after the coronation of Ethelred lib. 1. de Pont Aug. pag. 203. And he sate 11. yeares in that place as Malerburie relates But now Vlsine as it appeares by a breef of Iohn the 15. Pope of this name touching the peace he composed betwixt king Ethelred and Richard marques of Normandie was Byshop of Sherbourne aboute the yeare 991. of which yeare the Popes letter carieth date in which althou the Pope doth not call him Vlsine but Edelsine yet both by the tyme and place of his seat as alsoe for that ther is noe other in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne yeare the after in which I finde related by Ingulpsus Alfrics was Abbat of malesburie which resembleth that name it is conuinced that this is the same man which the kinght calleth wulfstius and to whome he affirmes one of Abbat Alfrics Epistles to haue ben directed which neuershelesse is concluded to be false in regard that at that tyme of the date of the Popes Epistole to wit the yeare 991. Alfric was not Abbat but Bishop this hauing happened but fiue yeres before that Alfric then Bishop of wilton was assumpted to the Arcgbishoprie of Canterburie which was the yeare 996. as all agreeably testifye Now if our aduersaries should say that this Vlsius Vlsine or Edelsine is not that Bishop of Sherbourne to whome they meane that Alfric writ his Epistle but an other long before him called wulfstius To this I replye first that I finde not this name of wulfstius in anie author or Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne and soe I suspect it is a tricke of knight Hūfrey whoe as it seemes first inuēted the name Westminst an 940. supposing I finde it not in anie other either freīde or for the name of anie Bishop of that seat Secondly It is true histories make mention of one Vlsius Bishop of that seat and successor to Alfred but neither the name agrees to knight Humfreyes feigned wulfstius neitheir was he then in the world when Alfric was Abbat but according to the catalogue annexed to Ingulphus deceased the yeare 966. For whose successor the same catalogue putteth Alfwoldus where 's yet it appeares by the testimonie of Ingulphus that Alfric was not Abbat till either in or after the yeare 970. by which it is cleare he could not write to this vlsius or wulfstius as Abbat in respect he was dead some yeares before Alfric was preferred to that place by appointement of king Edgar and soe this euasion is intercepted by the way and appeares to be frustrate and false Further more according to Bishop Vshers chronologie affirming that Alfric writ his homilie aboute 605. yeares a goe Alfric should haue writ the same the yeare 1026. or ther aboutes deriuing the accoūte frō the tyme of Vshers publicatiō of his booke for soe by putting fiue or six yeares which I suppose hath passed since the tyme of Vshers writing to the 605. yeares which he assigneth for the tyme in which Alfric writ ioining to all this 1026 or 7. the whole nūber amountes iust to 1632. which is the yeare we now liue in But this implyes impossibilitie in regarde it is receiued by both parties that Alfric dyed the yeare 1006. that is some 20. yeares before 1026. which Vsher assignes for the yeare of Alfric's writing the homilie by which it appeares that Primate Vsher is a most prime yea and a most vnmyndefull lyer in attributing this writing to Abbat Alfric And concerning the writing of Alfrics twoe supposed Epistles if Vsher meanes they were writ and directed to wulfsine and wulstane at this same tyme he is likewise manifestly conuinced of falsitie for that at the tyme assigned by him ther was no vlsius vlsine or wulfsine as he nameth him Bishop of sherbourne in the world to whome Alfric could haue directed anie writings the last of that name being dead the age before as I haue shewed as alsoe the first wulstan Arcbishop of yorke True it is the second wulstan of yorke was then a liue to wit vnto the yeare 1023. but then Alfric being dead Archbishop of Canterburie as I haue showed by Godwins Catalogue almost 20. yeares before the supposed direction of Epistles vnto him is euen in that respect concluded for repugnant and impossible with a plaine dissent of the author from him self as affirming the publication of these writings to haue happened in the dayes of Alfric yet onely aboute 605. yeares agoe More ouer these relators agrees in their Chronographie like dogges and cattes the partes of which hange togither as theeues hang vpon the gallowes neuer a one ioyning to an other For as I haue said Vsher affirmes Alfric Abbat's Saxon homilie to haue ben writen by him aboute 605. yeares which according to true computation considering the tyme in which Vsher writ this comes to fall about the yeare 1020. In the 2. §. of the 9. sect of his safe way But Sir Humfrey speaking of the same homilie saith it was publikely appointed to be read to the people on Easter day aboute the yeare 996. at which tyme Alfric was not Abbat but Arcbishop of Canterburie as euen our aduersaries them selues doe relate and soe these twoe brothers in Christ proceed not like brothers but repugne plainely one to an other in their accountes the knight affirming the foresaid homilie to haue ben published read some 24. yeares before Vsher alledgeth it to haue ben written Besydes this Alfric dyed Arcbishop of Canterburie the yeare 1006. Godwin in Alfric p. 65. according to Godwins Catalogue How then could he possible write his homilie aboute 605. yeares agoe as Vsher tells vs that is the yeare of our lord 1020. as I haue declared except Alfric did miraculously rise againe to broache the new English faith of the Eucharist which our aduersaries will needs defende for ancient thou ' it cost them as deare as the forgeing of a false historie More ouer the publisher of the same writings I meane the homilie and Epistles printed at London 1623. vnder the name of Alfric telles vs he writ them 700. yeares agoe in king Edga'rs tyme which falles iumpe with the yeare of Christ 923. if we counte from the tyme of the foresaid publicatiō of them And yet as both Malesburie Stowe the rest of our historians testifye Edgar was not created king vntill the yeare of our Souiour 959. soe that here is an apparent blurre in this wise Conographer's computation inuolueing both an impossibilitie in it self and a contradiction to the rest of his companions in this busines whoe as I haue declared attribute them to Alfric in the tyme of Ethelred aboute some 600. yeares since others some yeares before Lastely Fox in his Acts and monuments althou ' he doth not dissent from his followes excepting the fore said late publisser in his assignation of the tyme in which the homilie imputed to Alfric is by them affirmed to haue ben proposed for the instruction of the people in England viz.
how smale probabilitie there is to imagin that those glorious champions of Christ who so valerouslie suffered torments died for him in the Roman Church manie of them at Rome it selfe could possiblie belong to anie other Church in the world then to that Church which as in that tyme it had the name of Roman Church so doth it still remaine with the same appellation not otherwise then by a continuall succession of the Popes of Rome three thirtie of which as eloquent Campian trulie obserueth were put to death for their faith which their faith as it is manifest partlie by their owne workes partelie by the authenticall histories of their martyrdomes was the verie same according to the manner I haue before declared which nowe is tought in the present Church of Rome And if this be not so if those glorious martyrs were not defenders of that Roman faith which by succession of pastours is deriued arriued to this our time I demaund of our aduersaries of what other faith they were for of the reformed faith they could not possible bee in regarde that none of them either tought in their life or died for the defence of Iustification by faith onelie or for the deniall of the reall presence of the bodie blood of Christ in the Eucharist nor for denying that there is anie other worde of God but onelie scripture Nor for affirming that the images of Christ his Saints are Idols or that they who honore them adore idols or stickes stones or that the Pope was Antichrist nor doe wee finde in anie historie either anie of this nor yet that the foresayd martyrs suffered for these or anie other point of the reformers doctrine which is contrarie to the faith of the present Roman Church Wherefore the sayd reformers must necessarilie confesse that the ancient martyrs died either for ours or for no other Christian doctrine consequentlie that they are eyther ours or no martyrs at all And if they were Popes of Rome as you Puritās your selues cānot denie how could they possible be yours who beleeue the Pope is Antichrist are so farre from that kynde of gouernemēt that you doe not willingly admit eyther Pope Prince or Prelate but onelie a consistoriall Anarchie without head or feet And he that shall duelie ponder these particulars doubtlesse his conscience will tell him howe vniustelie Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to wreist from the Roman Church those rich prises And let this suffice for the censure of this section to shewe that the Romanists by their claime to the martyrs of the primatiue Church pretend nothing but their due THE XVI PERIOD THE 17. section containeth an ansere to an obiection of the Romanists drawne from the opinion of Protestants touching the Saluation of professed Romanists where Sir Humfrey telleth vs he is come to the greatest wonder And I confesse the wonder which the knight proposeth is great but it being of his owne making it is not hee that ought to wonder at it but rather in my opiniō he should leaue that to others And truelie it is most wonderfull to mee to heare that the Romanists themselues should confesse their owne doctrine to be different from the ancient Church in manie principall points of faith but this hauing alreadie ben demonstrated to be false feigned by Sir Humfrey the greatest wonder of all wonders is that he should haue the face to make a wonder of his owne so often repeated vntruthes It is true the Romanists constantlie hould that neyther Lutheran nor Caluinist nor anie other heretike or Scismatike dying in his heresie obstinatelie can be saued for so they say with him that could commit no rashe iudgement he that doth not beleeue is alreadie iudged Qui autem non credit iam iudicatus est Ioan. 3.18 Neuerthelesse wee Romanists doe not denie but that probably some simple people may liue in heresie yet not be damned at the least for heresie yet be saued by ignorance if with all they be free from other mortall sinnes eyther because they neuer lost their baptismall grace or if they lost it by contrition they recouer it againe which altho' it be not impossible yet is it verie full of dangerous difficultie morallie speaking almost a Metaphisicall case for such I leaue it Sir Humfrey proceedeth on babling aboute a Citie seated vpon seuen mountaines which he fondelie houldeth for a marke of the false Church applyeth it to the Roman Church But if Rome were the seate of the false Church because it is planted vpon seuen mountaines then how scaped it from that staine all those fiue hundreth yeares in which the reformers themselues graunt it was the mother Church Iacobus Rex epist monit Neyther hath the Roman Church anie such marke of assuming supreme authoritie ouer Kings Princes as the knight doth odiouslie affirme but onelie with due respect humility vseth that authoritie ouer them which Christ himselfe did conferre vpon her in such manner as is most conducing to the Saluation of their owne soules their vassals according to the rules of Christian prudence the precept of charitie Yet not to dominier ouer them or their subiects in anie sorte much lesse to approue or allowe of their oppression either by Massacre or anie other vnlawfull meanes as the sectaries especiallie the Puritans doe vse calumniouslie to obiect notobstanding that none in the world are more guiltie then them selues in those practices of which we haue too manie examples in Scotland France other places euen against Kings Princes which doubtlesse caused King Iames of great Britanie to speake so plaine as he did both in his bookes ordinarie discourses of that particular Nihil nisi calumniam seditionem spirātes Basilic dor After this Sir Humfrey descends to diuers particulars demaūdeth whether he his fellowes be accursed for maintaining them or no and whether the Romanists be blessed for such such points which they defende against the sectaries And thus he runneth a long betweene blessing cursing till he concludes casting the curses vpon the Romanists the blessings vpon his owne Congregation But because ther is little or nothing but such false stuffe as I haue alreadie examined cēsured because I haue quite surfeited with so frequēt repetitiō of the same subiect I onely saye in generall as he is blessed whoe heareth or obeyeth the Church in all things in regarde that by obeying the Church he obeyeth Christ whoe blesseth them that obey him So contrarily he that disobeyeth the Church in one onely thing he is accursed according to the wordes of Christ him helfe if he will not heare the Church let him be vnto to the like an Ethnike or Publican Mat. 18. And so Sir Humfrey had no reason to maruell if the Romanists accounte him his fellowes accursed because they refuse to imbrace obey anie point of that doctrine which the most
aboute the yeare 996 neuerthelesse in two seuerall respects he proceedes most deceitefully and quite contrarie to common honestie and reason First for that he feigneth and prefixeth a title against the reall presence and transsubstantiation to the said homilie secondly because in his rehearsall of the tenor of the same he leueth our the relation of two most manifest and palpaple miracles for the proofe of both those points of the Catholique faith in it alledged by the author which craftie and vulpine trickes of Fox with which and manie others of like nature he farceth his huge volumes as it appeares seemed soe shamefull that his successor the late diuulger of the same homilie was ashamed to imitate him yea and not obstanding he was bounde vnder paine of losse of the labor of his translation and publication of that worke which otherwile he well considered would haue ben in vaine to taxe the said miracles of fiction as he did in a marginall note yet was he not soe impudent nor frontlesse as to raze thē quite out of the copie inexcusable deceipt in Fox And how be it I cā not denye but ther is a great difference belweene these twoe actions yet must they giue me licence to tell them that neither of them both is cleare of ill proceeding the one being guiltie of plaine imposture the other of plaine temeritie For supposing they would venture to make vse of the homilie for the aduantage of their denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation for all that they ought to haue taken it as they founde it for better or for worse not goe a boute to pick out what they finde for their purpose and cast a may the rest like such vnreasonable caterers as will needes buye flesh without bones And in deed those twoe bones that is those twoe most patēt cleare miracles by which both the reall presēce of the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ar manifestly demonstrated against the new doctrine of these our tymes were too harde for old Father Foxs teeth to chewe or for his stomake to disgeast therfore doubtlesse he left them out both in his saxon and English transsumpte But these sycophants as they deale with the scriptures them selues soe they deale with ancient authorities testimonies lib. de bono person c. 11. Suo quidem priuilegione dicam sacrilegio vtquod volunt accipiant quod nolunt reijciant as S. Augustin said of the Manichies Againe concerning the Epistles attributed to Alfric ther is yet more discorde among our aduersaries For the publisher of them and the homilie aboue mentioned in his preface vnto them affirmes ther were certaines lines rare zout of a booke extant in the librarie of worceter which lines saith he which contained the cheefe point of cōtrouersie that is as he supposeth against the reall presence and transsubstantiation were taken out of twoe Epistles of Alfric written by him as well in the Saxon tongue as in the latin But Doctor Iames and Sir Humfrey tell vs that the foresaid passage was razed in a latin Epistle manuscript of Bennitts Colledge in Cambrige yet there to be seene And wheras the author of the publication saith that the lines razed ar to be restored by twoe other Epistles of the same Alfric in latin extant in the librarie of Exceter contrarily D. Iames tolleth vs they ar to be restored not by anie latin copies but by certaine Saxon copies of the same Epistles which he affirmeth to haue ben in the publike librarie of Oxon when he writ his booke which was the yeare 1611. Besydes this the same Iames out of Fox saith the Epistle which he affirmes to haue ben thus mangled and torne was to wulfstan Archbishop of yorke and hath for title de consuetudine Monachorum wheras yet the foresaid publisher of Alfrics new founde writings intileth that Epistle of Alfric de consuetudine monachorum of the order or manner of monkes Egneshemensibus fratribus to the fryres or brothers of Egnesham Which iarres I confesse I am soe vnable to compose that I can not but vehemently suspect these mens reportes to be false and counterfet Especially considering that Iames affirmes the latin Epistle soe razed as they reporte to haue ben directed by Alfric to that wulstan whoe was Archbishop of yorke aboute the yeare 954. wher as yet the author of the pamphlet in which these writings ar contained in his prefate to the same saith that this Alfric to whome he attributes them was equall to Alfric Archbishop of Canterburie which he alsoe affirmes to haue ben in that seat six yeares before that wulstan to whome Alfric's Epistle was writen was Archbishop of yoke soe that the one reportes this Epistle to haue ben wriren to the first wulstan and the other to the second not obstanding all histories and Cathologues of Bishops among which is Godwins doe testifye soe long a space of tyme to haue passed betweixt their standings as it is from the yeare 955. and 1003. soe that these twoe relators drawe back warde and fore ward like twoe ill match asses More ouer the foresaid publisher will needs haue Alfric the supposed author the homilie and epistles to haue ben a distinct man from that Alfric whoe was Archbishop of Canterburie wheras neuershelesse Iohn Leland whoe professedly writ of the writers of England relating the seuerall workes of Alfric the Archbishop of Canterburie maketh noe mention of anie other writers of that name but of him onely neither doth he put anie epistle among his writings but onely one intituled de consuetudine Monachorum of the māner or custome of monkes which subiect how farre it disagreth frō the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation I leaue to the iudgement of the reader to consider In fine to conclude my whole discourse touching this matter I say first that if it were true as our aduersaries pretend that in the foresaid writings ther weere anie thing contained contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation yet haue I cōuinced by insoluable reasons that neither Alfric could be the author of them neither could anie such doctrine haue ben publikely maintained in the Church of England in or aboute his dayes But what soeuer doctrine was then published and tought in our countrie was canformable in all points with the doctrine and faith then professed in the Church of Rome with which the English Church and her Pastors had correspondence and subordination as I haue manifestly declared Secondly Althou I am not able to iudge determinately whoe might be author of those writings because I haue noe meanes to come to the view of them otherwise then in that patched and mangled manner in which they are published by our aduersaries neuerthelesse I persuade my selfe they were writ by some Romane catholique author soe that taken in their innocencie and prime puritie and piously interpreted they containe no vnsounde or erroneous doctrine but rather expresse testimonie and proofes of diuers points controuersed
partiallity of the rule of faith where yet nothing is to be found in that sense which the knight fraudulently framed to his owne purpose And now from hence I passe to the Epistle dedicatory on which I had scarce cast myne eyes when presently I discouered two or three slanderous lyes vttered by the author the firste is that the pretended Catholike Church as he phraseth her is made the whole rule of faith by the Romanists the second that the Romane Catholikes are tought to eate their God kill their King the third that the Pope at this day alloweth of the Iewes Talmud inhibiteth the bookes of Protestants And those vntruthes I haue noted onely not for that I could not haue marked out others but because they seemed the most obuious grosse palpable I omit also to specify diuers places of Bellarmine cited by Sir Humfrey both heere in many other partes of his worke which well examined can serue him for no other purpose thē to coulore his cousinage And as for the rest of his preface I can assure the reader it is little more then an idle tedious repetition of the same matters which he handled in his firste booke and whosoeuer will take the paines to read both his pamphlets will find so frequent rehersall of the same things that his eares will tingle to heere them nay some whole chapters of this booke there bee which excepting the title haue little other matter then the same which is found in the other as will appeere in particular to him who shall conferre the two last sections of it with the tenth eleuenth sections of the safe way In so much that I thinke I may not vnfitly say of the workes of Sir Humfrey that which a certaine pleasant wit sayd once of the writings of Luther Tolle contradictiones calumnias mendacia dicteria ac schommata scurillia in Catholicos Romanos inanes digressiones ambages atque inutiles verborum multiplicationes duo eius volumina in vnum haud magnum libellulum redigi posse non dubito that is take way Sir Humfreys contradictions calumniations lyes take away his scoffes ieastes against the Romane Catholikes his idle vaine digressions multiplication of wordes or repetition of matter with his friuolous circumlocutions I doe not doubt but both his volumes may be easily reduced to the bulke of one small pāphlet And thus much concerning the Preface the booke in generall from whence I passe to particulars THE DISCVSSION OF THE SEVERAL sections in their order Sec. 1. In his first section I thinke I may trulie say Sir Humfrey telleth but one vntruth but it is so lardge a lye that it reaches from end to end I meane but one totall lye for partiall lyes there are diuers This totall vntruth is in that he affirmeth in his second page that the difference betwixt vs them is such as was betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists which is manifestly conuinced to be false euen by those same words which he himself cites out of that holy doctor Aug. de vnit Eccl. cap. 2. who directly sayth that the question betweene him them was vbi sit Ecclesia where the Church is And yet the question is not betwixt the Romanists the Reformers where the true Church is but which is the true Church that is whether the Romane church all the rest of the particular Churches in the world adhering to obeying that Church as the cheife mother Church be that true Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed commended in the scriptures or the reformed Church or Churches wheresoeuer they be which the reader may plainly perceaue to be a farre different question from that of which S. Augustine speaketh in the place cited by the kinght Secondly the whole discourse of this section runneth vpon a false supposition to witt that the Romanists refuse to proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onelie as S. Augustine did saith the kinght against the donatists but this is not true for the Romanists are so farre for reprouing that course in this point that they scarce vse any other proofes then those same scriptures which the same S. Augustin ordinarily vseth for that purpose as may be seene in the workes of both ancient moderne diuines Thirdly neuertheles when the Romanists say they proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onely they doe not therfore meane so that they exclude the interpretation of them according to the ancient tradition of the same Catholike Church for so neither S. Augustine eyther against the Donatists or any other hereticks in the like case alleaged the scriptures but as the same Saint Augustine saith thou ' partly in different wordes to another purpose De vnit Eccles c. 19. vt non nisi verum sensum Catholicum teneamus not so but that we doe followe the true Catholike sense of the same scriptures And in fewe wordes that which the Romanists meane is that they doe not vse the scriptures for proofe of their Church in the sense of the pretensiue reformed Churches but ouerly in that sense which anciently hath binne imbraced by the most vniuersally floryshing Church in all or most ages according to the diuersity of tymes And thus we see cleerlie that Sir Humfrey in diuerse respects hath grosselie ignorantlie mistaken the state of the question both betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists also betwixt himselfe the Romanists And consequentlie those authorities which he produdeth eyther out of S. Augustine or other ancient Fathers are impertinent of no force against the faith of the Romane Church but on the contrarie by his false dealing he hath fallen into that by path which in his erroneous imagination he hath prepared for his aduersaries in which neuerthelesse he himselfe if he proceed in this manner is like to walke euen to the end of his iorney I meane throu ' all the sections of his booke Sec. 2. In his second section he pretends to ansere to the pretences as he termeth them taken by the Romanists from the obscuritie of scripture from the inconueniences which he saith his aduersaries alleage for the restraint of the lay peoples reading them yet he is so farre from performing his taske in this behalfe that he doth not so much as relate completelie those reasons which moue the Romā Church to ordayne the said restraint but onelie catching at one or two of the lesse important causes alleaged by Bellarmin to that purpose giuing a verie sleight superficiall ansere vnto them he spends a great part of his time in forging a new cause which he falselie conceiueth to haue binne the onelie or cheife motiue which the Roman Church had to prohibite the reading of the Bible to wit for feare as he sayth their Trent doctrine new articles should be discouered And also in breathing out an odious relation of the speaches of some particular