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
attributed by heretikes to ancient and good authours among which we may number one cited by Sir Humfrey in some parte of his worke intitled de fiducia misericordia Dei which Bell. in his booke de Scrip. Eccles declares to be counterfait and suppositious and none of Bishop Fishers on whom it is imposed Neuerthelesse how so euer the matter standes touching the truth of the foresaid homilie and admit it be neuer soe true and authenticall yet I am confidently assured that the wordes by Sir Humfrey cited out of it against the reall presence are not so obscure but that they admitte such a comodious exposition as doth not in any sort fouour the denyall thereof but rather impugne and it confute it First for that there is not one worde which includeth a denyall of the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the wordes onelie showe a differēce betwene the body in which Christ suffered and the bodie which the faithfull receiue which difference is not reallie in the substance of the bodie it selfe it being one and the same in nature in euery place where it existeth but onely in the properties and manner of existence or being in place it hauing beene in the passion visible mortall and with it entire locall extension but in the Sacrament inuisible impassible and vnextended in which sense allso it may rightly be called spirituall yea and not altogether improperly especially taking it with a relation or respect vnto the same body perfectly extended in the manner aboue declared it may be said to be without bloud bone sinn woe limbe or soule that is without extensiō or motion of these partes as the cited wordes doe signifie which by reason of the foresaid maner of being of Christs body in the Sacrament doe call it his spirituall bodie from thence as it were inferring concluding that noething is to be vnderstood there bodily but spiritually all which is noething contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point but rather most agreeable to the same which teacheth that Christs body though it be truelie in the Sacrament yet without extension and not in a Corporall but in a spirituall manner yea and very cōformable to the doctrine of S. Paul who speaking of the resurrectiō of the flesh douteth not to call one the same humane bodie both corruptible spirituall 1. Cor. 15. Seminatur corpus animale surget corpus spirituale and that not for the difference of the bodie in it nature and substance which it hath not but onelie by reason of the accidentall difference which it hath in it properties and māner of existence which the same bodie receiueth in the resurrection not hauing had them in this mortall life True it is ther is one passage in the homilie which in my opinion hath more difficulty showe of repugnance to the reall presence transsubstantiation then the former wordes to wit where the authour makes a comparison betwixt the manna and water which flowed from the rocke in the desert both which he affirmes to haue beene figures of Christ bodie and bloud as the Eucharist also is Neuerthelesse he hath consequenter an other passage or two which plainely declare that similitude to be nothing contrarie either to the reall presence or transsubstantiation For so he addes The Apostle Paul saith that the Israelists did eate the same gostely meake and drinke the same gostely drinke because that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeares and shat water which frome the stome did follow had signification of Christs bodie his bloud that now be offered daylie in Gods Church it was the same saith he which we offer not bodily but gostely But which wordes it is euident that Alfric puts a maine difference betwixt that spirituall meate and drinke of the Iewes the spirituall foode which Catholike Christians receiue in the Sacrament that being but a signification as the authour of the Homilie expressely affirmeth of Christs body bloud it being the same not bodilie but onely spiritually or figuratiuelie with that bodie and bloud of Christ which he auerreth Preists to offer daylie and of which he also teacheth the foresaid water to be a representation not the bodie and bloud themselues which as being euerie day sacrificed in the altar euen according to common sense they must of necessitie be reallie and truelie in the Eucharist And altho' the authour of the Homilie calleth if a figure of Christs bodie bloud yet doth he not say it is a figure of thē absent as the water flowing out of the rock was but truelie and reallie present as those his wordes in which he saith and diuers time repeateth that Christs bodie and bloud are offered in the same Eucharist by Preists in sacrifice doe euidently conuince supposing it is impossible to conceiue the authour of the homilie should affirme that Christs bodie and bloud be offered in the altar and yet not beleeue the same to be reallie truelie and substantially present in the Eucharist Moreouer the same Homilie saith in plaine termes the wine which in the supper by the Preist is hallowed shewe one thing without to humane vnderstanding and another thing with in to beleeuing minds without they seeme bread and wine both in figure and tast and they be truely after their hallowing Christs bodie and his blood throu ' gostelie misterie And afterwardes these wordes doe followe we said vnto you that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housell before his suffering and said this his my bodie and my bloud yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned trou ' in visible might the bred to his owne hodie the wine to his bloud which wordes how plaine they be for the reall presence and transsubstantiation anie one that is not violently partiall in his owne cause may easilie perceiue considering that for Christ to turne by inuisible might the bread and wine into his bodie and bloud is nothing els but that which both the definitions of the Roman Church and Catholike diuines call by the names of reall presence and transsubantiation Thirdlie it is manifest that the foresaid testimonie cannot in reason be alledged in fauour of the reformers doctrine in this particular for that they denie the bodie of Christ either to exist or to be receaued really in the Eucharist otherwise then by faith figure neither of which neuertelesse is denied by the words aboue cited but contrarilie they expressely and absolutelie auerre that the bodie of Christ is receaued by the faithfull and altho' they call it his spirituall bodie yet doubtlesse they doe it onelie for the reason alledged as also for that it nourisheth the receiuers spirituallie yet they neuer denie it to be a true bodie or to be trulie present in the Sacrament or affirme it to be receiued by faith onelie as the reformers commonlie doe and Sir Humfrey in particular most expresselie in diuerse places of his booke Fourtlie the wordes alledged call
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
meaning of this authour both the title of his chapter out of which our aduersarie taketh the wordes he cites which is this Of the interpretation of scripture by Fathers And the whole tenor of his discourse doe sufficiently declare so that if the matter comes to scanning the fraude will easily appeare with shame enuffe to this our professed aduersarie of truth who not content with this hath also like a cheating gramster to mende his ill game dropt a carde I meane the worde nostra which he hath left out in his translation but this but a pore trick and so let it passe And perhaps it was onely the negligence of the printer But for the readers better instruction I will punctually rehearse the authors wordes concerning his true meaning as well those which Sir Humfrey hath omitted for his owne aduantage as the rest Thus he saith Doceamus quod citra Patrum interpretationem vsum ab eisdem nobis traditum nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis Euangelij verhis sacerdotum quempiam his temporibus verum Christi Corpus Sanguinem consecrare non quod res haec ambigua fit sed quod eius certitudo non tam haheatur ex Euangelij verbis quam ex Patrum interpretatione vsu tanti temporis quem illi posteris reliquerunt That is let vs teach that without the interpretation of the Fathers and the practise by thē deliuered vnto vs noman can proue by the bare wordes of the Gospell them selues that anie man in these our times doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ not because this thing is doubtfull but because the certainetie of it can not be had so much by the wordes of the Euangell as by the interpretation of Fathers and the practise of so long time which they left to posteritie By which wordes it is voyde of all doubt and tergiuersation that the authour of them neuer made question but that true Catholike Prests as he him selfe was truly consecrate and make present the uerie bodie and bloud of Christ the contrarie of which our aduersarie pretendes to proue onely intending by this pasage and others to declare against his aduersarie Martin Luther that scriptures alone without the expositiō of the Fathers and practise of the Church are not sufficient to conuince the trueth expecially when the wordes are obscure and subiet to diuers senses And therefore in his page 172. giuing the reason of this he saith Hoc idcirco dixerim ne quis ipsis Euangelij verbis pertinacius adhaereat spreta patrum interpretatione quemadmodum Lutherus fecit vsum interpretationem a patribus traditam nihili pendens nuditati verborum infistens quae non sufficiunt ad id quod velint conuincendum Therefore quoth B. Fistier I said these thinhs least anie one should ouer obstinately adhere to the wordes of the Gospell themselues as Luther did not esteeming the vse and interpretation deliuered by the Fathers and insisting in the nakednes of the wordes which are not sufficient to conuince that which they desire And in the insuing page he concludeth in this manner Therefore that is manifest which afore we promised to sbow to wit that long continuing custome and concording exposition of Fathers none dissenting doth yeald more solid certainetie how anie obscure place of the Ghospell must be vnderstood then the bare wordes which may be varioufly detorted by contentious people at their pleasure By all which wordes it is more then certaine and manifest that this authour neuer intended to show that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can not be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse as our false aduersarie doth endeuore to persuade his reader for he onely affirmes that this can not be conuinced by the bare text of scripture without the exposition of Fathers if anie contensious person should obstinately denie it as his wordes aboue cited euidently declare And as for those wordes which Sir Humfrey quotest in his margent which in English are these Neither is there anie worde put there by which the verie presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ may be proued in our Masse I say that he dealeth not honestlie in the recitall of them in regarde he omittes the next wordes following not obstanding they belong to te integritie of the same discourse and also are a plaine explication of the former as the reader of the whole discourse may more clearely vnderstand the wordes being these For altho' saith he Christ made his flesh of the bread and his bloud of rhe wine it doth not therfore follow by virtue of anie worde here set downe that we as often as we attempt the same doe effect it In which as the reader may plainely perceiue the authour absolutelie affirmeth not that Preists doe not effect that which Christ effected concerning the reall presence of his bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely saith there that is among the wordes of the institution of the Sacrament as they are related by S. Math. and in which those wordes doe this in remembrance of me are not contained there is not anie worde by virtue of which the same can be concluded of Preists which is ther affirmed of Christ our Sauiour yet not denying but expresselie auerring that by other wordes of the scripture and particularlie by those wordes rehearsed by S. Luke and S. Paule doe this in remembrance of me interpreted according to the exposition and practise of the auncient Fathers the making of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrement is firmelie proued and established And hence it is that after he had vttered those wordes which Sir Hūfrey also citeth tho' not intirely to wit non potest igitur probari per vllam scripturam it can not therfore be proued by anie scripture that either laie man or Priest as often at he shall make triall of the busines shall in like manner make the bodie and bloud of Christ of bread and wine as he him selfe did since that neither this is contained in the scripture immetiatelie after this I say he subionines for conclusion of his discourse this insuing clause By these things I thinke no man will be ignorant that the certaintie of this matter the faith of consecration as the note in his margen doth declare doth not so much depende vpon the Ghospell as vpon the vse and custome which for the space of so manie ages is commended vnto vs by the first Fathers themselues For it seemed to them the holie Ghost teaching so to interpret this parte of the Euangell and iudged it was so to be vsed in their times that whosoeuer now would introduce either an other sense or an other vse he should vtterlie resist the holie Ghost by whose instinct the former Fathers did deliuer this rite and ceremonie in the consecration of the Eucharist Thus plainelie doth Bishop Fisher explicate his owne meaning in that which he had before deliuered somat more obscurelie so that now
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
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
the Osseni which I haue shewed all readie out of S. Epiphanius to haue beene of a farre different nature notwithstanding out aduersarie doth indeuoure falselie to persuade the same to his simple reader neither was this as the knight vntruelie affirmes to introduce seruice in a strange language but rather in the most knowne in the world that in which most nations agree and so this may serue to demonstrate that the Romanists deriue not this parte of their Pedagane frō auncient heretikes as our aduersarie doth calumniate but frō the practise of the most aūcient Church at the least in the west partes of the world to wit the Apostolicall Church And heare we see also that Sir Humfrey in steede of deriuing the Pedegree of the Roman faith from Iewes and heretikes he deriues his owne from the Father of lyes that is from the abuse of both scriptures and auncient Fathers of the Catholike Church In the next braunch of the Pedegree he plaplaceth transsubstantiation going about to proue that it was the doctrine or at least the practise of certaine heretikes named Helcesaitae who faigned a two fould Christ as saith Sir Humfrey the Masse Preists doe who admit one bodie with all his dimentions and properties in heauen and other in the Sacrament which hath noe properties of a true bodie Thus Sir Humfrey talkes most absurdely ignorantly and falsely Ignorantly for that according to this discourse he houldes the want of locall dimensions or properties of a bodie sufficient to cause an absolute indiuiduall sustantiall diuersitie in it and to distinguish it really from it selfe and so to make it an other distinct bodie which is so voyde of reason that if he had not bene grossely ignorant in Philosophie haue he would neuer vttered such doctrine vnworthie of other confutation them a schoole stampe or hisse He speake also falsely first in that he either affirmes or supposes Preists to admit that Christs bodie in the Sacrament is without anie properties of a true bodie For they all contrarily teach and beleeue that as Christs bodie in the Sacrament is the same which is in heauen so hath it all the same properties excepting locall extension Secondly he speakes falselie in that he Fathereth that on Preists which none of them either thought or tought and so makes them guiltie if the Helcesaits heresie onelie for that which he hath forged in his owne phantasticall braine Also abusing the authority of learned Theodoret in misaplying his words in which he vtters not anie iot or title by which it can be gathered that these heretikes meant of Christ in the Sacrament when they faigned a double Christ but of two visible Christs the one aboue I knowe not where and the other belowe in the world or I knowne not where els adding that the supernall Christ did in former times liue in manie but at being descended from aboue And more they sayde he passed into other bodies other such like fabulous stuffe they haue of Christ which neuer enterd into the cogitations of any people of learning and iudgement and therefore it is as great dotage in Sir Humfrey to impose this vpon Catholike Roman Preists as it was in the authour to inuentit as will yet more plainely appeare by the formall words of Theodoret which here I put in the margin Christum autem non vnū dicunt Helcesaitae sed hūc quidem infernè illum verò supernè eum olim in multis habitasse postremò autem descēdisse Iesum autē aliquando ex Deo esse dixit Elxai aliquādo vocat spiritū quandoque autem Virginem matrem habuisse in alijs autem scriptis ne hoc quidē Rursus autem eum etiam dicit transire in alia corpora in vnoquoque tempore diuerse ostendi Theodor. heret fab to 2. lib. 2. pag. 380. And the like absurditie Sir Humfrey commits in that which immediatly followees attributing the doctrine of transsubstantiation to one Marke an heretike because forsooth he by some kinde of inchaunting inuocation ouer the Sacramentall cuppe caused the wine to appeare like bloud which sacrilegious example and practise of Marcus what force it can haue to proue the Romanists to be of that fellowes Pedegree let any indifferent man be iudge And moreouer to take away all doubt and assure himselfe the more let the reader but consider what S. Irenaeus in the same place cited by Sir Humfrey videlicet libr. 1. cap. 9. saith of that Marcus I doubt not but he will see most clearely how egregiously our aduersarie abuseth the Romanists in this matter Marcus saith S. Irenaeus pro calice vino mixto fingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermonem inuocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit vt putetur ea gratia ab ijs qui sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare per inuocationem eius valde concupiscere presentes ex illo gustare poculo vt in illos stillet quae per magum hunc vocatur gratia By which words let the reader if he vnderstand Latin iudge how voyde of grace is he who so shamelesselie applies this to the Consecration of the Eucharist by Preists of the Roman Church And yet the preposterous knight not being content to haue spoken so irreasonably yet further addes that the authours of transsubstantiation were those disciples that beleaued the the grosse carnall eating of Christs Flesh. From whence he would deduce that the Romanists descend from the Iudaicall Capharnaits in this point But this is a most grosse and ridiculous conceipt of him to imagin that they can be successours to such as refused expressely and absolutely to beleeue that same which they hould for a matter of faith tho' not in the same grosse manner which those incredulous disciples of Christ did apprehend and as you also not like reformers but deformers out of the madnesse of your noddles grossely conceiue them to doe but in a much more spirituall manner and yet truely really and substantially and not onely in spirit as your priuate spirits would haue it Which if it were so onely it were not the true Sacrament which necessarily requires to containe really and not by faith onely that which it represēts but it were onely a meere shadowe or figure of a Sacrament as the sacrifice of Melchisedech the manna and bread of Proposition were signes and figures of the Sacrament of the holie Eucharist as not containing but onely representing the body and blōde there contained And supposing that Sir Humfrey himselfe absolutely denies the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and supposing also that as S. Iohn doth testifie the Capharnaits did also refuse to beleeue the same this fable of Sir Humfrey mutat o nomine may much more aptely and truely be verified of him and his companions I will not say then of the Romanists but euen then of the Capharnaits themselues in regarde the Capharnaites as farre as can be gathered by the
Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers and because also he put a croune vpon it and worshipped it in an Ethnicall manner and not according to the custome of Christians but as S. Epihanius heres 27. explicateth those heretikes Gentilium ministeria perficiebant they sacrified vnto all those images to wit of Pithagoras Aristotle together with Christs image after the manner of the Gentiles and so this parte of the Pedegree containes an errour in in heraldry and proueth no true descent In the next passage which is aboute the CommunioÌ„ in both kinds Pope Leo tells vs saith the Knight that the Manicheis a sorte of heretikes in his time vsed the Sacrament in one kinde videlicet in bread onely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam Videlicet Manichei nostris audeaÌ„t inesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt tutius lateaÌ„t Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae omnino haurire declinant Leo ser 4. in quad It is true S. Leo saith so but he doth not condemne them for heretikes for that reason but be cause they abstained froÌ„ wine as from an vncleane creature and because they did not beleeue that Christ had bloud in in his body and so that which Pope Leo did when he gaue commaunde that those should be diligeÌ„tly obserued who vsually receiued but in one kind was done purposely for discouerie of the Manicheis who crastily to conceile their heresie touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholikes dissemblingly the Custome of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kinde and in both as now the Grecians practise and therefore that holy Pope did discretely commaunde those should be diligently obserued who in all occasions did vse to receiue vnder the forme of bread onely houlding that for an euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t of their aborring of the bloud of Christ By which it is euident that euen that same time the communioÌ„ was lawfully vsed by some in one kinde otherwise S. Leo needed not to haue vsed any great diligence for the dicouerie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had bene obledged to coÌ„municate in both the Manicheis who frequented the Communion would haue beene discouered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell toutouching a proofe of his taken from the example of the Nazarites as if he had deriued wholy or chiefly the communion of one species or kinde from the practise of their communion whereas he doth not so but hauing by other arguments of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons sufficieÌ„tly established the doctrine of the Church in that particular he bringeth that of the Nazarites onely as a confirmation of the same Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those wordes of S. Luke drinke you all of this whereby he would proue that the communion in both kindes came from Christ and so it did indeede but not by precept giuen to all in generall but onelie to those then present and to those whome they represented as to be their successours that is the Apostles and all Priests after them but not to anie Puritan or Puritannicall minister as not hauing from them anie true succession After these passages Sir Humfrey proceeds to inuocation of Saints and Aungels the founders of which he affirmeth to haue bene the heretikes called Angelici and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretikes not for the inuocation of Angells but either for that they held them to haue bene creatours of the world or in regard they vsed to boast of their owne Angelicall manner of life or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels Erant in Angelorum cultum inclinati quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur Aug. haeres 29. that they did vse to worship them with latria or diuine honour all which kinde of adoration the Romanists with the same Saint Augustin giue to one onelie God And so the knight doth peruert the trueth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. vpon the Genes explicating that passage of Apocalips 19. in which the Angell prohibited S. Iohn to adore him saith neither let it moue the that in a certaine place of scripture the Angell doth prohibite a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God for the Angell did so appeere that he might haue adored him for God and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin teacheth that the Angelici were heretikes because they were inclined to adore Angels he meanes because they adored them with diuine honour and not because they gaue that due inferiour worship vnto them which the Romanists vse For workes of merit and supererogation hee produceth for authours the heretikes named Cathari and Puritans but the heresies of these sectaries were farre different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points Nay they were neuer defenders of either merit or workes of supererogation that euer I read but that for which they were condemned by the Catholike Church was chiefelie for their defence of the errours of Nouatus and particularelie for denying remission of sinnes and the authoririe of the keyes in the Church and for that they affirmed their owne pretended puritie to be aboue the doctrine of the Apostles as not conteyned in it but farre exceeding it and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones Cathari qui seipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant Secundas nuptias non admittunt paenitentiam denegant NouatuÌ„ sectantes haereticum vnde etiam nouatiani appellantur S. Aug. haeres 38. And S. Isidor in the verie place cited by Sir Humfrey saith of them That they named them selfes Cathari for their puritie for glorying saith hee in their merits they denie pennance c. And so it appeares by this that the knight belyes Saint Isidor in two respects Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres Christian as if he did testifie that these heretikes were the first authours of doctrine of merit and workes of supererogation Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other Nor yet makes anie mention in that place of workes of superogation And so according to this lette our Puritans of England and Sir Humfrey him selfe as none of the least of them examen their consciences well and doubtles they will finde themselues to haue farre more affinitie with the foresaid fellowes then the Romanists who both graâ—nt remission of sinnes by vertue of the Ecclesiasticall keyes and allso denie and renounce all such puritie of Spirit as the Puritans pretended He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to haue bene the heresie of the Collyridians Quaedam mulieres currum quendam siue sellam quadratam
enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius And thus the busines being well examined I say no more but that I ame sorie the worthy knight should be so vnfortunate as to stumble vpon the obiection in lue of the doctrine of the author himselfe How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion that I doe not much admire the case The same Durand is alsoe abused by the knight in regarde he produces him to proue that the Roman diuines are diuided in their opinions touching transsubstantiation which neuerthelesse I haue showed by his owne words how plainelie he maintaines it And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirme of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is hereticall touching the maine point of transsubstantiation but onely because by a singular opiniō he houldes that onely the forme of bread and wine and not the matter is conuerted in to the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which altho' it be false yet doth not the author therfore make anie doubt of transsubstantiation it selfe and so this is an other of Sir Hūfreyes trickes by which he cousens his reader and iniureth both these diuines at once But put the case Durand were truely cyted yet I say as I said before that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquitie or vniuersalitie either of the doctrine of transsubstantiation or any other point of faith And if the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humfrey will haue it it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their cappes at it for any such they should euer be able to finde in their reformed congregations it being now euident out of the examen and censure of the former sections that to speake within compasse they haue not I doe not say the tenth parte in number of the auncient Fathers for the proose of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of their whole Creede which the Romanists haue for theirs but not so much as one onely authour before Luther which truely cited and vnderstood doth defend their doctrine in all and euery particular pointe And according to this I answer also to the testimonie of B. Tunstall whom the kinght citeth as houlding the point of transubstantiation to haue bene a matter of indifferencie and not an article of faith within lesse then fiue hundreth yeeres To which I replye first that Sir Humfrey dealeth heere according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie first because he produceth this authours testimonie as if he had bene of opinion that perhaps it had bene better to haue left the doctrine of Transubstantiation vndetermined and free for euery one to vse his owne coniecture as in his Phansie it was before the Councell of Lateran which is most false for that the Bishop doth onely relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not his resolution being in that pointe farre differēt as his booke testifieth in that same place Secondly he dealeth insincerely in that he taketh hould of that onely which maketh for his purpose in some sort but leaueth out not onely that which maketh expressely against him and for the reall presence quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Ecclesiae fides which was the faith of the Church from the beginning but also he leaueth out the very resolution it selfe of the authour in this same pointe of transubstantiation where after the wordes by the knight cited he saith expressely he houldeth it iust for that the Church is a pillar of trueth that her iudgment is to be obserued as throughly firme Adding further that those who contend that that manner of transubstantiation ought to be reiected meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth because the worde is not found in scripture nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt Quasi vero saith hee Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset cuius omnipotentiae spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione videntur By which plaine wordes of this learned Bishop the reader may plainely see how deceiptfullie he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight Secondly I answer that how indifferent soeuer the doctrine of transubstantiation might seeme to our aduersarie to haue beene before the Councell of Latran neuertelesse both this authour and all others truely Catholikes both since and before that councell haold it not for a matter indifferent but for a certaine trueth and verity as appeareth planely by that which hath beene said allready in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which haue in this paragraffe beene produced for the contrary Lastly I answer that there was neuer such indifferēcy in the Romā Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatiō but that so manie authours in all ages folowed the affirmatiue that the reformed flock shall neuer be able to show anie for the negatiue no not one classicall authour He makes vse also of the testimonies of the other Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct Theol. Scholast cap. 11. alib who seeme to say that Christ did not consecrate with those wordes this is my bodie but by his benediction But to these authours I say first that whatsoeuer they held in this particular they all agree in that point which is here in controuersie betwixt Sir Humfrey and the Romanists that is they all accorde and teach the reall presence and transubstantiation and so they are all impertinentlie alledged Secondlie I say that these authours dispute in the places cited onelie by what wordes or action Christ himselfe did consecrate and not of the wordes of Consecration by which the Preists vse to consecrate And altho' they propose a question of this also yet they agree in that the Preists doe consecrate by no other wordes but those This is my bodie That which in durand at the least is most plainelie expressed when in his page 166. he saith Cum ad prolationem verborum istorum hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat d. 11. credibile iudicatur quod Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit By which wordes it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate wordes by which Preists doe consecrate nor yet was of opinion that Christ himselfe did vse anie other how be it he relates an opiniō of some others which thinke that Christ did not consecrate with those same wordes but he saith in the opinion rather of others then himselfe that virtute diuina nobis occulta confecit that he did it by diuine virtue or power himselfe and afterwardes expressed the forme sub
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
Wherfore qui legit intelligat he that shall read Bellarmine in the place cited by the knight that is de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Will easilie preceiue him to be so farre frome the confessing all sufficiency of scripture in that sense in which the reformers take it that the verie title of his booke which is of the vnwritten worde doth manifestlie conuince the contrarie And as for the wordes which Sir Humfrey cited altho' we take them in that mangled manner in which he hath rehearsed them yet if they had ben reight vnderstood by him I ame persuaded he could haue founde no iuste coulor to produce them in fauour of himselfe For that it is manifest by those two limitations necessarie for all men preached generally to all men that the Cardinalls meaning could not be that absolutelie all things which are necessarie for euerie person or state of persons in particular or as the logitians speake necessarie either pro singulis generum or pro generibus singulorum are written in the scriptures but onely Bellarmin meant that altho' all those things are written which all men both in generall in particular must necessarilie knowe haue for the obteining of saluation yet that there are some other things necessarie to some particular persons or to some particular states of persons included in that generall number of all men which are not written as namelie aboute the Gouernment of the Church administration of the Sacraments in particular the Baptizme of children the rites of the same that the beptizme of Heretikes is valid All which Bellarmin doth so plainelie specify that it is imposible for him that reades vnderstands him to doubt of this his meaning And yet not vnlike to this doth Sir Humfrey proceed with the same Bellarmin whome he citeth to the same purpose in his first booke of the worde of God wher out of these his wordes the scripture is a most certaine most safe rule of beleeuing the kinght concludeth that it is a safer way to rely wholely vpon the worde of God which can not erre then vpon the Pope or Church which is the authoritie of man sayth hee may erre Which conclusion neuerthelesse is most false captious as well in regarde that according to Sir Humfreys owne confession Bellarmin houldeth the scripture to be but a partiall rule of faith â—age 258. as also cheeflie because when Bellarmin calleth the scripture a most certaine most safe rule he doth not exclude the authoritie of the Church or diuine tradition but expresselie includeth them both as the other parte of the totall rule of faith which scripture also so onelie not otherwise he calleth with great reason regula credendi certissima tutissima knowing neuerthelesse on the contrarie supposing for certaine that with out the authoritie of the Church traditions the scripture can neither be knowne to be true Scripture not in what sense it is to be vnderstood consequentlie as Sir Humfrey taketh it it is not either an all sufficient certaine or safe rule by an other consequence it can much lesse be imagined to be a safer way to relie wholelie vpon the written worde as the reformers doe then to rely vpon both the scriptures the authoritie of the Church diuine traditions as doe the Romanists taking God for their Father in the writteÌ„ worde the visible Church for their mother in the knowledge interpretation sense of the same And thus wee see by this discourse that Sir Humfrey proueth nothing but his owne dishonest dealing with Bellar. whom besides that which I haue alreadie showed he doth more then impudenlie belie in that he affirmeth him to allowe the worde of God to be but a pertiall rule of faith which Bellarmin doth not say but onelie that the scripture is a partiall rule Page 258. not denying but the worde of God in all it latitude js a totall rule of all the Christian Catholike faith but yet supposing for certaine that the scriptures are not totallie conuertible with the worde of God but that they are distinct things the one from the other as ta parte is from the whole which any man of common iudgement may easilie perceiue And if these be the trickes shifts by which Sir Humfrey meaneth to make Bellarmin a confesser of his reformed religion in steed of gaining him he will loose his owne faith credit The knight still passeth on his way tells his reader it is a safer way to adore Christ Iesus sitting on the reight hand of God the Father then to adore the Sactamentall bread which depends vpon the intentioÌ„ of the Preist But I tell him againe that the safest way of all is to adore Christ both in Heauen whersoeuer els he is And he himselfe hath tould vs his bodie blood are in the Sacrament wheâ— if wee will not be accounted infidels wee most constantlie beleeue he is And so we say with that most auncient vanerable Father Saint Cyrill of Ierusalem Hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus Math. 26. Mark Luc. 22. since that Christ himselfe affirmeth so saith of the bread this is my bodie who dareth here after to doubt of it he also confirming saying this is my bloud who can doubte say it is not his bloud And supposing this his reall presence which we Romanists trulie beleeue with auncient S. Cyrill the rest of the Fethers the safest way is to adore him in the Sacrament not as sitting at the reight hand of his Father onelie But as for you reformers as it can not be safe for you to denie Christs reall presence in the Eucharist so neither is it safe for you to refuse to adore him there where in the true Sacrament he is truelie present I knowe Sir kinght you make your comparison betweene the adoration of Christ in Heauen the adoration of the Sacramentall bread but it proceds vpon a false supposition for the Romanists adore not the bread but Christ vnder the forme of bread whose existence there doth not so much depend vpon the intention of the Preist but that sufficieÌ„t certaintie may be had of the same at the least much more then you can haue that you receiue a true Sacrament whe you take the bread at the ministers hand who if he hath no intention to doe it as Christ did when he gaue it to his disciples then may you receiue as much at your owne table as at the communion table But the trueth is that all this is nothing but captious cogging in Sir Humfrey for proofe of which he most impertinentlie produceth S. Aug. de bono pers lib. 13. cap. 6. Wher he hath not a worde to this purpose but onelie treateth there of the supernaturall actions of man saying that to the end our confession may be humble lowlie it is a
by way of diuertion breefly to signifye to the reader how common a practise it is euen among the most famous of our aduersaries to maintaine their doctrine by lyes and false dealing of which I perceiue by a breefe vewe I tooke of some parte of his worke an industrious reader may discouer no smale stoare in the great primate doctor Vsher as well as his fellowes But now to returne to my direct purpose I yet more efficatiously confirme that which I haue said of Alfric by the chronologie of our English historians In his cata wulstan dunst For first according to the computation of Bishop Godwin ther passed onely some six yeares betwixt the decease of wlstā in the Archibishoprie of yorke the promotiō of S. Dūstan to the seat of Canterburie in which space as likewise in the tyme of wulstan himself it is quite incredible that ther was anie doctrine cōtrarie to the reall ptesence cōmōly toucght in England since S. Dunstan at the day and houre of his death expressely professed the same as out of our owne histories I haue alreadie showed by the relation of Harpesfeld Vid. Osborne in vita dunst Besides this it is certaine ther were but onely twoe wulstans Archbishops of yorke as appeareth by Godwins Catalogue the one as he reporteth deceased the yeare 955. which was at the least fortie yeares before Alfric possessed the seat of Canterburie according to the account of the same catalogue The other wulstan as the same Goduin recounteth began not his seat at yorke till the yeares 1003. which was more then 50. yeares after the death of the first wulstan now this conographie being thus established euen by one of our aduersaries Safe way sect 9. §. 2. I argue in this manner against knight Humbrey affirming that the homilie and Epistles which he alledgeth were translated by Alfric and appointed to be read to the people in his dayes my argument is this If this supposed homilie and Epistles were euer translated written or published by Alfric either it was when he was Abbat or Archbishop But neither of these is true Therfore it is not true that the homilie and Epistles were euer translated or published by Alfric The Minor which onely hath need of prose I conuince by the testimonie of my aduersarie whoe affirmes the translation and publication of the freifaid writings to haue ben a boute the yare 996. Sir Humf. page 92. and directed to wulstan Archbishop or yorke and wulfstius Bishop of sherborne by Alfric Abbat I meane the Epistles And yet at this tyme neither was Alfric Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie neither was either of the two wulstans Archbishop of yorke at that tyme. the one being dead 40. yeares before and the other not inuested in that dignitie vntill the yeare 1003. as Godwin doth witnesse soe that by this argument it manifestly appeares that the knights relation touching this matter of the publishing of the homilie and Epistles alledged by him against the reall presence and transsubstantiation is contradictious voyde of truth More ouer I finde in our English histories that aboute the yeare 950. which was some fortie and od yeares before Alfric was preferred to be Archbishop of Canterburie Vid. Harps in the tyme of Odo Archbishop of the same seat ther were some conuented before him whoe were in an erroreous opinion aboute the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the maintainers of it how soeuer Fox doth fable neither were manie nor did it long continue but was miraculously at an instant exstinguished For the pious zealous pastor Odo much lamenting the illusion of those miserable people prayed God with teares in masse that his diuine maiestie would be pleased by his infinit power manifestely to shewe some thing by which both the truth of the reall presence might appeare and the contrarie error might be confounded when sodainely at his seruants petition God almightie turned the consecrated bread in to visible flesh and the wine in to visible bloud Which wonderous spectacle being seene the incredulous persons presently complained of their owne perfidie and misbeleefe and all the rest of their dayes conserued their faith intire and sounde now this hauing happened aboute the same tyme at which that wulstan was Archbishop of yorke whoe hauing ben in that place some yeares deceased the yeare 955. as Godwin relateth it clearely appeares incredible that Alfric then Abbat should direct anie doctrine repugnant to the reall presence to wolstan Archbishop of yorke and to vlsine vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of sherbourne as our aduersaries affirme since that Odo Archbishop of Canterburie and Primate of England at the verie same tyme as of out of histories I haue rehearsed did by the power of God operate soe strange a miracle in confirmation of the same and confutation of the contrarie error More then this Vlsin or vlsius whome the knight calles wulfstius of which name neuerthelesse I finde none in Malesburies Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne could not possible haue anie Epistle directed unto him by Alfric while he was Abbat of Malesburie or Abington as Sir Humfrey and the rest of these tryfelers alledge for that while Vlsine or wulfstius was Bishop of Sherbourne which was but onely fiue yeares as our histories doe testifye Hrapsfeld saec 10. c. 9. being Abbat onely of westminister in the dayes of S. Dunstan and by his procurement whose death happened the yeare .988 as Stowe relates Alfric was no more Abbat but Bishop of wilton and consequently he could not as Abbat write to Vlsine Vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of Sherbourne but if he had writ anie such letters as our aduersaries attribute vnto him to that Bishop he should haue styled him selfe not Abbat but Bishop as in deed he was all the tyme yea and some yeares before the foresaid wulfstius was by king Ethelred preferred to the Episcopall seat of Sherbourne But that which doth strik this quite dead is that ther hauing ben but onely twoe wolstans Archbishops of yorke the first wolstan dyed before euer Alfric was Abbat to wit the yeare of our Lord 955. wher as Ingulphus in Edgar relates Alfric to haue ben created Abbat onely aboute the yeare 970. at the soonest soe that he could not possible write anie Epistles to the first wolstan while he was Abbat as our nouellists pretend bebause this wolstan was departed out of this life before Alfrics tyme of being Abbat And as for the second wolstan it is well knowne and testifyed by Godwin that he was not Archbishop of yorke before the yeare 1003. At which tyme Alfric was not Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie as our aduersaries them selues refuse not to graunte And soe this computation and collation of tymes vtterly destroyes the machination of our abuersaries in attrituting the foresaid writings to Abbat Alfric And touching Vlsius or Vlsinus I adde to this that Alfric was consecrated Byshop of wilton in the yeare 985. or ther aboutes some fourteeme yeares
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