that it plainely appeereth he doth rather demonstrate his owne bitternesse rancour towards her then with any probable argument shew any such disposition to remaine in her against any such vnion as hee pretendeth to desire Why then doth S. Humfrey complaine of that which is in a farre worse manner practised by himselfe and his owne brothers besides this I pray you doth the supposed bitternesse of F. Cāpian proue the bitternesse of the Roman Church could he alone bee the whole Roman Church who was but one onely member of it Or are his speeches or priuate positions to be attributed to the whole Church he being but one parte thereof and yet not the greatest what a false Metonymie is this if the head of the Church had vsed such speeches you would haue seemed to haue had some reason to haue attributed them to the whole because that which the head doth may induce a denomination vppon the rest of the body of which examples may be found euen in nature but whatsoeuer any other member doth it cannot rightly be attributed to the whole So that we now see that in this allegation S. Humfrey himselfe doth so carrie the matter and giueth the Church of Roome euen in this same section so much occasion of new disgusts as besides the rehearsed calumnies taxing her with creation of 12. new Articles and coyning of new expositions vpō the ould farre different from the doctrine of the Apostles and that she mayntaineth and practiseth manifest idolatry And the like most false and slanderous exprobrations that as I said before it plainely appeereth that he hath rather demonstrated his owne bitternes and rancour towards the Roman Church then shewed any such defect in her by any argument drowen from Father Campians wordes by him produced which wordes allthough by his quotation of Iewell in the margent he will seeme to haue taken them at secōd hand yet certainely it is a plaine imposture and so let them diuide it as they please betwixt themselues it being euer supposed that S. Humfrey and his Iewell are of equall authoritie with the Catholiks I meane of none at all Moreouer S. Humfteys whole drift in this section being to cleere his owne Church from the infamous brand of Apostacy he imposeth the whole cause of separation vpon the Roman Church and produceth Erasmus for a wittnes of the same who being demaunded for sooth of the duke of Saxonie what was Luthers capitall offence that stirred vp so many opposites against him made answer that Luther had committed two greate crimes for he had taken away the Crowne from the Pope and had taken downe the belly of the monkes To which saying of answer that Erasmus is no competent wittnes against the Roman Church especially in a case where his sole testimonie is interposed And if S. Humfrey had ben circumspect he would not haue cited Erasmus his answere for this purpose as containing one manifest lye if not twb. For neither did Luther euer take the Crowne from the Pope which as the world knowes he still enioyeth maugre him and all his adherents neither did Luther euer take downe the bellies of the monkes except it was by iniuste vsurpation and rapin to fill his owne and to leade his lyfe in luxurious concubinate with breach of his vowes to god and man Immediately before this momicall passage of Luther out of Erasmus which although S. Humfrey produced to colour the pretended Reformers diuisiō from the Church of Rome yet doth it farre more strongly argue a cause in the Pope iustely to reiect them then anie excuse of their preposterous separation before this I say he cited a place out of the Prophet Ose which because it makes nothing to this purpose Cap. 4.15.17 but onely vpon his owne false supposition that the Roman Church is wicked and idolatrous therefore vntill I see him prooue his supposition which yet I know he will neuer be able to performe I leaue it as impertinent as also I omit the examples he brings of Abrahams departure out of Caldea and of the Iewes out of Egypt which are as farre from the case we treate of as Egypt is from Europe or Christendome from Iewrye Therefore I will onely giue notice to the reader how grossely he abuseth certaine authours he cytes to testifye that by Babylon is meant the Christian Rome For ther is not one of those authours that affirmes that after it was conuerted to the Christian faith it was called Babylon according as the scripture vsually speakes of Babylon either properly or Metaphorically Neither is ther likewise anie of the same authours which teach that since the conuersion of that Citye to the faith of Christ Christians ought to departe from it as out of a spirituall and idolatrous Babylon which is that our aduersarie here intendes to proue or at the least ought to proue if anie thing he meanes to prooue against the Romanists And to speake first of the ancient authours here cyted by the kinght which are Tertulliā S. Hierome and S. Augustin it is directly impossible that they should meane by Babylon the Roman Church depraued by anie idolatrie of Christian people for that they were all departed out of the world before the supposed departure of the Roman Church from the true Religion is affirmed by our newe sectaries to haue begun which as they most commonly teach was not before the 600. yeare after the tyme of Christ our Sauiour Now as for the moderne authours to wit Orosius Viues Bellarmin and Baronius and Ribera they are all knowne Romanists yea and some of them cheefe defendours of the Roman Church and faith and so it is euident by this reason alone that they had not such a thought as to meane by Babylon the Roman Church Cap. 22. Viues vpon the 18. booke de cuit Dei explicates him selfe plainely saying Petrus Apostolus Roman Babylonem appellat vt etiam Hyeronymus in vita Marci interpretatur qui ad Marcellam scribens non aliam existimat describi à Ioanne in Apocalypsi Babylonem quam Vrbem Romam Bellarmin also speakes yet plainer in the verie place cited by S. Humfrey viz. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 2. for he saith Respondeo Babylonem vocari non Romanam Ecclesiam sed Romanā vrbem qualis erat Ioannis tempore Orosius I haue not But let Baronius speake for him selfe and others Baron Adam 45. Nec per somninm quidem quis vnquam inuenit Romanam Ecclesiam esse Babylonis nomine nuncupatam sed ipsā tantummodô ciuitatem ac id quidem non semper sed cum impietate referta aduersus ipsam Ecclesiam bellum gereret Ribera vnderstands by Babylon persecuting Rome not as it is nowe I need not cite his wordes in a case so cleare So that nowe I doe not see why S. Humfrey produced these authors except it were by corruption of them to make them precursors of his corrupted way And hence also the reader may gather how weakely the knight
Church hath ordained for that end purpose it is to be iudged better safer greater honour to God that the whole state of Preisthood or Sacerdoce should be tyed with the sacred band of perpetuall chastitie â—…e non â—…ius â—…otes 〈◊〉 pluâ—…â—…orati â—…am 〈◊〉 salâ—…tur â—…cerdoâ—…â—…ugaâ—…â—…i in 〈◊〉 preâ—…atu â—…aÌ„tur â—…as 〈◊〉 l. 2 de 〈◊〉 con 〈◊〉 â—…nder Neither doth all nor anie of the authors which the knight citeth absolutelie confesse the contrarie to be safer then this but onelie they being but three in number one of them with a perhaps it were not worse an other with an it were good holesome the third who yet is no Romanist with a may be thought necessarie but showe their particular dictamens being so fewe as they bee thou ' they were the greatest Oracles in the world they could not possible cause anie safetie in the consciences of those who shall followe them against the streame of all other diuines nor can they in any true sense be sayd to be the confession of the Romanists as the knight doth affirme since that two or three cannot in anie case carie the name of the whole nor iustelie preiudicate the weight of their authority in case they did agree with the misreformed doctrine in this particular as yet they doe not And touching Panormitan whome Sir Humfrey calles a great Canonist I will not examen how great he was in that science yet I doe not see why his authoritie should be accounted great in the Roman Church supposing he was onelie a Scismaticall Cardinall of the scismaticall Pope Felix Secondlie suppose he were as great a Canonist as the author of the Canons himselfe yet doth his great authoritie fauore Sir Humfreyes cause neuer a iot in regarde he doth not affirme as the latter parte of the 32. article of the English Creed doth that it is lawfull also for Bishops Preists Deacons as for all other Christian men to marrye at their owne discretion But Panormitan onelie sayde to vse his owne wordes I beleeued it were a holsome statute for the good health of soules that these who will containe merit more maybe lefte to their owne wills but those that ar not able to containe may marrie Because experience tsacheth that the quite contrarie effect followeth of that lawe of continencie In which saying altho' I must needs confesse he erred in presuming to prescribe a new rule to the Church yet is it plaine he differs frome the faith of Sir Humfrey in this point in diuers respects First in that he vttered not this as a matter either of faith or yet of morall certaintie but onelie deliuered it as his owne priuate opinion How be it Sir Humfrey hearing the sounde of the worde Credo as it seemes he presentlie conceiued it to be as certaine as the Apostles Creed it selfe or at the least desired his reader might so apprehend it Secondlie Panormitan doth not affirme absolutelie that it is either holsome or yet as much as lawfull for Preists to marrie notobstanding the precept of the Roman Church to the contrarie as our nouelists doe who also condemne that lawe of single lyfe for iniuste â—…rte quod â—…erdotiâ—… interâ—…tum fuit â—…iugium â—…factum â—…impia â—…annide 〈◊〉 â—…l Inst l. â—… cap. 12. â—… 23. tirannicall But he was onely of opinion that it were good for the health of the soules of some particular persons that the same Church should alter her course make such a statute for the time to come Thirdly Panormitan if his wordes be duelie ponderd doth not affirme that the Church might doe well to constitute that Preists with the restriction of Sacerdoce or Preisthood I meane after they haue receiued orders may marrie but he meanes onelie that Preists with ampliation that is such persons as intend to be Preists may marrye if they fynde themselues not able to liue chaste wher as the pretented reformers hould it lawfull not onelie for Preists but also euen for such religious persons as haue made a speciall vowe of perpetuall chastitie to marrie at their pleasure as the verie author Antesignane of their sect did both in wordes example teach them By all which particulars it is manifest that Panormitans case is farre different frome the doctrine practise of the moderne sectaries especiallie of the Church of England consequentlie his testimonie can not possible proue anie safetie for Sir Humfrey in this parte of his way as being quite an other extrauagant way which neither meets with his nor ours More ouer for conclusion I wish the reader to take notice that I neither fynde in Panormitan those formall wordes which Sir Humfrey cites nor anie others intyrelie equiualent vnto them nor yet are they intyrelie continuatlie rehearsed by the knight but with interruption as the authors owne wordes which here I truelie quote in the margen will declare Credo pro bono salute animaruÌ„ quod esset salubre statutuÌ„ vt volentes continere magis mereri relinquere voluntati eorum non valeÌ„tes autem continere possint contrahere quia expe rientia docente contrarius prorsus effectus sequitur ex illa lege coÌ„tineÌ„tiae c. Panor 3. p. c. cuÌ„ olim de Cler. coniug And besides this the faithlesse knight in steed of the wordes non valentes puts non volentes for the worde Credo which denotates the weakenesse of the authors dictamen signifying therby that it was onelie a particular credulitie of his owne he translates it were good behouefull attrihutes the surmised Licentiousnesse of the Catholike clergie to the lawe of celibate it selfe whereas the author onelie saith sequitur ex lege the contrarie effect followeth of the lawe And by occasion of this passage the reader may reflect what a pore shifte Sir Humfrey was forced to vse for excuse of the falacitie of his misreformed ministrie when he catched at the authoritie of this one Apochryphal Cardinall who neuerthelesse vpon due examen appeares to haue so much frustate his sinister expectation Now for Aeneas Syluius the doth lesse fauore Sir Humfreys tenet nay not at all as his owne wordes aboue quoted in the margen doe manifest to the reader He onelie speaketh by a perhaps it were not worse that verie manie Preists had wiues yet this he recalled of his owne accorde after his assuption to the cheefe Pontificall seat or Popedome by a speciall Bull of retractation of that some other immature positions vttered in his youth So that the kinght was farre out of his way when for the safetye of this parte of his new diuised way he produced these authors if he haue no better garde defense for it theÌ„ the testimonie of theÌ„ as in truth he hath not then ought euerie one to take heed of it auoide it as a most vnquoth perilous path And so to conclude this I may not vnfitly say with Erasmus quae malum
being one of the newe reformers as is the spirit of humilitie frome the spirit of pride and contempte which is the onely guide of all those whoe reiect and impugne the Roman doctrine in all points of controuersie Finally in those wordes cited by Sir HuÌ„frey out of Gersons Apolotgeticall dialog wheras the author speakes in the case of scisme when the true Pope was not certainely knowne and cheefely of one particular point to wit of the condemnation of that proposition a tyranne may be lawfully killed by priuate authoritie or by anie priuate man the deceitfull knight soe applyes the wordes as if Gerson had generally dispared of the reformation of the Church and the more easily to persuade his reader he omittes the wordes hac tempestate and those rebus vt sunt manentibus Gersons wordes truly rehearsed are these video quod in doctrinis quae religionem quae bonas salubres respiciunt mores vix inuenietur in hac tempestate rebus vt sunt manimentibus nec habito forti fauore potentiae saecularis terminatio debita vel expedita iustitia Which wordes if the reader compares them with the wordes cited in English by the knight he will easily spye more faultes then I haue noted And then from heÌ„ce and the rest which I haue produced touching the whole allegation of Gerson he will be able to iudge both of the false deiling of our aduersarie how smale reason he had to indeuore to make that famous and renowned Romanist one of the blind brothers of his inuisible Congregation But now for conclusioÌ„ plainer intellectioÌ„ or vnderstanding of that which I haue said touching this author the reader must take noticie that Gerson liued in a tyme of a great scisme rased by the erroneous election of diuers Popes by diuers partes of the faction by reason of which strife finding in his iudgement no other meanes to bring matters to a peaceable issue and attonemeÌ„t then by giuinge greater authoritie to a generall Councell then to the Pope he preferred the power of a Councel before the authoritie of the Pope which scisme alsoe was the true cause why he likewise seemed to dispare of the reformatioÌ„ of the Church and therfore he labored to haue a generall Councell vnder one Pope by occasion of which desire he writ his treatie intituled De CoÌ„cilio vnius obedieÌ„tiae to deliberate the coÌ„posing of the Ecclesiasticall debate a and Papal dissentioÌ„ all which is by himselfe clearely deliuered in seuerall places of his workes and particularly in his Apolageticall dialog fol. 75. saying hoc vnum scio quod zelus hahendae vnionis in scismate tam desperato tantique temporis fecit multa tolerari quae fuissent aliunde nec tolerabilia nec toleranda c. And now by this it is sufficiently cleare that Gerson is not for the new reformation of moderne sectaries in anie one pointe of doctrine or manners In his citation of Cusanus lib. 3. concod Cath. cap 16. the kinght hath in his owne page 378. 8. 9. of the by way notably corrupted him for he reheareses his wordes without anie order alsoe quite contrarie to his sense meaning as that authors owne wordes most euidently conuince in his 17. chapter following where he hath this plaine clause Ecce quod de pertinentibus ad religionem Imperator inter Episcopos iudicare non debet Et in his 18. chapter he saith thus Firmitas autem iudicij omnium quae ita aguntur in concilio per quoscunque ex consensu tantum synodica dependent authoritate Quare etsi aliquando sententiasse iudices tales leguntur ex cousensu synodica commissione vigor sententiae dependebat non ex imperiali coÌ„missione cuius authoritas synodum virilem non praecellit Thus much Cusanus touching iudicatiue authoritie in generall councels which as is plaine by these wordes doth not depend vpon the Emperor It is true Cusanus grauntes I knowne not how truely that he fyndes the Emperor did alwayes praesidere that is preced or take the first place in the councels but he doth not say as Sir Humfrey feysteth in primatum habuit he had the primacie But onely graunteth the Emperor his Iudges with the senate locall preheminence before the Pope or at the most depending on the Pope councell as his whole discourse in diuers chapters of the booke cited by the kingth manifestely declare And coÌ„cerning the coÌ„gregation or conuocation of generall Councels it is almost euident out of the precedent chapters of the same booke that this author grauÌ„tes no Primacie to the Emperor but cheefely to the Pope For altou ' in the begining of the 13. chapter he hath these expresse wordes ex superioribus habetur Imperatores sanctos congregationes synodales vniuersalis concilij totius Ecclesiae seÌ„per fecisse Yet preseÌ„tly after explicaing him selfe better he saith Breuiter dico quod ita se habet Imperator ad vniuersaleÌ„ Ecclesiae Catholicae synodum sicut Rex ad vniuersale Regni sui concilium non quad coactiue sed cohortatiue colligere debet And yet more plainely presently after Vigilare dehet Imperator fidei pacis custos Romani Pontificis primo synodi necessitatem insinuare eius consensum congregandi concilij in definito loco requirere By all which it doth manifestly appeare how shamelessely the kinght abuseth Cusanus how smale reason he had to produce his testimonie for the Popes vsurpation as he termeth it both in calling assuming preheminence of place dignitie in Councels supposing that author as being Cardinall of the Popes creation soe professedly maintaines his authoritie both in the resolutorie assembling coÌ„firming of generall synods And if the reader desire greater satisfactioÌ„ concerning the doctrine of this author aboute the Popes authoritie in Councels let him please to read his epistle to Roderic he will easily perceiue howe plainely he purgeth himself from all sinister imputation in that nature and that if perhaps in his immature age when he writ his Catholique concordance by reason of the great fame which he conceiued of the Councel of Basill he inconsiderately vttered anie thing which might seeme to diminish the power of rhe Bishop of Rome in respect of a generall Councell yet afterwardes perceiuing that those whoe preferred the authoritie of Councels before the authoritie of the cheefe Bishop pastor the Church proceeded soe farre as to attempt the election of the Antipope Foelix against the true Pope Eugenius then presently he repented him self that he had soe much extolled their schismatticall syond imitating in this both Cardinall Iulian Aeneas syluius whoe both of them in the begining defended the Councell of Basill against Eugenius the true Pope yet in the end retracting their action maintained most earnestly his authoritie against tâ—e same synod That which is sufficient to manifest the inconsideration ignorance insynceritie of Sir Humfrey in his production of this author whoe suppose he had deliuered
not conceiue so basely as once to imagin they will be dangerouslie enamored with his booke but I will cheefelie offer it to the more vulgar ranke of people who by reason of their smaler tallents may more easely be circumuented whom if by conferring the one booke with the other I shall vnderstand they come to be right informed of the trueth I shall hould my selfe sufficientlie rewarded by them as by those whose wauering mindes I onely intend to rectifie by my labors which otherwise for anie matter of substance I finde in the booke I professe I should neuer haue esteemed it worth the paines I haue taken in the confutation of it A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS PERIOD 1. THE proceeding of the Roman Church with the sectaries clered defended from the iniurious impositions of the aduersarie Father Campian other authors ill alledged Where likewise the Romanists are freed from all cause of contention betweene themselues the pretended reformers who are truelie the cause of all dissention in the Church by there Preposterous pretended reformation PERIOD 2. Neyther are there any corruptions in either faith or generally approued manners in the Roman Church Nor anie want of care zeale in the Popes in procuring all necessarie reformation in the Church But the aduersaries abuse of the Councels of Trent Pisa his lyes equiuocations discouered His calumniations against Purgatorie indulgences prayer to Saints reproued PERIOD 3. No true Romanist euer renounced Poperie either in his life or at his death yet some formerly Romanists for desire of licentious libertie other temporal motiues haue apostated from the Catholike Roman Church Witnes Luther Caluin other founders of the misreformed Churches to omit those of smaler note Some cited for Romanists which are not such with abuse of some other authors PERIOD 4. An idle calumnious discourse of the aduersarie foolishly affirming that the Roman Church is hinderd frō reformation by bumane Police reproued PERIOD 5. The irrefragable argument of Catholikes that the pretensiue Reformers cannot assigne a time in which anie one point of the Roman faith was by anie publike authoritie before the dayes of Luther condemned for erroneous maintained fortified against the friuolous euasions of the aduersarie Some Romanists by him impertinently alledged others cited for Romanists which are not such PERIOD 6. The Catholike Roman doctrine cleared in it succession from all touche of heresie But contrarily the pedegree of the misreformers much stained with the same where diuers ancient Fathers are abused corrupted at the least in sense meaning PERIOD 7. The pretensiue reformed doctrine is not proued eytherby testimonie of Romanists or otherwise to haue eyther vniuersalitie or antiquite but conuinced to be quyte voyde of them both And the aduersarie promissing to proue the antiquitie vniuersallitie of his faith by testimonies of Romanists onelie produceth two or three in two or three onely points yet those impertinentlie PERIOD 8. Neyther iustification by faith nor the deniall of the reall presence or transubstantiation or priuate Masse not the dual number of Sacraments not anie vnlawfulnes of communion in one kynde of prayer or seruice in an vnknowne langue of due honor of images or Indulgences proued by testimony of Romanists or by anie other apparent argument but all the aduersarie alledgeth is discouered to be faultie friuolous or forged PERIOD 9. Not one testimonie of Romanists for the certaintie of the pseudo-reformed faith or vncertaintie of the Roman as the aduersarie idlely pretended But diuers of them abused detorted PERIOD 10. No safetie comfort or benefit for the soule but much for the bodie in the pretensiue reformed faith neyther did anie Romanists euer confesse more then this second parte of saftie comforte or benefit to be in the new Religion Where diuers authors are depraued abused by the false aduersarie PERIOD 11. It is conuinced to be absolutelie false calumnious that the Romanists eyther elude or reiect the ancient Fathers but contrarilie esteeme much more of them then anie of the misreformers euer did Where diuers authors are falsely accused abused PERIOD 12. No true recordes euer razed by the Romanists but manie by the false reformers partelie razed partely exauthorized or destroyed With discouerie of some false dealing in the aduersarie PERIOD 13. It is a miere calumnious accusation of our malitious aduersarie to affirme that the Romanists blasphemie the scripture where it is conuinced that the Romanists vse the scriptures with much more reuerence then the Nouellists doe And diuers Catholikes are traduced corrupted touching this matter PERIOD 14. It is miere phrensie to imagin that Bellarmine testifies the trueth of the misreformed doctrine eyther in ihe principal points of controuersie or in anie other point of their newe tenets And the same Cardinal is much abused by the aduersarie in this passage PERIOD 15. Ancient martyrs not pretended but defended to haue shed their blood not for defense of the newe pretended reformation but in defense of the ancient Catholike present Roman faith And the weakenes and folie of the aduersarie discouered in his proceeding PERIOD 16. The Romanists haue no need to drawe any argument for proofe of their Religion from the confession of the sectaries And to treate of this was impertinent to the aduersaries proiect PERIOD 17. It is demonstrated to be plainely false that the aduersarie hath proued by confessions of Romanists that his Religion is safer then theirs And this is founded onely in his owne crasie iudgement fayling miscarying in the verie foundation of his worke APPROBATIO VIso testimonio cuiusdam viri docti mihique de fide doctrina probè cogniti quo testatur hanc Censuram cuiusdam libelli qui inscribitur Viatuta nihil continere fidei vel bonismoribus aduersum sed multa Catholicae religionis dogmata subtiliter explicata orthodoxorumque scripta vindicata diligenter Dignam censui quam ego approbarem Duaci 28. Nouembr 1632. GEORGIVS COLVENERIVS c. Correction of faultes supplie of omissions PAge 60. line 13. reade Church Apostacie p. 114. l. 18. for them reade it p. 116. for be reade were for there formers reade the Reformers p 127. omit real presence l. 134. for sainte reade smarte p. 142. for to dissent reade not to consent p. 154. for to such contrarie reade contratie to such in the same page l. 23. for which is true reade which in his opinion is true p. 155. touching the same matter l. 15. for none of which is contrarie reade none of which abstracting from the institution is contrarie p. 145. for but hath reade but since it the rest were there included hath pag. 156. line 2. for the manner reade the whole intire manner p. 158. for declaredly vniuersally reade so declaredly vniuersally page 226. for the worde of God reade either the vnwritten worde of God in the same p. l. 14. adde althou ' there were no
purpose and couninglie left out that which makes against him Postquam vero satis in fide Christiani imbuti satis cōfirmati fuerunt saluberrima rursus ratione visū est illud statutum debere aboleri per generalē decretū est Synodū imagines atque picturas in Ecclesijs fieri quae á laicis simplicibus pro libris haberētur Clemang de nouis celeber non inst for also that author affirmes that the vniuersall Church induced by iust occasion did decree in the Primatiue Church that no Images should be placed in Churches in regarde of those who were cōuerted from Gentilisme to Christian faith which how true or false it is importeth not much for the present dispute yet the same Clemangis presently after affirmes also that the same Church did alter that lawe and ordaine that Images should be vsed in Churches for the instruction of the vulgar sorte and for memorie of Christ and his saints and yet further adding that he brings this but for an example to showe that this being but an Ecclesiasticall lawe it may be chāged at the Churches pleasure so that if Sir Humfrey had cited this author home he could haue founde nothing to proue his position to wit that the doctrine of Image-honor is a blasphemous opinion but rather the contrarie is expressed sufficiently by Clemangis for that to set Images in a holie place that is in the temple of God as he expressely affirmes the same Church did for most holesome reasones is one of the greatest acts of honour that the Romanists exhibite vnto them And by this we se that our aduersarie hath neither dealt sincerelie in the alledging of this author nor in the rehearsall of his wordes in which he passeth in silence the cheefe parte of them viz those in which he shewes that prohibition of the primitiue Church which he mentiones touching the placing of pictures in Churches to haue beene onely an Ecclesiasticall precept and changeable yea and de facto changed by a generall Councell as his wordes related in the margen declare That which Cassander also doth plainely insinuate when in his consultation of the vse of images he saith tho falsely the Fathers in the beginning of the Church did abhorre all veneration of images yet afterwardes in the same treatise he graūtes conuenient and due honor vnto them as in another place I will shewe by relation of his owne formall wordes So now this being all which I need to speake of this matter seeing that by this I haue saide it will manifestly appeare that Sir Humfrey hath fayled both in the authenticall proofe of the antiquitie or vniuersalitie of his owne position touching the vse of images and in the disproofe of ours I passe to the next paragraph in the which doctrine of Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church is impugned by him most couragiously by virtue of an old chalenge made in Martin Luthers dayes but as yet neuer performed therefore let vs see howe our newe Champion Sir Humfrey vseth his armes First he relates the decree of the Tridentine Councell Sess 25. yet in a some thing different manner then it runneth there But the true tenour of it is this in substance that whereas by Christ the power of Indulgēces was graūted to the Church that shee hath vsed that power deliuered vnto her by diuine ordinance euen in the most auncient times the sacred Synod doth teach and commaunde that the vse of them as verie prositable to Christian people approued by the authoritie of sacred Councells ought to be retayned and doth condemne those with a curse who either affirme them to be vnlawfull or denie that there is in the Church authoritie to graunt them this is the true tenour of the decree which Sir Humfrey hath not so sincerelie rehearsed as he ought to haue done which whether he did it to aduantage his cause or onelie out of an ill custome he hath gotte by his frequent exercise of such trickes in diuers places of his booke I knowe not onelie of this I ame sure that he produceth nothing of anie force for the impugnation of it in all his paragraffe notwithstanding he bouldlie auerreth that it will be founde I knowe not where that neither Christ nor the primatiue Fathers euer knew much lesse euer exercised such pardons as are nowe daylie practized in the Church of Rome this he affirmeth most stronglie but proueth his affirmation so weakely that its hard to iudge whether his temeritie in affirming or his defectiuenesse in prouing that which he affirmeth be more excessiue how be it most certaine it is that neither the one nor the other can be iustified for that if he had vsed the least circumspection in the world he might haue founde not onelie in Bellarmin and other diuines but also in the Councell of Trent which he citeth mention both of scripture Fathers copiouslie cited quoted for the proofe both of the power and vse of Indulgences in the Church from time to time of which as it seemes he durst not take anie notice but passed it ouer in silence to the ende his greate wordes which he vttered in the beginning might carie a fairer colour of trueth which other wise would presentlie haue discouered themselues to be false True it is he describeth one kinde of mitigation or relaxation of punisshment imposed vpon offenders for denyall of their faith or sacrificing to idols which he graunteth to haue beene called by the name of pardon or Indulgence and to haue beene deriued from sainct Paule who released the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication all which tho' it be true in itselfe yet is it but an euasion which he vseth to the end he may with greater colour reiect those pardons which are truelie and properlie Indulgences that is a relaxation from a temporall punishment due vnto a penitent sinner according to Gods iustice for satisfaction of the paine of his offenses alreadie remitted touching the guilt and eternall punishment of the same by vertue of the keyes that is by the power of bynding and loosing sinnes which Christ gaue to his Church and in her particularlie to the cheefe visible pastour thereof Of the power and practize of which Kynde of pardon if Sir Humfrey had not beene disposed to cogge he might haue found good store of testimonies both out of scriptures Councells and Fathers alledged for the same by Roman diuines And as for scriptures there are two places especiallie which doe plainelie enuffe conuince the foresaid truth of Indulgences if they be reight vnderstanded according to the interpretation of the auncient Fathers The one is that generall sentence of our Sauiour Math. 18. in which he giueth an illimitated power to his Apostles and in them to their lawfull successours for binding and loosing without anie restriction either to this or that one matter or to this or that manner of remission and consequentlie in that most generall power is included the authoritie of remitting
the temporall punishment due to sinnes which is that we call the power of Indulgences of which generall power graunted to Preists we haue diuers testimonies of Fathers and particularlie of S. Aug. who vpon those wordes iudicium datum est Apoc. 20. Sayth Non hoc putandum est de vltimo Iudicio dici sed sedes Praepositorum est ipsi Praepositi intelligendi sunt per quos Ecclesia nunc gubernatur Iudicium autem datum nullum melius accipiendum videtur quam id quod dictum est quae ligaueritis in terra ligata erunt in Caelo quae solueritis in terra soluta erunt in Caelo â—ug lib. 2. â—e Ciuit. c. â—9 idem â—…act 49. â—… Ioan. â—…d tract â—… Vide etiaÌ„â—il can â—8 math â—… Hier. in â—…p 18. â—ath The like he hath vpon the Gosp of S. Ioh. Ideo cum processisset mortuus adhuc ligatus confitens adhucreus vt soluerentur peccata eius ministris hoc dixit Dominus soluite illum sinite abire quid est soluite sinite abire Quae solueritis in terra soluta sunt in caelis S. Ambrose also speaking of the same power l. 1. de Paenit c. 2. saith Deus distinctionem non facit qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus relaxandi licentiam Sacerdotibus suis fine vlla exceptione concessit God saith S. Ambrose makes no distinstion who promised his mercie to all gaue to his Preists licence to release without anie exception Neyther can anie reason be assigned why the pastours of the Church should haue power to applie the merits of the passion of Christ for remission of the guilt of the sinnes themselues with the eternall paine and yet not haue power to applie the same for the remission of the temporall punishment as due vnto them after the remission according to the order of Gods iustice as the eternall punishment was due before it especiallie considering that the temporall paine as being farre inferiour in nature and qualitie to the sinne itselfe it requires much lesse power and fewer conditions for its remission then doth the guilt of the sinne and eternall paine to the guilt annexed The other place of scripture is not onelie for the proofe of the power to graunt Indulgences but also of the practice of the same by S. Paule himselfe the 2. chapter of the second epistle to the Corinth where speaking to the same Corinthians he sayth of himselfe And whome you haue pardoned anie thing I also For my selfe also that which I pardoned if I pardoned anie thing for you in the person of Christ that we be not circumuented of Satam Which wordes altho' they be obscure in the Gramaticall construction yet doe they sufficientlie declare those partes and conditions which are found in such Indulgences as are now practiced in the Roman Church that is to say power in the collator or giuer pietie in the cause and grace in the receiuer S. Paule sheweth his authoritie in that he affirmeth he gaue perdon to the incestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ that is by authoritie from him receiued he sheweth the cause to haue beene the common profit of the Corinthians themselues to wit least they should be circumuented by the deuill so that they in the like occasion might fall in to desperation by ouer much rigour as the incestuous man might haue done if he had not beene pardoned in the performance of some parte of the punishment due to his offense Lastelie he in the precedent wordes sheweth the receiuer to haue beene in the state of grace in that he signifieth his sorowe and pennance to haue beene so great that he was readie to haue beene swalowed vp by the excesse of it And so by this we may perceiue howe deceitfullie Sir Humfrey proceedeth in his 220. page where he insinuateth that S. Paule in the place now cited did onelie release the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication whereas indeede the Apostle did not onelie that but also did absolue him from that temporall punishment affliction in which if he had pleased he might haue constreined him to continue longer and so supplyed by his authoritatiue and suffragatorie pardon that parte of satisfaction which otherwise remained to haue beene performed by the continuation of the punishment imposed and due to the penitent according to the exaction of Gods iustice he supplyed it I saie by application of the merits or satisfactions of Christ which application also and not onelie the authoritie by which sainct Paule did it is included in those wordes in the person of Christ Theod. in 2. Cor. 2. That which by the comentarie of Theodoret vpon this passage doth plainelie appeere who discreetlie noteth that saint Paul is said here to pardone the incestuous Corinthians sinne because it was greater then his pennance And S. Ambrose lib. 2. de Paenit cap. 2. speaking of the same matter saith of S. Paule Donauit Corintho peccatum per paenitentiam And a little after Etenim qui de remittenda praedicauit paenitentia debuit de ijs qui iterandum putant Baptismum non silere By which testimonies of these two most famous and auncient authours Sir Humfreys euasion saying that the Apostle did onelie free the incestuous Corinthian from the bond of Excommunication doth euidentlie appeare to be false friuolous And thus we see that not onelie the relaxation of a punishment enioyned as the knight would haue it but also the same or very like forme of pardon which the RomaÌ„ Church vseth at this present tyme was practiced by S. Paule himselfe in the foresayd case And in trueth supposing at the least certaine receiued maximes of diuinitie which might easily be demoÌ„strated by scriptures if the place did serue for it to wit that after the guilt of sinne is remitted some temporall punishment remaineth which according to the exigence of iustice must be remoueed before the soule can attaine to perfect blessednesse either by iust indurance or mercifull remission and more ouer that the same temporall affliction which many suffer in this life euen after their sinnes be intirelie remitted is not for correction and commination onely as the sectaries doe friuolouslie contend as appeareth plainelie in the example of Dauid who altho' he knewe from the mouth of a Prophet that the guilt of his adultry was pardoned yet vnderstanding neuerthelesse by the same Prophet that ther remained no smale punishment behinde to wit no lesse then the death of his dearest child and that as the scripture it selfe testifieth neither for correction nor commination onely but because by his scandalous actioÌ„ he had caused the enimies of God to blaspheme his name and as the text declareth in the 2. Booke of the Kings the 12. chapter propter verbum hoc that is for this thy fact taking word for action as it is most frequently taken in the scriptures and yet besides all this the same Dauid did voluntarie pennance composing
Vide relat Synod Dordrecht Dort in which the reformed Prelates carryed themselues so zealouslie that as it is crediblie reported they spent 2000. pounds in Renish wine to heat their spirits before euer they had decreed anie one point of their controuersies Sec. 17. In his seauenteenth section Sir Humfrey doth nothing but foyst babble abuse Bellarmine other Romanists about the Church as if they extolled her aboue the scriptures accusing here to haue spoyled herself of them as if it were vncertaine among them whether the Roman Church is the true Church because they teach it hath diuers acceptions which is all false friuolous matter for that altho' the Church according to the heterogeniall partes diuers functions of the persons of which it consists may admit seuerall denominations as are the essentiall representatiue or virtuall Church in which point also peraduenture there may be found some difference among the Romanists in their manner of speech speculations yet in substance they all agree that the visible Church to which the faithfull must seeke in their doubtes is the visiblie perpetuallie succeeding Church from the time of Christe till this day which is the plaine way in which etiam stulti ambulant euen the most simple sort of people may easilie finde walke in all other Churches especiallie the inuisible Congregation of Sir Humfrey his fellowes is but a blinde diuerticle by-way fitter for wanderers vagabonds then for the true honest people of God to walke in Sec. 18. In the title of the 18. section the knight pretendeth to proue that the Plea which the Romanists drawe from the infallible authoritie title of the Catholike Church is false vaine friuolous Althou ' the name authoritie of the Catholike Church hath euer binne so odious to all sortes of sectaries that they made it a cheife parte of their labours to impugne the same of which seuerall instances might easilie be produced yet this practise of theirs hath neuer bin so much vsed or so earnestly pursued as in these present tymes For as it is well knowne that their Captaine Antesignane Luther strucke his firste stroake at the Pope Churches power to graunt indulgences so is it also apparent by experience that all his followers continue the same battle with all their strenght stratagems For proofe of which wee need goe no further then to this our aduersarie Who throu ' his whole workes laboureth nothing more then to diminish the lustre power of the Catholike Roman Church in so much that in this verie section he maketh choise rather to lay violent hands vpon the sacred Bible shamefullie to corrupt three seuerall places of the diuine scripture then faile of his purpose or want colour for his peruerse intent which to the end the reader may more plainelie vnderstand I will particularlie reherse The firste place therefore consists in diuers passages of the epistle to the Romans especially in the firste chapter where that which the Apostle by way of admonition speaketh onely to those particular Christians members of the Church which were then at Rome exhorting them to be constant in their faith humble themselues least God cut them of for their sinnes as he did the Iewes the knight doth violentlie drawe it to the whoâ—… Roman Church as if S. Paul did intimate tâ—…â—t had a possibilitie of falling consequentlie was but a particular Church feygning also that sainct Paul did therefore pray for the continuance stabilitie of the Roman faith as if saith Sir Humfrey he had for seene by the spirit of prophesie they would glorie in their owne merites all which is quite repugnant to the meaning of the text as the reader may easilie perceaue And the like abuse of the knight the reader may see in other places which he cites to the same purpose viz. to proue that the Romane Church is faileable as 1. Thessal 8.2 Thessal 3.1 Tim. 3.15 Ephes 3.14 In all which places he vseth much of his accustomed craft peruerting the sense most sacrilegiouslie in all those sacred texts in the firste to the Corinthians he falsifieth the wordes putting thou for vs the particulars of which I am sorie I cannot stande to examine to the end his grosse cousenage might more cleerlie appeare and how vnder coulour of scriptures the sacred word of God truth is adulterated euen by him who so much braggeth glorieth in it After this same fashion he eludeth two pregnant places of Fathers for the authoritie of the Church the one is of Sainct Cypr. lib. 1. epist 3. the other is of sainct Augustine contra epist fund cap. 5. to coulore his euasion about the wordes of sainct Augustine which are these Praterea Ecclesia quae nunc est in fide errare non potest ergo si credidarit aliquem librum esse canonicum ex eius testimonio â— loneum firmum quo sumetur à Theologis argumentur Canon lib. 2. c. 7. Euangelio non crederem nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoueret authoritas he citeth Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. as if this author did fauore his false interpretation of sainct Augustines meaning who neuerthelesse besides that his wordes are not cited home by Sir Humfrey he onelie affirmes that sainct Augustine did not intend in that place to make rhe Church the formall reason why an infidell or one lately conuerted beleiues the Ghospell but onelie the necessarie condition of his beleife of the Canonicall scriptures which doctrine of Canus makes nothing at all for our aduersaries intent in this place which is to disproue the infallible authoritie of the Catholike Church which Canus doth not denie Lib. 7. de Canon c. 10. but professedlie maintayneth particularlie in the verie precedent chapter in other places in a most Catholike manner To this purpose the knight also cites Durand Driedo Gerson but rehearseth not their wordes which notobstaÌ„ding I haue seene cited by Chamier but if they be truly sincerelie vnderstood they conuince nothing against the infallible authoritie of the Church as neyther the wordes of sainct Thomas who onelie affirmeth that sainct Augustine speakes of the Church as an oueruling cause but not as the foundation of faith which no Romanists denies but all vniformely teach that their faith is founded vpon the word of God whose onelie authoritie is the supreme rule of the same but the Church the proponent onelie In the rest of his section Sir Humfrey makes a diuersion to the vniuersalitie of the Church for which he onely produceth some impertinent reasons of no force with the authorities of the Councells of Ferrara Basill waldensis others none of which proues any thing appertayning to the matter in treaty but onely serue to patch vp this part of his bypath in which I leaue him Sec. 19. The 19. section following affirmeth that the Church is finally resolued into the Pope whome saith the kinght 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
Sacraments was no other then the faith of the vniuersall Church also the verie same which by the generall consent of schoole diuines in later ages hath binne taught preached euen by those of the Grecian Church as by the testimonie of Hieremie the late Patriarch of Constantinople in his answer to the Augustan Confession doth plainelie appeere where the septenarie number of Sacraments is expresselie maintained against the Lutherans as his wordes here quoted in the margent clearelie testifie with shame enuffe to the reformed brothers for thus he saith Sacramēta verò ritusque in hac ipsa Catholica recte sententium Christianorum Ecclesia sunt septem Baptisma Chrysma sancti vnguenti diuina communio manusimpositio matrimonium Paenitentia sacrum Oleum Et statim Quod vero haec sola sint nec plura numero etiā diuisione clarum fit c. Patriarcha Constantinop Res ad Doctores Wittemb fol. 11. Truelie the Sacraments rites in this same Catholike Church of right vnderstanding Christians are seuen Baptisme chrisme of holie oyntment the diuine communion imposition of handes Matrimonie Pennance and sacred oyle c. But the knight goeing yet further in the proofe of his duall number telleth his reader that the two Sacraments which his Church defends are properlie Sacraments because they haue element and institution but the other fine are not such because they want eyther of these But to this I answere that the fiue Sacraments which the reformers reiect haue not onelie this which Sir Humfrey requires to his two defaced Sacraments but also besides this they haue promise of iustificant grace which according to the description he maketh heere his two doe want and so I retort his prrofe vpon him For if our fiue be not properlie Sacraments because in his conceipt they want institution and element surelie neither are his two properlie Sacraments because they want grace as being but signes or elements instituted by God not giuing grace both according to his former declaration Caluin Instit lib. 4. cap. 14. 15. and also in the common doctrine of the reformers And so we see that the knightes discourse touching the propertie of his two ministeriall elements is but a gracelesse peice of doctrine especiallie considering that if he had binne but halfe so conuersant in our diuines as he will needes seeme to be he might most easilie haue found both institution element and grace annexed to all those fiue Sacraments which he renounceth which Catholike diuines altho' they doe not all agree in the assignation of the seuerall matters and formers of the same yet doe they neuerthelesse with great conformitie consent in the number generall definition of them to wit that they are all externall and sensible signes which by diuine institution haue the promise of iustifying grace annexed And least the knight take exceptions and complaine that I doe not satisfiie his argument my selfe but remit him to others for an answere I will breiflie shewe out of scripture both the institution and element of euerie one of the foresaid fiue Sacraments in particular Confirmation therefore was instituted by Christ in those places of scripture where he promiseth to his Apostles the Holie Ghost after his ascension as S. Iohn the 16.5 Luke the 24.48 which collation of the holie Ghost was exercised by the Apostles Act. 10. 19. by imposition of hands after they had receaued the same holie Ghost by that extraordinarie manner which is described Act. 2. which impositiō togither with the words vsed Act. 8. whē they prayed for thē on whom they put their hands are the matter and forme of this Sacrament And now heere we see both the institution and the element in this Sacrament which is all Sir Humfrey requireth of vs and so I will say vnto him that which S. Hierome said to his aduersaries the Luciferians the 4. chap. Si quaeris quare in Ecclesia baptizatus non nisi per manus Episcopi accipit Spiritum Sanctum disce hanc obseruationem exea authoritate descendere quod post ascensionem Domini Spiritus ad Apostolos descendit That is to say If thow doest aske me why he that is baptized doth not receaue the holie Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop learne that this obseruation descended from that authoritie that after the ascension of our Lord the Spirit descended vpon the Apostles Secondlie the Sacrament of Penance hath both element and institution the element is the acts of the penitent declared by sensible words or signes the institution is the collation of power conferred by Christ to remitte sinnes to his Apostles and in them to all true Preistes according to that of the 20. of Saint Iohn Receaue yee the holie Ghost whole sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen and whose sinnes you shall retaine they are retayued In which words both the institution and the element be sufficientlie declared especiallie if we ioyne the declaration of the Church without which euen those two which the reformers hould for Sacramēts cānot be conuinced to be truly and properlie such if one were obstinately disposed Thirdlie in the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction both the element and institution are plainelie enough found in the 5. chap. of S. Iames where the Apostle sayth If anie man be sick among you let him bring in the Priestes of the Church and let them pray ouer him annointing him with oyle in the name of our Lord and the prayer of faith shall saue the sick and our Lord shall lift him vp and if he be in sinnes they shalbbe remitted him In which place to the externall signes of prayer and oyle remission of finnes is annexed as the reader may plainelie perceiue which effect euen according to the doctrine of the reformers themselues as I suppose cannot be found but onelie in such ceremonies as properlie are instituted by Christ himselfe for Sacraments Fourthlie the like I say of Order the substance of which is so plainelie conteyned in the scriptures Vid. Cal. l. 3. Inst c. 4. §. 20. c. 19. §. 31. that some of the greatest reformers haue not had the face to exclude it out of the number of the Sacraments of the new lawe and the places of Scripture which conuince the truth of it are 1. Timo. 4. and 2. Thimothie 1. where both the sensible element which is the imposition of hands and the effect of grace annexed are cleerlie described which effect I thinke our aduersaries confesse cannot be possiblie conferred but onelie by Gods authoritie and institution The wordes of the Apostle are these in the first place Doe not neglect the grace which is in the which was giuen the by prophesie with the imposition of the hands of preisthood In the second place the wordes are these For which cause I admonish the to resuscitate the grace of God which is in the by the imposition of my handes Now lastlie concerning Matrimonie a mā might iustlie maruell that our new Euāgelistes should
Dieu du quel ne sorte rien qui ne soit tel Parquoy tout ce que Du Plessis dict scauoir est qu'elle est perfecte suffisante a salut que IESV son autheur est la perfection c'st en vain car cela a este enseigne par nous deuan luy ne fut iamais dict par les Catholiques chose au contraire quant a l'obscurité doubte ambiguite nous n'en parlons pas de tout si cruement mais nous disons bien franc hement deux choses l'auons asses dict monstré cy dessus que l'scriture est fort difficile a entendre qu'elle est prisé employee de touts indifferemment bons mauuais en caution defense de toutes opinions a la ruine de plusieurs Thes ar Charons expresse wordes which I english in this māner Let vs come to particulars wich they make vs speake althou ' they propose thē wrong and otherwise thē we vtter thē to make vs odious first that we saye the scriptures ar imperfect on the contrarie wee beleeue confesse and preache them to be perfect compleat and entire sufficient as being the worke of God from whome nothing proceeds which is not such for which cause al that which Plessis saith viz. that the scripture is peafect sufficient to saluation that Iesus the author of it is perfection it selfe is in vaine For that hath ben taught by vs before him neither was anie thing to the contrarie euer spoken by the Catholiques For as much as concernes obscuritie doubtfulnes ambiguitie we doe not spaeke altogither soe crudely or rawly yet we say freely twoe things of which we haue sufficiently said and demonstrated them before that the scripture is verie hard or difficult to vnderstand that it is taken and applyed by euerie one indifferently good and bad in caution and defence of all apinions and to the ruine of manie This is that I finde in this author to this purpose which how repugnant it is to our aduersaries purpose the reader can not be ignorant except he be affectedly ignorant as the knight seemes to be euen in this particular onely this excuse I conceiue he may haue if it be as I persuade my selfe to wit that trusting to that pitt of corruption Plessis he deliuered this passage to vs by retaile as he receiued it from him which if he did I shall not besorie for that I desire not to charge my opposites more then I must of necessitie neither is ther anie need of amplification in that nature where the matter is soe copious and aboundante Touching Christophorus de cap. fontiū alledged by Sir Humfrey in the 108. page of his safe way for a denyer of transsubstantiation althou ' I haue said something alreadie in the place cited it selfe yet hauing since had a seight of that authors worke against the sacramentaries I haue further discouered he is falsely and with manifest iniurie to his person produced by our aduersarie supposing he is soe farre from vttering anie doctrine against either the reall presence or transsubstantiation that he professedly defendeth them both in his foresaid treatise in which particularly touching transsubstantiation I finde these plaine wordes in the 58. chapter of his fourth Action Transsubstantiationis articulum verbi Dei authoritate probaturi illud in primis tanquam basim ac fundumentum immobile ponimus haec Christi verba hoc est corpus meum in literali sensu esse verissima proinde supernacaneum ne dicam impium esse haec ita deprauare detorquere mutare vt corpus in corporis figuram verbum est in significat conuertatur quasi haec sententia alioquin vera esse sibique nisi ad hunc modum mutata constare non possit dicimus igitur singulae dominicae sententiae verba in sua naturali significatione sumenda esse Hoc ita cōstituto vt verborum Christi veritas constet primum necessariò consequens esse dico vt panis essentia conuertatur mutetur We being saith Christophorus to proue the article of transsubstantiation by authoritie of the diuine worde Jn primis we put it were for an immoueable foundation or graunde worke that thefe wordes of Christ this is my bodie are most true in a literall sense for which cause it is I will not say impious but at the least superfluous soe to detorte depraue and change them that the worde bodie be changed into a figure of his bodie and the verbe is into signifye as if this sentence could not other wayes be true and hang togither vnlesse it be altered in this manner Wherfore we say that euerie worde of our lordes sentence is to be taken in their naturall signification This being thus established to the end that the trueth of Christs wordes may stand firme J say first that it is necessarily consequent that the essence of bread be conuerted and changed c. Thus clearely speaketh the Archbishop which if perhaps it be not sufficient to conuince our aduersarie that this author was noe denyer of transsubstantiation let him but take a breefe view of his booke and he will be sure to finde both that point and the reall presence most exactely and copiously proued by such a multitude of testimonies both of scriptures and ancient Fathers as I knowe he will not be able to look vpon them without confusion It is true I must confesse this author in his first Action of this worke hath broached an extrauagant opinion touching the wordes of consecration for which cause principally as I suppose the expurgatorie Index prohibiteth his booke till it be corrected for in his 264. and 265. pages he endeuoreth to proue that preists doe not consecrate by virtue of those wordes hoc est corpus meum but by virtue of those hoc facete in meam commemerationem In confirmation of which his opinion althou ' he discourseth in an vnaccustomed manner among deuines both ancient and moderne yet hauing diligently conferred one of is passages with an other and duely pondered the whole sense and meaning of them I perceiue his intention was onely to dispute against and disproue those whoe hould that by the virtue and operation of these wordes hoc est corpus meum onely materially and literally accepted pronounced the consecration is performed he him selfe earnestly contending that those wordes haue their virtute force from the precept Christ hoc facite in meam commemorationem And therfore in his page 263. where he stateth his question he hath these wordes fellowing permulti sunt qui horum verborum hoc est corpus meum materialiter pronunciatorum operatione ac virtute consecrationem fieri putant Vnde nonnullos equidem vidi qui cum ad consecrationem peruentum esset miris modis halitum suum cum dictis iam verbis super panem vinum conijcerent non secus ac si in quantum nuda tantumiuodo verba sunt nihil aliud in ipsis considerando
the same yet that is not truly the Iesuites challendge but that you produce some which haue professed your religion in euery point in euery age before the daies of Luther This is the charge you haue vndertaken till you haue discharged your selfe of this your honor still remaines at the stake for all your bragges your safe way is to the Romanists all other of mature iudgment but onely a by-way serueth onely for a cowardly excuse of your want of abillitie to performe your promise But now to returne to the contents of this section in particular from which I haue in some sort digressed I say it consists onely in a recapitulation of those seuerall pointes of controuersie which I haue alreadie examined in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I haue not sufficiently confuted conuinced to be of no force but all eyther false equiuocall or impertinent it is most apparent that what soeuer he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is noe conclusion nor of any more authority then his owne bare affirmations or negations consequently notobstanding the vaine knight will needes seeme to haue the victorie to haue gained his cause yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather iudge in fauour of the anserer then of the abiector especially considering how farre more easie a matter it is for any man to impugne the doctrine of another then to defend his owne Wherfore I ioyne issue with myne aduersaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath heere sett downe applying the same to the safe way by-way as he hath donne by-way of antithesis or oppositiue comparison betwixt them both in the manner followeing And firste I say The Romanists teach that not scripture onely but scripture with diuine Apostolicall traditions receaued for such by the vniuersall Church in all ages the approued generall Councells the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the onely certaine meanes safe way to saluation But Sir Humfrey with his complices teach that scripture onely interpreted otherwise them by authoritie of the most vniuersallie florishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers doctors of the same is sufficient to saluation this is a doubtfull by way Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe perfect rule of faith yet in some places obscure ambiguous as euen some of their aduersaryes confesse therfore it is not sufficient alone but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter this is a safe way to saluation but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation conference of one place with another by euerie priuate man or woman that can but reade it is a sure euident perfect rule of faith this is an vncertaine by-way Thirdly the Romanists teach that traditions appertayning to faith or manners receaued from Christe by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselues by inspiration of the holie Ghost as such conserued in the Church by continuall succession are to be imbraced reuerenced with like pious affection as the scriptures this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that onelie those traditions concerning faith manners that can be proued by scriptures of which sort they denie anie to be in the Church notobstanding sainct Paul in the scripture expresselie commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions deliuered vnto them by word of mouth or by epistle And this is an vncertaine by way Fourthly the Romanists teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures some certaine persons in the Church as professors of diuinitie some others for the auoyding of noueltie in doctrine take an oath of the same moreouer that where they finde that consent they are to receaue it as a certaine rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or inuention of other new sense or glosses this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed onelie so farre as according to their priuate spirit or iudgment they agree with scriptures which is a captious deceitfull rule of expounding them And this is an vncertaine by-way Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholike Church is a congregation or companie of people beleiuing professing the true faith of Christe vnder one cheife head our Sauiour Iesus Christe his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as cheife Pastor visible gouernour of the same vnder Christe sayeing with all that the notes whereby the true Church is knowne from all other hereticall scismaticall conuenticles are not onelie cheiflie exteriour splendour amplitude miracles as our aduersarie doth deceitfullie insinuate but principallie the name Catholike antiquitie continuall succession c. And this is a certaine safe way but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastours people with out anie certaine infallible authoritie assigning for markes of the same that which is common to all congregations euen of heretikes schismatikes according to their seuerall opinions as all euerie one of them holding they haue the true word Sacraments rightlie preached administred in their conuenticles which consequently can be no certaine markes of the true Church in particular no more then the name of a Christian in generall can be an infallible note of a true beleiuer this is an vncertaine by-way Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Councells by the Popes authoritie or approbation conuocated confirmed are not onelie of great vse in the Church But also of certaine infallible power for the determination of all doubts controuersies in religion which may arise in seuerall times occasions this is a certaine safe way But the Reformers teach that General Councells althou ' they say they be of great vse authority in the Church to determine controuersies in religion yet they hold them of vncertaine authoritie subiect to errour both in faith manners this is an vncertaine by-way Seauenthly the Romanists teach that the cheife rock angular stone vpon which the Church is built is Christe the Sauiour of the world yet they say with Christe himselfe that Peter is also in his kinde a rock vpon which he promised to build his Church this is a certaine safe way But the reformers teach that Christe alone is the onelie rock vpon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the expresse wordes of Christe in the scripture sayeing to Peter vpon this rocke will I build my Church this is a diuerticle or by-way Eightly the Romanists teach that the