fathers of the primatiue Church so the knight by which discourse you may easilie perceiue euen by his owne wordes and the if which he maketh that all which he hath hitherto said hath no greater warrant then his owne suretie which although his authoritie and credit were farre greater then either we haue found it to be or it can be in it selfe yet were it not safe for anie man to relie vpon it but rather to hould it for verie vncertaine and fayleable Especiallie considering that all which he hath produced in proofe of the same are either meere trifles or at the most verie poore arguments grounded vpon false suppositions yea and vpon plaine vntrueths falsifications and corruptions both of scripture and fathers and so partlie through ignorance and partlie through malice he hath shewed himselfe a most partiall and false Herold And now altho' this might suffice for the censure of the section insuing because it pertaineth to the same subiect yet least the knigth should grūble I will a forde it a Period a parte THE VII PERIOD IN his eight section therefore Sir Humfrey promiseth to produce testimonies of his aduersaries touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the Protestant faith in generall So he proceedeth in the title To which he addeth by way of asseueration that if the Roman Church doth not confesse that the reformers are both in the more certaine and Safer waye in the Protestant Church I will saith he neither refuse the name nor the punishment due to heresie Heere we see the knight is as free in his promises as euer he was let vs therefore examen how he performeth them for if he doth not he cannot escape either the name of an heretike or at the least the desert of punishment itselfe euen in this mortall life Hee beginneth thus He that shall question vs where our Church was before Luther let him looke back to the Primatiue Church nay let him but looke into the bosome of the present Roman Church and he shall finde that if euer antiquitie and vniuersallitie were markes of the true Church of right and necessitie they must belong to ours So Sir Humfrey In which wordes as it were by way of generall assertion he briefelie declareth the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his Church to be found both in the Primatiue Church and also in the present Roman Church in which assertion there being two partes and that no small ones the first he endeauoureth to proue by shewing a conformitie betwene the doctrine of the Church of England with that of the Primatiue Church and descending to particulars he tells vs that his Church teacheth and beleeueth the same three Creedes which were instituted by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primatiue Church and not created by Luther as also two of the seauen Sacraments which were saith he by the confession of our aduersaries instituted by Christ The same he affirmeth of 22. bookes of Canonicall Scripture which he saith were vniuersallie receiued in all ages Likewise of the seuen generall Councells he affirmeth that foure of them were ratified by the Cannons of the Church of England and confirmed by act of parliament and thus he runneth through the points of doctrine and faith in which they and we agree adding to them the confession of his aduersaries And yet in all his large rehearsall of points of faith he maketh no mention of eyther those in which the Romanists and reformers disagree nor of those new articles of the English Creede which dissent from the doctrine of the Primatiue Church and which indeede are those that make the reformers guiltie of heresie as its the doctrine of Iustification by faith onelie the deniall of the reall presence and such like But craftilie leauing them out as if they were not to the purpose he treateth whereas in trueth by reason of these new errours obstinatelie defended by them there can be no vniuersalitie nor antiquitie in their Church notwithstanding they had neuer so great conformitie both to the auncient primatiue and moderne Roman Church in all the rest of their beleefe Especiallie supposing that anie one errour in matter of faith obstinatelie defended is sufficient to take away all true antiquitie and vniuersallitie of anie Church or congregation whatsoeuer as euen the reformers themselues as I suppose cannot denie for that as the scripture affirmeth that he who offends in one thing is made guiltie of all the rest so he that in one onelie poynt of faith houldeth contrarie to the most vniuersall and auncient Church maketh himselfe presentlie guiltie of want or defect both of vniuersalitie and antiquitie in his beleefe For as Saint Nazianzene saith to this purpose in his 37. oration towards the end the articles of faith are like to a gould chaine from which if you take away anie one link as Saint Ambrose saith Ad cap. 9. Lucae lib. 6. in fine you take away your saluation vnum horum saith he si detraxeris tetraxisti salutem tuam And so we see that the knight by reason he omitteth in his discourse that part vpon which the verie medium of his argument chiefelie or at the least greatelie depended his proofe of antiquitie and vniuersality in his Church falleth to the groūd But besides this defect he fayleth also in that he saith he beleeueth the three Creedes instituted by the Apostles and Primatiue Fathers of the Church For either he meanes that those three Creedes do sufficientlie conteyne all that he is bound to beleeue or no. If the first he meaneth then what will become of his solifidian iustification and of the 39. articles of the English faith the greater parte of which is not to be found in those Creedes If he meanes the second then doth he ill in leauing those particulars out in the rehearsall of his faith Nay more then this for if matters were well examined I doubt not but the knight notwithstanding the protestatiō of his faith of the three Creeds yet he would be founde holting in the true generally receiued or Catholike sēse of diuers of the same as that of the perpetuall virginity of the mother of God in that of the descēt of Christ in to hell of the Catholike Church the cōmunion of Saincts remission of sinnes and the like I say of the doctrine of the 4. first Generall Councels and of the Sacraments in which particulars our aduersaries vnderpresēce of reformatiō maintaine diuers deformed errours specified and confuted by diuines of the Roman Church Moreouer the knight is also defectiue in the proofe of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith and doth egregiously equiuocate in that he saith that two of the Sacraments which the Church of Rome houldeth are professed by the reformers and confessed by their aduersaries to haue beene instituted by Christ not broached by Luther This I say is equiuocall and doth not prooue his intent for although it neither is nor can be denied but ingenuously confessed by the Roman Church that there are two
to passe saith he that the number of the faithfull are so few that at all times they cannot easily be discerned His ansere is because it was foretold in the 18. of sainct Luke that when the sonne of man commeth he shall not finde faith vpon the earth marke the wisdome of this great Salomon admire it S. Luke as his wordes doe plainelie testifie speakes prophesies of the time of the comming of our Sauiour to iudge the world at the day of the generall iudgment yet Sir Humfrey most absurdlie abusedlie falselie applyes them to that vast Caos or large space of time which hath passed since the time of the Apostles to the dayes of Luther yea as it seemes by his discourse euen to the time of Christs comming to iudgment in the end of the world as if according to his reformed Logike this were a good consequence when the sonne of man commeth he shall not finde faith vpon the earth therefore the number of the faithfull is so smale that at all times they cannot easily be discerned ô acute subtile Logician in my opiniō much fitter for the carte thē the schoole of Dialect Another example I giue the reader in two places cited by the knight the one out of the 2. of Peter 2. chap. the other out of the 18. of the Reuel 3. verse which he applyeth to Indulgences pardons saying in his page 671. how comes it to passe that Indulgences pardons are graunted for monie made the treasure of their Church Because sayth he it was foretold there shall be false teachers among you by whome the way of truth shall be ill spoken of throu ' couetousnes shall with fayned wordes make marchandise of you Now it is true the place out of sainct Peter thou ' falselie fondlie applyed might farre more fitly be accommodated to the pretensiue reformed Puritanicall Nouellists whose greatest part of schollership si to rayle at the Pope Roman Church yet it is not vntrulie rehearsed but in the place quoted out of the Apocalips there is not one title to this purpose excepting that the Apostle once nameth the word merchants which neuerthelesse according to the true sense of the text maketh no more to the matter in hand then if he had named the word minister The rest of the places of scripture which he cites according to the common current exposition of the Roman Church euen at this present are vnderstood partly of the precursors of Antichrist which are the heretikes persecutors in generall of all ages partly of that great Antichriste properly so called whose comming all true Catholikes haue euer expected onely about the end or consummation of the world howbeit if a man were delighted in trifles trickes he might much more commodiously applie those same places to Luther his sequaces as hauing their pedigree discent from seuerall heretikes of former times then eyther to the Pope or Church of Rome as may also plainly appeere by the 39. articles of the new Creed of England of which excepting those fewe that agree with the doctrine of the Catholike Church there is scarce any that haue not binne defended by other heretikes ef more ancient standing as diuers learned Romanists haue demonstrated in their seuerall treatises By all which it doth appeere that althou ' Sir Humfrey hath vsed no other proofes in this section then the pure text of scripture yet hath he made so bad vse of it that all the world may cleerly perceiue that he is entred much further into his by-way then he was before Sec. 26. The 26. followeing is the conclusion of the treatise in which the author laboreth to showe the safety certainty of his owne way the vncertainty of the Romish way This is the whole drift scope not of this section onely but of the whole worke as being a breife summe of the same I confesse that if the Romanists were bound to giue credit to Sir Humfrey linds bare word in matters of faith maners then they ought of necessity to yeald him the safe way content themselues with the by but they are otherwise taught instructed they knowe that for the space of aboue 14. hundred yeeres togeather they had vnquestionable possession of the safe way to saluation may iustly say with ancient Tertullian Nos prius possedimus we had firste possession why then should we yeald vnto you take the by-way which you haue framed inuented of later yeeres nay why should we not rather with the same Tertullian boldly demaund of you who are according to the sayeing of another ancient father prodigiously borne of your selues Quiestis vos vnde quando venistis vbi tamdiu latuistis who are you from whence when did you come where haue you layne hid so long time with S. Hierome Quisquis es assector nouorum dogmatum queso vt parcas Romanis auribus parcas fidei quae apostolico ore laudata est who soeuer thou art that art a defender of new doctrine I beseech the spare the Roman eares spare that faith which is commended by the Apostles owne mouth in another place Cur post 400. annos docere nos niteris quod ante nesciuimus why after 400. yeeres I may say after 1400. yeeres doe you goe about to teach vs that which before we knew not with optatus vestrae Cathedrae originem ostendite qui vobis vultis sanctam Ecclesiam vendicare Shew the origen of your chaire you that callenge to your selues the holie Church wherfore if you vnder pretence of a reformation will enter into possessiō of the safe way if you will claime the truth leaue falsehood for vs it is not sufficient for you with a plausible flourish of speech as you vse heere Sir Humfrey to say so it is but you most firste proue your claime conuince your title that not by accusation of vs that which you haue onely performed through both your bookes for si accusasse sufficiat quis erit innocens if to accuse be sufficient who will be innocent but by positiue proofes of your owne which as yet neyther you nor any of your copemates haue euer performed You pretend sole scripture for your euidence but in place of Gods word you obtrude vnto vs your owne glosses captious illations sophiticall inferences or deductions you for your part Sir Humfrey you knowe you are ingaged by promise to ansere the Iesuites challenge which is not as you affirme hoping so to scape the brunt of the battell to proue out of some good authors that the Protestant Church so you please to call it for matter of state althou ' yours as I suppose is not truly the Protestant but the Puritan Church was all waies visible which althou ' I knowe I haue made manifest that as yet you haue not performed that taske neyther I am confident euer will be able to performe
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
aut domi concubinam foueat tammetsi graui sacrilegio sese obstingat grauiùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimonium c. Costerus Enchir. cap. 17. de caelib prop. 9. then he who keepeth a concubine at home as Costerus though incompletlie cited and vniustlie taxed by the knigth doth most truelie affirme And this is a certaine knowen trueth among diuines consequent to the prohibition of Priests marriage which prohibition once supposed he that should marrie should not onelie committe a scandalous sinne of the flesh as that Priest doth who should be a Concubinarie but also he should in that case comit a Speciall irreuerence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of it selfe a more grieuous sinne then is the keepinge of a concubine as all men Aug. de bono vide cap. 11. except the reformed brothers doe easilie apprehend conformable to which S. Aug. saith that mariage after a vowe of continencie is worse then adulterie Planè non dubitauerim dicere lapsus ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae nouetur Deo adulterijs esse peâ—ores ibidem To omit that for a Preist to marrie in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it includes also the scandall of Concubinate it selfe But now Sir Humfrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the poynt of merits Lastly saith hee how many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainetie of their owne workes doe relie wholie vpon the merits of Christ Iesus shewe me that learned man that liueth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sounde Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith Thus the knigth who as you may easilie perceiue by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to perswade his reader that all the learned Romanists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man iustified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdome of heauen by the good workes he doth by vertue of the grace of God and merits of Iesus Christ because forsooth many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainelie of their owne workes at their death doe relie wholie on the merits of their Sauiour whereas indeede these are two farre different poynts of doctrine the first that is the trueth of mans merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church the second which is the confidence in merits being none the one being about the substance of merits the other onelie about the qualitie the one about the absolute acknowledgment of merits the other onely about the ouergreate confidence or presumption in them And so he that renounceth the first renounceth Poperie indeede but he that renounceth the second doth not neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would haue him to be for the onelie deniall of confidence in merits as in it selfe it is most manifest By all which because Sir HuÌ„frey with all his diuinitie had not iudgement to distinguish he proueth nothing but doth onelie hallucinate betweene trueth and falsehood Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he alledgeth anie whit auaile his cause for suppose that be true which he affirmeth of him to wit that in his sicknes he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt Gods Iudgment his owne sinnes yet caÌ„not he thence inferre that therefore the Bishop renounced the trueth of the doctrine of merits in generall nay nor his owne merits in particular but onelie the presumption of them or the confidence in them by reason of the vncertainetie of them as I haue alreadie declared Besides that this which he is affirmed to say of himselfe being but onelie a relation of Fox we may iustlie doubt of the trueth of it For he hath bene long since hunted to his hole by a learned Catholike and his vnright Reuerence manifestlie conuinced to be a Father of lyes Wherefore he is of no credit with vs neither can his testimonie preuaile against vs. We care not for him his acts and monuments are of no moment among vs his testimonie is not the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of a Romanist which is that our aduersary promised in the title of his booke and we expect he should performe and to omit the smale credit which I and all Catholikes giue to the relations of Master Fox yet I fynde that he who hath dealt so falsely with others hath now founde one of his owne profession who dealt not verie sincerelie with him in recounting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardiner at his death for whereas Sir Humfrey will needs proue by the testimonie of Fox that this Bishop renounced Poperie at his death in the pointe of merits yet Fox in his 2622. page onelie saith thus That according to the reporte of one whome he will not name perhaps he could not when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to conforte him great comfort I warant you with wordes of Gods promisse and free iustification in the blood of Christ our Sauiour repeating the scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my lord quoth he will you open that gap now then farewell altogether to mee and such other in my case you may speake it but if you open this window vnto the people then farewell all And now according to this speech of B. Gardiner let the iudicious reader imagin if he can how Sir Humfrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrarie to wit that altho ' dayes wordes might be vttered to him others of learning and vnderstanding without danger of peruersion but not perhaps to the coÌ„mon people who by their ignorance and frayletie might easilie misinterpret them as he did that vttered them and so easilie receiue harme by them not withstaÌ„ding that they of themselues in a founde fense include nothing but truth The knight also citeth to the same purpose yet to no purpose Bellarmine in his sixte booke of Iustif 7. chap. and his testament or last will Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholy on the merits of Christ Iesus But this according to that which hath bene already said of this matter is at the most but onelie a renuntiation of presumption or ouermuch confidence in our owne vncertaine merits as is most apparent out of Bellarmines owne doctrine euen in the verie same chapter where the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey are found thoug much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwardes I will declare Now in the second place the wordes are these I beseech him that is God saith Bellar that he would admitte me into the companie of his Saints and elect not as a valluer of merits but as a giuer of mercie which wordes if the knigth had not bene ouermuch distracted he
salubres obseruationes si qui abusus irrepserint eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus cupit ita vt nullae falsi dogmatis imagines rudibus periculosae errorem praebentes statuantur c. Con. Trid. sess â—5 init Another fault sir Humfrey committeth also in that he affirmeth that this corruption which S. Augustin and the Church of his time condemned for superstition was confirmed 400. yeeres after by the second Councell of Nice for Catholike doctrine and is now decreed by the Councell of Trent for an article of faith Thus the knight But this is all false and grounded onelie vpon an erroneous persuasion of his owne videlicet that the worship which those people of which S. Augustin speaketh gaue to pictures is the same which the Roman Church practizeth at this daye according to the definition of those two Councells that which he neither proueth heere nor can euer proue in anie other place as being manifest by the doctrine of those same Councells in this point that they both condemned this superstitious practice of those people reprehended by S. Augustin the Church of his age eueÌ„ as much as he did in those former tymes And so neither this instance framed by Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustins wordes nor the whole argument it selfe concludes any part of his intent in this section but rather conuinceth by the fact of the same S. Augustin that no errour can possible so secretlie steale into the Church but it is either presently or within a small tyme espied and noted for such by one authenticall authour or other which is quite contrary to the position which the knight indeauoureth heere to establish and whoely conformable to the tenet of the Roman Church in this matter After this Sir Hum. maketh a large repetition of diuerse points of doctrine defended by the Church of Rome as if they were farre different from the intention of those who first taught or ordeined them but for this his conceipt he bringeth no proofe at all and so I leaue it as a voluntary tenet founded vpon his owne small authority True it is he produceth diuerse authours for the confirmation of the same alledging them all for Romanists and yet some of them are not so esteemed to be as is manifest in Cassander and Agrippa which the Roman Church houlds not for her true children but rather for illegitimate Be citeth also Ioannes Ferus who altho' he was at the lest once a Romanist whatsoeuer he was afterwardes yet there haue beene noted in his workes diuerse ill sounding propositions whether it be for that his bookes haue beene corrupted by the sectaries of these times as by some editions of his workes may be iustly suspected or whether it be that the man was something more rash in his assertions then he ought to haue beene But howsoeuer it falleth out with him in that nature yet the place cited out of him by Sir Humfrey if it be rightly vnderstood it proueth no more but that by the priuate abuses and superstitioÌ„s of some particular men many things ordeined by holy men with a good intention haue receiued some accidentall chaunge And although Ferus exemplifieth in the feasts of the Church Ceremonies images Masses monasteries yet certaine it is his meaning was not that all these are either vnlawfull or superstitious or that they are new articles of faith or not to be vsed in the Church of God as the knight and his coÌ„panions would haue theÌ„ to be but onely out of a pious zeale he wished that such abuses might be corrected as he perceiued in his daies to haue crept into the practice and vse of the same which is a thing so farre from Sir Humfreys purpose of prouing an alteration in the Doctrine of auncient tymes as it is both very conformable to reason and allso to the decree of reformation made in the Councell of Trent aboue cited He citeth allso Marius de schis Concil Et Polidore de inuent rerum as speaking of the vncertainty of the entrance into the Church of Priests mariage But this is nothing to the purpose the knight heere treateth For how I pray you doth this proue that there are errours of faith in the RomaÌ„ Church whereas the restraint of mariage of Priests it selfe is no article of faith as Sir Humfrey ignorantly supposeth but onely a precept of the Church and a matter of manners and yet in case it were so in it selfe neuerthelesse certaine it is that the question or difficultie about the first begining of the restraint of such onelie the cited authours speake is no matter of faith and consequentlie can be no errour euen in Sir Humfreyes owne false supposition of errours in the Roman Church To omitte that suppose the first begining of the restrainte of marriage in Priests were truelie an article of faith in the Roman Church yet this being but one particular instance or example drawne out of two Romanists onelie it cannot sufficientlie proue that generall position of Sir Humfrey to witte that there was a knowne tyme when those tenets meaning the points of doctrine which the Councell of Trent defined were not certainelie knowne or generallie receiued by the Roman Church since that according to the rules of Logike no generall proposition can be inferred out of a particular and that touching the rest of the articles of the Roman doctrine the reformers are so farre from the assignation of the time of their beginning that Sir Humfrey him selfe euen in this verie place is forced to hould this precise tyme of the beginning of the same to be vnnecessarie to be assigned And altho' by reason that both those authours are ceÌ„sured in the expurgatorie Index we are not bouÌ„de to giue credit vnto them yet this I saye that supposing they are both here produced to testifie that the beginning of the and prohibition of Preists mariage can not be assigned it is rather a great argument that it was appointed by the primatiue Church itselfe then introduced of later yeares Besides this Sir Humfrey doth falsifie Polydor in the place he citeth for he doth not affirme that mariage of Preists was not altogether prohibited til the tyme of Gregorie the 7. but that it could not be taken away till that tyme. Alijs snper alijs promulgatis legibus non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. coniugium adimi occidentalibus sacerdotibus potuit Pol. lib. 5. cap. 4. edit Antuerp 1554. Cassander altho' Romanists esteeme not of his authoritie either pro or contra yet here he is corrupted by Sir Humfrey for companie lest he should laff at his followes where for those wordes non temerè reperies thou shalt not easilie finde he translates was not expresselie defined speaking of the number of the 7. SacrameÌ„ts of which Cassander saith that a man shall not easilie finde anie who haue constituted anie certaine determinate number of Sacraments before Peter Lombard non temerè quenquaÌ„ reperies ante Petrum LombarduÌ„ qui certuÌ„ aliquem
thē if two should argue the one that the colour of the sea water is greene and the other blewe that some ignorant Cockes-come should step in and tell them that it followes on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all Which who so euer should presume to doe he deserued to be soundlie hist at for his audacious follie so doth Sir Humfrey And as for Biell whome the knight cites saying it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament he hath indeed those wordes which are quoted by him tho' not in his 49. as he puts it but in his 40. lection vpon the Canon but yet this his saying is not contrarie to the Romanists who easilie admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christs bodie in the Eucharist is neither expressedlie declared in the Scripture nor yet in all ages and by all authours expressedlie tought in the Church as matter of faith neuerthelesse this authour himselfe in the same place addes in plaine wordes that now that opinion which defendes transubstantiation is receiued by all Catholikes yealding for a reason of the same because saith he we ought to hould of the Sacraments as the holie Roman Church doth hould And afterwards he addes Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holie Fathers we ought to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is in the Sacrament by conuersion of the bread into it we are to fee c. And the like I say of Scotus Yribarne his Scholar who altho' they seeme to diminish the antiquitie of transubstantiation yet their meaning onelie is that it was not in auncient times declaredlie proposed by Publike authoritie of the Church as an article of faith yet both of them expresselie beleeuing and defending the same professedlie as a matter of faith And by occasion of this I desire the reader to take notice that whensoeuer he findes anie Catholike authours to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time their meaning is not that the obiect in it selfe was no matter of faith in anie one time since it was first reueiled by God either expresselie in it selfe or as included in some other veritie but onelie that it was not expresselie and generallie knowne and beleeued for such by all faithfull people by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publikelie vnto them by the Church in anie Generall Councell For that as much as concernes the doctrine in itselfe it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church then it was euen before it was so defined as may appeare in the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his eternall Father in the vnitie of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like which in them selues were reueiled verites and matter of faith euer since the newe Testament and the lawe of Christ was published to the world not obstanding they were not declaredlie and vniuersallie knowne for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene Ephesin Chalcedon Councels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian Nestorian Euthycian heretikes And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this breefe obseruation may suffice to satisfie anie indifferent mynde Nowe as I said of Scotus and Yribarne the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez in his comment vpon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it vpon the first art Of the 15. quest he saith transubstantiation which ther he calles conuersion is not in the Euangell expresselie conuersio non habetur explicitein Euangelio and before he saith we expresselie receiued from the Church that which the Gospell did not explicate Yet afterwardes the same authour expresselie teaches and inculcates that those wordes this is my bodie cause both the reall presence and transubstantiation For thus addes Et perhoc verbae Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scrilicet conuersionis continentiae c. That is And by this because the wordes of Christ this is my bodie doe effect both nouelties videlicet of the conuersion and the containing By which wordes it is manifest what this authours meaning was absolutelie touching the reall presence transubstantiation howsoeuer he spoake of the manner in which it is cōtained in scripture which is not our questiō And in this sense speakes Aliaco when he saith in the place cited by our aduersarie that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remaine still a possible neither it is contrarie to reason nor to the authority of the scriptures c. For he meaneth onely it is not repugnant to anie such expresse scripture as doth conuince the transsubstantiatton plainely to euerie one without the authoritie and declaration of the Church and therfore he addeth if it could stand with the determination of the Church in which Aliaco showes such obedience to the Church as Sir Humfrey and his fellowes obstinately denie vnto her most piously captiuating his vnderstanding euen in that which he held more easie and conformable to reason and scripture according to humaine intelligence and discourse More euer touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl cap. 10. His intent in that place was onely to proue that meerly by the bare wordes of scripture without the traditionarie interpretation of the Fathers no certaintie can be had in questions of controuersie or matters of faith And to proue this which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humfrey and the rest of our nouelists he argueth exhiposthesi or vpon supposition saying that not obstanding it is true and certaine that our Sauiour by vertue of those wordes this is my bodie did make his owne bodie really present in the Sacrament yet if one were obstinate standing preciselie to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers and sense of the Church he might denie that it doth thence followe that in our Masse Prests make really present the bodie of Christ Not meaning to affirme that they doe not in deed for that the rest of his booke doth demonstate him to beleeue the reall presence in Masse especially the fourth chapter but onely intending to declare by examples and reasons that it can not be conuinced that Catholike Prests doe so by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctours of the Church and her infallible authoritie And now this being the true sense of B. Fishers discourse Sir Humfrey verie coningly by leauing out the precedent and subsequent wordes of the authour so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse And that this is the true
you in some points of faith so in like manner might we deduce a proofe of the greater saftie of our way from the certaintie of those points of faith in which you agree with vs all which is but nugatorie friuolous absurd in regarde that as a parte ad totum from a parte to the whole no lawfull deduction can be made so neyther can it be inferred that because one parte of the obiect of a mans faith is true therefore the whole obiect of is faith is true by reason that notobstanding one parte of the obiect be true yet there may be in the whole obiect or matter trueth falsitie mixed together of which we haue instāces both in diuine humane matters And more then this Sir Humfrey must giue vs licence to tell him that he was to forward in the proofe of his tenet For before he went aboute to proue his way to be safer then ours he ought first to haue conuinced his owne way to be a true perfect way not to haue giuen his reader a parte for the whole by a false Senecdoche or contrarie to the Grammer rules to obtrude vpon him a comparatiue without a positiue that is a safer way were no way is to be found at all or at the least no safe intyre way And yet more ouer it is to be obserued that besides those positiue points of doctrine in which he sayth that both partes agree there be also diuers negatiues which they quite distinguish one from an other which negatiues neuerthelesse are parte of the reformers faith as well as their positiue doctrine so in this parte of their Creed they stand single as well as we consequentlie if standing single as he auerreth or at the least supposeth doth hinder the safetie of our way the same effect it must of necessitie haue in theirs according to this ground of Sir Humfreys it is manifest that the reformers can neuer haue the safer way till we ioyne with them in euerie point thereof by that meanes to hinder their single standing which yet we assure our selues will neuer come to passe except God almightie reduce them to vs from whome they once departed as we greatlie desire daylie praye And according to this wee may breeflie ansere to all the rest of the instances which the knight produceth And so we Romanists confesse we stand with the reformers in the affirmation of heauen hell but we stand not with them in the deniall of Purgatorie limbus We stand with them in the affirmation of the merits and satisfactions of Iesus Christ But we stand not with them in the negation of the merits satisfactions of those that liue in the grace of God by the virtue of the same the cooperation of their owne free will performe good workes of charitie mercie iustice the like houlding for certaine with S. Augustin that he who created vs without vs will not saue vs without vs yet further assuring our selues that God doth not operate with bests men both in one manner We stand with them in the defence of Baptisme Eucharist so farre as they Orthodoxlie maintainte them but we stand not with them in the impugnation of the other fiue Sacraments We stand with them in that they affirme that the images of Christ his Saints are ornaments memorialls of the absent but we stand not with them in their denyall of due honour to be exhibited vnto them for the great loue reuerence we beare to Christ his Saints We stand with them in the defence of the diuine worship of God but we stand not with them in the denyall of intercessiue inuocation honour of his Saints We stand with them in that Christ is the prime mediator betwixt God man but we stand not with thē in their denyall of the secondarie mediators or intercessors which are his seruants frends We stand with them in that Christ is head Monarch of the whole Church triumphant militant but we stand not with them in their denyall of the visible Vicarious head the Pope or cheefe pastour of the visible Church in earth subordinate subiet to Christ in the gouernement of the same We will not refuse to stand with them in that they graunt that S. Peter had a Primacie of Order but we stand not with then in that they denie his Primacie of power Iurisdiction We stand with them in that they teach there are 22. bookes of Canonicall scripture but we stand not with them in the refusall of the booke of Tobie Iudith two first bookes of Machabees the booke of wisdome Esdras Baruch the Prophet We stand with thē in that they affirme the scripture is the rule of faith But we stand not with them in their denyall of diuine traditiōs not properly added to the scriptures but commended by them included in them in a general manner We stand with them in that they say there are twelue articles of the Creed But we stand not with them in their denyall of the rest of the doctrine defined in generall Councells as neither doe we ioyne with them in the defence of all the 39. Articles of the English faith or Creed And so now by these particulars the iudicious reader may euidentlie perceiue that by reason the Romanists agree with the knight onelie in some parte or partiall of his doctrine he could not possible proue by their confessions the greater safetie of his way as both in the title of this his last section also in the title of his whole booke he did propose Nay he is so farre from the proofe of this that he hath most apparentlie fayled in the proofe of the verie argument of his whole worke which to the end it may more plainelie appeare I will reduce to this Sylogisme That faith is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith which is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther But the faith now professed in the Church of England is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther Therefore the faith now professed in the Church of England is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith Now there being contained in the minor of this Sylogisme the whole argument purpose drift of Sir Humfreys whole booke yet neuerthelesse it hauing ben by mee in this my censure demonstrated not to haue ben proued and made good by anie argument by him produced all he produceth to that purpose being voyde of force as by the discussion of the particulars of euerie section the reader may easilie vnderstand it followeth by a necessarie sequele that his way can not be safe but is to be auoyded with most great care circumspection
as a false erroneous path by all those that tender the safetie of their soules eternall Saluation And thus hauing now resolued the man into his principles or prime matter I meane into the dust ashes which he casteth in his reader eyes hauing passed throu ' all the passages of his imaginarie safe way I haue founde it shewed it to be no way at all but an intricate diuerticle or obscure path leading pore distressed trauellers quite out of the true royall street with an impossibilite euer to come to the end of their iourney that is to the true ancient Catholike faith which faith altho' the knight both in the title of his booke in diuers other places of it hath seriouslie promised to shew it to be the same which is now professed in England euen by the confession of the Romanists yet haue I made it manifest that no true Romanist that is no authour which is acknowledged by the Roman Church for a member of the same did either in generall or in particular euer confesse the foresaid faith of England to be the ancient Catholike faith or that did euer absolutelie in the same sense in which the reformed Churches doe defende anie one article of the pretensiue reformed doctrine in matter of faith or generallie defined manners In regard of which because my cheefe intent was when I first resolued to vndertake this busines out of a tender compassion to free the readers from the great generall delusion which I vnderstood this pamphlet of Sir Humfreys had caused or might hereafter cause in the myndes of manie especiallie the more vnlearned sorte of people altho' in verie truth in itselfe it containeth nothing worth the labour of a scholler I doe now aduertice them as they esteeme the saftie of their soules to beware of it as of a shop of most deceitelie poysonous drugges of which they cā not safety taste without an antidote I meane the illiterate or vnexperienced persons in this kynde of studie can not securelie reade the the booke except with all they view the aduerse parte so by detection of the authours fraudes couning deceipts they behould the truth discouered which otherwise as being most subtillie inuolued mixed by him with abundance of plausible vntruthes equiuocations false suppositions Sophismes can hardlie be founde out euen by those of greater learning capacitie then ordinarilie the laytie vse to be And as for Sir Humfrey him selfe altho' I haue smale hope of his reclamation in regard of the great arrogācy which I perceiue in him as being mightily blinded with the vanity of his owne conceite If truly the worke is this yet will I not omit to crie a loude vnto him with the sacred psalmist vtinam saperet intelligeret ac nouissima prouideret would to God he would seriously consider that there will come a time when his booke shall passe a farre more strict examen sentence of condemnation then here it hath passed or can possible passe in this mortall life And yet if perhaps he findes in the answere of it any more sharpe or vnpleasing speaches then he would willingly heare I earnestly intreate him to account them not as spoken against his person but precisely as he is infected with the spirituall plague of schisme heresie and as whose conuersion to the most vniuersally florishing Church an faith notobstanding whatsoeuer wordes haue passed in heate of disputation I earnestely desire praye for And with this desire affection I commend him to the infinit goodnesse mercy of allmightie God THE ROMANISTS AGREE WITH S. AVgustin in the diuision of the Commaundements In his 71. question vpon the booke of Exodus and in his 119. epistle to Ianuarius he diuideth them in this manner 1. THou shalt haue no other Gods but me 2 Thou shalt not take the name of God in vaine 3. Thou shalt sanctifie the sabboth 4. Honor thy Father thy mother 5. Thou shalt not kill 6. Thou shalt not commit adulterie 7. Thou shalt not steale 8. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse against thy neighbour 9. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbours wife 10. Thou shalt not desire any of thy neighbours goods The Romanists in their briefe Catechismes for children commonly rehearse them thus 1. THou shalt haue no other Gods but me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of God in vaine 3. Remember to sanctifie the Sabbaoth day 4. Honore thy ffather thy mother 5. Thou shalt not kill 6. Thou shalt not commit adulterie 7. Thou shalt not steale 8. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse against thy neighbour 9. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbours wife 10. shalt not desire thy neighbours goods The misreformers diuision of the Commaundements is this THou shalt haue no other Gods but me Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image c. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine c. Remember that thou keepe holy the Sabbath day c. Honor thy father thy mother c. Thou shalt doe no murther Thou shalt not commit adultery thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not beare false witnesse Against thy neighbour Thou shalt shalt not couet thy neighbours house thou shalt nor couet thy neghbours wife nor his seruant nor his made nor his oxe nor his asse nor any thing that is his In this diuision they dissent both frome S. Augustin the scriptures as appeareth by their Catechismes publissed euer since the change of Religion in England From S. Augustin in that they put for the second Commaundement thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image where as hee on the contrary in his epistle to Ianuarius expressely putteth not for the second but for the first Commaundement these wordes Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any idol They dissent alsoe from the scripture both in that those wordes which they put for the second Commaundement the scripture setteth them downe in the very same tenor continuation of style with those which according to both parties is the first Commaundement to wit Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me adding alsoe one the same punishment after that which the Reformers will needs haue to be an other Commaundement which yet if they were distinct commandemēts they should rather haue had distinct punishments assigned them seuerally As also secondly because in the text of Exodus out of which the reformers rehearse their Commaundements the words are not as they corruptedly translate relate them Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image but thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing Which is yet more plainely explicated in the fourth of the Deut. to be vnderstood not so that there ought not any grauen similitude to be made but that ther ought not anie to be made of those things which God prohibited especially supposing that the Deuteronomie as the word it selfe doth signifie is an exacte explication
Sacraments yet doth she not confesse that there are onely two Sacraments instituted by Christ as the reformers professe but houldeth and beleeueth fiue more as well as those two to haue beene instituted by Christ which fiue being denyed or at the least three or foure of them both by Luther and the rest of the pretended reformers and on the contrary hauing beene receiued for Sacramēts in aūcient times as afterwards shall be declared the deniers of thē whosoeuer they be cannot rightly claime either antiquity of vniuersality of doctrine in that particular And the same may be said for the same reason of the 22. bookes of Scripture and the seuen first generall Councells in the which he faith of the reformers is neither aunciēt nor vniuersall first for that they hould those twenty two bookes for canonicall Scripture exclude all the rest out of the canō which neuerthelesse as appeareth by the testimony of S. Augustin herecited in the margē Totus autem canon Scripturarum in quo istam considerationē versandam dicimus his libris continetur Quinque Moyses c. Tobias Hester Iudith Machabeorū libri duo Esdrae duo Et postea Nam illi duo libri vnus qui sapientiae alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur nam Iesus filius Sciach eos scripsisse constātisse perhibetur qui tamē quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerūt inter propheticos numerādi sunt Aug. l. 2. de docti Christiana c. 8. were also canonicall in the auncient Church And secondly because they receiue but onely foure of those seuen generall Councels which neuerthelesse Sir Hūfrey himselfe here confesseth to haue beene genenerall by giuing them all that title as well as the four first To omit other generall Councels which he his brothers violently reiect And now touching Apostolicall traditions Sir Humfrey doth no lesse plainely Sophisticate then in the former points for that it is well knowne that the reformers either hould no traditions at all to be beleeued but rely wholy vpon pure or sole Scripture as the totall rule of their faith or if they hould any traditiōs to be necessary yet do not they hould all those which the auncient now the moderne Roman Church doth hould and consequently their manner of houlding Apostolicall traditions is in words onely and hath no true discent from the Apostles nor any vniuersality or antiquity at all as neither hath their booke of common prayer manner of ordination and vocation of Ministers or Pastours and so altho' they haue some parte both of the auncient liturgie and also of the Apostolicall māner of ordination yet because they doe not wholy agree with them no not in the substance and essentiall parts of the action that is to say not in the consecration of the Eucharist nor in the essentiall forme and matter of order which are the wordes and imposition of hands they are defectiue in the antiquity and vniuersality of the same in regard that the manner and forme of prayer and administrations of Sacraments which the reformed Churches vse at this present is different from that of the auncient Church neuer knowne nor heard of in former ages but broach by Luther and his sectatours quite contrary to that which the knight affirmeth and indeauoureth to prooue as by comparing their Church seruice their booke of common prayer and of ordination of Ministers with the auncient liturgies as that of Sainct Iames Sainct Basil Sainct Chrisostome and others doth clearely appeare as also by confronting the same with the writings of the auncient Fathers and their formes of administration of Sacraments by which we shall finde a maine difference betwixt the one and the other in regard that in those auncient monuments of antiquitie be founde sacrifice oblation altar incense hoste chalis holy oyle Chrysme and the like But in the forme of seruice and administration of Sacraments vsed now in the pretensiue reformed Churches ther is none of this to be found or hearde By which it may farther appeare that it is no silly or senseles question as our aduersarie would haue it to demaunde of the reformers where their Church was before Luther Because it hath nowe beene made manifest that allthough some parte of their doctrine that I meane in which they and the Romanists agree hath both vniuersality and antiquity if it be considered in it selfe yet diuerse other points of it hath neither the one nor the other That which cannot be found in the doctrine of the Romā Church for that allthough it is true that some parte thereof was not expressely definde as matter of faith before the tyme of the later Councells and sectaries who by their defection from the euer succeeding Roman Church and their new errours gaue occasion of new declarations of some particular points yet were those neither new in them selues nor first broached taught by the foresaid councells but onely they by their authority determined established for certaine doctrine that which diuerse nouellists presumptuously brought in question the same neuerthelesse in all the ages before Luther hauing bene both aunciently and vniuersally tought or at the least by many doctours of the Church with out contradiction of the rest or perhaps if anie were of a different opinion it was because matters were not then so plainely declared by the Church and vnder her correction And so the question proposed by the Romanists to the reformers can neither be rightly detorted vpon them as the knight vainely auerreth nor yet can the reformers euer be able to answer it as plainely appeareth both by that with hath beene allready said as allso by the doctrine of their 39. articles diuerse of which are not onely new in themselues and neuer heard of in auncient tymes but allso expressely broached by Luther himselfe and that not only in negatiue but allso in some positiue doctrine as is euident particularly in the point of iustisicatiō by faith alone And hence allso it is manifestly inferred how vntruely the knight affirmeth in his 77. page that noe Romanist can deny but that the doctrine of the reformers lay inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church as corne couered with chaffe or gould with drosse for neither is it true that either all the doctrine of the reformers hath beene in the Church before Luther as I haue showed nor yet that any Romanist euer affirmed the same so S. Hūfrey deliuereth two falsities vnder one forme of speech continuing the same for the space of a whole leafe grounding his discourse vpō false suppositions equiuocatiōs promising to produce testimonies of his aduersarie the Romanists for the antiquity and vniuersalitie of the protestāt faith he meanes the Puritan faith in generall yet produceth not one for the same excepting Pope Adrian the 6. and Costerus and D. Harding in Iewell none of which three authours proue S. Humfrey intent Costerus and Harding onely speaking of one or two
Fathers agree euer actually with her in euery point as it is most cleare in the auncient Father Sainct Cyprian and yet more cleere in Tertullian and origen who by reason of some points of doctrine which either were not in their time sufficiently and expresselie determined by the Church or of which they had not occasion to treate may seeme in some sorte to dissent from the present Church euen in such doctrine as now is knowne and beleeued for matter of faith euen by the nouelists themselues as appeares in the point of rebaptization defended by S. Cyprian his adherēts in those times Which if it were not so its euident that the reformers were yet in farre worse case then either the Romanists should be vpon that supposition or then now they are if in worse they can be imagined to be whoe neither haue nor euer can haue any kinde of vniuersalitie or ātiquity of Fathers either metaphisicall or morall on their side And now this being all in substance are rather more then those three cited authours affirme it hence appeereth how smale reason Sir Hum. had to cite them in his fauour especiallie considering that one of them that is Alfonsus a Castro doth onely say that there is seldome mention made of transubstantiation in the Fathers not denying as it is manifest their agreement in that point but rather insinuating their consent therein tho' not so frequentlie expressed Furthermore the knigth addeth for the conclusion of this pointe that many writers and schoole men in their owne Church are so farre from graūt of antiquity vniuersalitie to this doctrine that they professe the tenet of transubstantiation was latelie receaued in the Church for a point of faith And for this he citeth Scotus as affirming that before the councell of Lateran transubstantiation was not beleeued as a point of faith and that the doctrine of it is not verie auncient in the Church Thus Sir Humfrey Tho which I answer that all tho' Bellarmin affirmes that Scotus sayde transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the councell of Lateran yet I finde he speakes not so absolutely but at the most he saith it was not solēnly declared as an article of faith before that Coūcell not denying but that it minght be also declared in other particular coūcels as in deed it was declared by the Roman coūcell vnder Nicolas the secōd aboue a hundreth fifty yeeres before and more expressely in another Roman councell vnder Gregorie the seuenth yea and maintained in the Church time out of minde Neuerthelesse by way of argument I am content to graūt to the aduersaries that which Bellarmin affirmes of Scotus Et tunc ad tertium vbi stat vis dicendum quod Ecclesia declarauit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo simbolo edito sub In. 3. in Consilio Later vbi ponitur veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quam habeantur in simboloo rum vel Atha vel Nyceni breuiter quicquid ibi dicitur esse credēdum tenendum est esse de Substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationē solemnem factam ab Ecclesia Paulo post Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectū à Deo traditum Ecclesia declarauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 in resp ad arg yet not withstanding this liberall graunt I doe affirme with all that our Church wanteth neither antiquitie nor vniuersality either in this or any other point of her doctrine and the reason is because allthough some points of her faith were not in all ages and times knowen expresselie for articles of faith yet were they in themselues such indeede and for such beleeued with an implicite faith at the least that is with such a faith as all conteined in the worde of God is belieued by all true Catholikes as an infalible trueth altho' no one particular were knowne vnto them For as it is most certaine that euery faithfull Christian which cannot reade beleeueth many things conteined in scrpture with be knoweth not in regard that altho' he is ignorant of them in particular yet in that he belieueth all that they include he allso belieueth truely euen those particular trueths which he knoweth not so allso it is certaine that euery faithfull Christian beleeuing vniuersally all that which the word of God conteines hath an vniuersall faith of whatsoeuer points of doctrine either was is or shall be declared for matters of faith by the most vniuersall Church in any difference of time and consequently he hath as ancient and vniuersall a faith of those particular points so declared as he hath of those which euen both in the Apostles time in all succeding ages were expressely knowne for articles of faith to all the Christian world And let this suffice to declare that noe point of doctrine definde by the most vniuersall Church as matter of faith conteined in the worde of God can truely be tearmed new but hath as much antiquity and vniuersality as the greatest mysterie of the Christiā faith also that if any noueltie it hath it is onely in the declaration of it quoad nos that is in respect of that new or expresse knowledge which we receiue of it by the proposition of the holy Church Which infalible manner of arriuing to a new knowledge of matters of faith because the sectaries neither haue it nor admitte it it necessarily followes that whatsoeuer doctrine they discouer in these later times must of necessity want both the foresaid properties of antiquitie and vniuersality as we haue declared in regarde they can not show as much as an implicite perpetuallie succeeding faith in the articles they haue newly broched Sir Hūfrey further more citeth allso Hostiensis and Gaufridus out of Durand in 4. d. 10. q. 1. n. 23. whoe as he affirmeth saith there were others in those daies whoe taught that the substance of bread remaines and that their opinion was not to be reiected so the knight relateth But how false and corrupted this relation is I know out of Durand himselfe for that I finde in his 10. d. of the 4. of sent q. 1. n. 15. that this passage cited by him is neither Durandes owne doctrine nor yet theirs whome he cites aboute it but onely related by them and taken out of them by Durand to frame his obiection in the begining of his question as he vseth to doe which he afterwardes solues in plaine termes saying in his 25. number Quod ante inducitur de Glossatoribus Gaufrido Hostiense super decreta dicendum quod licet recitent tres opiniones nullam tamen approbant vt veram nisi illam quod corpus Christi sit in altari per transsubstantiationem panis vim si expresse non dicunt aliquam aliam erroneam non propter hoc non est erronea non
enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius And thus the busines being well examined I say no more but that I ame sorie the worthy knight should be so vnfortunate as to stumble vpon the obiection in lue of the doctrine of the author himselfe How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion that I doe not much admire the case The same Durand is alsoe abused by the knight in regarde he produces him to proue that the Roman diuines are diuided in their opinions touching transsubstantiation which neuerthelesse I haue showed by his owne words how plainelie he maintaines it And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirme of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is hereticall touching the maine point of transsubstantiation but onely because by a singular opiniō he houldes that onely the forme of bread and wine and not the matter is conuerted in to the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which altho' it be false yet doth not the author therfore make anie doubt of transsubstantiation it selfe and so this is an other of Sir Hūfreyes trickes by which he cousens his reader and iniureth both these diuines at once But put the case Durand were truely cyted yet I say as I said before that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquitie or vniuersalitie either of the doctrine of transsubstantiation or any other point of faith And if the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humfrey will haue it it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their cappes at it for any such they should euer be able to finde in their reformed congregations it being now euident out of the examen and censure of the former sections that to speake within compasse they haue not I doe not say the tenth parte in number of the auncient Fathers for the proose of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of their whole Creede which the Romanists haue for theirs but not so much as one onely authour before Luther which truely cited and vnderstood doth defend their doctrine in all and euery particular pointe And according to this I answer also to the testimonie of B. Tunstall whom the kinght citeth as houlding the point of transubstantiation to haue bene a matter of indifferencie and not an article of faith within lesse then fiue hundreth yeeres To which I replye first that Sir Humfrey dealeth heere according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie first because he produceth this authours testimonie as if he had bene of opinion that perhaps it had bene better to haue left the doctrine of Transubstantiation vndetermined and free for euery one to vse his owne coniecture as in his Phansie it was before the Councell of Lateran which is most false for that the Bishop doth onely relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not his resolution being in that pointe farre differēt as his booke testifieth in that same place Secondly he dealeth insincerely in that he taketh hould of that onely which maketh for his purpose in some sort but leaueth out not onely that which maketh expressely against him and for the reall presence quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Ecclesiae fides which was the faith of the Church from the beginning but also he leaueth out the very resolution it selfe of the authour in this same pointe of transubstantiation where after the wordes by the knight cited he saith expressely he houldeth it iust for that the Church is a pillar of trueth that her iudgment is to be obserued as throughly firme Adding further that those who contend that that manner of transubstantiation ought to be reiected meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth because the worde is not found in scripture nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt Quasi vero saith hee Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset cuius omnipotentiae spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione videntur By which plaine wordes of this learned Bishop the reader may plainely see how deceiptfullie he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight Secondly I answer that how indifferent soeuer the doctrine of transubstantiation might seeme to our aduersarie to haue beene before the Councell of Latran neuertelesse both this authour and all others truely Catholikes both since and before that councell haold it not for a matter indifferent but for a certaine trueth and verity as appeareth planely by that which hath beene said allready in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which haue in this paragraffe beene produced for the contrary Lastly I answer that there was neuer such indifferēcy in the Romā Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatiō but that so manie authours in all ages folowed the affirmatiue that the reformed flock shall neuer be able to show anie for the negatiue no not one classicall authour He makes vse also of the testimonies of the other Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct Theol. Scholast cap. 11. alib who seeme to say that Christ did not consecrate with those wordes this is my bodie but by his benediction But to these authours I say first that whatsoeuer they held in this particular they all agree in that point which is here in controuersie betwixt Sir Humfrey and the Romanists that is they all accorde and teach the reall presence and transubstantiation and so they are all impertinentlie alledged Secondlie I say that these authours dispute in the places cited onelie by what wordes or action Christ himselfe did consecrate and not of the wordes of Consecration by which the Preists vse to consecrate And altho' they propose a question of this also yet they agree in that the Preists doe consecrate by no other wordes but those This is my bodie That which in durand at the least is most plainelie expressed when in his page 166. he saith Cum ad prolationem verborum istorum hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat d. 11. credibile iudicatur quod Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit By which wordes it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate wordes by which Preists doe consecrate nor yet was of opinion that Christ himselfe did vse anie other how be it he relates an opiniō of some others which thinke that Christ did not consecrate with those same wordes but he saith in the opinion rather of others then himselfe that virtute diuina nobis occulta confecit that he did it by diuine virtue or power himselfe and afterwardes expressed the forme sub
I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authours true sense in which I was forced to inlarge my selfe more then the substance of the matter required the more plainelie to discouer vnto him the fraude of the aduerfarie both in detorting the sense and mangling the tenor or continuation of the text of this most Catholike and renowned Prelate Moreouer Sir Hūfrey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par q. 75. ar 7. as also the Romā Cathecisme at randome as affirming that the substance of the bread remaines till the last worde of the consecration be vttered But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long souer the substance of the bread remaines if at lenght it ceaseth as they both confesse they both agree with vs Romanists and not with the nouellists in the faith of transsubstantiation so professedly that it was more then ordinarie impudencie and madnes once to mentione them for the contrarie Now for cōclusion of the secōd paragraffe of his 9. section Sir Humfrey affirmes in his 115. p. out of Bell and suauez that manie writers in our Roman Church professe the tenet of transsubstantiatien was lately receiued for a point of faith Which affirmation neuerthelesse is not iustifiable but false and calumnious to the authours he cyteth for it videlicet Scotus Durand Tunstal Ostiensis and Gaufridus Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce supposing Erasmus whome he likewise alledgeth is no Romanist in much of his doctrine in what faith soeuer he ended his life of which I am not able to iudge yet none of these Romanists I say euer affirmed the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be no point of faith as I haue aboue sufficiently declared in my answer to euerie one of their testimonies in particular And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alledged by our aduersarie as affirming Scotus to haue said that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not dogmafidei a decree of faith before the Councell of Lateran the other as aduising to haue him and those other schoolemen corrected who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not verie auncient I professe I haue diligentlie read Scotus in this matter and I sinde he onelie saith that what soeuer is auerred to be beleeued in the Councel of the Lateran capite firmiter is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemne declaration yet he in no place hath this negatiue transsubstantiation was not a point of faith before that Councel not obstanding our aduersaries allegation to the contrarie out of the Cardinal who if he conceiued right of his whole discourse could not iudge Scotus to haue absolutelie denyed transubstantiation to haue beene a point of faith in it selfe as Sir Humfrey will haue it but at the most quoad nos or in respect of our expresse and publike faith of the same For that some of Scotus his owne wordes plainelie importe that trāssubstantiatiō is included in the institution of the Eucharist howe be it it was not explicitly or expresselie declared for such in all ages before the solemne declaration as he termeth it made in the Generall Councel of Lateran The wordes of Scotus to this sense and purpose are these Scot. d. 11. q. 3. ad ar Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis That is For it was not in the power of the Church to make this the point of transsubstantiation true or not true but of God the institutour And according to the vnderstanding deliuered by God the Church did explicate it directed as it is beleeued by the spirit of trueth By which ratiocination or discourse of Scotus it is most cleare and apparent that the point of transsubstantiation was in it selfe a matter of faith euer since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ in regarde that it being now a point of faith it must of necessitie in substance haue beene ordained for such by God himselfe for that it is not in the power of the Church to make but onelie to declare and propose to beleeuers the articles of Religion And according to this I say that suarez sauing the due respect I owe vnto them both had yet lesse reason then Bellarmin had concerning Scotus to taxe the same Scotus and some other diuines as if they had tought that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is not verie auncient For neyther Scotus as his wordes which I haue related doe testifie nor anie other approued diuine of the Roman Church doe vse anie such manner of speech or at the least haue no such sense in their wordes as euen by all those their seuerall passages which our aduersarie could alledge doth manifestlie appeare How be it some of them haue not omitted to say that the worde transsubstantiation hath not beene auncientlie vsed in the Church but eyther inuented by the Fathers of the Lateran Councel or not long before or at the most that there haue beene some in the world of a contrarie opinion to the trueth of transsubstantiation in itselfe which altho' we Romanists should graunt to be true yet doth it not argue anie noueltie in the doctrine but rather the nouellitie of some fewe extrauagant wits as heretiks or corrigible Catholikes in opposing the same which otherwise was generallie maintained by the rest of the Orthodox diuines in all succeeding ages the antiquitie of which doctrine euen those same authorities which the same Scotus himselfe professeth to be produced by him out of S. Ambrose Scot. d. 11. quest 3. §. quāt ergo to the number of 11. doe euidentlie conuince yet further adding that manie others are alledged cap. de consecrat and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better haue spared to passe their censures in that manner vpon anie Catholike diuines supposing such reprehensions serue for little or no other vse then to aforde our aduersaries the nouelists newe occasion and matter of contention without eyther necessitie or conueniencie of which the present fact of Sir Humfrey lind euen in this place doth alreadie yealde vs some experience In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might haue saued the labour for that the Romanists hould him absolutely for none of theirs as in like manner neither doe they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which neuertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though onely by waye of omission howbeit in this particular Erasmus onely affirmeth that it was late before the Church definde it which is not contrarie to the certainetie of the doctrine in it selfe but onely a superficiall relation of the time when it was declared expressely for a matter of faith or infalible trueth in
being a matter in this sense either of indifferencie or at the most of greater merit and perfection it might lawfully be altered by an introduction of the contrarie custome or practise of the Church especially the communicating or not communicating of the auditours of euerie Masse being a thing wholelie depending vpon the deuotion of the people themselues Which deuotion although the Church could haue desired it had continued in the same feruour in which it was in those primitiue times neuerthelesse ther was no reason why either she should obledge the people to the same or yet that the Preist for want of deuotion in the people should omitte his owne and cease to exercise so high and profitable a function to the members of the whole Church as is the publique liturgie and common praier of the same And truelie this is a matter so conformable to reason and pietie that if it were not that our aduersaries are quite possessed with a spirit of cōtradiction they would neuer contend so much aboute it as they doe Especially supposing that of all points of controuersie betweene them and vs that is of the least moment and a thing for which they haue the smalest reason to striue as well because they themselues reiect all sorts of Masses as vaine and superstitious whether they be priuate or publique with communion of the people or without as also because euen they themselues after their newe manner celebrate their owne liturgie as they call it oftentimes yea most ordinarily not onely without the comunion of the people but euen with out the comunion of either Priest or clarke as is euident by the most common practise of all the reformed Churches which onely with a drie fothering passe the greater part of the sūdaies of the whole yeere And yet these same Zealous brothers are so Crosse in their proceedinge that they are not ashamed to reprehend in vs the same which they thēselues ordinarily practise in a much worse manner In regard of which preposterous dealing of theirs in my opinion we may not vnaptlie applie vnto them the saying of a certaine ingenious Protestant in his description of a Puritan to wit that they are become so crosse in their teaching that he thinkes verily that if the Roman Church should inioyne the puting on of cleane shirts euery sunday rather then obey her precept they would goe lowsie Ouerb Caract But besides this Sir Humfrey for the proofe of his Irish faith alledgeth scripture out of S. Matth. 26. Marke 14. Luke 22. but the wordes he citeth doe not argue Christs institutiō in both kindes in respect of all sortes of people Accepit Iesus panem benedixit dedit discipulis suis dixit accipite manducate but onely his action manner of administration not his ordination we know as well as the reformers Christ did comunicate his bodie and bloud to all his disciples there present at the institution of the Sacrament euen to the traitour Iudas as many deuines doe hould but we know with all he did not ordeine it so to be administred in all occasions Neither doe we finde one worde of commaund in the whole bible by virtue of which the Priests are inioined to celebrate this misterie alwayes iust in the same manner that Christ did And otherwise if we should be so tied to euery circumstance which Christ himselfe vsed and particularie to giue the communion to all that are present we should be bound to giue it to those also which we know are vnprepared for it nay euen to excommunicated persons and to such traitors as Iudas That which neuerthelesse I persuad myselfe the most pure precisian of them all will scarsely doe though otherwise I hould thē not for very scrupulous in that nature so they know the receiuers to be mēbers of their cōgregation And touching the foresaid citation out of the Euangelists it is to be noted that because Sir Hum. will not haue his reader heare of the consecration of the Sacrament which the reformers neuer vse in their Churches therfore he left out the wordes and he blessed it puting onely the wordes of thākes giuing whereas yet the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both blessing and giuing thankes therefore when our Sauiour multiplied miraculously the fishes Luc. 9. the Euangelist saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he blessed them The knight also citeth a place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. But the Apostle indeed reprehendeth there the fault of the richer Corinthians in that they did exclude or at the least not expect the poorer sorte to eate the vsuall supper with them when they met to gether to receiue the blessed Sacrament but giueth no precept to them that all that are present should euerie time they did meete in the Church actually receiue the communion with the Preist or that the Preist ougth not in anie case to celebrate without a competent number of communicants which is our question in this place but at the most S. Paule there ordaines that when the people comes together to eate either the vsuall and common supper or the bodie and bloude of Christ in the Sacrament they vncharitablie exclude not or preuent one an other but expect and doe it with order and sobrietie and like brethren together without scisme or separation and as Christ himselfe did who imparted his supper most louinglie to his disciples there present without exception of persons to which altho' I admit the same S. Paule in parte alludes in his first verse of this chapter saying be you followers of me as I also of Christ yet not in that sense as if he had persuaded the Corinthians that our Sauiour commaunded that the Eucharist should neuer be celebrated by the Preist alone with our receiuers as our aduersarie foundlie infers for profe of the article he opposeth to the Councell of Trent Neyther is the doctrine of that article in anie sorte fauoured by S. Augustin in his 118. Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey he onelie there affirming at the most that the Apostle speaketh of the Eucharist when he saith those wordes Propter quod fratres cum conuenitis ad manducandum inuicem expectate c. That is in English Therefore my brethren when you come to eate expect one an other c. Which wordes eyther of S. Augustin or those of the Apostle are not contrarie to the celebration of priuate Masses except it be in the imagination of the Nouellists as I haue sufficientlie aboue declared To omit that the greater parte of diuines both auncient moderne expounde not those wordes of S. Paule rather of the Eucharist but of the common supper the trueth of which exposition the text itselfe in my iudgemēt doth plainely conuince Yet not to stand vpon this it is sufficient for the defence of the doctrine of the Councell of Trent in this particular and confutation of the contrarie position that neyther in the cited place of S. Paule nor in anie other place of scripture priuate communion
But I answer that when the knight cited those authours he ought to haue remembred what hee was to proue according to the Irish article which he vndertaketh to defend and according to his owne position viz. That priuate Masse is contrarie to Christs institution and vnlawfull and to be abrogated This then he ought to haue proued if he ment to proue anie thing against the Roman doctrine But in steede of this which he will neuer be able to proue he proueth at the most by the foresaid testimonies onelie that which the Romanists doe not denie to wit that the primatiue Church did practice the administration of the Eucharist to those that were present but he proueth not that either that Church did soe in all occasions nor that she held it necessarie by virtue of anie lawe or institution of Christ and so he laboureth in vaine as well in this as he hath done in other proofes often times before Neither is this present point of Controuersie betwene vs and the reformers about the auncient custome of the primatiue Church concerning the communion of the people present at the Liturgie but whether it is contrarie to Christs institution or commaunde to celebrate priuate masses the affirmatiue of which question excepting Cassander whome I haue alreadie aduertised the reader to be no Romanist nay nor yet Cassander himselfe nor anie one of the cited testimonies doth proue Nay there is not one worde in anie of the places cited touching anie such doctrine or precept of the Primatiue Church but onelie mention is made of the fact of auncient Christians in that particular with an addition of their owne verdit as houlding it for more profitable to the receiuers to communicate at euerie Masse if their deuotion were so much extended as in those more feruorous times of the primatiue spirit it appeeres to haue bene And although not onelie all or most of the authours rehearsed but also the Councell of Trent itselfe doth hould the foresaid practice of the auncient Church to be more fruitefull for the Laytie then the custome of more moderne ages yet doth Sir Humfrey most absurdelie hence inferre either the noueltie of the Roman doctrine or the antiquitie of his owne For that as we haue showed alreadie neither in anie of the cited authours nor in the Councell of Trent it selfe as their wordes doe witnesse is there anie mention of doctrine or precept of the Primatiue Church but onelie of her fact and practice from whence also may most easilie appeere the greate impertinencie of a further illation which the knight doth make concluding the greater fruitfulnes of his owne communion then of ours whereas indeede his being no true communion at all as not containing that which according to the institution of Christ ought truelie and reallie to be in it and so communicated truelie and reallie to the people and not by figure and faith onelie I meane the bodie and bloud of Christ certaine it is that no such inference can be made out of anie comparison made betwene the Catholike communion and his owne in regard there is no true paritie or similitude to be founde in them and moreouer it is so farre from being confessed by the cited authours that the communion of the reformers is more fruitfull then their owne that they teach expresselie that according to the doctrine of the reformed Churches touching the reall presence the receiuers of their Sacrament can receiue no fruite at all And now let this suffice for anser to those authours In generall Yet because it may be my aduersarie will not be satisfied with this generall anser alone as also because I finde he hath vsed not a little of his vsuall proceeding in want of fidelitie in the citation of the authours I ame content to descend to particulars and examen them in order The first the knight cites is Cochlaeus out of Cassander but neither he nor Cassander haue anie thing in that place against priuate Masse but onelie testifie what the custome of the auncient Church was which as I haue alreadie declared is impertinent to this purpose Besides Sir Humfrey translates Cochleus wordes corruptedlie for he doth not say that the holie Goste hath thought vs a remedie against the slouthfulnes of the Preists in celebrating of priuate Masse but he saith the holie Ghost hath inuented and introduced a pious supplie of this negligence by the frequentation of such Masses as Preists celebrate alone So by inuerting the wordes the malitious knight imposeth vpon the Preists onely for a faulte that which Cochleus calles a remedie prouided by the holie Gost to supplie the faulte of the lesse deuoute sorte of people as well as the defect of the Preists Which defect neuerthelesse Chocleus placeth not in their slouthfulnesse in celebrating priuate Masses but in not exhorting the laytie to communicate at euerie Masse as his wordes sufficiently declare In the second place he cites Durand mymatensis who as speaking onelie of the custome of the auncient Church and consequentlie not against the Romanists yet he corruptes him both in that for Domino dicente he translates according to Christs commaunde as also by leauing out his insuing wordes which declare the reason of the alteration of that auncient custome Sed excrescente fidelium multitudine traditur institutum vt tantum Dominicis diebus communicarent Durand rat lib. 4. c. 53. But the multitude of beleeuers increasing it is deliuered vnto vs to haue beene instituded that they should communicate onelie on sundayes Odo vpon the Canon doth not disproue priuate Masse but onelie relates the different customes of the Church in different times Cum primitus missae sine collecta non fierent postea mos inoleuit Ecclesiae solitarias maxime in Caenobijs fieri missas d. 2. in Can. circa init The same I say of Belethus yet Sir Humfrey omits the rest of his wordes As he did in the testimonie of durand Hugo in spec In the testimonie of Card. Hugo who witnesseth onelie the same in substance he addes the worde together which is not in the text to mend his ill market also letting slip some of his wordes which denote the cause of the change of the auncient vse which are these Initio nascentis Ecclesiae Christiani qui celebrationi Missae ad erant post acceptam pacem cōmunicare solebant Durantus de rit cap. 58. Sed propter peccatum circumstans nos statutum est vt communicaremus terin anno solum But by reason of sinne compassing vs about saith Hugo it was determined that we should communicate onelie thrise a yeare And in the next allegation of Tolosanus who sayth no other then the rest he translates mysterie for Masse In the citation of Mycrologus the craftilie omits iuxta antiquos Canones And for ante oblationem he translates before cōmunion because he will not haue his reader to heare that either the communion of the people in euerie Masse might seeme to be an
meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstāding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was boūd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questiō diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knowē for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all Christiās but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of Trēt and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the Romā Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of
the mouth of two or three witnesses euerie worde may stand And so suppose it were true that S. Chrysostome sayd iust that which Sir Humfrey would haue him yet is not one testimony enuffe to conuince an aduersary thus much I say for as much as concerneth the point of controuersie it selfe of the all sufficiencie of scripture But because the knight may say this is not that which he intendeth directlie in this place but onelie to conuince that Bellarmin hath eluded the foresayd testimonie therefore I answere secondlie that Sir Humfrey needed not to haue gone to Bellarmin's Chronologie for the censure of the foresaid worke for he might haue founde it more plainelie censured before in his controuersies as appeareth lib. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto the 11. chapter Where the Cardinall hath these wordes But this testimonie is not of Chrysostome but of the author of the imperfect who was either an Arian or certainlie his booke was corrupted by the Arians in manie places Thus Bellarmin Shewing the corruptions by two seuerall instances taken out of the worke it selfe where he speaketh against the Homousians that is against the Christians of the Catholike Church to which he giueth that name because they defended beleeued the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his Father yet it s well knowne that sainct Chrysostome neuer eyther writ or spoake against the Homousians as being one of them himselfe a professed enimie to their aduersaries the Arians And hence it is plaine that Bellarmin had reason to censure that worke not to acknowledge it for S. Chrysostomes as Sir Humfrey would haue it except he would haue condemned that glorious Doctour of the Church for an Arian heretike as the reformed brothers must of necessarie consequence doe if they will haue him to be the authour of that vnperfect treatise Neyther did yet Bellarmin taxe it for that sentence which the knight alledgeth out of it as hee craftilie falselie insinuates but for other erroneous doctrine which it containeth which is no more contrarie to anie article of the Roman faith if it be trulie vnderstood then it is to the faith of the reformers except perhaps they be nearer in some points of their doctrine to the Arians then the Romanists bee whoe quite deteste abhorre the same Which I leaue to their owne consciences to determin For altho' the Romanists denie that the sole scripture pure text of the bible is sufficient to determin all controuersies doubts in doctrine or māners yet they doe not denie but that the sole scripture doth sufficientlie declare the most greatest parte of the doctrine necessarie to saluation particularlie they graunt that the true Church may be sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture truelie expounded which is the verie same that the authour of the imperfect affirmeth in the foresayd wordes Neyther is it all one to affirme that the Church is knowne onelie by scriptures to affirme that the scripture onelie hath all sufficiencie as Sir Humfrey doth falselie suppose when he vseth the first proposition taken out of the author of the Imperfect as a medium to proue the second which is his owne position because to know the Church onelie is not all the doctrine which the scripture containeth as necessarie to saluation but onelie a parte of the same so it is cleare that how true soeuer it be that the church is knowne by scripture onelie yet cā it not be thēce inferred that all the doctrine of the Church necessarie to saluation is sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture except out of the pregnance of his wit extrauagant skill in logique the knight can inferre an vniuersall proposition out of a particular which I know he can no more performe then he can extract by arte two oysters out of one apple And thus we see that Sir Humfrey hath not proued by the exception of Bellarmin against the foresaid treatise that either the Roman Church or Romanists haue eluded their recordes or reall proofes of Fathers touching the question of all sufficiencie of scripture for that the sentence thence produced proueth no such thing And consequentlie there was no necessitie that Bellarmin should indeuour to infringe the authoritie of the whole worke for such a testimonie drawne out of it as is not contrarie to the Roman faith neither can it with anie coulour be imagined that the Cardinall would euer haue layde his censure vpon the same if it had not ben faultie in greater matters Secondlie Sir Humfrey produceth saint Augustin touching the deniall of honour of Saints where he sayth that manie are tormented with the diuell who are worshipped by men on earth And whereas Bellarmins answere according to Sir Humfreys relation is that peraduenture it is none of Augustins that sentence the honest knight as if Bellarmin were all the Romanists that euer writ or spoake maketh a generall interrogatorie saying what say the Romanists to this As if that which one onelie priuate man speaketh in a priuate matter were to be accounted the voyce of all men of his profession And yet Bellarmin doth not onelie adde more in his ansere yea much more to the purpose which not withstanding our braue Sir Sycophant very slylie omittes viz. that he could not finde those wordes in S. Augustin but also addeth three other principall anseres to the same obiection And so it appeareth that insteed of proofe that Bellarmin eludeth the recordes of S. Augustin the elusorie knight eludes both Bellarmin his reader egregiouslie by deceitfullie omitting that which both iustified the Cardinalls proceeding also declared the true meaning of the place cited in sainct Augustins name Thirdly he taxeth Bellarmin stapleton for saying that S. Augustin was deceiued or committed a humane errour in his interpretation of those wordes super hanc Petram caused by the diuersitie of the Hebrewe Grek Latin tongue which either he was ignorant of or marked not But I ansere first that what soeuer error S. Augustin might commit in this matter certaine it is that it was onelie aboute the interpretation of those wordes Math. 16. thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church For touching Sainct Peters supreme authoritie in it selfe which is that our irreligious aduersarie intendes cheefelie to diminish in this occasion it is most apparent that S. Augustin stronglie maintaines it in his second of Baptisme cap. 1. saying Quis nesciat illum Apostolatus Petri principatum cuilibet Episcopatui esse praeferendum That is who can be ignorāt that Principalitie or soueraintie of Peters Apostolate is to be preferred before anie Episcopate or Bishoprike And in his 15. sermon of the saints he speakes yet more plaine to this purpose affirming that our sauiour did nominate S. Peter for the foundation of the Church ideo digne fundamentum hoc Ecclesia colit supra quod Ecclesiastici officij altitudo consurgit And therefore saith S. Augustin the Church deseruedlie honoreth this
their censure is onely conditionall or a generall abstractiue manner It is trrue he graunteth that some of his doctours affirme that a Papist may be saued but he deliuereth his owne glosse vpon it saying it is ment onelie by inuincible ignorance so by his owne commētarie he corrupted the whole text And if this be the best construction his charitie can afford wee will thanke him for it as much is it deserueth Neuerthelesse it is no matter what either Sir Hūfrey or his fellowes say in this point wee esteeme not so much of there iudgements as to frame out of them anie rule for the safe way of saluation for this rule wee had long before their Church was built wee had it frome the way maker him selfe And I tell you by the way Sir Humfrey that if any of your Church be saued in the manner I haue declared in the begining of this Period they are absolutely said to be saued in our Church not in yours thoguh exteriorlie they liue dye in yours And so to conclud if you will not permit the Romanists to drawe an argument from the confession of some of your authours but will needs affirme with your greatest doctour Arch Puritan whitaker that vpon his worde ther is not one Papist to be founde in Heauen I for my parte vpon condition you brag not of a victorie as you vse to doe I will not contend with you but as in a matter neither of faith nor yet of anie great consequence supposing your owne peruerse glosses I leaue you to your owne sense as also I doe those Romanists whoe vsed that argument against some of their aduersaries THE XVII PERIOD SIr Humfrey hath played the Iacke so long that in this his last section he playeth Iacke on both sides telling vs in the title that he intendeth to showe that the Protestant religion is safer by the confession of both parties that is both of Romanists Reformers But I knowe not to what end he made this section except is was onely to make the number of his sections euē for I finde nothing in it but a new repetitiō of old matters so oftē alredy inculcated that my eares are wearie to heare them And if Sir Humfrey was disposed to playe in the number he ought rather to haue made choise of the od nūber thē of the euen as being in the Poets opiniō more pleasing to God Deus numero inpare gaudet But let this passe for how soeuer hee doth I for my parte desire not to stand vpon numbers but vpon substance If he had brought either newe matter or at the least some new proofe of the old it might perhaps haue ben worth the labour to examen it but I finde onely old matter newe equiuocations sleights falsities these onely I will breefely discusse But the whole drift of the knight in this his last sectiō is as he saith him selfe to make good the title of his booke which is that therfore hee his fellowes are in the safer way because quotteth he the Romanists agree with vs in the principall points of doctrine because that is the safer way wherin differing partes ioyne both in one this I hould to be the substance of his whole discourse if anie ther were to be founde in it First therefore he telleth vs great newes to wit that there is a Heauen a hell in the beleefe of which sayth hee wee both agree thence he concludeth that this is the safer way because both sides ioine in it But this if you marke it is meere Sophistrie for in stead of a whole way both in this particular and in the rest of the points of controuersie he passeth throu ' in this section he sheweth but a peece of a way The whole way which he ought to shewe in this one point is the reformers beleefe of heauen hell their denyall of Purgatory limbus Now Sir Humfrey putteth in truly the first parte of his way to wit the reformers beleefe of heauen hell how true this is I knowe not but he leaueth out deceitfullie the second parte of the way viz. the Reformers beleefe in the denyall of Purgatorie Limbus so as I sayd before in stead of the whole way he sheweth but a peece which peece altho' it be supposed to be neuer so safe yet it will not serue the turne to bring a man to his iourneys end nor yealdeth him anie more certaintie or saftie in his way then he that should tell one who is vpō his iourney to yorke that his safest way is to goe from London to Islinton there should leaue him to shifte for himselfe for his directions in the rest of the way in which case certaine it is the traueller should be little or nothing obledged to him who shewes him that parte of the way onelie which all the world knoweth And the trueth is that Sir Humfrey argueth in this whole matter as if he should say of himselfe his fellow reformers we the Turkes agree in the creed of one God differ in the beleefe of Christ the Messias therefore it is the safer way to beleeue onelie in one God in which wee all agree then to beleeue in God Christ too in which wee stand single Euen so concludeth the knight of the faith of Purgatorie Limbus the rest of the points in controuersy which he particularizeth in the discourse of this section arguing no otherwise then in this absurde manner Neyther is it ô Sir Humfrey our standing single by our selues or double with you that eyther maketh or marreth either the faith of Purgatorie or anie other article of the Roman doctrine as you falselie fallaciouslie suppose in your argument But scriptures generall Councells Fathers the authoritie of the most vniuersall Church are the pilars vpon which the house of our faith is built And as for your ioyning with vs in anie one article or els in the generall assertion of some of your authours that wee may be saued in our Church how soeuer it may seeme to some to be a confirmation of our faith yet it is not anie parte of the foundation of our faith but onelie a kynde of morall argument or motiue that we are in the safer way because euen some of our aduersaries themselues hould we may be saued in it But yet as this alone if otherwise we did faile in the true grounds of our faith themselues can not be a sufficient proofe that we are in the safer way then you so ought it not to be a sufficient proofe that you are in the safer way because we agree with you in some parte of your doctrine Especiallie considering you faile in the cheefe grounds of your faith as hath ben shewed partelie in my this cēsure partelie by other Catholike diuines in their seuerall workes And if anie argument for the greater safetie of your way could be drawne from our agreement with
Cipher to increase the number He begins with a great commendation of the scriptures because he would seeme to say some thing plausible to the common people but I knowe none make lesse estimation of thē in reallitie then he his consorts who tye them like a nose to the grindestone to the interpretation of those priuate spirits who haue walked with in the compasse of a hundred yeeres or little more rather then to the consent of all succeeding ages since they firste were penned And I pray you what is this preamble to the purpose of prouing the Roman faith not to haue binne taught by the ancient Fathers or the primitiue Church the knight produceth certaine places out of sainct Augustine Ambrose to proue that they preferred scriptures before the writings of the Fathers that they appealed from them to scriptures but what Romanist in the world denyeth that the scriptures haue incomparable preheminence aboue all other writings whatsoeuer or what Roman Catholike doth not willinglie graunt that when the scriptures are plaine the doctrine of the Fathers obscure or doubtfull prouocation from them to the scriptures is rightlie made But that euen in such cases as the Fathers doe vniformlie agree in matter of faith or generallie receaued practise of the Church it is vsuall lawfull to appeale from them to scriptures especiallie when they are not plaine manifest this I say neyther those holie Fathers produced by the knight did euer teach neyther can anie reason be found to proue it but rather it is cleerlie against all reason as opening the by-way to all sortes of heresie And if Sir Humfrey when he read S. Augustine contra Crescon had but passed one other step forward he might haue found that famous Father not to appeale to scripture onelie but also to the authoritie of the Church since that presentlie after he had sayd that he held not sainct Cyprians epistle for Canonicall but examined it by Canonicall scripture which are the words our aduersarie cites he addes that with a great emphasis sayeing Non accipio inquam I say I doe not receaue that which S. Cyprian holdeth of rebaptization because the Church doth not receaue it for which blessed sainct Cyprian shed his bloud By which the reader may plainelie perceiue that one as it were the cheife motiue which sainct Augustine had to reiect the doctrine of rebaptization was not the sole authoritie of the scripture as not being in that case so cleere as to conuince S. Cyprian but he struck the last stroake by force of the authoritie of the Catholike Church And thus you see Sir Humfrey is still out of the way of the Fathers which he himselfe citeth if they be ritelie vnderstood followeth his owne crooked tract relating the particular pointes of the Roman doctrine vnfaithfullie as he vseth to doe making manie conditionall promises to subscribe in case the ancient Fathers be found for vs but remitting the performance to his next opportunitie which is so farre to seeke that I assure my selfe he will neuer finde it Sec. 12. In his twelfth section he comes to particulars contending that S. Augustine is reiected by the Romanists in the seuerall pointes in which he agreeth Page 317. as he supposeth with the Reformers I expected Sir Humfrey would haue performed the large promise which he made in his precedent section sayeing he dares confidentlie auowe that in all fundamentall pointes of difference the Romanists eyther want antiquitie to supplie their firste ages or vniuersalitie to make good the consent of Christian Churches or vnitie of opinions to proue their Trent articles of beleife but in steed of prouing this he goeth about the bush euading the difficultie which he found impossible for himselfe to ouercome he onelie indeuoures to persuade his reader that according to the Romanists owne confessions sainct Augustine is wholelie for the presumed reformers doctrine for proofe of which he produceth diuers instances out of Roman diuines but effecteth nothing in regard that althou ' it is true that some of the Romanists confesse that S. Augustine did dissent from their opinions partlie in the interpretation of some certaine passages of scripture partlie in some other particulars yet none of them confesse that in anie mayne point of religion or faith euen those which haue binne declared by the late Councell of Trent that holie Doctor dissenteth from them in this consists the equiuocation which togeather with some vntruthes which he vttereth as when he affirmes that those which he rehearses heere be cheife points in question betwixt vs such like is the by-way in which his worship walketh with great grauitie all the lenght of this section Sec. 13. In his next ensueing section which is the 13. in number he pretends that S. Gregorie who sent S. Augustine the monke into England to preach the Christian faith is directlie opposite to the Roman religion in the mayne pointes of faith By the contents of this section it appeeres that the knight is as fitte to write matters of diuinitie as an asse is fitte to play on the fiddle he makes such fiddling worke as one may plainlie perceiue that eyther he doth not vnderstand the Fathers other Catholike authors that write in Latin or that passion malice quite obfuscate his witts when he reades them In his 350. page he affirmes that in the vndoubted writings of Gregorie there will be found few or no substantiall pointes which are not agreable to the tenets of their Church altogether different from the Roman this he sayth but in stead of proofe comming to particulars he committs diuers palpable fraudes for firste whereas he professeth to compare the doctrine of Tridentine Councell his owne with the doctrine of sainct Gregorie in lieu of that he cites the doctrine of Bellarmine the notes vpon the Rhemes testament the expurgatorie Index which altho' they be authenticall Catholike authors yet are they not rules of the Roman faith Neither yet doth our aduersarie conuince them to be repugnant to sainct Gregories true meaning in anie one point of faith And I earnestlie wish I had time place to discouer to the reader the egregious fraude the knight hath vsed in his trāslation interpretation of this holie Fathers wordes touching the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist Greg. in 6. ps poenit for by this onelie passage he might frame a coniecture of the rest Secondlie wheras our aduersarie treateth in this section of substantiall pointes of faith yet some of the particulars in which he exemplifies are not substantiall points of faith but rather of manners which according to diuersitie of times may alter change as priuate Masse the double Communion reading of scriptures in vulgar language in which there is a mayne difference from matters of faith which can neuer varie Thirdlie of all the pointes which he rehearseth being all as I take it 9. in number There