Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	believe_v	faith_n	justification_n	2,510	5	8.9827	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13322	The vvhetstone of reproofe A reprouing censure of the misintituled safe way: declaring it by discouerie of the authors fraudulent proceeding, & captious cauilling, to be a miere by-way drawing pore trauellers out of the royall & common streete, & leading them deceitfully in to a path of perdition. With a postscript of advertisements, especially touching the homilie & epistles attributed to Alfric: & a compendious retortiue discussion of the misapplyed by-way. Author T.T. Sacristan & Catholike Romanist.	T. T., Sacristan & Catholike Romanist.	1632 (1632)	STC 23630; ESTC S101974	352,216	770

quite depriued of iudgment doth not conceiue that if there are Romanists which doe not defeÌ„d the Popes authority to be infallible there most of necessity be also some yea the same Romanists that hold his iudgment not to be an infallible rule of faith from whence it doth further necessarily issue that the infallibitie of the Popes iudgment in determining Controuersies is no point of faith among Romanists how be it is commonly held for the most safe doctrine consequently as the proposition of the title of this sectioÌ„ is but a fallacious paradox of the knights owne inuenting so are all the authorities proofes which he produceth to shewe that there is vncertaintie among the Romanists of the Popes infallible iudgment in the rule of faith in vaine of no force as tending to demonstrate that which is not denied by all Catholike diuines And thus Sir Humfrey marcheth on in the by-way of his owne deuious francies euen to the end of his section neuer omitting to excercise himself by the way in some part of impiety against the Popes carping malitiously at the euill life of some of them in particular all which how true or false it is yet not doubting but that they haue binne much calumniated by emulators heretiques ill aduised persons as by the writers of their liues appeereth I cannot heere stand to examine by reason I study professe breuity but will onely answere generally with pious S. Augustine in the like case of obiectioÌ„ touching the Popes which liued before in his time that although some traytor had cript in to that order of Bishops which is deducted from Peter himself to Anastasius I say to vrbanius who doth now sit in the same chaire yet should he not preiudice the Church the innocent Christians to whome our poruident Lord sayd Doe what they say but doe not what they doe Sec. 22. In the 22. section the knight affirmes that the Church vppon which the learned Romanists grounde their faith is onely the Pope but the Church vppon which the vnlearned rely is no other then their parishe preistes It is iust so why because ipse dixit because Sir Humfrey sayd it But how doth he knowe it to be so by scripture or by tradition if by scripture let him turne his Bible produce the text if by tradition he is a traytor to his owne cause One said plesantly that the faith of a Puritan is resolued 1. in Biblia 2. in spiritum 3. in carnem firste into the Bible secondly into the spirit thirdly into the flesh heere rests the last resolution of their religion But now seriously to the matter but indeed there is little matter except by matter we vnderstand corruption of this I am certaine there is no want For to begin with the title of the sectioÌ„ it hath two partes they both false the one is that the learned Romanists ground their faith vppon no other then the Pope the other that the vnlearned rely vppon no other then their parish prestes neyther of which is absolutely true as experience doth teach And yet if it were true that the simple sort of people did rely wholy vppon their Parish preistes what then may not simple Romanists as safely rely vppon their Parish preistes as simple reformers vppon their Parish ministers who are sometimes euen as simple ignorant in diuinity as themselues setting aside that perhaps they are a little more expert in reading the text of the Bible in English or a misreformed homilie And touching the learned Romanists they doe not rely vpon the Pope onely but chiefly vpon the word of God as also the most simple Romanists doe thou ' not interpred according to ther owne priuate sense as the pretended reformers doe but expounded according to the consent commonly receiued sense of the vniuersall visible Church To this I adde a most odious slanderous lye of the knight where he saith of the beleife of the Romanists that if it be receiued with an affected ignorance a blind obedience Page 573. the partie shall be saued by the fire of Purgatory which is most palpably false neuer asserted by any Romanist but coyned by his owne froathie braine besides this the like dishonest dealing he abuseth Bellarmine in diuers places as lib. 1. de iustif cap. 7. in which place wheras Bellarmine produceth S. Bernards expositioÌ„ of those wordes of Iob the oxeÌ„ did plowe labore the asses did feed by them to proue against sectaries that iustifieing faith consists not so much in knowledge as in assent sayeing docet Bernardus Bernard teacheth that by the oxen are vnderstood the learned doctors of the Church by the asses are meant the ignorant which by their simple beleife rest satisfied in the vnderstanding of their superiors nimble Sir Humfrey applyeing this thou ' very fondly preposterously to the disprofe of the ignorant peoples relyeing vppon their pastors in their faith by changing the word dicit he sayth meaning S. Bernard in to these wordes the Cardinall saith he makes his reader beleiue that the foresayd exposition is Bellarmines owne glosse wheras yet he doth but allege it out of S. Bernard onely to confirme his owne doctrine touching the nature of the forme of iustification Another place the knight corrupts in the same Bellarmine lib. 5. de Euchar. cap. 5. concerning the doctrine of Peter Lombard S. Thomas where the Cardinall affirming that they were not carefull of the question now in controuersie to wit whether that which the Preist celebrateth daily be properly a sacrifice but supposed the affirmatiue part as a thing knowne to all men the crafty Cauallier relates the wordes of Bellarmine so transuersly that the reader cannot but vnderstand by them that the Cardinall affirmes that those two most famous diuines cared not whether the Masse were a proper sacrifice or no but that they did onely content themselues to hold that it is a commemoratiue sacrifice onely as the reformers teach And now let these examples suffice to demonstrate the infidelity of our aduersarie in this section to omit much other impertinent false captious matter allegations diuers of which I haue ansered in my censure are heere superfluously repeated by the knight towards the building of this part of his crooked blinde by-way which as you see by the matterialls of it is so fowle rugged that it is not fit for any person of reputation to appeere in it Sec. 23. The next section is the 23. in number affirming that the visibilitie of the Church is no certaine note of the true Church but rather the contrarie thus Sir Humfrey but he that should duelie consider how farre euen by his owne confession he is ingaged to the Iesuit his aduersarie to proue his owne Church to haue binne visible in all former ages since the Apostles times till this day doubtlesse he would much wonder at this his title altho' if contrarilie

would easilie haue perceiued that they fauour his intent nothing at all as not coÌ„teyning any kinde of renuntiation of the due estimation of merits in themselues but onelie signifie a certaine negatiue renuntiation of confidence in his owne particular deserts at the hands of God which is both most conformable to the same most learned and virtuous Cardinalls owne doctrine in his booke of Iustification before cited and also most pious in it selfe But it seemes our learned Knigth was either ignorantlie or malitiouslie deceiued in the true meaning of Bellarmines wordes imagining verie sillilie that because the Cardinall at his death prayed God to receiue him into glorie not as a valuer of merits he had held God for no valuer of merits at all whereas God knowes the pious Prelate had no such meaning neither doe his wordes rightlie coÌ„strued carrye anie such sense rather doe expresse the contrarie by tearming God a valuer of merits in generall although on the otherside considering his owne weakenes Non aestimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus Largitor admitto Can. Miss and the vncertainetie of his owne particular deseruinges out of an humble mynde he feared to put himselfe vpon God as vpon an esteemer of the same which in case he had had no merits at all might haue failed him but rather made choyse at the houre of his departure to cast himselfe vpon the mercie of God which hee assured himselfe could neuer be wanting to those who duelie relie vpon his goodnes and bountie And put the case a poore distressed creature should begge an almes of Sir HuÌ„frey intreating him to take pitty on him not as a learned man but as a liberall knight could he therefore iustelie say the beggar denied him to be a learned man no suerlie and why marie because the beggar although he knew him well enough to be a learned man yet he knew also it was not his learning that could releeue his necessity but his money After this maÌ„ner it happeneth in the case we treate of for as such a begger could not trulie be said to haue renounced the knights learning in that case so neither could Cardinall Bell be iustlie supposed to renounce God as a valuer of merits in the state he was in by recurring vnto him onely as to a bestower of mercie And thus we see that Bell dyed as greate a Romane Catholike as he liued notwithstanding all Sir Humfrey can say against him he can no sooner make Bellarmin a Protestant theÌ„ he can make a Protestant of the Canon of the Masse it selfe which hath the verie same wordes which the Card. Piously vsed at the houre of his death Next after Bellarmine Sir Humfrey hath placed Albertus Phigius who if we will credit him telleth vs he became a Caluinist euen in this verie poynt by reading of Caluins institutions Thus he relateth this storie and will haue vs take it on the worde of a knight but he must pardon vs Romane Catholikes if we refuse to beleeue it vpon the bare relation of an aduersarie as houlding our selues to haue full as greate authoritie at the least to denie it as he hath to affirme it True it is he quoteth a place of the authour in the margin but citeth not a worde of his in the text as in the like occasion he vseth to doe which causeth me to persuade my selfe there is no such matter to be founde or at least some mistake in Sir Humfrey in the true meaning of his wordes as he mistooke in Bellarmine Especiallie considering that Pighius is notoriouslie knowen to haue bene a professed enemie both to Luther and Caluin as his workes doe testifie And that Pighius differeth both from the Lutherans Caluinists in the maine paint Of iustification it is most manifest by his whole discourse and particularlie in that he absolutelie affirmes in his 53. page of his Controuersie of iustification that faith alone though it be neuer so perfect is not sufficient to iustification saying Sed fidem hanc solam non sufficere nobis c. in which place although he doth not name or mention Caluin yet doth he expresselie and professedlie dispute against that doctrine of his and Luther which putteth iustification in faith onelie so that it hence plainelie appeareth that if Pighius did read Caluins Institutions as Sir Humfrey affirmeth it was not to follow them but to confute them He quoteth also Ruardus Tapperus to what purpose I know not except it be to fill his margent for ostentation and so I leaue it till he shall further please to declare his meaning touching that citation which may be he reserueth for a fourth edition in the interim that Taperus was a professed papist his bookes do witnes And now hauing made it plainelie appeere that not one of the Romanists which the knight citeth in this section euer renounced anie point of Poperie before his death or at the least that no one nor all the testimonies which he produceth out of Romanists doe proue anie such renunciation as he auerreth and also that some of those which he alledgeth for proofe of his assertion as true Romanists were not as much as in externall showe of the Catholike religion long before their death and some of them in no parte of their whole life as is manifest in Iewell Fox and Cooke and consequentlie could not in reason be produced by him as witnesses in fauour of his cause noe more then Martin Luther or Iohn Caluin this I say supposed it onelie now remayneth that for the conclusion of this Period we doe not onelie censure the Contents of this section for vnsounde doctrine but also the authour of it for an indirect and false dealer in the confirmation of the seame THE IV. PERIOD THE fift section of the booke is about the impediments of reformation of such thinges as the knight iudgeth inexcusable in themselues and for impediments of reformation he assigneth wordlie pollicie and profitte the thinges which he calleth inexcusable are the doctrine of Purgatorie Indulgences prayer for the dead the communion vnder one kinde worship of pictures and such other poynts of Catholike doctrine all which hee temerariouslie affirmeth to be inexcusable and that onelie by waye of an odious relation of then in particular but adduceth nothing whereby to proue anie one of them to be such indeede and so neither will I proue anie thing against him heere more then that he vttereth diuerse vntruthes in this one section First in that he affirmeth the faith of Purgatorie is confirmed by Councells meerelie for the benefit of the Pope and his Clergie which is nothing els but a manifest calumniation without all apparance of trueth it being a thing wholie improbable and contrarie to common sense either that so manie learned graue and pious men as vse to be assembled in Councells should determine anie thing as matter of faith meerelie for anie Temporall respect whatsoeuer or that the laitie of the Christian world especiallie Princes Kinges

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 gruÌ„ble 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 grouÌ„d 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 protestatioÌ„ of his faith of the three Creeds yet he would be founde holting in the true generally receiued or Catholike seÌ„se of diuers of the same as that of the perpetuall virginity of the mother of God in that of the desceÌ„t of Christ in to hell of the Catholike Church the coÌ„munion 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 vnderpreseÌ„ce of reformatioÌ„ 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

particular points that in no matter of faith to wit aboute the manner of the introduction of communion vnder one kinde and priuate Masse into the Church as their owne wordes declare And as for Pope Adrian his owne wordes truely and compleatly cyted showe him to speake onely of the conditionall adoration of Christ in the Eucharist in case the hoste should not be consecrated and so he is here produced by the knight both most falsely and most ridiculously to proue for sooth that the Romanists excuse their absolute adoration of Christ in the Sacrament by that conditionall I adore theif thou be Christ which manner of adoration neuerthelesse they neuer vse but onely in speciall cases of doubt whether the Preist performed his office according to Christâ— institution The Popes words are these in Latin Concilium Constantiense excusat simplices adorantes hostiam noÌ„ consecratam quia facite implicatur condition si consecration sit recte facta c. And now let the reader iudge how conueniently they be applyed to S. HuÌ„freys purpose of prouing absolutely that the Romanists excuse their adoration of Christ in that manner Further more Sir Humfrey doth not adduce any reason at all for the proofe of his antiquitie and vniuersality but onely vseth his owne conceiptes coÌ„sisting mearely in iffes an andes or conditionall asseueratioÌ„s thus quite throu ' the rest of his section he rides poste like a man that caries newes of a false victorie now and then dropping a lye by the way for the haste he maketh to come to the end of his iourney which is nothing els but his owne discredit which because it hath beene already sufficiently manifested I neede not goe to particulars for more proofe of the same especially for that I know I shall haue occasion hereafter to handle more largely all those seuerall points which our aduersary coÌ„gesteth in this place rather by way of recrimination then of treaty as that Costerus Harding excuse the coÌ„munion and priuate Masse the one by saying that the cup was not taken away by the commaundement of the Bishops but that it crept in the Bishops conniuing ther at which he attributeth to Costerus the other that it is throu the negligence of the lay people that they coÌ„municate not at euerie Masse which he ascribes to D. Harding All which is imposed by the knight vpon those two Catholike authours coÌ„trarie to their true sense and meaning for that as it is apparent by their owne wordes which I will rehearse in an other place they say not those things by way of excuse in regarde they know ther is no need of excuse wher no faulte is founde nor acknowledged it being certaine to them and all other Romanists that how soeuer priuate Masse and single communion were at first introduced yet they are both lawfully practized And so I conclude this section of his inroling il with the former censures or rather I may with greate reason frame a more rigorous censure for it in regard that the knight hauing promised more then before yet he hath performed lesse and hauing vnder the name and punishment due to heresie vndertaken to showe by the testimonies confession of his aduersaries the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith that his way euen by the confession of the Romanists is more certaine then their owne yet he hath performed nothing but spent his whole discourse in equiuocations and iuggeling tricks and so he cannot possible escape the same sentence which his owne execration called vpon him THE VIII PERIOD THIS Period shall conteine the ninth section of S. HuÌ„freys booke with though by reason of the largenes of it he diuideth it in to seuerall paragraffes yet because they haue but small substance in them as he handleth them though otherwise they be in themselues matters of importance as alsoe for that his doctrine in te same points hath beene already in parte examined coÌ„futed therefore I will not stand to make so many seuerall distinctions in the treaty of them as he doth but reduce them all to one onely period briefely examining how farre those testimonies of Romanists which he promiseth to produce as witnesses of the antiquity of his owne doctrine and the nouelty of theirs doe reach in the particular points of the same He beginneth therefore with iustification by faith onely Page 85. I saith he will make it appeare that before and after the conquest the priests and professours of those tymes protested openly against the doctrine of Romish merits preaching saluation by Christ alone and with all publikely professed and administred the same sacraments in the same faith and truth which we teach and administer to this day Thus he proceedeth by way of assertion with a promise to make it appeare which assertion neuerthelesse contayning two partes yet neither of them is true but both either false or equiuocall or rather partely false and partely equiuocall The first parte is cleerely false in of it affirmeth that the priests and professours both before and after the conquest protested openly against Romish merits That this is false it is manifestly conuinced first because all the workes of learned men and histories both of England and other contries that write of that matter doe testifye that from the tyme of S. Gregories mission of S. Augustin into England to preach and establish the Roman faith to omit more auncient times both the Kings priests and people as well before as since the conquest haue continually professed the same Roman doctrine which then they receiued vntill the time of Henry the eight at the least and among the rest the very same doctrine of merits which now the Church of Rome defendeth As is diligently proued by the authour of the protestants apollogie in the first section of his first treaty the 63. page euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues And what S. Gregories owne doctrine was in this particular he himselfe testifieth in his booke of moralls the 42. chap. saying that because in this life there is diuersitie of workes among vs therefore with out doubt there will be in that diuersitie of dignities to the end that as heare one doth surpasse another in merit so there one may transcend another in the retribution Thus Sainct Gregorie to whose testimonie as I could if neede were ioyne the expresse authorities of Fathers of precedent ages for witnesses of the doctrine of merits as of S. Augustin Hierome Ambrose Hilarie Cyp. Tertull. and other Grecian Doctours euen till the time of the priuatiue Church so may the consent of those who succeeded the the same S. Gregory be added for the confirmation of it S. Bernard to omit other places alledged by me in an other occasion in his 8. serm vpon the Cantic saith Omne quod feceris bonum malumne quod quidem non facere liberum sit meritÃ² ad meritum deputatur Concilio Aran. can 18. debetur merces bonis operibus si fiant sed gratia

quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant To which might be added the Councels of Lateran sub Inno. 3. cap. firmiter the florent decreto de Purgatorio and the late Councell of Trent Which all teach the same doctrine of merits as our aduersaries cannot denie to which also might be ioyned all those are testimonies of auÌ„cient Fathers who teach that faith onely doth not iustifie nor is sufficient to saluation by all which its manifestly conuinced that the doctrine of iustificatioÌ„ could not be openly protested against both before and after the Conquest by the Preists and professours of England except Sir Humfrey will persuade vs that the faith of England in those times was different from the faith of all the world beside and euen of those who directly sent preachers for the conuersion of it from gentilisme and superstition all which being wholely incredible so by necessary consequence is the whole discourse grounded thereupon Secondly I answer that its manifest out of the words cited by the knight out of the booke of the forme of administration of Sacraments vsed in those times supposing the booke is authenticall which neuerthelesse may be suspected as being being onely produced by Cassander a suspected authour there is not any word sentence or sillable which excludes from saluation those merits which the Roman Church defendeth but onely such merits as either exclude pressely exclude the merits of the passion of Christ and therefore the question which according to the order of that directory the Priest maketh to the sick person runneth in this tennour Doest thou belieue to come to glorie not by thine owne merits but by the virtue and merits of the Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ which interrogation as you see manifestly containeth an opposition betwene the merits of the infirme man and those of Christ and for that cause he calleth them his owne as being wholy wrought by his owne naturall power without the concourse of the merits of our Sauiour consequently in that sense of no force or vertue for the obtaining of saluation That which is yet more manifest by the like question insuing made also by the Preist to the same person in this manner Doest thou belieue that our Sauiour Iesus Christ did die for our saluation And that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his passion where you see the opposition still runneth and especially heare more clearely betwixt mans owne merits or other meanes which proceed not froÌ„ Christs Passion but from some other cause not including or depending vpon them as the principall agent of all meritorious operations And verily I am persuaded that the reason why in those daies in those occasions the formes and speach where somewhat different in the matter of merit from the formes vsed in our times is no thing els but the differences of errours reigning in the worlde in those times and those that are now at this present defended by the nouellists For the Pelagian heresie which did attribute ouer much virtue to the merits of man hauing once beene and perhaps some requikes of it yet remaining verie rife in EnglaÌ„d wheÌ„ the foresaid directory was vsed if any such there were or at the least not loÌ„ge before it was necessary that in all occasions humane merits should be as much extenuated as could possible be without preiudice of faith in that point But contrarilie in these our daies since the publication of the errours of Luther and other sectaries in this matters it was conuenient if not necessary to extoll the same merits as much as could be without preiudice to the merits of Christ Now touching that which is added in the second parte of the knigts assertion videlicet that the Preists of former times preached saluation through Christ alone it is most plainely equiuocall and in one sense it is true and conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church in all ages but in another sense it is false and disagreable to the same it is true that Christ alone is the authour of saluation and that no other then he can saue vs according to that of the Apostle Sainct Peter Act. 4. non est in alio aliquo salus Nec enim aliud nomen est sub Caelo datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos saluos fieri Neither is there any other name vnder heauen giuen to men wherein we must be saued and in this sense and no otherwise the Preists of England in more auncient times preached saluation by Christ alone yet notwithstanding all this it is false that those Preists preached saluation with an exclusion or deniall of the merits of man wrought by the grace of Christ and by virtue of his death and Passion neither was such doctrine euer taught either in England or any other place before the time of Luther except it were by some more auÌ„cient heretikes Moreouer that which the knight putteth in the second parte of his foresaid assertion to wit that the Preists of those times published and administred the same Sacraments in the same faith and trueth which they meaning the reformers teach administer this day this I say is partelie equiuocall in that he saith they publike professed administred the same SacrameÌ„ts For tho' it were true that two of the Sacraments which those Preists administred videlicet Baptisme the Eucharist be the same which there formers administer at this day yet it is false that the foresaid Priests did the vse in their time either to professe or administer two onelie as may appeare by the same rituall out of which S. HuÌ„frey draweth this testimonie in which all the seauen Sacraments are contained and appointed to be administred if the booke be perfectly published without corruption Partelie also that same parte of the assertion is false for that it is manifest the foresaid Preists did not receiue those two which the reformers hould for Sacraments in the same faith which they doe for as much as the Priests mentioned receiued those two in the faith of fiue other SacrameÌ„ts which also they beleiue to be such as well as the rest supposing that the number of all the seuen Sacraments were then in beleefe and practice as much as now they bee as both the rituall cited if it be not corrupted and also the histories of those times can testifie of which fiue Sacraments neuerthelesse the reformers haue no such faith as they theÌ„selues coÌ„fesse To say nothing of the faith of those same Preists in other points of religion which as it is certaine by the relation of historiographes was farre different from the faith of the reformers and practice of their Churches and consequentlie it cannot with truth be said to be the same And as for the rest of the words which the knight citeth out of the same rituall they proue nothing against merit it selfe but onelie against confideÌ„ce in proper merits as appeares by those wordes in particular place

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 adhereÌ„ts 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 aÌ„tiquity 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 grauÌ„t 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 soleÌ„nly declared as an article of faith before that CouÌ„cell not denying but that it minght be also declared in other particular couÌ„cels as in deed it was declared by the Roman couÌ„cell vnder Nicolas the secoÌ„d 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 grauÌ„t 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 credeÌ„dum tenendum est esse de Substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationeÌ„ solemnem factam ab Ecclesia Paulo post Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectuÌ„ Ã 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 ChristiaÌ„ 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 HuÌ„frey 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

theÌ„ 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 coÌ„tained in scripture which is not our questioÌ„ 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

that nature And now of this and the rest of the testimonies which haue beene discussed in this paragraffe which if it had not beene for the satisfaction of the common people which may easily be deluded by them I would neuer haue prosecuted so largely as containinge noething worthie of a scholers labour it may I say be easily collected and perceiued how fondly he concludeth his whole discourse as if he had made it appeare that the reformed faith touching the spirituall and sacramentall participation of Christs bodie had beene generally beleeued and taugh both in the former and later ages and as if the doctrine of transsubstantiation had noe vnity among the Romish authours nor vniuersalitie among the auncient Fathers nor certainety in the scriptures This I say is a most impudent vaunt of the bragadocho knight for that it hath beene already made manifest by the same testimonies which he produceth against the Roman doctrine that not onely the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the same in those two points stands firme and sound but that there is no antiquitie or vniuersalitie at all to be found in the doctrine of the reformed Churhes in those particulars to say nothing of other points of theit deformed faith and so this shall suffice for the censure of this paragraffe which as it is larger in wordes then the former so deserueth it a larger sentence of condemnation as conteining noething more but a greater multitude of diuerse sorts of ill proceeding The third paragraffe is of priuate Masse in which for the honour as I suppose which he beareth towards the mother Church he placeth her definition in the first ranke and then afterwardes the article of his owne Church The decree of the councell of Trent ses 22. can 8. is this If ame shall say that Masses in which the Priest alone doth communicate are vnlawfull and therefore ought to be abrogared let him be accursed but the article of the reformed Church will not haue it so but protesteth that priuate Masses that is the receauing of the Eucharist by the Priest alone with out a competent number of communicants is contrarie to te institution of Christ and the practise of the primatiue Church Thus the knight setteth downe the matter of disputatioÌ„ thus he placeth the two armies in battle aray with their contrarie collours one confronting the other And this speciall difference I note in them that the one armie consists of milites veterani that is of ould Roman souldiers gathered out of the whole Roman Empire and Christian world the other of fresh men fetched from a corner of the world that is from Ireland Loe heere the armies set in order now let vs see who carries away the victorie You may perceiue by Sir Humfreys relation that the Councell speaketh with authoritie it intimateth those aged Synods of the primatiue Church it doth so fulminate that it maketh the reformed brothers tremble to heere it Naye it seemes it so daunteth the valiant knight that he found no other refuge then to flie to IrelaÌ„d for an article of his faith A man would rather haue expected that to confront the Councell of Trent and it definition Sir Humfrey would haue had recourse to the Councell of Gapp or of Dort or to some consistorie assemblie of Geneua or to an Acte of an English Parleament But alas the poore Caualier found so small hope of assistance in these that he was constrained to saile to Ireland for an Irish article as he himselfe doth tearme it True it is the Irish article directlie opposeth the definition of the Councell but by what authority I know not yet certaine it is that in the CouÌ„cell of Trent there were assembled by themselues or their legates or at the least conuented all the Princes both of the ould and newe Religion and Prelates of the Christian world as the Bull of indiction and the oration had in the last session most plainelie testifie And so the authoritie of this Synod euen in common sense must needes be verie great but the authoritie of the articles which our knight opposeth to the Councell what authoritie they had is yet vnknowne neither could they possible haue anie authoritie of greate moment for that they were gathered onelie out of a verie small corner of the Christian world and farre inferiour in vertue learning and other naturall parts to the most greate graue and venerable number of the members of the foresaid Synod Wherefore let the indiffereÌ„t reader iudge whether of these two armies is to be followed The authours of the article protest that priuate Masse is contrarie to the institution of Christ and the practice of the Church and hence the knight inferreth that it is vnlawfull and therefore to be abrogated and farther that the Councell of Trent by cursing those who hould that masses in which the Priest alone doth comunicate are vnlawfull and ought to be abrogated doth cursse Christ that ordeined it and God that commaunded vs to obserue it Heere you see the knight talketh with as greate authoritie as if he were the greatest graduate either in Oxford or Cambridge neuerthelesse he must giue him leaue who is no graduate to let him knowe that he fayleth mightilie in his colection yet not so much in the gradation it selfe as in the premises which being either false or at the least aequiuocall the conclusion must of necessitie be faultie That which deceiued him is his Irish article of faith in that it affirmeth the receiuing of the Eucharist without a competent number of comunicants is contrarie to the institution of Christ For though it is true that when Christ instituted the Sacrament he did actuallie comunicate those that were present yet it is not true that he included in the institution of it that iust so in all occasions it should be practized neither gaue he anie negatiue precept therein in that respect but onelie an affirmatiue which according to it nature not allwayes but onelie according to time place and persons obledgeth So that the distribution is neither anie essentiall parte of the Sacrament nor yet anie necessarie propertie of it to be in all occasions exercised but rather appertaineth onelie to the due administration of it according to the foresaid circumstances and heerein consists the aequiuocation of the first article Now touching the second part which affirmeth that the receiuing of the Priests alone is coÌ„trarie to the practice of the primatiue church is also equiuocall for if it meanes that the primatiue Church did in all circumstaÌ„ces of time place and persons practice the same either by virtue of Christs institution or commaund so it is false as we haue alreadie showed but if it meanes onely that indeede so it was practized in the primatiue Church either alwaies or for the moste parte yet not as a thing alsolutely necessarie either by virtue of Christs institution or precept so we cannot deny but that it is true which the second parte of the article affirmeth but then this

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 notwithstaÌ„ding 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 bouÌ„d 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 questioÌ„ 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 knoweÌ„ for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all ChristiaÌ„s 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 TreÌ„t 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 RomaÌ„ 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

Eucha c. 24. Sixtlie touching the confession of Bellarmin aboute the duall number of proper Sacraments we haue alreadie shewed him to be quite opposite to the reformers doctrine also haue examined the same place which Sir Humfrey citeth here and founde the sense of the Cardinall to haue ben egregiouslie by him transuerted corrupted so here is no confession of anie principall point of controuersie made by him in fauour of his aduersaries but a new repetition of an old imposture of the knights owne making Lastelie the knight citeth two places of Bellarmin The first out of his 3. booke of Iustification the 6. chapter is touching the reformers faith good workes which he affirmeth Bellarmin to confesse But what a ridiculous allegation is this For it is true Bellarmin confesseth in the place cited that the reformers hould faith repentance are requisite to iustification that without them no man can be iustified but this is no principall point of controuersie nay no question at all betwene the Romanists the reformers but onelie a point of doctrine which the reformers doe commonlie teach the Romanists doe not denie So that this is impertinentlie alledged out of Bellarmin for faith good workes since that in the wordes cited out of him there is not one sillable of good workes but onelie of faith repentance as the reader sees But yet that which is most absurde of all is that Sir Humfrey haueing here cited Bellarmins confession that the reformers hould both faith repentance to be required to iustification yet presentlie after he citeth the same Bellarmin as concluding with the reformed Churches iustification by faith onely so that within the compasse of one page the knight out of the profunditie of his great head peace resolueth in fauour of his owne cause out of Bellarmin both that without a liuely faith an ernest repentance no man is iustified also that according to the doctrine of the reformed Churches mans iustification is by faith onelie Let the reader if he be able couple these two together but if he can not let him hould for certaine that Sir Humfrey line was farre out of quare when he vttered such disparates Now the second place of the two laste is touching iustification by faith onelie But this hath ben examined before founde to containe no confession of iustification by faith onelie as the knight will haue it vnaduisedly contradicting himselfe out of an inordinate desire to make Bellarmin seeme to stand for the doctrine of his Church but onelie that Bellarmin speaketh there of confidence in merits according to the sense aboue declared And thus Sir Humfrey hauing cited all he can which all neuerthelesse is iuste nothing he addeth for all this that he wondreth why the Romanists should send out such Anathemas curses against all or anie of those that denie their doctrine But I wonder more that he who hath produced nothing either in this chapter or in the rest of his booke out of Catholike authours which in his sense meaning doth not rather deserue to be hissed at then to be admitted for anie proofe of his doctrine yet should not be ashamed to affirme that the best learned of the Romanists confesse that manie principall points of their owne religion manie articles of their faith are neither ancient safe nor Catholike And suerlie I can not conceiue but that both he who soeuer els should vse so much false dealing as he hath done in propugning their owne tenets especiallie in matters of religion deserue the Anathema in the highest degree that curse being the proper brande of the defenders of erroneous hereticall or scysmaticall doctrine And indeed it seemes Sir Humfrey had not verie great conference in the industrie which he hath vsed in this his worke For notobstanding it appeareth manifestlie that he putteth the greatest streingth of his proofes through out his whole booke in the multitude of authours especiallie Romanists whome by way of emendication or begerie he alledgeth as confessers of his faith yet he here flyeth to the little flock to the paucitie of beleeuers to the simplicitie of babes as to speciall caracters of the true Church vtterlie disclaming from humane wisdome power nobilitie a pore refuge after so manie great boasts bragges of the victorie obteined as he imagineth but falselie by meere authoritie multiplicitie of testimonies piled vp both in text margin now to plead paucitie simplicitie want of power wisdome And as for your paucitie in number Sir Humfrey I will not stick to graunt in regard that how great a shewe soeuer you haue made to the contrarie yet I knowe you to be most pore beggerlie in that nature but yet I denie that to be a speciall infallible marke of the true Church as you insinuate no more then the paucitie of Manicheans or Donatists was a marke of the truth of their Churches And the same I say of the want of might wisdome nobilitie I meane of true power wisdome nobilitie for of power wisdome nobilitie of the flesh you must needs haue much more then the Romanists in regarde it is well knowne you both handle eate farre greater quantitie then they doe witnesse your little abstinence the rest which modestie causeth mee to passe in silence And touching your simplicitie except by simplicitie you meane plaine ignorance you haue no colour here to bragge of it for that there was neuer flock in the world in my opinion so full of all sortes of duplicitie as your owne Neither hath anie man greater reight to be a sheepe of that fould then the noble knight Sir Humfrey who out of the abundance of his double dealing euen in this place to say nothing of that which is paste hath made choise of as false fallacious markes of his owne Church as he hath calumniouslie fained markes for ours to wit counterfeit miracles which neuerthelesse wee disclame from detest more then he and all his consortes And if they will needs medle of these matters let them reflect vpon their Master Caluin how faine he would haue confirmed his newe Gospell with a forged resuscitation of a pore man who by his instructions fained death but the false Prophet fayling of his purpose committed a murder in steed of a miracle The knight saith further that we beleeue lyes But I say that he doth not onely beleeue them but makes them as appeares by this his pamphlet in which as we see ther is great store In Deut. 14. We doe not deny with Lira but that some times in the Church there may be great deception of the people among the Preists in fained miracles but these miracles if anie such ther be are in the Church in the Preists onely as Lira discretely insinuate not approued by the Church the Preists or their companions for lucre as the false knight iniuriously affirmes most corruptedly omitting in his

had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violeÌ„ce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctioÌ„ of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatioÌ„ Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be

Fathers Primo notanduÌ„ non debere aduersarios petere vt ostendamus in scripturis aut Patribus nomeÌ„ septenarij SacrameÌ„torum naÌ„ nec ipsi possunt ostendere nomeÌ„ Binarij vel ternarij c. Bellar. l. 2. de effect Sacr. c. 24. yet honest Sir Humfrey translates out of the Latin quoted in his owne margent the number of seuen for the name of the number of seuen repeating the same twise for fayling and so daceiues his ignorant reader persuading him there by that euen by Bellarmins confession the number of the seuen Sacraments is not to be found either in scriptures or Fathers whereas neuerthelesse Bellarmin saith no such thing but onelie that the name of the foresaid number is not to be required in that manner supposing that the substance of a thing is oftentimes found both in scriptures and Fathers and yet not the name it selfe as appeares in the worde Trinitie of persons and in the name of the number of two Sacraments neither of which is extant in scriptures Secondlie Bellarmin is corrupted in his booke of Extreme Vnction cap. 2. Non omnes coÌ„ueniunt an cum Apostoli vngebant olto infirmos Marci 6. curabant illa fuerit vnctio sacramentalis an soluÌ„ fuerit figura quaedam c. Bellar. lib. de Sacr. Extrem Vnct. c. 2. Where the false knight makes his reader beleeue that Bellarmin was one of those who disagreed from the doctrine of other diuines in the doctrine of the fiue Sacraments which he and his companions denie to be truelie and properlie Sacraments and yet the Cardinall onelie affirmes with some other authours that that vnction which the Apostles vsed aboute the sick and restored them to health the 6. of S. Marke was not the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction but rather a figure or obumbration of it Which as you see is a farre different matter from the deniall of Extreme Vnction as it is vsed in the Church to be properlie a Sacrament or one of the fiue reiected by the pretensiue reformed Congregations Thirdlie the knight corrupteth Bellarmin whome he cites in the nynth chapter of his first booke of the Sacraments where he peruertes both the translation of the wordes and sense The wordes in that he Englisheth these non est ita notum it is not so certaine whereas he ought to haue translated it is not so knowne The sense he corrupteth in that he persuades his reader that Bellarmin confesseth that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution from christ immediatelie whereas he speakes not a worde of the institurion but affirmes onelie that the sacred things which the Sacraments signifie are three iustifying grace the passioÌ„ of Christ and eternall life all which that Baptisme and Eucharrst doe fignifie saith he res notissima est it is most notorious de alijs Sacramentis non est ita notum of the rest of the Sacraments it is not so notorious or knowne Yet further adding that it is certaine that euen these fiue Sacraments which the reformers reiect signifie all those three things at the least implicitlie But to saie that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution immediatelie from Christ neuer entred in to Bellarmins thoughts tamen certum est saltem implicite ea omnia significare c. Bellar. loco cit And so if the knight had dealt playnelie and sincerelie in the citation of that place of the Cardinall he could haue found nothing for his purpose but rather the contrarie Furthermore Sir Humfrey also corrupteth vasquez most shamefullie in the 3. parte d. 2. cap. 5. n. 3. de Sacram. Matr. Where he impudentlie belyeth him affirming that Vasquez knewe well that neither moderne diuines nor auncient Fathers did conclude Matrimonie for a true Sacrament of the Church And yet the knight could not be ignorant that the same authour professedlie defendes the same to be trulie and properlie a Sacrament in the third chapter of the verie same disputation which he himselfe cites and in his 4. chap. Vasquez proueth it by the testimonies of diuers Fathers putting for parte of the title of the same chap. that the Vasquez de Mat. definition of the Church touching the truth of this Sacrament had foundation in the testimonies of the Fathers and who will please to read vasquez will finde it so In so much that Sir Humfrey in this particular is wholelie inexcusable especiallie considering that out of the place cited nothing can possiblie be collected or inferred wherebie it may in anie sorte be imagined that vasquez euer dreamed that either auncient Fathers or moderne diuines excepting durand and perhaps the Master of Sentences of whome he speakes doubtfullie not daring to affirme him absolutelie to haue beene of the same opinion with Durand as in truth he is not did conclude matrimonie not to be a true and proper Sacrament but onelie affirmes that none of the places which diuines alledge out of S. Augustin to proue the truth and propertie of that Sacrament conuince the same in the sense in which saith Vasquez we now dispute Which imagination of Vasquez tho' it were true as in my iudgement apparentlie it is not yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent in disprouing the septenarie number of Sacraments Especiallie supposing as the same Vasquez affirmes CoÌ„ Carth. 4. that the fourth Councell of Carthage in which S. Augustin was present as a great member of the same makes meÌ„tion of the Benediction of the Preist vsed in mariage as in a holie and sacred thing Graunt I say that Vasquez opinion were true yet would it not serue the knights turne either for the poofe of his intent or for the excuse of his false and craftie dealing Next after Vasquez I will put Suarez althou ' according to the order of Sir Humfrey he is the first man he belies in this Poragraph in 3. part d. 12. sec 1. where he charges him to saye that the councell of Florence did insinuate the number of 7. Sacraments Propter quod tandem haec veritas definita est in Con. Flor. in decreto Eugenij quaÌ„ Graeci Armeni facile cum Latinis suceperuÌ„t Suar. loc cit and the councell of Trent did expresselie decree it for an article of faith yet suarez sayes in plaine termes that the same was defyned in the councell of Florence So that here is false dealing with suarez and with the truth to make the point of the septenarie number of Sacraments seeme newe as ther is also in the wordes following in which the same Sir Humfrey affirmes that the Romanists relie wholely vpon the Tridentine councell Ambrose Austin Chrysostome and Bede be impertinently alleged For they none of them denie that the Sacraments are no more nor lesse then seuen And of S. Isidore it is falsely affirmed by Sir Humfrey that he accounteth but of 3. Sacraments for altho' in the place quoted by him he speakes onely of three which yet is more then the knight will

in the Gospell but in the Epistle what would Sir Humfrey replie to that But in earnest I haue vewed Bessarions treatie of the Eucharist where I finde that altho' he makes no plaine mention of the seuen Sacraments as not hauing anie iuste occasion there offered to handle that matter yet out of some passages of his discourse with other circumstaÌ„ces there vnto annexed it is euidentlie gathered what his meaning and faith was touching the same For in the place cited by the knight and ther aboutes Cardinall Bessarion treates particularlie of the forme of the Sacrament of Eucharist prouing that it consists of no other wordes then those same which our Sauiour himselfe consecrated with and deliuered to the Church videlicet This is my bodie This is my bloud And by occasion of this he mentioneth Baptisme as being one of the two Sacraments which onelie haue their formes expresselie and in speciall termes contained in the Gospell and specified by Christ himselfe And therefore a little before that which Sir Humfrey cited out of this authour he saide Illud quoque haud contemnendum videtur quod cum duo nobis Sacramenta Ã Saluatore traditae fuerint Baptismus Eucharistia vtrumque verbis suis confici iussit By which wordes it is certaine cleare that he there speakes onelie of such Sacraments as our Sauiour most verbally or most expresselie ordained his disciples to consecrate and administer And now that this Cardinall did beleeue that there are more Sacraments then these it is euidentlie conuinced out of those his wordes fol. 169. saying Ante omniaigitur sciendum est tam hoc Sacrosanctum Communionis de quo agimus quam caetera Ecclesiae Sacramenta ideo sacra vocitari quoniam aliud in se habent quod videtur aliud quod non corporis oculis sed solo intellectu comprehenditur And after in the same page Etenim in Sacramento Baptismatis ablutio carnis per aquam ita est Sacrementum vt duntaxat signum sit ablutionis peccatorum Ipsa enim peccatorum remissio res est significata nihil vltra significans And to these wordes he presentlie addes that which is plainelie to our purpose to wit Hoc idem in reliquis SacrameÌ„tis Ergo in Sacramento Eucharistia And yet more plainelie f. 175. QueÌ„admodum in caeteris omnibus ita etiam in hoc Sacramento concordes sunt Occidenibus Orientales That is Euen as in all the rest so in this Sacrament the Occidentals that is the Romanists doe accorde with the Orientals that is the Grecians Besides this authour was a Greek Cardinall of the Roman Church and a cheefe agent and promoter for the vnion of the Latin and Greek Church in the Councell of Florence where the number of seuen Sacraments was defined and declared To omit that the same Bessarion fol. 181. makes expresse mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation for so he saith Quod manifestum fiet si quis ad Sacramentum Chrysmatis mentem conuerterit So that Sir Humfrey could scarce a chosen a worse Patron for proofe of his pare of deformed Sacraments then is this Cardinall if he had sought all Greece ouer it being manifest that he was a professed defender not onelie of the two Sacraments he mentioneth in the place cited by him but also a firme beleeuer of the other fiue which the pretended reformers renounce thrust violentlie out of the rancke of true Sacraments It is true I haue aduertised some smale sleight of Sir Humfrey in translating or transforming the worde manifeste in Latin into the worde plainelie in English but this but one of his diminutiue trickes and so I passe it ouer Onelie I desire the indifferent reader to reflect how peruers and incredulous a generation this is which refuseth to beleeue points of doctrine because they are not manifestelie contained in the scripture Whereas on the contrarie this most learned and Catholike Cardinall Bessarion altho' he graunted that two onelie Sacraments of the Church are so expressed in the written worde of God yet doth he with a firme and constant faith imbrace the rest S. Aug. is impertineÌ„tlie cited both in his third booke of Christian doctrine c. 9. and also de simbolo ad Cathecu l. 2. c. 6. in regarde that in neither of the places he speakes of two onely SacrameÌ„ts as his wordes cited by Sir Humfrey himselfe doe manifest Nay in the latter place he speakes not at all of proper Sacraments as his wordes following faithleslie omitted by our aduersarie doe declare for thus S. Austin finisheth his sentence Aqua in qua est sponsa purificata sanguis in quo inuenitur esse dotata That is water in which the spouse is purified and bloud in which she is founde to be endowed in which passage no mention is made of anie of the seuen Sacraments as the reader may plainelie perceiue Of S. CypriaÌ„ I saie the same I saide of S. Ambrose Austin the rest Vid. lib. de operib Card. sub nom Cyp. And yet more I know Sir HuÌ„frey will be loath to grauÌ„t fiue SacrameÌ„ts as S. Cyprian doth altho' we should giue him leaue to put the lotion of feet for one as S. Ambrose did put it for an vnproper Sacrament Dominicus Ã toto cited out of Bellarmin cap. 4. de Sacramento Ordinis doubteth not of Order in generall but he onelie makes a question of Episcopall Order in particular whether it be trulie a Sacrament and so he is ignorantlie and impertinentlie here alledged with abuse both of him and the reader As in like manner Suarez or rather Hugo Lombard Bonauenture Hales and Altisiodor Of whome altho' Suarez Tom. 4. de Sacramento Extremae Vnctionis affirmes that they were of opinion that Extreme Vnction was not instituted by Christ but by S. Iames from whence suarez saith id plainelie followes not to be a true Sacrament yet suarez himselfe addes which Sir Humfrey fraudulentlie left out that those authours denied the consequence By which it is manifest that those diuines absolutelie beleeued Extreme Vnction for one of the seuen Sacraments not obstanding their material errour aboute the institution of it which errour being impertinent to this present question of the septenarie number of Sacraments their testimonie was impertinentlie alledged and proueth nothing to our aduersaries purpose S. BonaueÌ„ture also is abused by the knight p. 165. where out of Chamier he carps him saying that for wante of better proofes he was prodigall of his conceiptes in honour of the septenarie number of Sacraments But here I finde greater prodigalitie in the dishoneste proceeding of Sir Humfrey and his master minister chamier in their iniuste taxeing of Bonauenture then I finde wante of proofes in that authour for if either Chamier or the knight had beene disposed they might haue found warrantable allegations in him out of scripture for the probation of euerie Sacrament in particular as his seuerall questions vpon them doe testifie But these men being much more disposed to cauille then to

expounde the faith of the holye church the opinion of this sect that hauing expounded them we approue one reproue the other by a fewe authorities breefe reasons For neither epistolar breuitie doth permit nor anie reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation For such as ar faithfull people but seduced doe not pertinatiously insist in defence of their deprauation but rather hauing heard vnderstanded reasons desire humbly to returne to the way of truth fewe things will suffice But those whoe ar addicted to contentions determined to persiste in their infidelitie would not be satisfyed althou manie reasons should be proposed vnto them Diuinitus Wherfore we beleeue that the terrestriall substances which in the table of our lord ar diuinely sanctifyed by preistlie ministration ar infallibly incomprehensibly admirably by operation of supernaturall power conuerted in to the essence of our lordes bodie the species or formes of the things theÌ„ selues remaining with some other qualities least the receiuers should abhorre crude cruent things Cruda cruenta to the end that the credents or beleeuers might receiue more ample rewardes of their faith the bodie of Christ it selfe existing neuerthelesse in heauen at the reight hand of his Father Illeso immortall vnuiolated intyre incontaminated vnhurt soe that it may truely be affirmed that we receiue the bodie of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin and yet not the same The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue but not the same if you respect the species or formes of bread and wine and the rest before comprehended This faith from ancient tymes did hould and now holdeth that Church which diffused throÃ¹ the whole world is named Catholique whence it is that as it is said before our lord said in the Euangill Receiue and eate this is my bodie And this is the chalis of my bloud c. In this cleare manner speaketh Lanfranc of the reall presence in this place And page 346. of the same booke he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiasticall histories Which Scriptures saith he altho' they doe not obtaine that most excellent tower of authoritie which those doe which we cal Propheticall and Euangelicall scriptures yet they ar sufficieÌ„t to proue that this faith which now we haue all faithfull people which haue gone before vs haue had the same from priuatiue tymes A primis temporibus And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus more ower if that be true which thou beleeues and maintaines of the bodie of Christ vbique gentium it is false which the church beleeues of the same matter in euerie natioÌ„ For all those whoe reioyce to be called and to bee Christians doe glorie in that they receiue in this sacrament the true flesh and bloud of Christs bodie receiued from the virgin Inquire of all such as haue knouledge of the latin tongue and of our writings Inquire of the Grecians ArmeniaÌ„s or of Christian people of anie nation what soeuer they will with one mouth testifye that they haue this faith Furthermore if the faith of the vniuersall church be false either ther neuer was Catholique church or she hath perished nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of soules then a pernicious error But no Catholique will graunt that the church either was not or that she hath perished In this plaine sorte testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the vniuersall church in which it were madnes to imagine he did not include his owne I meane the church of England And supposing he liued writ this the verie next age following the age in which Alfric dyed to wit in some parte of the leueÌ„th centurie it is more then monsterous impudencie in our aduersaries to affirme that in the dayes of Alfric the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation was commonely preached and beleeued in the Realme of England Further more Pascasius Rathbertus writ a booke intituled of the bodie and bloud of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram as is coÌ„moÌ„ly supposed althoÃ¹ I finde him not named by Pascasius he hath alsoe an Epistle of the same subiect to one Frudegard with an exposition of those wordes of the Euangelist Math. 26. Caenantibus autem illis c. In all which writings Pascasius most plainely defendeth both the reall presence and transsubstantiation most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same bodie and bloud which Christ receiued of the Virgin Marie and the same in which he was crucifyed is really and truely present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice I need not relate his wordes for euerie particular because I knowe our aduersaries can not denye but that this Author is plainely for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine onely I will rehearse some generall wordes of his in which he declares the faith of the vniuersall church in and before his tymes for after testimonies of diuers aÌ„cieÌ„t fathers alledged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid wordes of S. Mathewe thus he saith Ecce habes amantissime c. Behould most louing brother thou haste in the end of this little booke the sentences of the Catholique Fathers compendiously noted by which thou maist learne that I haue not seene such things in rashnes of speech when I was a child but that I haue proposed them by diuine authoritie and by the authoritie of the holye Fathers to such as demaunded them But now it being cleare that Since that tyme the faith of all men is not one and the same then cease I praye to beleeue with such as they bee if as yet they can not vnderstand that nothing is impossible to God and lett them learne to assent vnto the diuine wurdes in all things to doubt nothing of those For till this present no man is read to haue erred in them except those whoe erred aboute Christ himselfe notobstanding manie doubted or haue ben ignorant of the Sacraments of soe great a Mysterie And afterwardes the same author in the same treatise saith thus Qua expleta voce c. Which wordes being pronounced meaning the wordes of consecration we all with one consonant voyce say Amen And soe the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confesse that it is that thing which she prayeth for wherby let him whoe will rather contradict this then beleeue it regarde what he doth against our lord him self against the whole Church of Christ Therfore it is a nefarious and detestable villanie to pray with all and not to beleeue that which truth it self doth testifye and that which vniuersally all in euerie place doe teach Whence it is that since he him selfe affirmes it is his bodie and his bloud doubt ought not to be made in anie thing altho' we see not with carnall yes that which we beleeue We haue seene alsoe what Pope Gregorie houldeth of this what

Vide relat Synod Dordrecht Dort in which the reformed Prelates carryed themselues so zealouslie that as it is crediblie reported they spent 2000. pounds in Renish wine to heat their spirits before euer they had decreed anie one point of their controuersies Sec. 17. In his seauenteenth section Sir Humfrey doth nothing but foyst babble abuse Bellarmine other Romanists about the Church as if they extolled her aboue the scriptures accusing here to haue spoyled herself of them as if it were vncertaine among them whether the Roman Church is the true Church because they teach it hath diuers acceptions which is all false friuolous matter for that altho' the Church according to the heterogeniall partes diuers functions of the persons of which it consists may admit seuerall denominations as are the essentiall representatiue or virtuall Church in which point also peraduenture there may be found some difference among the Romanists in their manner of speech speculations yet in substance they all agree that the visible Church to which the faithfull must seeke in their doubtes is the visiblie perpetuallie succeeding Church from the time of Christe till this day which is the plaine way in which etiam stulti ambulant euen the most simple sort of people may easilie finde walke in all other Churches especiallie the inuisible Congregation of Sir Humfrey his fellowes is but a blinde diuerticle by-way fitter for wanderers vagabonds then for the true honest people of God to walke in Sec. 18. In the title of the 18. section the knight pretendeth to proue that the Plea which the Romanists drawe from the infallible authoritie title of the Catholike Church is false vaine friuolous Althou ' the name authoritie of the Catholike Church hath euer binne so odious to all sortes of sectaries that they made it a cheife parte of their labours to impugne the same of which seuerall instances might easilie be produced yet this practise of theirs hath neuer bin so much vsed or so earnestly pursued as in these present tymes For as it is well knowne that their Captaine Antesignane Luther strucke his firste stroake at the Pope Churches power to graunt indulgences so is it also apparent by experience that all his followers continue the same battle with all their strenght stratagems For proofe of which wee need goe no further then to this our aduersarie Who throu ' his whole workes laboureth nothing more then to diminish the lustre power of the Catholike Roman Church in so much that in this verie section he maketh choise rather to lay violent hands vpon the sacred Bible shamefullie to corrupt three seuerall places of the diuine scripture then faile of his purpose or want colour for his peruerse intent which to the end the reader may more plainelie vnderstand I will particularlie reherse The firste place therefore consists in diuers passages of the epistle to the Romans especially in the firste chapter where that which the Apostle by way of admonition speaketh onely to those particular Christians members of the Church which were then at Rome exhorting them to be constant in their faith humble themselues least God cut them of for their sinnes as he did the Iewes the knight doth violentlie drawe it to the whoâ—â€¦ Roman Church as if S. Paul did intimate tâ—â€¦â—t had a possibilitie of falling consequentlie was but a particular Church feygning also that sainct Paul did therefore pray for the continuance stabilitie of the Roman faith as if saith Sir Humfrey he had for seene by the spirit of prophesie they would glorie in their owne merites all which is quite repugnant to the meaning of the text as the reader may easilie perceaue And the like abuse of the knight the reader may see in other places which he cites to the same purpose viz. to proue that the Romane Church is faileable as 1. Thessal 8.2 Thessal 3.1 Tim. 3.15 Ephes 3.14 In all which places he vseth much of his accustomed craft peruerting the sense most sacrilegiouslie in all those sacred texts in the firste to the Corinthians he falsifieth the wordes putting thou for vs the particulars of which I am sorie I cannot stande to examine to the end his grosse cousenage might more cleerlie appeare and how vnder coulour of scriptures the sacred word of God truth is adulterated euen by him who so much braggeth glorieth in it After this same fashion he eludeth two pregnant places of Fathers for the authoritie of the Church the one is of Sainct Cypr. lib. 1. epist 3. the other is of sainct Augustine contra epist fund cap. 5. to coulore his euasion about the wordes of sainct Augustine which are these Praterea Ecclesia quae nunc est in fide errare non potest ergo si credidarit aliquem librum esse canonicum ex eius testimonio â— loneum firmum quo sumetur Ã Theologis argumentur Canon lib. 2. c. 7. Euangelio non crederem nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoueret authoritas he citeth Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. as if this author did fauore his false interpretation of sainct Augustines meaning who neuerthelesse besides that his wordes are not cited home by Sir Humfrey he onelie affirmes that sainct Augustine did not intend in that place to make rhe Church the formall reason why an infidell or one lately conuerted beleiues the Ghospell but onelie the necessarie condition of his beleife of the Canonicall scriptures which doctrine of Canus makes nothing at all for our aduersaries intent in this place which is to disproue the infallible authoritie of the Catholike Church which Canus doth not denie Lib. 7. de Canon c. 10. but professedlie maintayneth particularlie in the verie precedent chapter in other places in a most Catholike manner To this purpose the knight also cites Durand Driedo Gerson but rehearseth not their wordes which notobstaÌ„ding I haue seene cited by Chamier but if they be truly sincerelie vnderstood they conuince nothing against the infallible authoritie of the Church as neyther the wordes of sainct Thomas who onelie affirmeth that sainct Augustine speakes of the Church as an oueruling cause but not as the foundation of faith which no Romanists denies but all vniformely teach that their faith is founded vpon the word of God whose onelie authoritie is the supreme rule of the same but the Church the proponent onelie In the rest of his section Sir Humfrey makes a diuersion to the vniuersalitie of the Church for which he onely produceth some impertinent reasons of no force with the authorities of the Councells of Ferrara Basill waldensis others none of which proues any thing appertayning to the matter in treaty but onely serue to patch vp this part of his bypath in which I leaue him Sec. 19. The 19. section following affirmeth that the Church is finally resolued into the Pope whome saith the kinght the

his mynde lesse clearcly in one place occasion yet did he ameÌ„d the same in another more exact worke of his owne hand industrie of his owne accorde how be it althou ' our aduersarie takes him at the greatest aduantage he can yet reightly vnlierstanded alledged he doth not a iot aduantage his cause In his citation of the Rhemes Testament in the annotation vpon the 6. of the Epistle the Hebrewes v. 16. the knight relateth wordes in which the author of the notes affirmes that God should be iniust if he reÌ„dered not heauen for meritorious workes But to make the matter more odious he craftely omittes the wordes of S. Hierome there cited for proofe of the same lib. 2. contra Iouinianum cap. 2. saying that in deed great were Gods iniustice if he would onely punish sinnes and would not receiue good workes And if that coÌ„ditionall of the Rhemists be not iustifyable then may our aduersarie more iustely taxe S. Augustin who lib. de nat and Grat cap. 2. And lib. 4. contra Iulianum cap. 3. gaue then examples of that forme of speech Saying in the first place non est iniustus Deus qui instos fraudet mercede iustitiae and in the second per quod vera iustitia per hoc regnum Dei Deus namque ipse quod absit erit iniustus si ad eius regnum non admittitur iustus Wherfore except Sir Humfrey will ioyne in his accusation those two renound ancient Fathers he can not in reason accuse those learned doctors Althou I conceiue it may seeme vnseasonable to my present purpose distinctly to treate of anie matter of doctrine in this place and occasion yet in regarde I haue lately reflected that Sir Humfrey professes him selfe an enimie to implicit or vnexpressed faith therfore I esteemed conuenient for the accomplishing of my worke to insert a compendious discourse touching that point And to come to the purpose I can not conceiue or inuente anie other motiue in our aduersaries for their soe obstinate denyall of vnexpressed faith except it is because euerie one of them confidently presumes to knowe the expresse contents of Scriptures as well as him who made them yet on the contrarie I am assuredly persuaded that in reallitie a verie great parte if not all their congregatioÌ„ inioyes not this great extrauagant priuilege what soeuer they imagin or conceiue of them selues For altho' it is true that the illuminate brothers generally vse to brag they are docibiles Dei and admit noe other schoolemaster in this matter then God almightie him selfe yet is it certainely knowne that some of them be soe ignorant that they knowe not as much as their Abcedarie or Christ crosse rowe And now of these whoe can not read the Bible I question our aduersaries thus either these ignorants beleeue althings coÌ„tained in the whole scripture or no If they doe not then they ar heretikes for refusing to beleeue the whole worde of God If they doe beleeue all and euerie particular contained in the Scripture then necessarily they must haue an implicit faith in regarde manie particular truethes be there included which they can not possibly knowe by reason they can neither haue them selues nor receiue a perfect knowlege from anie other of euerie seuerall trueth therin contained and consequently if anie faith they haue of those particular verities contained in the Scripture which they knowe not it is onely an implicit vnexpressed or implied faith supposing this consists in nothing esse but a generall faith euen of those particulars of which the beleeuers haue no expresse knowledge except onely in a certaine coÌ„fuse or generall manner or as they ar contained in other generall propositions or matters which expressely and seuelally they know to be reueiled in the worde of God and of which they haue an explicit expresse or disinuolued faith For as he who eypressely graunteth or assents to anie general Principle or proposition for example that all Angels ar incorporall or without bodies or that all men ar reasonable creatures doth by necessarie consequens assent implicitly to all the particulars there included viz that S. Michael S. Gabriel and euerie other particular Angel is incorporal and that S. Peter and Paule and euerie other particular man is a reasonable creature altho' he neuer had anie particular knowledge of them Soe in the verie same manner those whoe with an expresse act of faith beleeue al the Church proposeth vnto them in that kynde or all the scripture conteines doe likewise necessarily beleeue with an implicit or tacit faith euerie seuerall matter included in those general tearmes And this kynde of implicit faith our aduersaries must either graunt or else necessarily confesse that euerie Mecanike hath as much knowlege in the Scripture as the most learned Minister and euerie sheep as much as his pastor which neuerthelesse euerie rude rustick is able to iudge for most absurde and voyde of trueth Soe thus we see that of the denyal of an implicit faith eyther the ignorant and vnlearned sorte of people in the pretensiue reformed Churches knowe as much in the Scripture as their greatest doctors or that they ar plaine heretikes because they beleeue no more in the Bible but that onely which they expressely knowe And the same I say with proportion euen of the learned sorte them selues in regade they seldome or neuer ar soe conuersant in Scriptures that they explessely knowe euerie seueral proposition or particular truth conteined in the text and consequeÌ„tly euen they who ar the greatest Rabbies in their reformed flock haue no explicit or expresse faith consisting in an assent to all they expressely knowe in the text of scripture but they must as well as theire brothers be content with an implicit faith of those particulars they expressely knowe not or else they ar to be accounted heretikes for not beleeuing them as I said before of the ruder sorte In respect of both which sortes of people I meane both the learned and vnlearned beleeuers in the pretensiue reformed Churches this same argumeÌ„t may yet farther be vrged euen according to their owne receiued doctrine by which they coÌ„fesse they haue not all their faith expressely in the scriptures but parte of it drawne by their owne consequences or deductions from the text of scripture of all which illations or inferences of theirs it is manifest they could not possible haue anie other faith of them then implicit or vnexpressed before they made them in regare that those supposed verities or truethes which they soe deduce were not otherwise contained in the text or deliuered to the Church then in that inclusiue or hidden manner as it most apparent in regarde that if otherwise they had ben contained in the scripture that is clearely or expressely then no illation or deduction had ben necessarie for beleeuers for the bnowledge and establishing of their faith in those particulars as both natural reason and euen common sense conuince and consequently either the pretensiue reformers

S. Cyrill with all his fellow Bishops assembled in Ephesus what Greece with them what Egipt and what S. Hierome him self whoe published the liues of the holye Fathers in latin And therfore not obstanding some erre in this by ignorance neuerthebesse as yet ther is none that openly contradictes that which the whole world doth beleeue confesse Thus Pascasius a learned and venerable and virtuous Abbat testifyeth the faith of the vniuersall Church in his dayes touching the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Whoe altho' he was not English nor liued iuste in the tyme of Alfric yet he liued within the compasse of the same age in which Alfric was Bishop of wilton and Archbishop of Canterburie that is the yeare 900. yea it may be Pascasius was yet aliue wheÌ„ Alfric was Abbat and consequently when he is supposed by our aduersaries to haue writ those epistles which they produce in his name concerning this matter Soe that by this testimonie of Pascasius a forcible argument is made that the contrarie doctrine of the reall presence cauld not possible haue ben soe publick and common in anie parte of the Christian world in soe shorte a space of tyme as passed if anie passed betwixt Pascasius and the writing of the homilie and Epistles attributed to Alfric if he did euer write them And how beit is may appeare by the writings of Pascasius that ther were some in or aboute his tyme whoe argued writ in an vnacustomed and new manner touching the doctrine of the presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament as particularly Ioannes Scotus Bertrame and Frudegarde yet as much as I can perceiue by reading Pascasius Fulbertus Stephanus EdueÌ„sis others whoe writ of this matter the broachers of this question did neuer absolutely auerre and maintaine anie assertion directly repugnant to the true and reall existence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely made a schoole question of it arguing the matter pro and contra and that not determinately of the reall presence but whether the same bodie bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie was crucifyed vpon the Crosse was contained vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament not rather some other kynd of Christs bodie and bloud yet truely his and truely present in the Eucharist thou in a figuratiue and tropicall manner And that neither the named authors nor anie other in or aboute Pascasius tyme did plainely or of set purpose impugne the reall presence it plainely appeares by his wordes aboue cited affirming that not obstanding some erred by ignorance yet that none did openly contradict that which the whole world did beleeue and confesse That which is yet further confirmed for we read not that either Scotus Frudegard or Bertrame were euer condemned by the Church in their persons in anie Councell or otherwise which is an euideÌ„t signe they were not obstinate in defence of their opinions but onely deliuered their doubts by way of proposition as at the least in Frudegard in particular doth manifestly appeare by the responsion of Pascasius to his Epistle saying thus Quaeris enim de re ex qua multi dubitant You inquire of a thing of which manie doubt And for conclusion of his owne Epistle Pascasius saith to Frudegard Tu autem velim relegas libellum nostrum de hoc opere For I would haue you read my booke of this matter which you say you haue read in tymes past And if you reprehend or doubt of anie thing in it let it not be tedious vnto you to reuiewe it And finally towardes the end of his exposition of the wordes of the institution of the Eucharist he speaketh to Frudegard in this manner Quapropter charissime Wherfore most dearely beloued doe not doubt of this Mysterie which Christ the truth it self hath of him self bestowed vpon vs. For altho' he sits in heauen at the reight hand of his Father yet doth he not disdaine to be Sacrifyced dayly by the preist in the Sacrament as a true hoaste Now that the same Frudegardus doubt was onely whether the bodie of Christ contained in the Sacrament was the same bodie which he assumed of the Virgin Marie is plaine by Pascasius anser saying thus almost in the beginning of his Epistle Ergo cum ait Wherfore when he saith this is my bodie or my flesh or this is my bloud I think he intimated no other flesh then his owne propter bodie which was borne of the Virgin Marie and hanged en the Crosse Nor anie other bloud then that which was spilt vpon the Crosse and which then was in his bodie No man therfore which is soundly wise doth beleeue that Iesus had anie other flesh or bloud then that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and suffered vpon the Crosse And for conclusion of his foresaid exposition he saith thus to the same Frudegard Ad vltimum quaeso te Lastely I praye fallow not the fooleries of the tripartite or triple bodie of Christ. Doe not mingle salt nor hunnie in it as some would doe not adde nor substracte anie thing but beleeue and vnderstand it all as Christ instituted c. As for Scotus and Bertrame althou ' their bookes haue hen reproued yet it doth not fallow that their authors did directly and absolutely impugne the reall presence or transsubstantiation but they onely deliuered their myndes in a doubtfull obscure and ill sounding manner for which cause and for auoyding of danger they were iustely prohibited the onely the Councell of vercelles the other by the purgatorie Index Howbe it I find nothing in Bertram which with a pious interpretation might not passe among the learned sorte of people And thus much may suffice for proofe that in Pascasius tyme ther had ben no plaine denyall of the reall presence or transsubstantiation in the Christian world but onely some incident doubts made by some particular persons and that in a discussiue manner not as obstinate maintainers of such Doctrine And now by this same and the rest which I haue aboue produced out of the same Pascasius LanfraÌ„c and others the false Archbishop and Primate of Ireland is conuinced of an apparent falsitie for that in the 79. page of his anser to a Iesuits chalenge he had the face to affirme that til the dayes of Lanfranc this question of the reall presence continued still in debate and that it was as free for anie man to followe the Doctrine of Bertram he calles him Ratrannus or Ioannes Scotus as that of Pascasius This audatious affirmation of vsher I say is clearly condemned of falsitie by the same Pascasius whome he citeth and whoe as I haue alledged testifyes that the doctrine of the reall presence in his tyme was not as yet contradicted by anie except those whoe denye Christ but beleeued and professed by the whole world althou some saith he did erre in the same by ignorance And this onely

by way of diuertion breefly to signifye to the reader how common a practise it is euen among the most famous of our aduersaries to maintaine their doctrine by lyes and false dealing of which I perceiue by a breefe vewe I tooke of some parte of his worke an industrious reader may discouer no smale stoare in the great primate doctor Vsher as well as his fellowes But now to returne to my direct purpose I yet more efficatiously confirme that which I haue said of Alfric by the chronologie of our English historians In his cata wulstan dunst For first according to the computation of Bishop Godwin ther passed onely some six yeares betwixt the decease of wlstaÌ„ in the Archibishoprie of yorke the promotioÌ„ of S. DuÌ„stan to the seat of Canterburie in which space as likewise in the tyme of wulstan himself it is quite incredible that ther was anie doctrine coÌ„trarie to the reall ptesence coÌ„moÌ„ly toucght in England since S. Dunstan at the day and houre of his death expressely professed the same as out of our owne histories I haue alreadie showed by the relation of Harpesfeld Vid. Osborne in vita dunst Besides this it is certaine ther were but onely twoe wulstans Archbishops of yorke as appeareth by Godwins Catalogue the one as he reporteth deceased the yeare 955. which was at the least fortie yeares before Alfric possessed the seat of Canterburie according to the account of the same catalogue The other wulstan as the same Goduin recounteth began not his seat at yorke till the yeares 1003. which was more then 50. yeares after the death of the first wulstan now this conographie being thus established euen by one of our aduersaries Safe way sect 9. Â§. 2. I argue in this manner against knight Humbrey affirming that the homilie and Epistles which he alledgeth were translated by Alfric and appointed to be read to the people in his dayes my argument is this If this supposed homilie and Epistles were euer translated written or published by Alfric either it was when he was Abbat or Archbishop But neither of these is true Therfore it is not true that the homilie and Epistles were euer translated or published by Alfric The Minor which onely hath need of prose I conuince by the testimonie of my aduersarie whoe affirmes the translation and publication of the freifaid writings to haue ben a boute the yare 996. Sir Humf. page 92. and directed to wulstan Archbishop or yorke and wulfstius Bishop of sherborne by Alfric Abbat I meane the Epistles And yet at this tyme neither was Alfric Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie neither was either of the two wulstans Archbishop of yorke at that tyme. the one being dead 40. yeares before and the other not inuested in that dignitie vntill the yeare 1003. as Godwin doth witnesse soe that by this argument it manifestly appeares that the knights relation touching this matter of the publishing of the homilie and Epistles alledged by him against the reall presence and transsubstantiation is contradictious voyde of truth More ouer I finde in our English histories that aboute the yeare 950. which was some fortie and od yeares before Alfric was preferred to be Archbishop of Canterburie Vid. Harps in the tyme of Odo Archbishop of the same seat ther were some conuented before him whoe were in an erroreous opinion aboute the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the maintainers of it how soeuer Fox doth fable neither were manie nor did it long continue but was miraculously at an instant exstinguished For the pious zealous pastor Odo much lamenting the illusion of those miserable people prayed God with teares in masse that his diuine maiestie would be pleased by his infinit power manifestely to shewe some thing by which both the truth of the reall presence might appeare and the contrarie error might be confounded when sodainely at his seruants petition God almightie turned the consecrated bread in to visible flesh and the wine in to visible bloud Which wonderous spectacle being seene the incredulous persons presently complained of their owne perfidie and misbeleefe and all the rest of their dayes conserued their faith intire and sounde now this hauing happened aboute the same tyme at which that wulstan was Archbishop of yorke whoe hauing ben in that place some yeares deceased the yeare 955. as Godwin relateth it clearely appeares incredible that Alfric then Abbat should direct anie doctrine repugnant to the reall presence to wolstan Archbishop of yorke and to vlsine vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of sherbourne as our aduersaries affirme since that Odo Archbishop of Canterburie and Primate of England at the verie same tyme as of out of histories I haue rehearsed did by the power of God operate soe strange a miracle in confirmation of the same and confutation of the contrarie error More then this Vlsin or vlsius whome the knight calles wulfstius of which name neuerthelesse I finde none in Malesburies Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne could not possible haue anie Epistle directed unto him by Alfric while he was Abbat of Malesburie or Abington as Sir Humfrey and the rest of these tryfelers alledge for that while Vlsine or wulfstius was Bishop of Sherbourne which was but onely fiue yeares as our histories doe testifye Hrapsfeld saec 10. c. 9. being Abbat onely of westminister in the dayes of S. Dunstan and by his procurement whose death happened the yeare .988 as Stowe relates Alfric was no more Abbat but Bishop of wilton and consequently he could not as Abbat write to Vlsine Vlsius or wulfstius Bishop of Sherbourne but if he had writ anie such letters as our aduersaries attribute vnto him to that Bishop he should haue styled him selfe not Abbat but Bishop as in deed he was all the tyme yea and some yeares before the foresaid wulfstius was by king Ethelred preferred to the Episcopall seat of Sherbourne But that which doth strik this quite dead is that ther hauing ben but onely twoe wolstans Archbishops of yorke the first wolstan dyed before euer Alfric was Abbat to wit the yeare of our Lord 955. wher as Ingulphus in Edgar relates Alfric to haue ben created Abbat onely aboute the yeare 970. at the soonest soe that he could not possible write anie Epistles to the first wolstan while he was Abbat as our nouellists pretend bebause this wolstan was departed out of this life before Alfrics tyme of being Abbat And as for the second wolstan it is well knowne and testifyed by Godwin that he was not Archbishop of yorke before the yeare 1003. At which tyme Alfric was not Abbat but Archbishop of Canterburie as our aduersaries them selues refuse not to graunte And soe this computation and collation of tymes vtterly destroyes the machination of our abuersaries in attrituting the foresaid writings to Abbat Alfric And touching Vlsius or Vlsinus I adde to this that Alfric was consecrated Byshop of wilton in the yeare 985. or ther aboutes some fourteeme yeares

Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Text snippets containing the quad