aduersarie Martin Luther that scriptures alone without the expositiō of the Fathers and practise of the Church are not sufficient to conuince the trueth expecially when the wordes are obscure and subiet to diuers senses And therefore in his page 172. giuing the reason of this he saith Hoc idcirco dixerim ne quis ipsis Euangelij verbis pertinacius adhaereat spreta patrum interpretatione quemadmodum Lutherus fecit vsum interpretationem a patribus traditam nihili pendens nuditati verborum infistens quae non sufficiunt ad id quod velint conuincendum Therefore quoth B. Fistier I said these thinhs least anie one should ouer obstinately adhere to the wordes of the Gospell themselues as Luther did not esteeming the vse and interpretation deliuered by the Fathers and insisting in the nakednes of the wordes which are not sufficient to conuince that which they desire And in the insuing page he concludeth in this manner Therefore that is manifest which afore we promised to sbow to wit that long continuing custome and concording exposition of Fathers none dissenting doth yeald more solid certainetie how anie obscure place of the Ghospell must be vnderstood then the bare wordes which may be varioufly detorted by contentious people at their pleasure By all which wordes it is more then certaine and manifest that this authour neuer intended to show that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can not be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse as our false aduersarie doth endeuore to persuade his reader for he onely affirmes that this can not be conuinced by the bare text of scripture without the exposition of Fathers if anie contensious person should obstinately denie it as his wordes aboue cited euidently declare And as for those wordes which Sir Humfrey quotest in his margent which in English are these Neither is there anie worde put there by which the verie presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ may be proued in our Masse I say that he dealeth not honestlie in the recitall of them in regarde he omittes the next wordes following not obstanding they belong to te integritie of the same discourse and also are a plaine explication of the former as the reader of the whole discourse may more clearely vnderstand the wordes being these For altho' saith he Christ made his flesh of the bread and his bloud of rhe wine it doth not therfore follow by virtue of anie worde here set downe that we as often as we attempt the same doe effect it In which as the reader may plainely perceiue the authour absolutelie affirmeth not that Preists doe not effect that which Christ effected concerning the reall presence of his bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely saith there that is among the wordes of the institution of the Sacrament as they are related by S. Math. and in which those wordes doe this in remembrance of me are not contained there is not anie worde by virtue of which the same can be concluded of Preists which is ther affirmed of Christ our Sauiour yet not denying but expresselie auerring that by other wordes of the scripture and particularlie by those wordes rehearsed by S. Luke and S. Paule doe this in remembrance of me interpreted according to the exposition and practise of the auncient Fathers the making of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrement is firmelie proued and established And hence it is that after he had vttered those wordes which Sir Hūfrey also citeth tho' not intirely to wit non potest igitur probari per vllam scripturam it can not therfore be proued by anie scripture that either laie man or Priest as often at he shall make triall of the busines shall in like manner make the bodie and bloud of Christ of bread and wine as he him selfe did since that neither this is contained in the scripture immetiatelie after this I say he subionines for conclusion of his discourse this insuing clause By these things I thinke no man will be ignorant that the certaintie of this matter the faith of consecration as the note in his margen doth declare doth not so much depende vpon the Ghospell as vpon the vse and custome which for the space of so manie ages is commended vnto vs by the first Fathers themselues For it seemed to them the holie Ghost teaching so to interpret this parte of the Euangell and iudged it was so to be vsed in their times that whosoeuer now would introduce either an other sense or an other vse he should vtterlie resist the holie Ghost by whose instinct the former Fathers did deliuer this rite and ceremonie in the consecration of the Eucharist Thus plainelie doth Bishop Fisher explicate his owne meaning in that which he had before deliuered somat more obscurelie so that now
being a matter in this sense either of indifferencie or at the most of greater merit and perfection it might lawfully be altered by an introduction of the contrarie custome or practise of the Church especially the communicating or not communicating of the auditours of euerie Masse being a thing wholelie depending vpon the deuotion of the people themselues Which deuotion although the Church could haue desired it had continued in the same feruour in which it was in those primitiue times neuerthelesse ther was no reason why either she should obledge the people to the same or yet that the Preist for want of deuotion in the people should omitte his owne and cease to exercise so high and profitable a function to the members of the whole Church as is the publique liturgie and common praier of the same And truelie this is a matter so conformable to reason and pietie that if it were not that our aduersaries are quite possessed with a spirit of cōtradiction they would neuer contend so much aboute it as they doe Especially supposing that of all points of controuersie betweene them and vs that is of the least moment and a thing for which they haue the smalest reason to striue as well because they themselues reiect all sorts of Masses as vaine and superstitious whether they be priuate or publique with communion of the people or without as also because euen they themselues after their newe manner celebrate their owne liturgie as they call it oftentimes yea most ordinarily not onely without the comunion of the people but euen with out the comunion of either Priest or clarke as is euident by the most common practise of all the reformed Churches which onely with a drie fothering passe the greater part of the sūdaies of the whole yeere And yet these same Zealous brothers are so Crosse in their proceedinge that they are not ashamed to reprehend in vs the same which they thēselues ordinarily practise in a much worse manner In regard of which preposterous dealing of theirs in my opinion we may not vnaptlie applie vnto them the saying of a certaine ingenious Protestant in his description of a Puritan to wit that they are become so crosse in their teaching that he thinkes verily that if the Roman Church should inioyne the puting on of cleane shirts euery sunday rather then obey her precept they would goe lowsie Ouerb Caract But besides this Sir Humfrey for the proofe of his Irish faith alledgeth scripture out of S. Matth. 26. Marke 14. Luke 22. but the wordes he citeth doe not argue Christs institutiō in both kindes in respect of all sortes of people Accepit Iesus panem benedixit dedit discipulis suis dixit accipite manducate but onely his action manner of administration not his ordination we know as well as the reformers Christ did comunicate his bodie and bloud to all his disciples there present at the institution of the Sacrament euen to the traitour Iudas as many deuines doe hould but we know with all he did not ordeine it so to be administred in all occasions Neither doe we finde one worde of commaund in the whole bible by virtue of which the Priests are inioined to celebrate this misterie alwayes iust in the same manner that Christ did And otherwise if we should be so tied to euery circumstance which Christ himselfe vsed and particularie to giue the communion to all that are present we should be bound to giue it to those also which we know are vnprepared for it nay euen to excommunicated persons and to such traitors as Iudas That which neuerthelesse I persuad myselfe the most pure precisian of them all will scarsely doe though otherwise I hould thē not for very scrupulous in that nature so they know the receiuers to be mēbers of their cōgregation And touching the foresaid citation out of the Euangelists it is to be noted that because Sir Hum. will not haue his reader heare of the consecration of the Sacrament which the reformers neuer vse in their Churches therfore he left out the wordes and he blessed it puting onely the wordes of thākes giuing whereas yet the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both blessing and giuing thankes therefore when our Sauiour multiplied miraculously the fishes Luc. 9. the Euangelist saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he blessed them The knight also citeth a place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. But the Apostle indeed reprehendeth there the fault of the richer Corinthians in that they did exclude or at the least not expect the poorer sorte to eate the vsuall supper with them when they met to gether to receiue the blessed Sacrament but giueth no precept to them that all that are present should euerie time they did meete in the Church actually receiue the communion with the Preist or that the Preist ougth not in anie case to celebrate without a competent number of communicants which is our question in this place but at the most S. Paule there ordaines that when the people comes together to eate either the vsuall and common supper or the bodie and bloude of Christ in the Sacrament they vncharitablie exclude not or preuent one an other but expect and doe it with order and sobrietie and like brethren together without scisme or separation and as Christ himselfe did who imparted his supper most louinglie to his disciples there present without exception of persons to which altho' I admit the same S. Paule in parte alludes in his first verse of this chapter saying be you followers of me as I also of Christ yet not in that sense as if he had persuaded the Corinthians that our Sauiour commaunded that the Eucharist should neuer be celebrated by the Preist alone with our receiuers as our aduersarie foundlie infers for profe of the article he opposeth to the Councell of Trent Neyther is the doctrine of that article in anie sorte fauoured by S. Augustin in his 118. Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey he onelie there affirming at the most that the Apostle speaketh of the Eucharist when he saith those wordes Propter quod fratres cum conuenitis ad manducandum inuicem expectate c. That is in English Therefore my brethren when you come to eate expect one an other c. Which wordes eyther of S. Augustin or those of the Apostle are not contrarie to the celebration of priuate Masses except it be in the imagination of the Nouellists as I haue sufficientlie aboue declared To omit that the greater parte of diuines both auncient moderne expounde not those wordes of S. Paule rather of the Eucharist but of the common supper the trueth of which exposition the text itselfe in my iudgemēt doth plainely conuince Yet not to stand vpon this it is sufficient for the defence of the doctrine of the Councell of Trent in this particular and confutation of the contrarie position that neyther in the cited place of S. Paule nor in anie other place of scripture priuate communion
or receiuing of the Preist alone without other cōpanie is affirmed to be repugnant to Christs institution nor condemned as vnlawfull eyther by Sainct Augustin or anie other Orthodox writer But yet I must further aduertise the reader that I perceiue Sir Humfrey hath not dealte so faithfully as he ought to haue in his recitall of S. Paules wordes putting in by parenthesis and in the same letter those to eate the lords supper which wordes neuerthelesse S. Paule hath not at the least in that place and then omiting the first wordes of the next verse he connecteth them with the latter parte of the same verse to wit that you come not together to iudgement Procuring by this fraude to persuade his reader that those wordes containe the penaltie due to those whoe communicate not with the Preist and the rest of the people which directly they doe not but rather the punishment amenaced by the Apostle to such as by excluding vncharitably ther fellowes from participation of the oblations or common supper then vsed in the Church and by other abuses and sinnes mentioned in this Epistle indignelie receiue the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist And yet not to stand vpon these particular circumstances certaine it is that none of them could yeald anie warrant at all for Sir Humfrey to alter the tenour of the Apostles wordes either by addition or transposition of them Sir Humfrey addeth also that Sainct Paule 1. Cor. 10. calleth the Eucharist the communion But he might haue saued labour in citing scripture the commonly receiued phrase both by vs and them being sufficient to prooue that And yet he might much better haue spared the interpretation of the worde it selfe for whether his etimology be true or false which I will not stand to examen certaine it is that no iudicious man can thence inferre that all the people present at Masse must of necessity communicate but it onely foloweth that when they actually receiue the Sacramēt they receiue the Communion as a common vnion not onely of Preist people but also and ceefly of the people among themselues according to the wordes of the same Apostle in his next chapter and 33. verse cum conuenitis when you come together to eate expect one-another c. And much like as he did proceede in the former place of S. Paule so doth he in this The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ Where for communication he puts communion And yet the scope and sense of the Apostle in this place is not of the communion of Preist and people nor prescribes he anie rule in that nature but onelie reprehendes those who voluntarily and without ignorance eate idolothytes or meates sacrifyced to Idols saying that as those who receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ comunicate or are ioyned in societie with him so they who of knowledge eate things offered to Idols are made companions of the deuill And therefore the same Apostle in the latter parte of his 20. verse saith thus And I will not haue you become fellowes to deuils And presentlie in the next verse he addes You can not drinke the chalis of our Lord and the chalis of deuils So that the whole tenour of the chapter afordeth not a worde or letter for Sir Humfreyes purpose Wherefore let him examen his conscience diligentlie and he will easilie finde that neyther the one place nor the other proue anie thing else in this matter then his owne dishonest dealing and his abuse of the sacred text of scripture Especiallie considering that in the first place the Apostle reprehendes not the Corinthians so much because they did not communicate together but cheefelie because the rich did vnchristianlie exclude the poore Which case as the reader may easilie perceiue hath no place in the Masses of the Roman Church where none are excluded but rather expresselie exhorted vnto the communion as the verie same decree of the Tridentine Councel which our aduersarie him produces doth sufficientlie declare in these wordes Optaret quidem sacrosancta Synodus c. The Sacrosaint Synod could wish that the faithfull people which assiste at euerie masse would communicate with the Preist not onelie spirituallie but also by Sacramentall reception Thus the Councel Which wordes alone doubtlesse were sufficient not onelie to iustifie the practise of the present Roman Church in this particular but also to satisfie the aduerse parte if their importunitie were not so exobbitant that they will rather suffer pore Christians to passe out of the world without that diuine viaticum ordained by God for the confort of their soules defense against their enimies in that dāgerous trance then suffer them to receiue it without a competent number as they tearme it which impious order of theirs may be seene in their booke of common prayer title of the communion of the sicke not obstanding our Sauiours most strict and generall charge affirming that vnlesse we eate his flesh and drinke his bloud we cannot haue life in vs. But certaine it is that in this as is in other matters the pretensiue reformers may ritelie be compared to the Pharisees exolantes culicem camelum autem glucientes I who straine a gnat and swallowe a camel in that they stande so peremptorilie vpon the communion of the people with the Preist in all occasions which is but a circumstance of the precept and yet make no scruple of violating the precept itselfe euen in time of it greatest necessitie and obligation But this I speake onelie vpon supposition their communion were sounde and according to Christs instition for taking it as it is the want of it is no losse to the not receiuers of it and so I leaue them to the generall liberty they vsurpe as well in this as in other matters of Religion and auncient practise of the Church Furthermore the knight citeth the coūcell of Nāts to proue his tenet but most ridiculously For that there is not a worde touching the cōmuniō in all that text which he citeth Definiuit Sanctum Conciliū vt nullus presbyter praesumat solus missam cantare Cassander p. 83. And the trueth is the councell onely reprehendeth the saying of Masse with out a clarke or Minister as it seemes some cloisters of monkes did accustome to doe in those times so you see this is quite out of the purpose as is also another citation out of Innocent the third libr. 2. c. 24. Illos igitur Angelos quos habemus in oratione participes habemus in glorificatione consortes Innoc lib. 2. 24. fine he onely saying that it is piously to be beleeued that the Angells of God doe assist at Masse accompaning those that praie Not speaking a worde good or bad of the communion of the people in that place Lastlie Sir Humfrey alledgeth the testimonies of diuerse Romanists which hee calleth the confession of his aduersaries that priuate Masse was altogether vnknowne to the primatiue Church
psalleret Nūc alia est ratio antiquato vulgari linguae Latinae vsu quam linguā propter intermissum communē vsum ex Ecclesia diuinisque osficijs minime conueniebat exturbari inque locū 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 Hūfrey pronoūceth a very sharpe sentence against the Coūcell 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 thē the Church doth teach vs whose authority the same scripture commendeth and commandeth vs to follow and obey more then this the Coūcel is so farre frō 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 genuflectiō 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 thē is referred to the Paterne Cōc 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
how smale probabilitie there is to imagin that those glorious champions of Christ who so valerouslie suffered torments died for him in the Roman Church manie of them at Rome it selfe could possiblie belong to anie other Church in the world then to that Church which as in that tyme it had the name of Roman Church so doth it still remaine with the same appellation not otherwise then by a continuall succession of the Popes of Rome three thirtie of which as eloquent Campian trulie obserueth were put to death for their faith which their faith as it is manifest partlie by their owne workes partelie by the authenticall histories of their martyrdomes was the verie same according to the manner I haue before declared which nowe is tought in the present Church of Rome And if this be not so if those glorious martyrs were not defenders of that Roman faith which by succession of pastours is deriued arriued to this our time I demaund of our aduersaries of what other faith they were for of the reformed faith they could not possible bee in regarde that none of them either tought in their life or died for the defence of Iustification by faith onelie or for the deniall of the reall presence of the bodie blood of Christ in the Eucharist nor for denying that there is anie other worde of God but onelie scripture Nor for affirming that the images of Christ his Saints are Idols or that they who honore them adore idols or stickes stones or that the Pope was Antichrist nor doe wee finde in anie historie either anie of this nor yet that the foresayd martyrs suffered for these or anie other point of the reformers doctrine which is contrarie to the faith of the present Roman Church Wherefore the sayd reformers must necessarilie confesse that the ancient martyrs died either for ours or for no other Christian doctrine consequentlie that they are eyther ours or no martyrs at all And if they were Popes of Rome as you Puritās your selues cānot denie how could they possible be yours who beleeue the Pope is Antichrist are so farre from that kynde of gouernemēt that you doe not willingly admit eyther Pope Prince or Prelate but onelie a consistoriall Anarchie without head or feet And he that shall duelie ponder these particulars doubtlesse his conscience will tell him howe vniustelie Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to wreist from the Roman Church those rich prises And let this suffice for the censure of this section to shewe that the Romanists by their claime to the martyrs of the primatiue Church pretend nothing but their due THE XVI PERIOD THE 17. section containeth an ansere to an obiection of the Romanists drawne from the opinion of Protestants touching the Saluation of professed Romanists where Sir Humfrey telleth vs he is come to the greatest wonder And I confesse the wonder which the knight proposeth is great but it being of his owne making it is not hee that ought to wonder at it but rather in my opiniō he should leaue that to others And truelie it is most wonderfull to mee to heare that the Romanists themselues should confesse their owne doctrine to be different from the ancient Church in manie principall points of faith but this hauing alreadie ben demonstrated to be false feigned by Sir Humfrey the greatest wonder of all wonders is that he should haue the face to make a wonder of his owne so often repeated vntruthes It is true the Romanists constantlie hould that neyther Lutheran nor Caluinist nor anie other heretike or Scismatike dying in his heresie obstinatelie can be saued for so they say with him that could commit no rashe iudgement he that doth not beleeue is alreadie iudged Qui autem non credit iam iudicatus est Ioan. 3.18 Neuerthelesse wee Romanists doe not denie but that probably some simple people may liue in heresie yet not be damned at the least for heresie yet be saued by ignorance if with all they be free from other mortall sinnes eyther because they neuer lost their baptismall grace or if they lost it by contrition they recouer it againe which altho' it be not impossible yet is it verie full of dangerous difficultie morallie speaking almost a Metaphisicall case for such I leaue it Sir Humfrey proceedeth on babling aboute a Citie seated vpon seuen mountaines which he fondelie houldeth for a marke of the false Church applyeth it to the Roman Church But if Rome were the seate of the false Church because it is planted vpon seuen mountaines then how scaped it from that staine all those fiue hundreth yeares in which the reformers themselues graunt it was the mother Church Iacobus Rex epist monit Neyther hath the Roman Church anie such marke of assuming supreme authoritie ouer Kings Princes as the knight doth odiouslie affirme but onelie with due respect humility vseth that authoritie ouer them which Christ himselfe did conferre vpon her in such manner as is most conducing to the Saluation of their owne soules their vassals according to the rules of Christian prudence the precept of charitie Yet not to dominier ouer them or their subiects in anie sorte much lesse to approue or allowe of their oppression either by Massacre or anie other vnlawfull meanes as the sectaries especiallie the Puritans doe vse calumniouslie to obiect notobstanding that none in the world are more guiltie then them selues in those practices of which we haue too manie examples in Scotland France other places euen against Kings Princes which doubtlesse caused King Iames of great Britanie to speake so plaine as he did both in his bookes ordinarie discourses of that particular Nihil nisi calumniam seditionem spirātes Basilic dor After this Sir Humfrey descends to diuers particulars demaūdeth whether he his fellowes be accursed for maintaining them or no and whether the Romanists be blessed for such such points which they defende against the sectaries And thus he runneth a long betweene blessing cursing till he concludes casting the curses vpon the Romanists the blessings vpon his owne Congregation But because ther is little or nothing but such false stuffe as I haue alreadie examined cēsured because I haue quite surfeited with so frequēt repetitiō of the same subiect I onely saye in generall as he is blessed whoe heareth or obeyeth the Church in all things in regarde that by obeying the Church he obeyeth Christ whoe blesseth them that obey him So contrarily he that disobeyeth the Church in one onely thing he is accursed according to the wordes of Christ him helfe if he will not heare the Church let him be vnto to the like an Ethnike or Publican Mat. 18. And so Sir Humfrey had no reason to maruell if the Romanists accounte him his fellowes accursed because they refuse to imbrace obey anie point of that doctrine which the most
expounde the faith of the holye church the opinion of this sect that hauing expounded them we approue one reproue the other by a fewe authorities breefe reasons For neither epistolar breuitie doth permit nor anie reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation For such as ar faithfull people but seduced doe not pertinatiously insist in defence of their deprauation but rather hauing heard vnderstanded reasons desire humbly to returne to the way of truth fewe things will suffice But those whoe ar addicted to contentions determined to persiste in their infidelitie would not be satisfyed althou manie reasons should be proposed vnto them Diuinitus Wherfore we beleeue that the terrestriall substances which in the table of our lord ar diuinely sanctifyed by preistlie ministration ar infallibly incomprehensibly admirably by operation of supernaturall power conuerted in to the essence of our lordes bodie the species or formes of the things thē selues remaining with some other qualities least the receiuers should abhorre crude cruent things Cruda cruenta to the end that the credents or beleeuers might receiue more ample rewardes of their faith the bodie of Christ it selfe existing neuerthelesse in heauen at the reight hand of his Father Illeso immortall vnuiolated intyre incontaminated vnhurt soe that it may truely be affirmed that we receiue the bodie of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin and yet not the same The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue but not the same if you respect the species or formes of bread and wine and the rest before comprehended This faith from ancient tymes did hould and now holdeth that Church which diffused throù the whole world is named Catholique whence it is that as it is said before our lord said in the Euangill Receiue and eate this is my bodie And this is the chalis of my bloud c. In this cleare manner speaketh Lanfranc of the reall presence in this place And page 346. of the same booke he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiasticall histories Which Scriptures saith he altho' they doe not obtaine that most excellent tower of authoritie which those doe which we cal Propheticall and Euangelicall scriptures yet they ar sufficiēt to proue that this faith which now we haue all faithfull people which haue gone before vs haue had the same from priuatiue tymes A primis temporibus And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus more ower if that be true which thou beleeues and maintaines of the bodie of Christ vbique gentium it is false which the church beleeues of the same matter in euerie natiō For all those whoe reioyce to be called and to bee Christians doe glorie in that they receiue in this sacrament the true flesh and bloud of Christs bodie receiued from the virgin Inquire of all such as haue knouledge of the latin tongue and of our writings Inquire of the Grecians Armeniās or of Christian people of anie nation what soeuer they will with one mouth testifye that they haue this faith Furthermore if the faith of the vniuersall church be false either ther neuer was Catholique church or she hath perished nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of soules then a pernicious error But no Catholique will graunt that the church either was not or that she hath perished In this plaine sorte testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the vniuersall church in which it were madnes to imagine he did not include his owne I meane the church of England And supposing he liued writ this the verie next age following the age in which Alfric dyed to wit in some parte of the leuēth centurie it is more then monsterous impudencie in our aduersaries to affirme that in the dayes of Alfric the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation was commonely preached and beleeued in the Realme of England Further more Pascasius Rathbertus writ a booke intituled of the bodie and bloud of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram as is cōmōly supposed althoù I finde him not named by Pascasius he hath alsoe an Epistle of the same subiect to one Frudegard with an exposition of those wordes of the Euangelist Math. 26. Caenantibus autem illis c. In all which writings Pascasius most plainely defendeth both the reall presence and transsubstantiation most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same bodie and bloud which Christ receiued of the Virgin Marie and the same in which he was crucifyed is really and truely present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice I need not relate his wordes for euerie particular because I knowe our aduersaries can not denye but that this Author is plainely for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine onely I will rehearse some generall wordes of his in which he declares the faith of the vniuersall church in and before his tymes for after testimonies of diuers āciēt fathers alledged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid wordes of S. Mathewe thus he saith Ecce habes amantissime c. Behould most louing brother thou haste in the end of this little booke the sentences of the Catholique Fathers compendiously noted by which thou maist learne that I haue not seene such things in rashnes of speech when I was a child but that I haue proposed them by diuine authoritie and by the authoritie of the holye Fathers to such as demaunded them But now it being cleare that Since that tyme the faith of all men is not one and the same then cease I praye to beleeue with such as they bee if as yet they can not vnderstand that nothing is impossible to God and lett them learne to assent vnto the diuine wurdes in all things to doubt nothing of those For till this present no man is read to haue erred in them except those whoe erred aboute Christ himselfe notobstanding manie doubted or haue ben ignorant of the Sacraments of soe great a Mysterie And afterwardes the same author in the same treatise saith thus Qua expleta voce c. Which wordes being pronounced meaning the wordes of consecration we all with one consonant voyce say Amen And soe the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confesse that it is that thing which she prayeth for wherby let him whoe will rather contradict this then beleeue it regarde what he doth against our lord him self against the whole Church of Christ Therfore it is a nefarious and detestable villanie to pray with all and not to beleeue that which truth it self doth testifye and that which vniuersally all in euerie place doe teach Whence it is that since he him selfe affirmes it is his bodie and his bloud doubt ought not to be made in anie thing altho' we see not with carnall yes that which we beleeue We haue seene alsoe what Pope Gregorie houldeth of this what
S. Cyrill with all his fellow Bishops assembled in Ephesus what Greece with them what Egipt and what S. Hierome him self whoe published the liues of the holye Fathers in latin And therfore not obstanding some erre in this by ignorance neuerthebesse as yet ther is none that openly contradictes that which the whole world doth beleeue confesse Thus Pascasius a learned and venerable and virtuous Abbat testifyeth the faith of the vniuersall Church in his dayes touching the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Whoe altho' he was not English nor liued iuste in the tyme of Alfric yet he liued within the compasse of the same age in which Alfric was Bishop of wilton and Archbishop of Canterburie that is the yeare 900. yea it may be Pascasius was yet aliue whē Alfric was Abbat and consequently when he is supposed by our aduersaries to haue writ those epistles which they produce in his name concerning this matter Soe that by this testimonie of Pascasius a forcible argument is made that the contrarie doctrine of the reall presence cauld not possible haue ben soe publick and common in anie parte of the Christian world in soe shorte a space of tyme as passed if anie passed betwixt Pascasius and the writing of the homilie and Epistles attributed to Alfric if he did euer write them And how beit is may appeare by the writings of Pascasius that ther were some in or aboute his tyme whoe argued writ in an vnacustomed and new manner touching the doctrine of the presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament as particularly Ioannes Scotus Bertrame and Frudegarde yet as much as I can perceiue by reading Pascasius Fulbertus Stephanus Eduēsis others whoe writ of this matter the broachers of this question did neuer absolutely auerre and maintaine anie assertion directly repugnant to the true and reall existence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely made a schoole question of it arguing the matter pro and contra and that not determinately of the reall presence but whether the same bodie bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie was crucifyed vpon the Crosse was contained vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament not rather some other kynd of Christs bodie and bloud yet truely his and truely present in the Eucharist thou in a figuratiue and tropicall manner And that neither the named authors nor anie other in or aboute Pascasius tyme did plainely or of set purpose impugne the reall presence it plainely appeares by his wordes aboue cited affirming that not obstanding some erred by ignorance yet that none did openly contradict that which the whole world did beleeue and confesse That which is yet further confirmed for we read not that either Scotus Frudegard or Bertrame were euer condemned by the Church in their persons in anie Councell or otherwise which is an euidēt signe they were not obstinate in defence of their opinions but onely deliuered their doubts by way of proposition as at the least in Frudegard in particular doth manifestly appeare by the responsion of Pascasius to his Epistle saying thus Quaeris enim de re ex qua multi dubitant You inquire of a thing of which manie doubt And for conclusion of his owne Epistle Pascasius saith to Frudegard Tu autem velim relegas libellum nostrum de hoc opere For I would haue you read my booke of this matter which you say you haue read in tymes past And if you reprehend or doubt of anie thing in it let it not be tedious vnto you to reuiewe it And finally towardes the end of his exposition of the wordes of the institution of the Eucharist he speaketh to Frudegard in this manner Quapropter charissime Wherfore most dearely beloued doe not doubt of this Mysterie which Christ the truth it self hath of him self bestowed vpon vs. For altho' he sits in heauen at the reight hand of his Father yet doth he not disdaine to be Sacrifyced dayly by the preist in the Sacrament as a true hoaste Now that the same Frudegardus doubt was onely whether the bodie of Christ contained in the Sacrament was the same bodie which he assumed of the Virgin Marie is plaine by Pascasius anser saying thus almost in the beginning of his Epistle Ergo cum ait Wherfore when he saith this is my bodie or my flesh or this is my bloud I think he intimated no other flesh then his owne propter bodie which was borne of the Virgin Marie and hanged en the Crosse Nor anie other bloud then that which was spilt vpon the Crosse and which then was in his bodie No man therfore which is soundly wise doth beleeue that Iesus had anie other flesh or bloud then that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and suffered vpon the Crosse And for conclusion of his foresaid exposition he saith thus to the same Frudegard Ad vltimum quaeso te Lastely I praye fallow not the fooleries of the tripartite or triple bodie of Christ. Doe not mingle salt nor hunnie in it as some would doe not adde nor substracte anie thing but beleeue and vnderstand it all as Christ instituted c. As for Scotus and Bertrame althou ' their bookes haue hen reproued yet it doth not fallow that their authors did directly and absolutely impugne the reall presence or transsubstantiation but they onely deliuered their myndes in a doubtfull obscure and ill sounding manner for which cause and for auoyding of danger they were iustely prohibited the onely the Councell of vercelles the other by the purgatorie Index Howbe it I find nothing in Bertram which with a pious interpretation might not passe among the learned sorte of people And thus much may suffice for proofe that in Pascasius tyme ther had ben no plaine denyall of the reall presence or transsubstantiation in the Christian world but onely some incident doubts made by some particular persons and that in a discussiue manner not as obstinate maintainers of such Doctrine And now by this same and the rest which I haue aboue produced out of the same Pascasius Lanfrāc and others the false Archbishop and Primate of Ireland is conuinced of an apparent falsitie for that in the 79. page of his anser to a Iesuits chalenge he had the face to affirme that til the dayes of Lanfranc this question of the reall presence continued still in debate and that it was as free for anie man to followe the Doctrine of Bertram he calles him Ratrannus or Ioannes Scotus as that of Pascasius This audatious affirmation of vsher I say is clearly condemned of falsitie by the same Pascasius whome he citeth and whoe as I haue alledged testifyes that the doctrine of the reall presence in his tyme was not as yet contradicted by anie except those whoe denye Christ but beleeued and professed by the whole world althou some saith he did erre in the same by ignorance And this onely
Cipher to increase the number He begins with a great commendation of the scriptures because he would seeme to say some thing plausible to the common people but I knowe none make lesse estimation of thē in reallitie then he his consorts who tye them like a nose to the grindestone to the interpretation of those priuate spirits who haue walked with in the compasse of a hundred yeeres or little more rather then to the consent of all succeeding ages since they firste were penned And I pray you what is this preamble to the purpose of prouing the Roman faith not to haue binne taught by the ancient Fathers or the primitiue Church the knight produceth certaine places out of sainct Augustine Ambrose to proue that they preferred scriptures before the writings of the Fathers that they appealed from them to scriptures but what Romanist in the world denyeth that the scriptures haue incomparable preheminence aboue all other writings whatsoeuer or what Roman Catholike doth not willinglie graunt that when the scriptures are plaine the doctrine of the Fathers obscure or doubtfull prouocation from them to the scriptures is rightlie made But that euen in such cases as the Fathers doe vniformlie agree in matter of faith or generallie receaued practise of the Church it is vsuall lawfull to appeale from them to scriptures especiallie when they are not plaine manifest this I say neyther those holie Fathers produced by the knight did euer teach neyther can anie reason be found to proue it but rather it is cleerlie against all reason as opening the by-way to all sortes of heresie And if Sir Humfrey when he read S. Augustine contra Crescon had but passed one other step forward he might haue found that famous Father not to appeale to scripture onelie but also to the authoritie of the Church since that presentlie after he had sayd that he held not sainct Cyprians epistle for Canonicall but examined it by Canonicall scripture which are the words our aduersarie cites he addes that with a great emphasis sayeing Non accipio inquam I say I doe not receaue that which S. Cyprian holdeth of rebaptization because the Church doth not receaue it for which blessed sainct Cyprian shed his bloud By which the reader may plainelie perceiue that one as it were the cheife motiue which sainct Augustine had to reiect the doctrine of rebaptization was not the sole authoritie of the scripture as not being in that case so cleere as to conuince S. Cyprian but he struck the last stroake by force of the authoritie of the Catholike Church And thus you see Sir Humfrey is still out of the way of the Fathers which he himselfe citeth if they be ritelie vnderstood followeth his owne crooked tract relating the particular pointes of the Roman doctrine vnfaithfullie as he vseth to doe making manie conditionall promises to subscribe in case the ancient Fathers be found for vs but remitting the performance to his next opportunitie which is so farre to seeke that I assure my selfe he will neuer finde it Sec. 12. In his twelfth section he comes to particulars contending that S. Augustine is reiected by the Romanists in the seuerall pointes in which he agreeth Page 317. as he supposeth with the Reformers I expected Sir Humfrey would haue performed the large promise which he made in his precedent section sayeing he dares confidentlie auowe that in all fundamentall pointes of difference the Romanists eyther want antiquitie to supplie their firste ages or vniuersalitie to make good the consent of Christian Churches or vnitie of opinions to proue their Trent articles of beleife but in steed of prouing this he goeth about the bush euading the difficultie which he found impossible for himselfe to ouercome he onelie indeuoures to persuade his reader that according to the Romanists owne confessions sainct Augustine is wholelie for the presumed reformers doctrine for proofe of which he produceth diuers instances out of Roman diuines but effecteth nothing in regard that althou ' it is true that some of the Romanists confesse that S. Augustine did dissent from their opinions partlie in the interpretation of some certaine passages of scripture partlie in some other particulars yet none of them confesse that in anie mayne point of religion or faith euen those which haue binne declared by the late Councell of Trent that holie Doctor dissenteth from them in this consists the equiuocation which togeather with some vntruthes which he vttereth as when he affirmes that those which he rehearses heere be cheife points in question betwixt vs such like is the by-way in which his worship walketh with great grauitie all the lenght of this section Sec. 13. In his next ensueing section which is the 13. in number he pretends that S. Gregorie who sent S. Augustine the monke into England to preach the Christian faith is directlie opposite to the Roman religion in the mayne pointes of faith By the contents of this section it appeeres that the knight is as fitte to write matters of diuinitie as an asse is fitte to play on the fiddle he makes such fiddling worke as one may plainlie perceiue that eyther he doth not vnderstand the Fathers other Catholike authors that write in Latin or that passion malice quite obfuscate his witts when he reades them In his 350. page he affirmes that in the vndoubted writings of Gregorie there will be found few or no substantiall pointes which are not agreable to the tenets of their Church altogether different from the Roman this he sayth but in stead of proofe comming to particulars he committs diuers palpable fraudes for firste whereas he professeth to compare the doctrine of Tridentine Councell his owne with the doctrine of sainct Gregorie in lieu of that he cites the doctrine of Bellarmine the notes vpon the Rhemes testament the expurgatorie Index which altho' they be authenticall Catholike authors yet are they not rules of the Roman faith Neither yet doth our aduersarie conuince them to be repugnant to sainct Gregories true meaning in anie one point of faith And I earnestlie wish I had time place to discouer to the reader the egregious fraude the knight hath vsed in his trāslation interpretation of this holie Fathers wordes touching the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist Greg. in 6. ps poenit for by this onelie passage he might frame a coniecture of the rest Secondlie wheras our aduersarie treateth in this section of substantiall pointes of faith yet some of the particulars in which he exemplifies are not substantiall points of faith but rather of manners which according to diuersitie of times may alter change as priuate Masse the double Communion reading of scriptures in vulgar language in which there is a mayne difference from matters of faith which can neuer varie Thirdlie of all the pointes which he rehearseth being all as I take it 9. in number There
in ansere to his booke I now conuert my speech vnto him tell him that as now according to his owne petition I haue impartially read his booke clearely faithfully yea as moderately or more moderately then his owne immoderate proceedings require discouered vnto him not one or two but a multitude of errors vntruthes corruptions and false applications both of scriptures Councells particular authors as well ancient as moderne soe doe I in contemplation of the same expect from him the retractation which he promiseth vppon condition his faultes be showne vnto him which if he shall accordingly performe I will not onely as he professeth with holy Iob of the ansere of his aduersary binde it as a Croune vnto me but alsoe saying with the same renowned saint I will read it pronounce it at euery step I make yea and offer it to my vnderstāding as a most princely present earnestly praying in the meane tyme with the same Iob vt desiderium meum audiat Omnipotens That the omnipotent may heere my desire of his reclamation reduction to the most vniuersally florishing Catholique Roman faith A SVPPLIMENT OF ADDITIONS TO THE APPPENDIX I Haue alreadie noted diuers most foule corruptions and falsifications in Sir Humfrey linds pretented safe way in soe much that I am almost quite surfeted with the multitude of them yet in my opinion ther is scarce anie amōg all those which comes neare to the false dealing and cousinage which the same Sir Humfrey vseth in the 205. page of his Deuia which if it were for noe other reason yet for this a lone it might most iustely deserue the name not as it is falsely applyed to the Romanists but as it is his owne proper worke which if the reader will but please to haue a little patience I will plainely set before his eyes Wherefore Sir Humfrey in the place now cyted vndertaking to proue that trāssubstantiation wants antiquitie vniuersalitie and succession hauing first cited some testimonies both out of Greeke and Latin authors which neuerthelesse are either of noe force for his purpose or els haue ben ansered partely by Bellarmin and other Catholique diuines and partely by my selfe in my Censure he stumbles last vpon the late Patriarch of Cnnstantinople whome he alsoe produceth to the same intent in the 10. and 13. chapters of his first anser to the Germanes affirming that this author teacheth what is meant by that change or transmutation made in the Sacrament saying he tells vs the bodie and bloud of Christ are truely misteries not that these Metaballomena are changed in to humane flesh but wee vnto thē thus Sir Humfrey soe confidently as if he had ben Greeke Professor in Oxford he coud haue done no more And in deed I must needs confesse that this passage of his is able to make a greate showe especially bringing a Greeke worde in the midest of it But now when I came to examen the matter in the booke it selfe and conferred the Greeke and the Latin togither as I founde it printed at witerberg a place voyde of all suscipition on our syde I found first that the author speakes soe plainely of the reall presence and transsubstantiation that altho' he vseth not the verie same worde yet doth he vse other wordes equiualent as conuersion transmutation or the lyke at the least ten or a dozen tymes onely in those verie chapters Nay and more then this I fynde that where he speakes of the conuersion or transmutation he vseth that verie worde Metauallo which the knight denyeth him to vse where he dinieth the change of the bodie and bloud in to humane flesh which is a forceble argumēt a contrario that the Patriarch speakes of a reall change whersoeuer else in this matter he vseth that worde Secondly I fynde that those wordes which Sir Humfrey cytes are not spoken by the Grecian Patriarke of the proper transmutation in the Sacrament but of an other transmutation which belong onely to the vse of the Sacrament to wit he sayth and that verre truely that when a faithfull person receiues the Sacrament the bodie and bloud which he receiues are not changed in to humane flesh but the receiuers in to them Non quod haec saith the Patriarch in corpus humanum transmutentur sed nos in illa melioribus his praeualentibus and here it is that he vseth the worde Metaballomeua and denyeth it to be verifyed in this kynde of mutation speaking according to that which an ancient Father of the Church sayth to the same purpose Non tu mutaberis in me sed ego mutabor in te That is to saye O lord thou shalt not be changed in to mee but I in to thee Which spirituall change or vnion the same Patriarch doth learnedly prosecute and declare with examples not intending by that to exclude the reall presence of Christs bodie bloude in the Sacramēt by transsubstantiation as Sir Humfrey would willingly persuade his simple reader but supposing and includeing the same as in diuers of his passages in these twoe chapters is most apparent and particularly where he sayth not farre before ac quamdiu panis positus iacet nihil nisi panis est repositus tantum Deo postea verus panis fit reuera transmutatur cuius rei ratio modus nullo ingenio nullo ore humano explicari potest And page 97. Honorabilia haec dora in ipsum Dominicum transmutantur corpus quod haec omnia recepit scilicet quod crucifixum sit quod resurrexit quod in Caelos ascendit Tbe honorable giftes he meanes the bread and wine ar changed into the lordes bodie it selfe c. and in the precedent page qui operationis sanctorum mysteriorum proprium hoc opus statuunt vt dona intellige panem vinum in diuinum Christi corpus sanguinem transmutentur in finem hunc vt fideles sanctificentur peccatorumque remissionem regni haeriditatem id genus alia accipere credant non tales beatos praedicamus Thus the Patriarch soe perspicuously that he who either vnderstādes Greeke or Latin yea or English either may euidently see that the Patriarch is cited by our aduersarie euidently against himselfe and quite contrarie to his true meaning Yet was not Sir Humfray content with that but as a mā runing forwarde in madnesse to his owne confusion he cites the same author in his former tenth chapter intending to proue out of him that it is not the reall and substantiall flesh of Christ which is offered but the Sacrament of his flesh he tells vs sayth the knight that the flesh of Christ which he caried aboute him was not giuen to his Apostles to be eaten nor his bloud to be drunke neither doth the bodie of our lord descend frome heauen for this were blasphemie which wordes I confesse the Patriarke hath excepting these in the Sacrament Which are added to the text by Sir Humfrey but as he hath them soe hath he others omitted
by our aduersarie the knight both before and after these which clearely declare his mynde touthing the reall presence The precedent wordes are these Dominus enim illa nocte accepit panem gratias egit fregit dixit accipite comedite non dixit hoc est azinum aut typus corporis sed hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus that is our lord that night tooke bread gaue thankes brake it and said take and eate He said not this is vnleauined bread or this is the figure of my bodie but this is my bodie this is my bloud And then immediately ensue the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey after which alsoe immediately followes Sed tunc nunc inuocatione gratia omnipotentis illius sacrorum rituum Antistitis Spiritus sancti sacrarum precationum diuinorum oraculoruÌ„ interuentum panis quidem in ipsum Domini corpus vinum vero in ipsum Domini sanguinem conuertitur transmutatur But both then and now by inuocation and grace of that omnipotent Prelate of sacred rities the holie Gost by interuention of sacred prayers and diuine oracles the bread truely is counuerted and changed into Christs bodie it selfe but the wine into to his bloud In which wordes the learned and prudent reader can not but see both the reall presence and the conuersion or change of the elements of bread and wine which is nothing els but transsubstantiation into the bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ most plainely specifyed Which may abundantly serue to demonstrate the truth of the Patriarkes meaning and that no man liuing excepting such a lad of mettall as the coragious knight would haue had the face to make vse or rather abuse of such a testimonie as this soe quyte opposite to his purpose multa enim de illâ Caena audiuÌ„tur apud vas quae nobis displicent Ierem. Patriarchâ—… especially the second place being taken out of that chapter in which the author him selfe in the begining of the same doth expressely affirme that ther are manie things maintained by the lutherans in the supper of our lord which displease the Grecians one of which doubtlesse and not the least is the point of transsubstantiation which the Lutherans reiected in their remonstrance to the Greeke Church and Ierimie the Patriarcke maintaines in his anser to the same To all which may be added yet more expresse wordes of the same Patriarke saying thus Statuit igitur Catholica Ecclesia mutari conseeratione facta panem quidem in ipsum corpus Christi vinum vero in ipsum sanguinem eius per spiritum sanctum c. The Catholique Church therfore saith he defins that the consecration being made the bread is changed into the bodie of Christ but the wine into his bloud by the holie Gost c. And it is to be noted that he vseth the worde Metauallomena in these places in which he speakes of the conuersion or transmutation of the bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ which doth manifestly de monstrate the Grecian Patriarch to maintaine that same change of the bread and wine in the consecration of the Eucharist which the Romanists in Latin call transsubstaÌ„tiation which is sufficient to coÌ„uince the preposterousnes of the iniudicious knight in makeing vse of this great Prelate for his owne contrarie position Touching inuocation of saincts and their worship Sir Humfrey in the 232. page of his deuious way alledges against the Romanists the confessioÌ„ of the Greeke Church quoting in the margen the same Patriarch of Constantinople and relating his wordes in his anser to the German Doctors cap. 1. Wher according to his relation the Patriarch sayth in the name of him selfe and fellowes that they doe not properly inuocate saints but God fot neither Peter nor Paule heare anie of those that inuocate them but the gift and grace that they haue according to the promisse I am with you till the consummation of the world Thus the knight rehearses that authors wordes but yet corruptedly for first the Patriarch hath not those negatiue wordes We doe not properly inuocate saints but this affirmatiue inuocation doth proporly agree to God onely and it doth agree to him primarily and most immediately which wordes Sir Humfrey leaueth out but inuocation made to saints is not properly inuocation but accidentally and as if we should say by grace or fauor which latter words alsoe the knight partely mangled and partely omitted Secondly the Patriarch dot not saye Peter and Paule doe not heare their inuocators but he sayth they doe not exaudire that is they doe not heare and graunt by their owne power the petitions of those that inuocate them And ther is soe much betwixt audire exaudire that his hearing and graunting that which is heard that althou ' the one vndoubledly agree to the saints both in the doctrine of the Grecian Church and the Roman yet of the exaudition or hearing with a graunt doubt may be made euen according to the doctrine of the Roman Church whether it is proper to saints or noe in regarde it may be coÌ„ceiued that altho' the saints be truely intercessors betweene vs and God yet haue they not power to graunt out requests but onely to mediate for vs by way of impetration And therfore the same author saith that Peter and Paule doe not exaudire that is not soe heare vs as they them selues graunt our petition which they heare but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according or by the fauor they haue by virtue of the promisse of our Sauior I will be with you till the end of the world as the Grecian Patriarch doth sufficiently declare And that the Grecians doe in generall termes graunt inuocation of saints which is that which both agrees with the Roman doctrine and differs from the doctrine of the pretented reformers it is manifest not onely out of this place but alsoe out of other places of the Patriarkes anser as particularly in the 13. chapter pag 102. wher it is said by him that in the sacrifice or masse mentionem beatissimae Virginis facimus laudes eius praedicantes intercessione sanctorum omnium petentes misericordiam Dei implorantes pro viuis mortuisque supplicantes c. And yet more plainely in the verie 21. chapter cited by our aduersarie where the Patriarke hath these wordes Haec meditatio nunc in Ecclesia fit depraedicatur ad sanctos exclamamus ad dominam nostram ad sanctos Angelos ad dominam quidem nostram tersancta domina Deipara pro nobis intercede peccatoribus ad sanctos autem Angelos omnes caelestes potestates sanctorum Angelorum Archangelorum orate pro nobis c. This meditation is now made preached in the Church we both crye aloud to the saints and to our ladie and to the Angels and to our ladie truly thrise holie ladie mother of God intercede for vs sinners But to the holie Angeles all you Celestial Powers of holie
annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesijs successores eorum vsque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognouerunt quale ab his deliratur By which wordes it is manifest that S. Irenaeus doth confute his aduersaries the heretikes not by scripture onely but alsoe cheefely by traditionarie authoritie of the Bishops succeeding frome the Apostles which is directly opposite to the tenets especially of the purer sorte of nouellists whoe neither admitte traditions nor Episcopall authoritie but the onely written worde for absolute and sole Iudge of all Controuersies confutation of heresies Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the historian bookes of the old Testament as I am persuaded doth not plainely affirme neither doth Canus charge him with that error that the bookes of Machabies are not absolutely Canonicall as Sir Humfrey alledgeth but he onely reprehendeth him for vsing a vaine distinction of Canonicall scriptures as if there were some Canonicall onely for instruction of manners and not for matters of faith against the infirmitie or vnsoundnesse of which distinction Canus vseth this reprehensiue conclusion saying Cum sub eodem contextu omnes illi libri nullo facto discrimine definiantur esse Canonici scilicet Ecclesiasticus Sapientia Tobias Iudith Machabaeorū libri duo Baruch ridiculum est vt partim in vna significatione partim in alia libros Cenonicos habeamus Ac si hāc semel distinctionem admittimus authoritate Conciliorum atque Pontificum nullus liber Sacer constare poterit And presently after Id quoniam absurdum omnino est retineamus potius eam rationem oportet quam Caietanus voluit evertere vir vt saepe iam dixi cum primis eruditus pius sed qui in libris Canonicis constituendis Erasmi nouitates ingeniumque secutus dum alienis vestigijs voluit insistere propriam gloriam maculauit And soe you see Canus doth not confesse that directly Caietan maintained the Machabies not to be Canonicall but onely with that distinction neither did in deed Caietan more denye the authoritie of those bookes then he did the Epistle to the Haebrewes that of S. Iames which neuerthelesse he held absolutely for Canonicall tho' not perhaps in the same rigorous sense in which he iudged all the rest of the bookes of scripture to be in the Canon by reason those as alsoe some other partes of scripture haue ben by some ancient authors doubted of in which doubt onely he seemeth to founde his distinction Touching the Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament Sir Humfrey doth most falsely alledge the authoritie of S. Isidore persuading his reader that he reiecteth those same bookes which he and his companions in the newe religion condemne for Apochripha Weras in deed that ancient author numbereth them all in the Christiā Canon And to the end the knights impudencie may more plainely appeare I will rehearse S. Isidores expresse wordes concerning the same whoe in his 6. booke of origenes or etymologies saith thus Quartus est apud nos ordo veteris Testamenti eorum librorum qui in Canone Haebreo non sunt quorum primus sapientiae liber est Secundus Ecclesiasticus Tertius Tobias Quartus Judith Quintus Sextus Machaboeorum Quos licet Haebraei inter Apochrypha separent Ecclesia tamen Christi inter diuinos libros honorat praedicat By which wordes it is soe euident that this holie Father standes for the Romanists and against the pretensiue reformers in this point that I much maruell how Sir Humfrey could haue the face to produce him in fauor of his cause Nay more then this out of the distinction which he maketh betweene the the Hebrewes vs Christians in receiuing the foresaid bookes for Canonicall I frame a firme coniecture that either all or most of these ancient authors whoe seeme to exexclude them out of the Canon doe onely intend to declare that they were not included in it by the Iewes as S. Hilarie S. Hierome S. Epiphanius other authors concerning which point the reader may please to reade the same S. Isidore in lib. Prooemiorum de libris veteris noui Testamenti In the 431. page of his by-way the kinght abuseth Canus whome he there cites lib. 12. cap. 13. For he foysteth in by a parenthesis of his owne the worde reall which neither Canus hath nor yet putteth the force of his reprehension of the bishop of Bitont in that he affirmed in the Councell of Trent that Christ did not offer his reall bodie in his last supper but because he affirmed that Christ did not offer his owne bodie absolutely abstracting frō reall or not reall the question not being in that passage of the reall presence but of the Sacrifice of Christs bodie bloud in the Eucharist which as it seemes by Canus relation the foresaid Bishop in the discussion of this point by way of proposition was of that priuate dictamen how beit after wardes he willingly conformed him selfe to the rest of the Fathers to the decree of the Councell By which it is plaine that this Bishop was not of anie firme setled opinion which might fauor Sir Humfreys doctrine in that particular Illud primum animaduerto iure Cornelium Episcopum Bitontinum in Conelio apud Tridentinum à Patribus Theologis vniuersis explosum qui dixerit Christum in Coena non suum corpus sanguinem obtulisse Canus loco citato And soe you see this is one of Sir Humfreyes prittie pettie trickes which omong other greater will serue to replenish his pages The kinght alsoe in his 157. page of his deuia corrupteth the same author cited in his third booke third chapter Where for these wordes in sacrificio Eucharistiae simul cum corpore sanguinem sacerdotibus esse conficiendum sumendum c. Sacrae litterae nusquam forte tradiderunt he translates the consecrating receiuing of ehe bodie bloud of Christ by the preist c. Are nowhere happily to be found in scripture In which passage the attentiue reader may easily see that the knight plaieth the iugler most nimblely For wheras Canus putteth the force of his sentence in the wordes simul together or at once in the other worde sumendum making an hipotheticall proposition of all his wordes ioyned togither our craftie Circulator soe hādleth the matter that his reader may imagin that Canus affirmed that the consecration of the Eucharist according to the custome of the Roman Church is not found in the bible That which that author neuer dreamed but onely intended to produce as an instance of Apostolicall traditions that copulatiue of the practice of the preists consecrating actuall receiuing both the bodie bloud at one the same tyme in the vse of the Eucharist which Canus supposeth rather to be a tradition then expressely contained in the text of scripture More ouer Sir Humfrey cites Gretzerus but onely twise first in his defense of the tenth
prisci moris which signifyes the custome of celibate to haue ben no newe lawe as he would falsely persuade hir reader but established in ancient tymes And more then this he foysteth in to his translation the worde necessarie in steed of flagitare videntur And thus like a bungling boteher he patcheth togither those vncertainties of Cassander to make himselfe and others a deceitfull safegarde of greater confort and benefit for the soule which he erroneously supposeth rather to be in his misreformed faith them in the Romish And now how vnfaithfull weake pore proceeding of Sir Humfrey this appeares to be let the indicious reader consider The knigh moreouer traduceth Bellarmin in the preface to his booke de Romano Pont. translating in euerie place for Graeci the Greeke Fathers as if the Cardinall did confesse that the ancient and most famous Greeke Fathers to wit S. Chrysostome S. Basil Epiphanius and others did impugne and resiste the supremacie of the Bishop of Romane Wheras it is plaine Bellarmin meaneth onely such Grecians as sate in the Councell of Calcedon whoe frandulently defined in absence of the Popes legates that the Patriarch of Constantinople is soe the second after the Roman Bishop as that yet he hath equall priuiledges whence Sir Humfrey will needs inferre that the supremacie of the Pope wantes succession as if the Popes resistance to this attempte of vsurpation in those Grecians were sufficient to exstinguish a true and estblished succession of all former tymes In his page 104. of the deuia touching Salmeron the knight falsely affirmes out of chamier that he speakes in the person of the Grecians when he vttereth those wordes For as much as the benedictton of the lord is not fuperfluous c. For Salmeron neither mentions Grecians nor Latinists but onely argues for the second opinion which he putteth of those which seeme to hould that Christ did not consecrate his bodie and bloud with those wordes This is my bodie But whose soeuer those wordes bee the matter is not great yet certaine it is that Sir Humfrey dealeth falsely and deceitfully in that he produceth them and Salmeron to proue that the grand point of transsubstantiation as he pleaseth to terme it hath neither foundation in the scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among the Romanists whenas neither those wordes of Salmeron are spoken to proue that the grand point of transsubstantiation as he pleaseth to terme it hath neither foundation in the scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among the Romanists When as neither those wordes of Salmeron are spoken to anie other end but onely to confirme the opinion of such as hould that out Sauior did not consecrate with those wordes This is my bodie Howbeit both he and they agree most vniformely in that how soeuer Christ him selfe did whose power being infinite was not tyed to anie wordes at all for the effecting that which he intended no more then he was in the operation of miracles particularly in the miraculous transsubstantiation of water in to wine in the mariage feast of Cana yet Preists whoe are but his substitutes or instruments in that sacred action doe vndoubtedly consecrate with those determinate wordes This is my bodie in which all Romanists yea Grecians excepting some moderne Grecians whoe adde some other deprecatorie wordes doe consent vnanimously accorde Wher vpon Salmeron before he comes to rehearse opinions touching that point whether Christ him selfe did consecrate with these formall wordes saith plainely Illud igitur tanquam certum constitutum est apud omnes hanc fuisse nobis formam consecrationis praescriptam iure diuino institutam ac nobis traditam Which wordes sufficiently declare that there is no incertaintie among the Romanists aboute the foresaid wordes of consecration Nay if ther were that incertaintie among diuines aboute the forme of the Eucharist which Sir Humfrey pretendeth yet doth it not follow that the Doctrine of transsubstantiation is vncertaine supposing that both Salmerō all the same diuines agree that the bread and wine are truely transsubstantiated or turned in to the bodie bloud of Christ consequently this author is impertinently alledged as hauing nothing for the knights purpose Besydes that parte of the wordes which he cites out of Salmeron whether they be the Grecians or not they include clearely the doctrine of transsubstantiation to wit those in particular when he graue it transmutation was alreadie made soe the vnwarie knight hath alledge this passage against him selfe For if the change of the bread wine was made before Christ gaue the Sacrament to his disciples the Romanists haue their desire intent that Christ did truely transsubstantiate the elements it importing little to this question by what meanes he performed his action Page 547. of his deuia the kinght corrupts Salmeron by a mangled relation false construction of his wordes which he produceth to proue that some Romanists particularly Salmeron hould the Popes iudgement infallible But how soeuer it be that some Roman diuines hould the Popes authoritie euen without a generall Councell infallible in determining controuersies in matters of faith others the contrarie which as Bellarmin noteth is no matter of faith Yet certaine it is that Salmeron is here abused by Sir Humfrey for that in this place cited what soeuer he doth in others he rather attributes all infallibilitie in resoluing declaring matters of controuersie cheefely to the assistance power of the holy spirit then either to the Pope or Church His wordes are these Neque haec sunt satis nisi accedat vnctio eruditio Spiritus Sancti quem Dominus mansurum nobiscum in aeternum qui in generalibus synodis in Christi Vicario Petri successore residens omnes incidentes quaestiones ortas de fide contronersias sua authoritate terminet atque absoluat Thus Salmeron prologom 9. can 1. Wher the reader may perceiue that the kinght hath either ignorantly or malitiously applyed the relatiue qui to the Pope which neuerthelesse is referred by Salmeron to the holy Gost As anie Grammer boy that vnderstands latin may eassely perceiue And yet blinde Sir Humfrey whoe not being yet a perfect Gramarian will needs playe the Doctor of diuinite englisheth rehearseth Salmerons wordes thus The lorde promised his Spirit to Christs Vicar the successor of Peter by his authoritie the determins all matters of faith Let the reader compare the english with the latin he will presently discouer the fraud S. Isidor Pelusiota writ the Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey page 630. to a monke named Zenon complaining vnto him of want of virtue corruption of maners in the Church in comparison of the primatiue tymes all which that holy man affirmes to proceed from dissention wickednesse or malice of these whoe gouerne especially of preists thou ' not of all but he hath not a worde of the Pope or of anie defect or of the
the bodie which the faithfull receiue in the Eucharist a bodie gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule But the reformers professe to receiue no such bodie in the Sacrament but the verie same bodie which sitteth on the right hād of God in heauē indued with all the properties and dimensions of a true bodie though by faith onelie and so there being such small affinitie betweene both the words and sense of the foresaid place and the reformers doctrine in this point neither S. Humfrey nor those from whom he receiued it had any reason to produce it as a testimonie wherebie to proue their Church to haue bene visiblie extant and their faith publikelie professed before the daies of Luther And from hence we may further deduce how vaine a flourish the knight maketh in the end of his 97. page were by way of conclusion he affirmes that the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie published not in pryuate corners but in publike libraries not in obscure assemblyes But in open Churches and generall congregations of our owne countrye in the darkest ages long before Luthers dayes All which deduction is most friuolous and idle first for that suppose it were most true and certaine that the denyall of the reall presence were contained in the foresaid writings the contrarie to which I haue made most manifest yet is it a most vaine and false brag of the knight to saye that therefore the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie professed in his countrie longe before the dayes of Luther it being manifest that with all the Arethmatik he can vse The deniall of the reall presence and transubstantiation confessed by Sir H. to be the most substantiall points of his religion the whole some of substantiall points of his religion falselie pretended to be sounde by him in the foresaide epistles and homilie doe not passe the number of two whereas yet on the contrarie ther are truelie and vnfainedlie aboue twise as manie against him and for the Romanists as masse prayers in Latin water mixed to the wine in the chalis offering of the same sacrifice the pronouncing of Agnus Dei in the masse the signe of the Crosse As also because there are no certaine premisses out of which anie such illation of the knights can be collected but the quite contrarie as hath beene alreadie showed and so for Sir Humfrey to say the most substantiall points of his faith haue beene generallie published not in priuate corners but in publike libraries before the dayes of Luther grounding his saying onelie vpon the foresaid writings is most absurde and voyde of truth To omit that if as the knight affirmes there is a copie of the foresaid Epistle mangled in the foresaid librarie a man may doubt how the pretēsiue reformers could come by anie more true manuscript then that razed copie out of which they could by comparing the one with the other discouer that that which was so blotted defaced did containe anie doctrine contrarie to the reall presense or transubstantiation or agreeing with their owne copies now of late translated in to English and printed by them And also we may further suspect that the copie which Sir Humfrey mentioneth as mangled and razed is the onelie true originall and that the transsumpts of Alfrickes sermon now published in English are altered and changed from the puritie of their first copies all which I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader and my owne further examen of the matter as opportunitie shall serue And yet besides this I cannot conceiue how this businesse hangs together to wit that Sir Humfrey produces the foresaid homilie against transubstantiation and yet the same Sir Humfrey page 98. affirmes that they I knowe not who haue in that same homilie suggested transubstantiation by two faigned miracles Now if in that homilie there be two miracles to proue transubstantiation as indeed there bee howe can it then be truly produced by the knight against the same So that here must of necessitie be some iuggling in the matter And more for my parte I cannot possible imagin howe that ould mustie copie of the homilie being in the saxon language could make two such monsterous iumpes as first to leape out of ould saxon in to English and then out of exiter into Oxon euen iuste at that present time when M. Fox had need of them for the fornishing of his moulie monumēts Certainelie I hould this for one of the greatest miracles that anie of the reformed brothers euer committed Besides this in my opinion it sauoures rancke of forgerie to say that the wordes razed in the Latin copie of Alfricks Epistle to Wolstan Archbishop of yorke were supplied by the saxon copie of Exiter as some of our aduersaries doe affirme not-obstanding others say they had the supplie from worcester And I demaunde further whether it is not much more probable that the sentence which he mentioneth if anie such there were in that Epistle was neuer taken away in the Latin but rather added by Swinglius Oecolampadius or Bucer or some other greater Doctour of that potatorie Confraternitie More D. Iames saith that the Latin Epistle so razed is intituled De consuetudine monachorum and yet the same Doctour out of Fox relates it to be against the bodilie presence Quibus speramus nos quibusdam prodesse ad correctionem quamuis sciamus aliis minime placuisse sed non est nobis consultum semper si lere non aperire subiectis eloquia diuina quia si praeco tacet quis Iudicem venturum enuntiet D. Iames detect part 2. pag. 55. Now what connexion the bodilie or vnbodilie presence of Christ in the sacrament hath with the custome of monks I am persuaded that excepting these two great Doctours all the world beside can not imagin Especiallie considering that in the wordes related by Iames there is no mētion at all of the bodie of Christ but of correction of some certaine persons And surelie Alfrick being an Abbat himselfe it is to be iudged farre more proper to him to haue writ of things appertaining to the profession of religious persons thē of the Eucharist or transubstātiation or as they will haue it against the same Finallie Fox referres the translation and publishing of the Homilie and Epistles to the yeare 996. Yet Iames affirmes that the Archbishop wolstan to whome Alfrick writte his Epistle concerning that businesse was a boute the yeare 1054. which yeare differeth much from the other Wherefore let Sir Humfrey be assured that till he cleares these difficulties this his new-founde writing caries no authoritie against the Romanists And so for conclusion of this matter I say that till Sir Humfrey or some of his companions can produce some authenticall authour before Luther who without their owne glosses or illations doth teach plainelie these negatiues Christs bodie and bloud are not reallie present in the Eucharist
thē if two should argue the one that the colour of the sea water is greene and the other blewe that some ignorant Cockes-come should step in and tell them that it followes on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all Which who so euer should presume to doe he deserued to be soundlie hist at for his audacious follie so doth Sir Humfrey And as for Biell whome the knight cites saying it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament he hath indeed those wordes which are quoted by him tho' not in his 49. as he puts it but in his 40. lection vpon the Canon but yet this his saying is not contrarie to the Romanists who easilie admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christs bodie in the Eucharist is neither expressedlie declared in the Scripture nor yet in all ages and by all authours expressedlie tought in the Church as matter of faith neuerthelesse this authour himselfe in the same place addes in plaine wordes that now that opinion which defendes transubstantiation is receiued by all Catholikes yealding for a reason of the same because saith he we ought to hould of the Sacraments as the holie Roman Church doth hould And afterwards he addes Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holie Fathers we ought to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is in the Sacrament by conuersion of the bread into it we are to fee c. And the like I say of Scotus Yribarne his Scholar who altho' they seeme to diminish the antiquitie of transubstantiation yet their meaning onelie is that it was not in auncient times declaredlie proposed by Publike authoritie of the Church as an article of faith yet both of them expresselie beleeuing and defending the same professedlie as a matter of faith And by occasion of this I desire the reader to take notice that whensoeuer he findes anie Catholike authours to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time their meaning is not that the obiect in it selfe was no matter of faith in anie one time since it was first reueiled by God either expresselie in it selfe or as included in some other veritie but onelie that it was not expresselie and generallie knowne and beleeued for such by all faithfull people by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publikelie vnto them by the Church in anie Generall Councell For that as much as concernes the doctrine in itselfe it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church then it was euen before it was so defined as may appeare in the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his eternall Father in the vnitie of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like which in them selues were reueiled verites and matter of faith euer since the newe Testament and the lawe of Christ was published to the world not obstanding they were not declaredlie and vniuersallie knowne for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene Ephesin Chalcedon Councels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian Nestorian Euthycian heretikes And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this breefe obseruation may suffice to satisfie anie indifferent mynde Nowe as I said of Scotus and Yribarne the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez in his comment vpon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it vpon the first art Of the 15. quest he saith transubstantiation which ther he calles conuersion is not in the Euangell expresselie conuersio non habetur explicitein Euangelio and before he saith we expresselie receiued from the Church that which the Gospell did not explicate Yet afterwardes the same authour expresselie teaches and inculcates that those wordes this is my bodie cause both the reall presence and transubstantiation For thus addes Et perhoc verbae Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scrilicet conuersionis continentiae c. That is And by this because the wordes of Christ this is my bodie doe effect both nouelties videlicet of the conuersion and the containing By which wordes it is manifest what this authours meaning was absolutelie touching the reall presence transubstantiation howsoeuer he spoake of the manner in which it is cōtained in scripture which is not our questiō And in this sense speakes Aliaco when he saith in the place cited by our aduersarie that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remaine still a possible neither it is contrarie to reason nor to the authority of the scriptures c. For he meaneth onely it is not repugnant to anie such expresse scripture as doth conuince the transsubstantiatton plainely to euerie one without the authoritie and declaration of the Church and therfore he addeth if it could stand with the determination of the Church in which Aliaco showes such obedience to the Church as Sir Humfrey and his fellowes obstinately denie vnto her most piously captiuating his vnderstanding euen in that which he held more easie and conformable to reason and scripture according to humaine intelligence and discourse More euer touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl cap. 10. His intent in that place was onely to proue that meerly by the bare wordes of scripture without the traditionarie interpretation of the Fathers no certaintie can be had in questions of controuersie or matters of faith And to proue this which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humfrey and the rest of our nouelists he argueth exhiposthesi or vpon supposition saying that not obstanding it is true and certaine that our Sauiour by vertue of those wordes this is my bodie did make his owne bodie really present in the Sacrament yet if one were obstinate standing preciselie to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers and sense of the Church he might denie that it doth thence followe that in our Masse Prests make really present the bodie of Christ Not meaning to affirme that they doe not in deed for that the rest of his booke doth demonstate him to beleeue the reall presence in Masse especially the fourth chapter but onely intending to declare by examples and reasons that it can not be conuinced that Catholike Prests doe so by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctours of the Church and her infallible authoritie And now this being the true sense of B. Fishers discourse Sir Humfrey verie coningly by leauing out the precedent and subsequent wordes of the authour so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse And that this is the true