operation effect of the Sacraments depend cheiflie principallie vpon the institution of Christe yet they say withall that both for the securitie of the consciences comfort of the receauers c. The Preist must haue a sincere intention to minister the Sacrament not in ieast as Luther some other sectaries doe teach this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the Reformers teach that onelie the instistitution of Christe is sufficient the Preists sincere intention not required this is an vncertaine by-way Nintly the Romanists teach that Christe is our onelie mediatour of redemption who onelie of himself by his owne power knoweth the secrets of our hartes yet withall they say that his Saintes in heauen who in by him doe assuredlie knowe the secrets of our hartes in such things especiallie as cōcerne the good of our soules are our mediatours of intercession by offering our vnworthie prayers to God this is a certaintie safe way to saluation But the reformers calle vpon Christe onelie exclude neglect his saintes seruants whome neuerthelesse he himselfe doth promise to honore in heauen condemning also for impious sacrilegions the saintes intercession for sinners which notwithstanding he doth not condemne for such in anie parte of holie scripture this is an vncertaine by-way Tenthly the Romanists teach we ought to adore Christes bodie present in heauen where he sits on the right hand of his diuine Father yet withall they say it is lawfull yea we ought to adore him whersoeuer he is particularlie in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach that the bodie of Christe ought not to be adored in the Eucharist but onelie in heauen this is an vncertaine by-way Eleauenthly the Romanists as the word of God instructs them confesse themselues to be vnprofitable seruants in regarde neyther they nor their actions bring anie profitte to God who hath no need of anie thing yet they say withall that no man liuing can be iustified by his owne merits that is such merites as proceed purelie from his owne naturall forces actions more then this that all those who expect saluation must beleiue in Christe with a liuelie faith wholely relie vpon his meritts satisfaction as vpon the proper principall cause of their saluation yet they say besides this that altho' they may not relie vpon their owne merits or the satisfactions of the saintes alone neuerthelesse they may vse both the satisfaction of saintes their owne merits as a meanes to saluation by virtue application of the merits satisfaction of Christes passion also that they can by the grace assistance of God obserue his commandements yea by virtue of the same diuine grace performe some workes of supererogation or not commanded by precept of God but counselled by his aduise this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach they are vnprofitable seruants which I confesse that in deed they are both to God his Church as euer were anie in the world that no mans good workes altho' they proceed from the speciall grace of God can in anie sort iustifie him before God that euerie Christian must so wholie relie vpon the merites of Christe that he beleiue also that no man can haue anie of his owne euen by the power grace of God that he is bound to expect hope for saluation without anie such workes or merites meerlie by a sole bare faith that his sinnes are remitted in Iesus Christe this is an vncertaine by-way Heere you see a plaine confrontment of diuers particular pointes of controuersie betwixt the Romanists the reformers by way of affirmation negation because I knowe that my aduersarie I are not agreed of a Iudge of our cause I for for my part remit my selfe to the indifferent reader as our onelie vmpiere to determine of the matter not onelie for as much as concernes the contents of this particular section but also of the whole worke who if he consider with due ponderation the proceedings of both parties compare the sincere plaine dealing which I haue vsed with the insincere and double dealing of my aduersarie who hath so perseuered in his indirect courses that euen in the end conclusion of his worke he hath practised no smale partiallitie and fraude in the rehearsall of the doctrine of the Roman Church as particularlie where he affirmes that the Romanists teach that diuers traditions of faith and manners whereof there is no ground nor euidence in the scripture are to be reeeaued with equall reuerence and respect with the scriptures themselues and that they relie partelie vpon their owne merites and satisfaction of Saintes for their saluation and the like I say if the iudicious and vnpartiall reader duelie ponder all the particulars I doubt not but he will easilie discerne the house of truth and safe way to saluation to be where he findes honestie and plainenes and in the contrarie the house of falsitie the by-way where he findes tricks cousinage And therfore the more to facilitate rectifie his iudgment in the businesse I will reduce the whole argument of the knightes booke to a forme of sylogisme in this manner That Religion is a by-way leading the weake vnstable into dangerous pathes of error which is founded vppon coulourable showes of Apochriphall scriptures vnwriten traditious doubt full Fathers ambiguous Councells and pretended Catholique Church But the religion of the Church of Rome is founded vppon colourable showes of apochriphal scriptures vnwritten traditions doubtful fathers ambiguous Councels pretended Catholique Church Therfore the relgiō of the Romā Church is a by-way leading the weake vnstable in to the dangerous pathes of error Now the minor of this sylogisme in which the whole force of the conclusion and by consequence the whole scope and authoritie of the worke depēdes not onely hauing binne in the discourse of my anseere to euerie seuerall section disproued for false counterfeit but alsoe more appeare to be such ex ipsis terminis euen of it selfe by the termes propositions of which it consists to all such as shall consider it with due attention I persuade my selfe the iuditious reader will presently perceaue determine with him selfe that the author of the worke hath quite fayled of his proiect that by composing a by path with a sinister intention to father it Falsely vppon his aduersaryes he hath in stead of that onely framed an ingen for his owne torment And thus hauing attayned not onely to an accomplishment of myne owne desires in finishing my labours but also in some sorte to a satisfaction of the request of my aduersary in regard that at the least in showe as I perceaue by the conclusion of his preface he desireth nothing more then
quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant To which might be added the Councels of Lateran sub Inno. 3. cap. firmiter the florent decreto de Purgatorio and the late Councell of Trent Which all teach the same doctrine of merits as our aduersaries cannot denie to which also might be ioyned all those are testimonies of aūcient Fathers who teach that faith onely doth not iustifie nor is sufficient to saluation by all which its manifestly conuinced that the doctrine of iustificatiō could not be openly protested against both before and after the Conquest by the Preists and professours of England except Sir Humfrey will persuade vs that the faith of England in those times was different from the faith of all the world beside and euen of those who directly sent preachers for the conuersion of it from gentilisme and superstition all which being wholely incredible so by necessary consequence is the whole discourse grounded thereupon Secondly I answer that its manifest out of the words cited by the knight out of the booke of the forme of administration of Sacraments vsed in those times supposing the booke is authenticall which neuerthelesse may be suspected as being being onely produced by Cassander a suspected authour there is not any word sentence or sillable which excludes from saluation those merits which the Roman Church defendeth but onely such merits as either exclude pressely exclude the merits of the passion of Christ and therefore the question which according to the order of that directory the Priest maketh to the sick person runneth in this tennour Doest thou belieue to come to glorie not by thine owne merits but by the virtue and merits of the Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ which interrogation as you see manifestly containeth an opposition betwene the merits of the infirme man and those of Christ and for that cause he calleth them his owne as being wholy wrought by his owne naturall power without the concourse of the merits of our Sauiour consequently in that sense of no force or vertue for the obtaining of saluation That which is yet more manifest by the like question insuing made also by the Preist to the same person in this manner Doest thou belieue that our Sauiour Iesus Christ did die for our saluation And that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his passion where you see the opposition still runneth and especially heare more clearely betwixt mans owne merits or other meanes which proceed not frō Christs Passion but from some other cause not including or depending vpon them as the principall agent of all meritorious operations And verily I am persuaded that the reason why in those daies in those occasions the formes and speach where somewhat different in the matter of merit from the formes vsed in our times is no thing els but the differences of errours reigning in the worlde in those times and those that are now at this present defended by the nouellists For the Pelagian heresie which did attribute ouer much virtue to the merits of man hauing once beene and perhaps some requikes of it yet remaining verie rife in Englād whē the foresaid directory was vsed if any such there were or at the least not lōge before it was necessary that in all occasions humane merits should be as much extenuated as could possible be without preiudice of faith in that point But contrarilie in these our daies since the publication of the errours of Luther and other sectaries in this matters it was conuenient if not necessary to extoll the same merits as much as could be without preiudice to the merits of Christ Now touching that which is added in the second parte of the knigts assertion videlicet that the Preists of former times preached saluation through Christ alone it is most plainely equiuocall and in one sense it is true and conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church in all ages but in another sense it is false and disagreable to the same it is true that Christ alone is the authour of saluation and that no other then he can saue vs according to that of the Apostle Sainct Peter Act. 4. non est in alio aliquo salus Nec enim aliud nomen est sub Caelo datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos saluos fieri Neither is there any other name vnder heauen giuen to men wherein we must be saued and in this sense and no otherwise the Preists of England in more auncient times preached saluation by Christ alone yet notwithstanding all this it is false that those Preists preached saluation with an exclusion or deniall of the merits of man wrought by the grace of Christ and by virtue of his death and Passion neither was such doctrine euer taught either in England or any other place before the time of Luther except it were by some more aūcient heretikes Moreouer that which the knight putteth in the second parte of his foresaid assertion to wit that the Preists of those times published and administred the same Sacraments in the same faith and trueth which they meaning the reformers teach administer this day this I say is partelie equiuocall in that he saith they publike professed administred the same Sacramēts For tho' it were true that two of the Sacraments which those Preists administred videlicet Baptisme the Eucharist be the same which there formers administer at this day yet it is false that the foresaid Priests did the vse in their time either to professe or administer two onelie as may appeare by the same rituall out of which S. Hūfrey draweth this testimonie in which all the seauen Sacraments are contained and appointed to be administred if the booke be perfectly published without corruption Partelie also that same parte of the assertion is false for that it is manifest the foresaid Preists did not receiue those two which the reformers hould for Sacraments in the same faith which they doe for as much as the Priests mentioned receiued those two in the faith of fiue other Sacramēts which also they beleiue to be such as well as the rest supposing that the number of all the seuen Sacraments were then in beleefe and practice as much as now they bee as both the rituall cited if it be not corrupted and also the histories of those times can testifie of which fiue Sacraments neuerthelesse the reformers haue no such faith as they thēselues cōfesse To say nothing of the faith of those same Preists in other points of religion which as it is certaine by the relation of historiographes was farre different from the faith of the reformers and practice of their Churches and consequentlie it cannot with truth be said to be the same And as for the rest of the words which the knight citeth out of the same rituall they proue nothing against merit it selfe but onelie against confidēce in proper merits as appeares by those wordes in particular place
thy whole confidence in his death onelie haue confidence in no other thing that which is so farre from the deniall of merits as that it is counselled aduised euen by those who are most professed defendours of the Roman doctrine in that point as out of Bellarmine and other diuines we haue showed before Period 4. Nay and besides this it is most plaine in my iudgment that the foresaid rituall in certaine other words following in the same place did neuer intend to exclude all kinde of merit from the workes of man performed by Gods grace and assistance for that it expressely saith in the person of that sick man I offer his merits that is the merits of Christ in steede of the merits I ought to haue for if he ought to haue merits as he affirmeth euen vpon his death bed though he haue thē not euident it is that he denied not the same but plainelie supposed the truth of them And thus we see that the words of the order of baptizing benigniouslie interpreted make nothing for S. Hūfreyes position nor against the Romā doctrine of merits How be it the same was iustelie corrected by the Inquisitors both because the manner of phrase which it vseth might easily giue occasiō of errour especially in these our dayes as also because it is iustelie suspected to be Apochryphall in regarde it containes certaine ill sounding sentēces not onely in the doctrine of the Roman Church but also according to the tenets of the Reformers As where it saith thus These protestations of such as lye a dying were reuailed to a certaine religious man And those wordes he that shall protest such things as followe from his harte cannot be damned c. All which propositions and some othgers are commaunded by the authours of the Index to be blotted as well as the wordes which Sir Humfrey here cites And yet more ouer it is to be aduertised that there is not a worde in all that which our aduersarie produceth against merits which doth proue iustification by faith onelie which is that which he intendes to proue in this place as the title of his paragraph doth declare And so by this meanes he hath quite fled from his text And so this may suffice to demonstrate the falsitie of the knights assertion and the nullitie of the proofe thereof by the testimonies of his aduersaries seeing plainelie that he doth no thing therein but partlie by vntrueths and partlie by equiuocations deludes his reader not citing anie one authour either Romanist or reformer in all this paragraffe more then the wordes rehearsed out of the foresaid Rituall which neuerthelesse hauing bene as suspected of corruption chasticed by the Inquisitours the vncensured coppies which doubtlesse he and his fellowes onelie vse haue no authoritie nor credit in the Roman Church or at the most verie little and consequentlie he proceedeth most weakelie in produceing for a testimonie of his aduersarie that which they doe not acknowledge for theirs especiallie considering he alledgeth nothing els for the proofe of his tenet The second paragraffe is of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation As concerning the Sacraments of the Lords supper saith the knight In the dayes of Alfrick about the yeare 996. There was a Homilie publikelie to be read to the people one Easter day wherein the same doctrine which saith hee our Church now professeth was publikelie taught and receaued and the doctrine of the reall presence which in that time had gotte some footing in the Church was plainelie cōfuted and reiected The wordes which he citeth are these There is a greate difference betwixt the bodie wherein Christ suffered and the bodie which is receaued of the faithfull the bodie that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of marie with bloud and with bone with skinne and with sinewes in human lims with a reasonable soule liuing and his spirituall bodie which nourisheth the faithfull spirituallie is gathered of manie cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodilie but spirituallie c. Thus farre out of the homilie And this doctrine faith the knight was deliuered in those times not by one onely Bishop but by diuerse in their Synods and by them commended to the Clergie who were commaunded to reade it publikelie to the people one Easter day for their better preparation and instruction in the Sacrament and for the same cause translated into the saxon language by Alfrick and to the same purpose the Knight also citeth two other writinges or Epistles as published and translated also into the vulgar tongue by the same Alfric But to this I answer first that whatsoeuer doctrine is conteynd in the Hom. Epistles cited the Romanists are not boūd to beleeue it because the knight onely citeth them out of his owne authours and as printed by the members of his owne Church to wit out of B. Vsher and Doctour Iames and so it is both absurd and impertinent to produce thē as testimonies of his aduersaries as he professeth to doe in the title of his section especially supposing that he hath not aledged any one author of the Romanists religion where by to proue them authenticall nor yet any other indifferent witnesse but onely those two reformers whom we haue named whoe by the Romanists may iustly be suspected of partiallity in fauour of their owne cause especially if we consider that Sir Humfrey himselfe graunteth that the Latin epistle written by Alfric is to be seene mangled and razed in a manuscript in Benet colledg in Cambridge And certainely the English coppies being found not to aggree with the Latin manuscript which is either the Originall it selfe or at the least cometh much neerer the time in which the authour of it liued then any other coppie the knight could possible haue there is farre greater euidence that the latter translations and impressions are corrupted by the reformers then that either the Index expurgatorius or any other Romanist hath made any alteration or chaunge in the originall coppies or first authenticall manuscripts or in any other except it were onely to restore them to their prime innocenty and originall trueth cheefely supposing that the inquisitors in their expurgation of bookes intend no other thing more then to reduce such as be corrupted to the former purity of their originalls Thirdly I answer that admitte the editions which are published in England be true and sincerely translated and printed which neuerthelesse may iustly be suspected by reason of the manifould corruptions found to haue bene vsed in that nature by diuerse of the reformed profession as by the expurgatory Index doth plainely appeare the authours of which Index haue discouered diuers workes Fathered partely by auncient and partely by moderne sectaries vpō those who neuer writ them which was the cause as I suppose why Antonius posseuinus in the preamble to his select Bibliotheke saith that Sixtus Bellarmine and others haue manifested very maine pestilent bookes
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
in both kindes is hereticall but onely that it is heresie to condemne the communion in one kinde for vnlawfull or repugnant to Christs institution and so his position is both false and calumnious as appeares not onely by the decree of the same councell but also by the tenour of the decree of the Councell of Trent neither of which councels defined communion in both kindes either conformable or disconformable to anie precept of either God or man in the nature of faith but they onely declare the practise of the communion in one kinde as a thing not vnlawfull or cōtrarie to Christs institution or precept but otherwise conueniēt for the present state of the Church in respect of the reuerence due to the Sacrament Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christi fideles vtrāque speciē sāctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit Cōc Trid. de cōmun sub vtraq specie can 1. vid. can 2. and for other iuste causes also condemning them that shall affirme that all and euerie faithfull person is bound to receiue both kindes either by the commaundement of God or as necessarie to saluation by vertue of Christs institution or that the communion in one kinde is vnlawfully appointed by the Church or that the Church did erre therein Which doctrine is so plainely declared by the two foresaid Councels and especially by the Councell of Trent and so often repeated and inculcated by moderne diuines to say nothing of the more auncient that if our aduersaries were not ouer much disposed to cauill they would neuer haue the face to calumniate the same by their misconstructions as Sir Humfrey doth in this place The knight cites some ten or eleuen Roman diuines and among them to increase the number he foysteth in Cassander whom yet he either knowes or ought to know he is none of ours but the matter is not great because neither he nor the rest teach any thing here cōtrarie to the doctrine of the Romā Church in this point but they onely relate the custome of the Primatiue Church to haue beene that the lay people commonly receiued in both kindes yet not denying but that the same succeeding Church hath vpon iuste reasons altered that manner of communion Yea and the same authours here cited defending the lawfullnes thereof either in the verie same or in other places of their workes nay and Cassander consult de vtraque specie some of them if not all teaching with all that some times the communion in one kinde was practized in auncient ages so that it was great madnesse in Sir Humfrey to produce then either as confessers of want of antiquitie and vniuersalitie in the Roman Church or for the proofe of them in the doctrine of the pretensiue reformed Churches since that out of their testimonies as shall be declared neither the one nor the other can with anie colorable probabilitie possible be collected and for this reason and because I haue in an other place ansered what our aduersarie can say in this matter I knowe I haue no need to proceed to particulars but onelie pronounce my sentence of this whole Paragraph in generall termes yet because I finde all or manie of the authours cited to haue their sentences and meaning mangled and peruerted therefore I deemed it conuenient to giue the reader notice in particular of the authours ill proceeding And first altho' Vasquez with some others is of a contrarie opinion to Taper manie other diuines to wit houlding as more probable that those who receiue the Sacrament in both kindes doe receiue some more spirituall frute then the receiuers of one alone yet neither doth he condemne the contrarie opinion and practice not yet doth he conclude that it is absolutelie better or safer for the laytie to receiue both formes then one onelie but rather defendes the quite contrarie expresselie in his 216. disputation and last chapter where not obstanding his owne opinion defended in one of his former questions yet he solues the sectaries argument in this latter place and so cleareth the difficultie of their obiection that it is impossible for Sir Humfrey or anie of his confederates to gather anie thing in fauour of their position out of that authour as his owne wordes doe make apparent to the reader of them as here I place them in the margen Licet secundum aliquorū opinionē quam praecedenti disput defendi laici aliquo fructu priuētur dum ipsis calix denegatur tamen cū sumentes tantum vnam speciem nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem careāt vt notauit Conciliū omissis alijs causis postulantibus recte potuit Ecclesia laicis alterā speciem denegare Vasq to 3. in 3. p. disput 216. cap. vlt. Salmeron is abused by Sir Humfrey in regarde he takes onelie some certaine wordes of his which seeme to make for his purpose and omits others which make against him which follow in the verie next leafe and doe so temper the sense of the former that taking them together neither the one nor the other fauoure the reformed doctrine For thus he saith Nos enim c. For we quoth hee doe so confesse the custome to haue beene of communicating the laye people vnder both kindes that yet allwayes in some cases the vse of one kinde hath beene practized Which wordes quite dashe Sir Humfreys designe of prouing that the Church of Rome in this particular hath created a newe article of faith manifestlie repugnant to Christs worde institution practice of the primatiue Churh except hee will be so audacious as to condemne here also of sacriledge for her practice in those cases as he doth our present Church In which passage I much wonder at the slownes of him that otherwise vseth to be so nimble and actiue as that in this place he tooke not paines to turne one leafe further for the discouerie of the truth And the same I say of Valentia who speakes iuste to the same sense and purpose de legit vsu Eucharistiae cap. 10. as also did Father Fisher and Castro in the places cited by our aduersarie And as for sainct Thomas vpon the 6. of sainct Iohn And lyra in 1. Cor. 11. they neither of them disproue communion in one kinde as Sir Humfrey doth alledge but expresselie defendit Vide S. Thom. in 3. part S. Thomas relates that the custome of the auncint Church was to communicate in both formes which custome he saith was obserued euen till his dayes in some Churches where also quoth hee the ministers of the altar doe continuallie communicate the bodie bloud But for danger of effusiō saith he in some Churches it is obserued that the Preist onelie receiue the bloud and the rest the bodie Neither is this saith he contrarie to the sentence of our Lord because he that communicates the bodie communicates also the bloud since that Christ is whole in both the
the whole miserere Psalme and crying out with an amplius laua for a perpetuall testimony of the same And now supposing as I say all this the doctrine practice of Indulgēces now vsed by the cheefe Pastours of the Roman Church is so well groūded that except onely in those in whom obstinacie reigneth more then reason it admitteth no trergiuersation in the credibilitie and faith of it For as God is infinitly not onely iust but also mercifull in himselfe by essēce so hath he cōmunicated to the gouernours of his church a kind of participatiue mixture of both those attributes betweene which according to that of the psalme iustitia pax osculatae sunt he hath made a most louing league to the end that according to diuers causes and occasions his spirituall officers may so vse them in earth as the vse may be approued in Heauen sometimes vsing rigour of discipline for the satisfaction of Gods iustice other times lenity for the exercise of his mercy But now touching the confirmation of this doctrine by the authority of Fathers I will onely produce the testimonies of Tertull. and S. Cyprian who being both so ancient as they are knowne to be they may iustely serue for sufficient witnesses of the ancient practice of the same in those primatiue times Tertullian therefore in his booke to the Martirs and first chapter speaketh of the remission of the paine due to sinnes which the Bishops gaue vnto the sinners either at the petition of martyrs or for other causes calling it by the name of peace Which peace faith he some that haue it not in the Church are accustomed to aske it of the martyrs in prision and therefore you also meaning the Bishops ought for that cause to haue norish and keepe it in your selues to the end that if perhaps you may communicate it to others where Tertullian by the worde peace vnderstandes the Bishops absolution at the least frome some parte of the sinners pennance by application of the superabundant satisfactions of the martyrs which application is also in the worde peace included as manifestly may be gathered out of the same Tertullian who afterwardes falling in to heresie in his 22. chap. of his booke of chastitie recalled that which he had tought before to wit that indult could not be giuen to those that had fallen at the petition of the martyrs because saith he now turned Heretike there remaine no satisfactions of martyrs which satisfactions hee calleth oleum faculae which can suffice for themselues others All which as the reader may clearelie perceiue is nothing els in substance but such an Indulgence as is now practiced by the Bishops of Rome of whome and others by their comission the foresayd authour doth speake in the place rehearsed And the same saith S. Cyprian in his last Sermon de lapsis saith paenitenti operanti roganti potest clementer ignoscere potest in acceptum referre quicquid pro talibus petierint martyres fecerint Sacerdotes To the working or laboring penitent the Bishop of whome he speaketh as I suppose may clemently pardon accept as receiued whatsoeuer the martyrs demaunde the Preists doe or performe And the like the same S. Cyp. hath l. 3. epist 15. or 11. I omit Sainct Gregorie whome yet both S. Thom. and Atisiodorus his predecessour testifie to haue graunted Indulgences in forme which altho' it is not founde in his workes now extant yet it is farre more credible and certaine that those two authours would not haue vsed that testimonie with out infalible grounde that it was S. Gregories then that it was feigned because kemnitius and other nouellists reiect it as suppositious And if they will not admit of this testimonie because they see it not At the least they must of necessitie admit of that which being yet more auncient is to be seeme in the Chappell of S. Crosse of Hierusalem in Rome written in legible letters that S. Siluester who was Bishop Pope aboue 1200. years paste did consecrate that Chappell and adorne it with maine reliquies of saints and indulted diuers perdons to the visiters of it I could alsoe cite the Popes which since the time of S. Greg. in seuerall ages haue very frequentlie graunted Indulgences but because I knowe our presumptuous aduersaries contemne their authority tho' iniustlie for that they haue ben of as great authoritie as their anticessours I will saue the labour and onely aduertice the reader that ther is farre greater reason for a prudent man to giue credit vnto them in the affirmatiue of this question then there is to rely vpon the authoritie of the sectaries for the negation in regard that euen by their owne confession the affirmatiue hath ben tought and practiced publikelie in the Christian world at the least for the space of 400. years euen according to Kemnitius who tho' most falsely for that it may be proued That Leo the third who liued in the 8. or 9. hundreth yeare gaue pardons according to the manner of those our times affirmeth that Indulgences began aboute the yeare 1200. who neuertelesse on the contrary contradicting himselfe graunteth that the first denyers of the same were the Waldenses a company of pore ignorant beggarlie fellowes From whence we may inferre how impudentlie the kinght affirmeth antiquitie vniuersalitie in his owne Church for the denyall of Indulgences yet dinying the same in the Church of Rome for her defence of them supposing he could not produce as much as one authour either more or lesse auncient for the negatiue parte liuing before the pore men of lions who hauing no other saint for their founder then one waldo a verie idiot appeared aboute the yeare of our Lord 1170. that is manie hundreths of yeares after Indulgences had beene practized in the Christian world euen according to the forme now vsed It is true Sir Humfrey alledgeth diuers Roman diuines as he vseth to doe but it is but a meere shift he vseth to colour his position as being destitute of all other auncient authoritie proofe For I haue examined those authours I finde there is not one of them which is not a zelous defender both of the power which Christ gaue vnto the Church to graunt Indulgences also of the lawfullnes profit of them nor doth anie one of them confesse the want of antiquitie consent of the same but some of them onelie confesse indeed there is no certainetie of their beginning or when the vse of them came into the Church in the manner they are now vsed To which purpose the testimonie cited out of B. Fisher may seeme to serue who yet doth not say as the knight falselie relates that it is not sufficientlie manifest from whome Indulgences had their Originall but he onelie sayth non certo constare a quo primum tradi caeperunt that it is not certainelie apparent who first began to giue them And altho' that author hath the rest of the wordes which Sir Humfrey
the illumination of the true leight vnderstand in contemplation of him so much as appertaines eyther to their owne ioye or our assistanse For as to the Angels so to the Saints who assiste in the Seight of God our petitions are knowne in the eternall worde In abscondito facie Dei By which it is euident that Lombard speakes onelie of the meanes by which the Saints vnderstand the prayers of faithfull supplicants And there being two seuerall wayes cheefelie where by the Saints may vnderstand our prayers the one by vertue of their beatitude or beatificall vision by which they see the prayers directed vnto them by seeing God the other by special reuelation accidental to their blessednesse The Master is of opinion they see them in the worde by vertue of their vision of God as I conceiue But Scotus seemes to hould that the knowlege that Saints haue of our prayers doeth not necessarilie followe of their beatitude but is onelie accidental by congruitie therefore he sayes in his anser to the question Dico quod nrn est necesse ex ratione beatitudinis quod beatus videat orationes nostras Neque regulariter siue vniuersaliter in verbo quia non est necessaria fequela beatitudinis neque quod reuelentur neque talis reuelatio necessario sequitur beatitudintm Beatitudo enim in obiectis creatis non transcendit quiditates seu illa quorum essentia visa est necessaria ratio videndi tamen quia congruum est beatum esse coadiutorem Dei in procurando salutem electi eo modo quo hoc sibi potest competere ad istud requiritur sibi reuelari orationes nostras specialiter quae sibi offeruntur quia illa specialiter innituntur meritis eius tanquam mediatoris perducentis ad salutem quae petitur ideo probabile est quod Deus beatis reuelat de orationibus sibi vel Deo in nomine eius oblatis That is in English It is not necessarie by the nature or state of beatitude that the blessed see our prayers neyther regularlie or vniuersallie in the diuine worde because that is not anie thing which as is it were a necessary sequele of beatitude Nor that they ar reueiled because neither such a reuelation necessarilie followes bertitude for the beatitude of the vnderstanding in created obiects transcendes not the quidities or those things the sight of whose essense is the necessarie cause of seeing But because it is congruous or conuenient that the blessed man be Gods cooperator in procuring the Saluation of the elect in that manner in which it grees vnto him and that to this is required that our prayers be reueiled vnto him especiallie those which are represented vnto him for that they especiallie are founded in his merits as a mediator conducting to the saluation which is asked Therefore it is probable that God giues a reuelation to the blessed of the prayers offered to him or to God in his name Thus Scotus By which it is manifest he onelie here discusses the diuers wayes by which according to the diuersitie of opinions in diuinitie the blessed Saints in Heauen vnderstandes the prayers of vs that liue in this world houlding for probable that the knowlege which they haue of our supplications vnto them is not by any other meanes but by reuelation from God And in this sense he speakes when he saith probabile est it is probable not because he held the inuocation of Saints it in selfe as a matter onelie probable this being quite contrarie to his cited wordes as being aboute the manner of the saints vnderstanding our prayers which necessarily implyes that the prayers them selues directed vnto them are lawfully made And so now it clearelie appeares by all these wordes circumstances that these two famous diuine are as ranck Romanists as the rest in this particular in regarde they call not in question the lawfulnes of prayer to Saints in it selfe but onelie the condition or qualitie of it And this I haue added of the doctrine of Scotus not as vsed or abused by my aduersarie but onely the better to declare the true meaning of the Master of sentence And as for Caietan whome also Sir Humfrey produceth to the same purpose it is manifest euen out of the wordes cited by him that he onely speaketh of some want of certaintie in the miracles which the Church vseth as an argument in the Canonization of saints by reason that altho' as he confesseth expressely they be most authenticall yet are they not saith he omnino certa altogether certaine because the credit thereof depends vpon the reportes of men But for all this neither doth he affirme absolutelie that miracles are the grounde wherein the Church foundes the Canonization of the saints as Sir Humfrey affirmeth most corruptelie translatinng his wordes omitting those Quae maxime authentica sunt for ab Ecclesia suscipiuntur putting in Inglish wheron the Church grounteth the Canonization and detorting them to that sense as the reader may clearly perceiue by conferring the translation with the quotation in Latin nor yet doth the same Caietan either in this or anie other place of his wordes deny either the certaintie of the doctrine of the inuocation it selfe or yet the doctrine of the certaintie of the Canonization but he onely at the most sayth that the Church cannot receiue full but onely humane certainty from such miracles alone as she hath by relation of particular men not euidentlie operated in the eyes of the whole Church And according to this we may easily answere to the saying of S. Augustin that manie soules are tormented in hell whose bodies are honored in earth for this S. Augustin speakes onelie of certaine suppositious saints whome the cōmon people honored for true saints as it is manifest by the example which the same S. Aug. produceth out of Sulpitius who relateth how the vulgaritie did long celebrate one for a martyr who afterwardes appeared tould them he was damned And the like is related of a discouerie which S. Martin made of a false martyr which particular examples of errour in the common people ought not in common prudence to preiudicate the certaintie of the doctrine of honour due vnto such as the whole Church in all succeeding ages hath honored for true saints blessed freinds of God Neither doth S. Augustin in the cited place speake to anie such purpose of calling in question the generall doctrine practice of the Church in the points of honour or inuocation of Saints as may appeare by that in other places of his workes he expresselie auerreth the same as in his first sermon of S. Peter Paule in his 44. ep where he hath thes notable wordes In Petro quis honoratur nisi ille qui defunctus est pro nobis Who is honored in Peter but he that dyed for vs And in his 84. treatise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth At the table we doe not so remember martirs
Eucha c. 24. Sixtlie touching the confession of Bellarmin aboute the duall number of proper Sacraments we haue alreadie shewed him to be quite opposite to the reformers doctrine also haue examined the same place which Sir Humfrey citeth here and founde the sense of the Cardinall to haue ben egregiouslie by him transuerted corrupted so here is no confession of anie principall point of controuersie made by him in fauour of his aduersaries but a new repetition of an old imposture of the knights owne making Lastelie the knight citeth two places of Bellarmin The first out of his 3. booke of Iustification the 6. chapter is touching the reformers faith good workes which he affirmeth Bellarmin to confesse But what a ridiculous allegation is this For it is true Bellarmin confesseth in the place cited that the reformers hould faith repentance are requisite to iustification that without them no man can be iustified but this is no principall point of controuersie nay no question at all betwene the Romanists the reformers but onelie a point of doctrine which the reformers doe commonlie teach the Romanists doe not denie So that this is impertinentlie alledged out of Bellarmin for faith good workes since that in the wordes cited out of him there is not one sillable of good workes but onelie of faith repentance as the reader sees But yet that which is most absurde of all is that Sir Humfrey haueing here cited Bellarmins confession that the reformers hould both faith repentance to be required to iustification yet presentlie after he citeth the same Bellarmin as concluding with the reformed Churches iustification by faith onely so that within the compasse of one page the knight out of the profunditie of his great head peace resolueth in fauour of his owne cause out of Bellarmin both that without a liuely faith an ernest repentance no man is iustified also that according to the doctrine of the reformed Churches mans iustification is by faith onelie Let the reader if he be able couple these two together but if he can not let him hould for certaine that Sir Humfrey line was farre out of quare when he vttered such disparates Now the second place of the two laste is touching iustification by faith onelie But this hath ben examined before founde to containe no confession of iustification by faith onelie as the knight will haue it vnaduisedly contradicting himselfe out of an inordinate desire to make Bellarmin seeme to stand for the doctrine of his Church but onelie that Bellarmin speaketh there of confidence in merits according to the sense aboue declared And thus Sir Humfrey hauing cited all he can which all neuerthelesse is iuste nothing he addeth for all this that he wondreth why the Romanists should send out such Anathemas curses against all or anie of those that denie their doctrine But I wonder more that he who hath produced nothing either in this chapter or in the rest of his booke out of Catholike authours which in his sense meaning doth not rather deserue to be hissed at then to be admitted for anie proofe of his doctrine yet should not be ashamed to affirme that the best learned of the Romanists confesse that manie principall points of their owne religion manie articles of their faith are neither ancient safe nor Catholike And suerlie I can not conceiue but that both he who soeuer els should vse so much false dealing as he hath done in propugning their owne tenets especiallie in matters of religion deserue the Anathema in the highest degree that curse being the proper brande of the defenders of erroneous hereticall or scysmaticall doctrine And indeed it seemes Sir Humfrey had not verie great conference in the industrie which he hath vsed in this his worke For notobstanding it appeareth manifestlie that he putteth the greatest streingth of his proofes through out his whole booke in the multitude of authours especiallie Romanists whome by way of emendication or begerie he alledgeth as confessers of his faith yet he here flyeth to the little flock to the paucitie of beleeuers to the simplicitie of babes as to speciall caracters of the true Church vtterlie disclaming from humane wisdome power nobilitie a pore refuge after so manie great boasts bragges of the victorie obteined as he imagineth but falselie by meere authoritie multiplicitie of testimonies piled vp both in text margin now to plead paucitie simplicitie want of power wisdome And as for your paucitie in number Sir Humfrey I will not stick to graunt in regard that how great a shewe soeuer you haue made to the contrarie yet I knowe you to be most pore beggerlie in that nature but yet I denie that to be a speciall infallible marke of the true Church as you insinuate no more then the paucitie of Manicheans or Donatists was a marke of the truth of their Churches And the same I say of the want of might wisdome nobilitie I meane of true power wisdome nobilitie for of power wisdome nobilitie of the flesh you must needs haue much more then the Romanists in regarde it is well knowne you both handle eate farre greater quantitie then they doe witnesse your little abstinence the rest which modestie causeth mee to passe in silence And touching your simplicitie except by simplicitie you meane plaine ignorance you haue no colour here to bragge of it for that there was neuer flock in the world in my opinion so full of all sortes of duplicitie as your owne Neither hath anie man greater reight to be a sheepe of that fould then the noble knight Sir Humfrey who out of the abundance of his double dealing euen in this place to say nothing of that which is paste hath made choise of as false fallacious markes of his owne Church as he hath calumniouslie fained markes for ours to wit counterfeit miracles which neuerthelesse wee disclame from detest more then he and all his consortes And if they will needs medle of these matters let them reflect vpon their Master Caluin how faine he would haue confirmed his newe Gospell with a forged resuscitation of a pore man who by his instructions fained death but the false Prophet fayling of his purpose committed a murder in steed of a miracle The knight saith further that we beleeue lyes But I say that he doth not onely beleeue them but makes them as appeares by this his pamphlet in which as we see ther is great store In Deut. 14. We doe not deny with Lira but that some times in the Church there may be great deception of the people among the Preists in fained miracles but these miracles if anie such ther be are in the Church in the Preists onely as Lira discretely insinuate not approued by the Church the Preists or their companions for lucre as the false knight iniuriously affirmes most corruptedly omitting in his
betwixt the nouellists of these our tymes and catholike Romanists As appeareth in the mention they make of masse miracles the signe of the Crosse and other particulars which I haue noted in my censure Thirdly the iudicious reader may easily persuade him self that supposing these writings according to the relation of our aduersaries haue remained in publike places and libraries for the space of aboue 600. yeares if they had cōtained anie doctrine repugnāt to that faith of the Eucharist which I haue historically demonstrated aboue to haue ben professed in our countrie of England euer since and before that tyme it s more then morally euident they would haue receiued long a fore this tyme reprehension or censure according to their desert Finally Supposing it were true that the foresaid writings did in deed containe doctrine contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation as they ar beleeued and defended by the professors of the Roman Religion wheras yet they doe not soe but onely exclude the carnal palpaple or Capharnaitical presence of Christ in the Eucharist and instruct the people in the inuisible presence of his bodie and bloude in the Sacrament in an obuius and easie māner yet in reasō ought not anie iudicious Catholique to alter his faith of the same for anie argument which can be drawne or deduced from such testimonie as is voyde of other credit then is to be giuen to aduersaries in fauor of their owne cause which is iust none at all especially they being no other then these whoe not onely in this particular but alsoe in other matters of controuersie haue vsed much partialitie deceipt as in an other place I haue demonstrated out of their seuerall workes And in particular the publisher of the same pamphlet in which the homilie Epistles of which I heare treate are contained besides diuers vntruthes which he vttereth as well touching the author and tyme of his writing as alsoe his titles and marginall notes and likewise in that he couningly and couseningly publisheth in the same volume a treatise of the ould and new testament in the name of Alfric as if it included a different canon of scripture to that which is now vsed in the Roman Church and agreeable to their now English Bible which is yet most apparently false for that as I remēber it putteth in the number and order of the Canonicall bookes Ecclesiasticus Sapience Tobie Iudith and the Machabeis which yet our aduersaries reiect for Apocryphal As alsoe in that more ouer the same Pampheter addeth a testimonie to shewe that in tymes past the lords prayer the creed and the ten commaundements were extant and vsed in the vulgar tongue a worke most impertinently performed by him and as it seemes onely or cheefely to enlarge the bulke and price of his pamphlet it being certaine that the Romanists neuer neither held that matter vnlawfull or at this present prohibit the vse of the vulgar language for the ten commaundements and priuate prayer of the common people but rather the contrarie as both their Catechismes and their daylie practise most plainely witnesse By all which particulars and the rest of this my aduertissement it is euidently apparent that the glorious which the nouellists of our countrie make by their publication of the homilie epistles and o writings in the name of Alfric be no other then certaine prestigious impostures to persuade the simple sorte of people by these false florishes that their denyall of the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation is not quite voyde of antiquitie but hath ben preached and professed in our countrie before the dayes of luther And now let this suffice to repulse this fictitious and deceitefull calumniation of our aduersaries touching these putatiue wrings of Alfric by the publication of which and the like counterfeit wares they pick simple peoples purses whoe take all for as true as gaspell that is put in print by anie of their owne brothers The second aduertissement I giue to the reader is that wheras the kinght page 205. of his fafe wais cites Agobard for a denyer of honor of image in his booke of that subiect Agobardus Episc Lugdun li. de pict imag I haue dilgently perused the same and finde that in deed this author speaketh more harshely of this matter then anie other catholique writer of these dayes how be it this was the age in which images had their greatest enimies Neuerthelesse it is most certaine this author onely confutes the exhibition of diuine honor and the like vnto images as is sacrifice or confidence in them or prayer vnto them reprehending the error of some particular persons whoe superstitiousely adored them for soe he discourseth a boute the end of his booke saying But none of the ancient Catholiques did euer thinke them to be worshiped or adored yet now the error by increase is become soe perspicuous that it is neare or like to the heresie of the Antropomorphits to adore figments and to put hope in them and that by reason of this error faith being remoued from the harte all our confidence be placed in visible things And a little after Soe alsoe if we see penned or fethered Angels painted the Apostles preaching martyres suffering torments we must not expect anie helpe from the pictures which we behould because they can neither doe good nor ill rightly therfore these are the wordes cited by the kinght to euacuate such superstition it was defined by orthodox Fathers that pictures should not be made in churches least that which si worshiped and adored be painted in the walles which wordes being not his owne but alledged out of a fragment of the Prouinciall councell of Eliberis in Spaine and hauing ioyned them imediately to his owne in which he onely treates of diuine honor as not due to images it is cleare and euident he intendes to proue nothing else by their authoritie then that which he there proposeth To omit that this passage of the Eliberitan coūcell was deliuered in a sense much different from this in which Agobardus construeth it as I haue conuinced in others places and occasions And that this author intendes to teache nothing else but onely that images must not be honored with worship due to God the seuerall testimonies which he largely produceth out of S. Augustin S. Hierome other ancient writers doe manifestly demonstrate not one of which can be taken if they be truely vnderstanded in anie other sense as clearely may appeare to the diligent reader of their wordes which expressely exclude onely honor of Sacrifice prayers directed vnto the images them selues or religion proper to God onely in the worship of saincts and their pictures and alsoe Agobardus him self vppō occasiō of the places which he citeth doth auerre plainely declaring that he graunteth some sorte of honor to images wher thus he exhorteth Let vs behould the picture as a picture destitute of life sense and reason let the eye
Dieu du quel ne sorte rien qui ne soit tel Parquoy tout ce que Du Plessis dict scauoir est qu'elle est perfecte suffisante a salut que IESV son autheur est la perfection c'st en vain car cela a este enseigne par nous deuan luy ne fut iamais dict par les Catholiques chose au contraire quant a l'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
difficult questions nor yet could you haue so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirme in one place that the text of scripture is the sole Iudge expounder of itselfe indefinitlie without liâ—itation yet on the contrarie in another place that you doe not denie the authoritie of the Fathers iointlie agreing in the exposition of them in matters of faith yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them as if the holie Ghost were bound to appeere visiblie to deliuer the true sense of them as often as anie controuersie of faith occurreth All which the like disparates the vertiginous knight vttereth within the compasse of this one section also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselues Iudges plaintiffes in their owne cause wheras indeed the Romanists neyther make themselues but the euer visible continueing Church Iudge of their cause nor doe they hould theÌ„selues for plaintiffes but for defendants faithfull possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they receiued from their auncestors And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his owne receiued Principle touching the interpretation sense of scriptures of which he his brothers make euerie priuate person man or woman Iudge vmpier yet condemnes for vnreasonable that the Roman Church should vse the like authoritie euen when it is publikelie assembled in a generall Councell So that these all those a foresaid particulars deliuered by our aduersarie touching this point are but onelie his owne fancyes of which he makes vse for want of better materialls to patch vp this part of his by path in which as you see he continueth his peripateticall exercise euen to the next section Sec. 4. In which it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise yet they make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of scripture thus the knight fableth of whom I tknowe I may iustlie say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur And in reallitie of whome I pray can this be so trulie verified as of those who notobstanding that vnder a false colour that euen in cases of doubt controuersie they ingenuouslie professe that scriptures must be interpreted by themselues onelie Vid. ChaÌ„ Panstrat I. de inten scrip yet neuerthelesse doe most pertinaciouslie maintaine that the exposition of them belongs to euerie member of their Church in particular that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another for what is this but to make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of the scripture not the scripture itselfe as they deceitfullie pretend Let the indifferent reader be Iudge of this It is true the Councell of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers yea Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities places of care of soules take an oath of the same but as they take the oath so doe they performe also the obligation of it And I demand of Sir Humfrey who hath such a great talent in reprehending whether he thinkes not in his conscience that those who vnder the strict boÌ„d of oath are obliged to anie matter are not more like to performe it then those who haue no such obligation whereby to restraine their actions surelie there is a great difference in the circumstances consequentlie a great reason to iudge that those Romanists who haue such an oath obliging them to followe the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture will be farre more carefull to performe the same then the reformed Doctours who haue no such bridle to refraine the inclination to noueltie of their itching witts Now wheras Sir Humfrey after his ordinary cauilling manner doth say that if the Romane Church can make good the vniforme consent of Fathers for their twelue new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation preferre it before any priuate or later exposition this I say is a meere sophisme in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes that he who interpreteth scriptures must haue positiuely the vniforme consent of Fathers for his expositions but onely that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers the which because the kinght did not rightly vnderstand as it seemes when he read the Concell the Bull of Pius he abuseth Caietane Canus Andradius Bellarmine Baronius other moderne Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree wheras yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established the rest being knowne for notorius defenders of it so running vppon false grownes the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts building his By-way to omitt others of lesse moment diuerse scurrilous scoffes touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it s well knowne he his companions are much more guilty in that kinde with two notorious vntruthes affirming that all the pristes Iesuites are sworne not to receaue interpret scriptures but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers that it is an article of the Roman faith so to doe all which needes no further examen in regard that to any iuditious reader these two particulars onely will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the authors iugling trickes which he vseth in this part of his by-way which being voyde of substantiall matter it suteth best to him that made it but agreeth nothing to the Catholike RomaÌ„ faith â—ect 5. In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures which he promiseth to proue by pregnant testimonies of all ages that it is the same which learned Doctors professors intirely preserued in the besome of the Roman Church in all ages I haue treated of this in parte in my former Censure to which I adde returning that Sir Humfrey saith of Campion vppon himself which is that if this Nouellist had binne as reall in his proofes as he is prodigall in his promisses he had gome beyond all the reformed proselites sinces the daies of Luther for neuer man made greater florishes with proorer proofes all that he bringeth being founded vppon the same equiuocation which he vsed in his safe way consisting of this proposition the Fathers of euery age haue acknowledged the 22. bookes of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonicall to be the true Canon no other For it is true the Fathers of all ages receiued from Christe his Apostles those same bookes acknowledging them for Canonicall but it is false that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonicall of which truth particular instance