Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers and because also he put a croune vpon it and worshipped it in an Ethnicall manner and not according to the custome of Christians but as S. Epihanius heres 27. explicateth those heretikes Gentilium ministeria perficiebant they sacrified vnto all those images to wit of Pithagoras Aristotle together with Christs image after the manner of the Gentiles and so this parte of the Pedegree containes an errour in in heraldry and proueth no true descent In the next passage which is aboute the CommunioÌ„ in both kinds Pope Leo tells vs saith the Knight that the Manicheis a sorte of heretikes in his time vsed the Sacrament in one kinde videlicet in bread onely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam Videlicet Manichei nostris audeaÌ„t inesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt tutius lateaÌ„t Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae omnino haurire declinant Leo ser 4. in quad It is true S. Leo saith so but he doth not condemne them for heretikes for that reason but be cause they abstained froÌ„ wine as from an vncleane creature and because they did not beleeue that Christ had bloud in in his body and so that which Pope Leo did when he gaue commaunde that those should be diligeÌ„tly obserued who vsually receiued but in one kind was done purposely for discouerie of the Manicheis who crastily to conceile their heresie touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholikes dissemblingly the Custome of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kinde and in both as now the Grecians practise and therefore that holy Pope did discretely commaunde those should be diligently obserued who in all occasions did vse to receiue vnder the forme of bread onely houlding that for an euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t of their aborring of the bloud of Christ By which it is euident that euen that same time the communioÌ„ was lawfully vsed by some in one kinde otherwise S. Leo needed not to haue vsed any great diligence for the dicouerie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had bene obledged to coÌ„municate in both the Manicheis who frequented the Communion would haue beene discouered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell toutouching a proofe of his taken from the example of the Nazarites as if he had deriued wholy or chiefly the communion of one species or kinde from the practise of their communion whereas he doth not so but hauing by other arguments of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons sufficieÌ„tly established the doctrine of the Church in that particular he bringeth that of the Nazarites onely as a confirmation of the same Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those wordes of S. Luke drinke you all of this whereby he would proue that the communion in both kindes came from Christ and so it did indeede but not by precept giuen to all in generall but onelie to those then present and to those whome they represented as to be their successours that is the Apostles and all Priests after them but not to anie Puritan or Puritannicall minister as not hauing from them anie true succession After these passages Sir Humfrey proceeds to inuocation of Saints and Aungels the founders of which he affirmeth to haue bene the heretikes called Angelici and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretikes not for the inuocation of Angells but either for that they held them to haue bene creatours of the world or in regard they vsed to boast of their owne Angelicall manner of life or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels Erant in Angelorum cultum inclinati quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur Aug. haeres 29. that they did vse to worship them with latria or diuine honour all which kinde of adoration the Romanists with the same Saint Augustin giue to one onelie God And so the knight doth peruert the trueth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. vpon the Genes explicating that passage of Apocalips 19. in which the Angell prohibited S. Iohn to adore him saith neither let it moue the that in a certaine place of scripture the Angell doth prohibite a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God for the Angell did so appeere that he might haue adored him for God and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin teacheth that the Angelici were heretikes because they were inclined to adore Angels he meanes because they adored them with diuine honour and not because they gaue that due inferiour worship vnto them which the Romanists vse For workes of merit and supererogation hee produceth for authours the heretikes named Cathari and Puritans but the heresies of these sectaries were farre different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points Nay they were neuer defenders of either merit or workes of supererogation that euer I read but that for which they were condemned by the Catholike Church was chiefelie for their defence of the errours of Nouatus and particularelie for denying remission of sinnes and the authoririe of the keyes in the Church and for that they affirmed their owne pretended puritie to be aboue the doctrine of the Apostles as not conteyned in it but farre exceeding it and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones Cathari qui seipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant Secundas nuptias non admittunt paenitentiam denegant NouatuÌ„ sectantes haereticum vnde etiam nouatiani appellantur S. Aug. haeres 38. And S. Isidor in the verie place cited by Sir Humfrey saith of them That they named them selfes Cathari for their puritie for glorying saith hee in their merits they denie pennance c. And so it appeares by this that the knight belyes Saint Isidor in two respects Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres Christian as if he did testifie that these heretikes were the first authours of doctrine of merit and workes of supererogation Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other Nor yet makes anie mention in that place of workes of superogation And so according to this lette our Puritans of England and Sir Humfrey him selfe as none of the least of them examen their consciences well and doubtles they will finde themselues to haue farre more affinitie with the foresaid fellowes then the Romanists who both graâ—nt remission of sinnes by vertue of the Ecclesiasticall keyes and allso denie and renounce all such puritie of Spirit as the Puritans pretended He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to haue bene the heresie of the Collyridians Quaedam mulieres currum quendam siue sellam quadratam
fathers of the primatiue Church so the knight by which discourse you may easilie perceiue euen by his owne wordes and the if which he maketh that all which he hath hitherto said hath no greater warrant then his owne suretie which although his authoritie and credit were farre greater then either we haue found it to be or it can be in it selfe yet were it not safe for anie man to relie vpon it but rather to hould it for verie vncertaine and fayleable Especiallie considering that all which he hath produced in proofe of the same are either meere trifles or at the most verie poore arguments grounded vpon false suppositions yea and vpon plaine vntrueths falsifications and corruptions both of scripture and fathers and so partlie through ignorance and partlie through malice he hath shewed himselfe a most partiall and false Herold And now altho' this might suffice for the censure of the section insuing because it pertaineth to the same subiect yet least the knigth should grūble I will a forde it a Period a parte THE VII PERIOD IN his eight section therefore Sir Humfrey promiseth to produce testimonies of his aduersaries touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the Protestant faith in generall So he proceedeth in the title To which he addeth by way of asseueration that if the Roman Church doth not confesse that the reformers are both in the more certaine and Safer waye in the Protestant Church I will saith he neither refuse the name nor the punishment due to heresie Heere we see the knight is as free in his promises as euer he was let vs therefore examen how he performeth them for if he doth not he cannot escape either the name of an heretike or at the least the desert of punishment itselfe euen in this mortall life Hee beginneth thus He that shall question vs where our Church was before Luther let him looke back to the Primatiue Church nay let him but looke into the bosome of the present Roman Church and he shall finde that if euer antiquitie and vniuersallitie were markes of the true Church of right and necessitie they must belong to ours So Sir Humfrey In which wordes as it were by way of generall assertion he briefelie declareth the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his Church to be found both in the Primatiue Church and also in the present Roman Church in which assertion there being two partes and that no small ones the first he endeauoureth to proue by shewing a conformitie betwene the doctrine of the Church of England with that of the Primatiue Church and descending to particulars he tells vs that his Church teacheth and beleeueth the same three Creedes which were instituted by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primatiue Church and not created by Luther as also two of the seauen Sacraments which were saith he by the confession of our aduersaries instituted by Christ The same he affirmeth of 22. bookes of Canonicall Scripture which he saith were vniuersallie receiued in all ages Likewise of the seuen generall Councells he affirmeth that foure of them were ratified by the Cannons of the Church of England and confirmed by act of parliament and thus he runneth through the points of doctrine and faith in which they and we agree adding to them the confession of his aduersaries And yet in all his large rehearsall of points of faith he maketh no mention of eyther those in which the Romanists and reformers disagree nor of those new articles of the English Creede which dissent from the doctrine of the Primatiue Church and which indeede are those that make the reformers guiltie of heresie as its the doctrine of Iustification by faith onelie the deniall of the reall presence and such like But craftilie leauing them out as if they were not to the purpose he treateth whereas in trueth by reason of these new errours obstinatelie defended by them there can be no vniuersalitie nor antiquitie in their Church notwithstanding they had neuer so great conformitie both to the auncient primatiue and moderne Roman Church in all the rest of their beleefe Especiallie supposing that anie one errour in matter of faith obstinatelie defended is sufficient to take away all true antiquitie and vniuersallitie of anie Church or congregation whatsoeuer as euen the reformers themselues as I suppose cannot denie for that as the scripture affirmeth that he who offends in one thing is made guiltie of all the rest so he that in one onelie poynt of faith houldeth contrarie to the most vniuersall and auncient Church maketh himselfe presentlie guiltie of want or defect both of vniuersalitie and antiquitie in his beleefe For as Saint Nazianzene saith to this purpose in his 37. oration towards the end the articles of faith are like to a gould chaine from which if you take away anie one link as Saint Ambrose saith Ad cap. 9. Lucae lib. 6. in fine you take away your saluation vnum horum saith he si detraxeris tetraxisti salutem tuam And so we see that the knight by reason he omitteth in his discourse that part vpon which the verie medium of his argument chiefelie or at the least greatelie depended his proofe of antiquitie and vniuersality in his Church falleth to the groūd But besides this defect he fayleth also in that he saith he beleeueth the three Creedes instituted by the Apostles and Primatiue Fathers of the Church For either he meanes that those three Creedes do sufficientlie conteyne all that he is bound to beleeue or no. If the first he meaneth then what will become of his solifidian iustification and of the 39. articles of the English faith the greater parte of which is not to be found in those Creedes If he meanes the second then doth he ill in leauing those particulars out in the rehearsall of his faith Nay more then this for if matters were well examined I doubt not but the knight notwithstanding the protestatiō of his faith of the three Creeds yet he would be founde holting in the true generally receiued or Catholike sēse of diuers of the same as that of the perpetuall virginity of the mother of God in that of the descēt of Christ in to hell of the Catholike Church the cōmunion of Saincts remission of sinnes and the like I say of the doctrine of the 4. first Generall Councels and of the Sacraments in which particulars our aduersaries vnderpresēce of reformatiō maintaine diuers deformed errours specified and confuted by diuines of the Roman Church Moreouer the knight is also defectiue in the proofe of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith and doth egregiously equiuocate in that he saith that two of the Sacraments which the Church of Rome houldeth are professed by the reformers and confessed by their aduersaries to haue beene instituted by Christ not broached by Luther This I say is equiuocall and doth not prooue his intent for although it neither is nor can be denied but ingenuously confessed by the Roman Church that there are two
But I answer that when the knight cited those authours he ought to haue remembred what hee was to proue according to the Irish article which he vndertaketh to defend and according to his owne position viz. That priuate Masse is contrarie to Christs institution and vnlawfull and to be abrogated This then he ought to haue proued if he ment to proue anie thing against the Roman doctrine But in steede of this which he will neuer be able to proue he proueth at the most by the foresaid testimonies onelie that which the Romanists doe not denie to wit that the primatiue Church did practice the administration of the Eucharist to those that were present but he proueth not that either that Church did soe in all occasions nor that she held it necessarie by virtue of anie lawe or institution of Christ and so he laboureth in vaine as well in this as he hath done in other proofes often times before Neither is this present point of Controuersie betwene vs and the reformers about the auncient custome of the primatiue Church concerning the communion of the people present at the Liturgie but whether it is contrarie to Christs institution or commaunde to celebrate priuate masses the affirmatiue of which question excepting Cassander whome I haue alreadie aduertised the reader to be no Romanist nay nor yet Cassander himselfe nor anie one of the cited testimonies doth proue Nay there is not one worde in anie of the places cited touching anie such doctrine or precept of the Primatiue Church but onelie mention is made of the fact of auncient Christians in that particular with an addition of their owne verdit as houlding it for more profitable to the receiuers to communicate at euerie Masse if their deuotion were so much extended as in those more feruorous times of the primatiue spirit it appeeres to haue bene And although not onelie all or most of the authours rehearsed but also the Councell of Trent itselfe doth hould the foresaid practice of the auncient Church to be more fruitefull for the Laytie then the custome of more moderne ages yet doth Sir Humfrey most absurdelie hence inferre either the noueltie of the Roman doctrine or the antiquitie of his owne For that as we haue showed alreadie neither in anie of the cited authours nor in the Councell of Trent it selfe as their wordes doe witnesse is there anie mention of doctrine or precept of the Primatiue Church but onelie of her fact and practice from whence also may most easilie appeere the greate impertinencie of a further illation which the knight doth make concluding the greater fruitfulnes of his owne communion then of ours whereas indeede his being no true communion at all as not containing that which according to the institution of Christ ought truelie and reallie to be in it and so communicated truelie and reallie to the people and not by figure and faith onelie I meane the bodie and bloud of Christ certaine it is that no such inference can be made out of anie comparison made betwene the Catholike communion and his owne in regard there is no true paritie or similitude to be founde in them and moreouer it is so farre from being confessed by the cited authours that the communion of the reformers is more fruitfull then their owne that they teach expresselie that according to the doctrine of the reformed Churches touching the reall presence the receiuers of their Sacrament can receiue no fruite at all And now let this suffice for anser to those authours In generall Yet because it may be my aduersarie will not be satisfied with this generall anser alone as also because I finde he hath vsed not a little of his vsuall proceeding in want of fidelitie in the citation of the authours I ame content to descend to particulars and examen them in order The first the knight cites is Cochlaeus out of Cassander but neither he nor Cassander haue anie thing in that place against priuate Masse but onelie testifie what the custome of the auncient Church was which as I haue alreadie declared is impertinent to this purpose Besides Sir Humfrey translates Cochleus wordes corruptedlie for he doth not say that the holie Goste hath thought vs a remedie against the slouthfulnes of the Preists in celebrating of priuate Masse but he saith the holie Ghost hath inuented and introduced a pious supplie of this negligence by the frequentation of such Masses as Preists celebrate alone So by inuerting the wordes the malitious knight imposeth vpon the Preists onely for a faulte that which Cochleus calles a remedie prouided by the holie Gost to supplie the faulte of the lesse deuoute sorte of people as well as the defect of the Preists Which defect neuerthelesse Chocleus placeth not in their slouthfulnesse in celebrating priuate Masses but in not exhorting the laytie to communicate at euerie Masse as his wordes sufficiently declare In the second place he cites Durand mymatensis who as speaking onelie of the custome of the auncient Church and consequentlie not against the Romanists yet he corruptes him both in that for Domino dicente he translates according to Christs commaunde as also by leauing out his insuing wordes which declare the reason of the alteration of that auncient custome Sed excrescente fidelium multitudine traditur institutum vt tantum Dominicis diebus communicarent Durand rat lib. 4. c. 53. But the multitude of beleeuers increasing it is deliuered vnto vs to haue beene instituded that they should communicate onelie on sundayes Odo vpon the Canon doth not disproue priuate Masse but onelie relates the different customes of the Church in different times Cum primitus missae sine collecta non fierent postea mos inoleuit Ecclesiae solitarias maxime in Caenobijs fieri missas d. 2. in Can. circa init The same I say of Belethus yet Sir Humfrey omits the rest of his wordes As he did in the testimonie of durand Hugo in spec In the testimonie of Card. Hugo who witnesseth onelie the same in substance he addes the worde together which is not in the text to mend his ill market also letting slip some of his wordes which denote the cause of the change of the auncient vse which are these Initio nascentis Ecclesiae Christiani qui celebrationi Missae ad erant post acceptam pacem cōmunicare solebant Durantus de rit cap. 58. Sed propter peccatum circumstans nos statutum est vt communicaremus terin anno solum But by reason of sinne compassing vs about saith Hugo it was determined that we should communicate onelie thrise a yeare And in the next allegation of Tolosanus who sayth no other then the rest he translates mysterie for Masse In the citation of Mycrologus the craftilie omits iuxta antiquos Canones And for ante oblationem he translates before cōmunion because he will not haue his reader to heare that either the communion of the people in euerie Masse might seeme to be an
onely by an vnautheÌ„ticall history the allegation can be of no more authority theÌ„ is the relatour himselfe who was then a CaluiniaÌ„ sectary called Suauis who hath writ a very corrupted narration of that which passed in the CouÌ„cell as relating the coÌ„tentions or coÌ„trary opinioÌ„s which the Fathers Doctours held whiles matters were in debate vnconcluded as if they had continued after the definitions and decrees were made and so abusing both the Councell his reader egregiously And yet more then this suppose the relation were most true and authenticall yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent videlicet that the Pope denieth reformatlon of Corruptions in faith and manners for that in the wordes related out of the foresaid history there is no mention of any corruptions of that nature but onely of abuses in generall tearmes which Schomberg was of opinion that it had beene better to let them alone yet that was onely his particular dictamen and proposition to which neither the Pope nor the rest of the Councell agreed but resolued vpon a course of reformation as the decrees themselues doe testifie so that this passage of the related historie is impertinentlie alledged by the Knight Finally S. Humfrey doth equiuocate not onely in that which we haue said but alsoe in the very substance of this his whole section For his cheefe or rather whole scope being not onely to proue corruptions in doctrine and manners to be confessed by the Romanists to be in their Church but also that the Pope refuseth to take them away he by his allegations of the testimonies of some Romanists proueth in parte that there were corruptions in manners both before and when the Councell of Trent was assembled but he quite dissembleth the other parte to witte that they were reformed allso by the same Councell and yet not withstanding the very same places which he produceth out of the Romanists doe as plainely auerre the one as the other And so out of those proceedings of Sir Humfrey and the rest which hath bene said it may plainely appeere that he is so farre from recouery of that honour which he lost in the former sections that he hath now stained the same not a little more and so we may conclude this section and include it in the former censure THE III. PERIOD IN the fourth section the knight proceedeth to greater matters to matters I say of life and death for he affirmeth that manny learned Romanists conuicted by the euidence of truth either in parte or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death But let vs see how exactly and sollidly he proceedeth in so weightie a matter He citeth Medâ—cir â— celeberrimus professor D. Venerandus Gablerus tanti comitis exemplum secutus redijt ad Catholicismum Adfuerat is Petro Paulo vergerio è corpore migranti apud quem minor quae dam viderat quae illi animum videbantur perfregisse vt non modo Catholicus sed pientissimus quoque Catholicus fieret Sane aiunt viri graues hunc Apostatam Vergerium sub mortem teterrimos exhalasse faetores ac bouis instar horrendos edidisse boatus c. anno 1567. Surius Com. pag. 733. the Councell of Basill out of Genebrard Aeneas Syluius out of Platina Harding out of Iewell The Rhemish testament out of Causabon The lord Cooke B. Gard. out of Iohn Fox Bellarmins Controuersies And his last will or testament Albertus Pighins Paulus Vergerius and his brother Baptist These are all the authours hee citeth in this section For the proofe of his vast assertion which authours being but ten in number yet three of them are knowen to be no Romanists except he will haue L. Cooke and the two brother Bishops to be Romanists which neuerthelesse he confesseth to to haue protested against the Romish doctrine so that now according to his owne confession the whole number of Roman authours he citeth heere is reduced to seuen which small number I caÌ„not imagin according to what Arithmetick it can truly be accounted many especially if we compare them to the infinite number of the Romanists which haue bene yet are extant in the Christian world constant maintainers of Popery And this I say euen in case it were true that all those seuen had euer renounced the Romish faith either in part or totally as the knight affirmeth which neuerthelesse I will make apparent to be otherwise And first touching the Councell of Basil the very same wordes which Sir Humfrey citeth do conuince the same for saith hee the Councell did allow the cup to the Bohemians vpon this condition that they should not find fault with the contrary vse nor seuer themselues from the Catholike Church Now what is heere to be found in these wordes of the Councell which is any kinde of renuntiation of the Romish faith nay what is there which concerneth the Romish faith at all that which the Councell determineth being but onelie a graunt to one particular nation vpon particular reasons and that in a point of practice not of doctrine which also if our English protestants were as conformable to the Roman Church in all other points of faith and manners as the Bohemians then were might perhaps vpon the like iust reasons and vpon the same condition be graunted in the realme of England and that without any preiudice to either faith or manners But our English sectaries are so farre from conformitie to the Romanists not onely in diuerse other points but euen in this particular that they coÌ„tinually exclaime against them both in their bookes and sermons as violatours of Christs institution in that they do not allwayes and in euerie countrie communicate the people in both kindes Con. Basiliense initio legitimum postea Conciliabulum Scismaticum nullius authoritatis Con. lat sess 11. ex Bell. non refero verba accusing them also that they mangle the Sacrament and vniustlie depriue the laytie of one part there of iudging the same for a laufull cause at the least in parte of their separation from the Roman Church none of which particulars are proued by the testimonie of the Councell of Basil to haue concurred in the case of the Bohemians but rather the contrarie is most plainelie specified so that the knight hath laboured in vaine or rather against himselfe by producing the foresaid testimonie of the Councell of Basil in which noe renuntiation of Popery is to be founde nor anie agreement in doctrine or manners with the pretensiue reformed Churches From whence it is also consequentlie inferred that to be clearelie false which our aduersarie affirmes in the beginning of this section to wit that the reformed Churches haue done nothing in this otherwise then former Councels had anciently decreed He citeth in the second place Aeneas Syluius who was afterwardes Pope Pius the second as if he had renounced the Romish religion in that he saith that as marriage vpon weightie reasons was taken from the Priests so vpon weightie reasons it were wished
would easilie haue perceiued that they fauour his intent nothing at all as not cōteyning 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 cōstrued 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 Hūfrey 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 māner 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 thē 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
salubres obseruationes si qui abusus irrepserint eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus cupit ita vt nullae falsi dogmatis imagines rudibus periculosae errorem praebentes statuantur c. Con. Trid. sess â—5 init Another fault sir Humfrey committeth also in that he affirmeth that this corruption which S. Augustin and the Church of his time condemned for superstition was confirmed 400. yeeres after by the second Councell of Nice for Catholike doctrine and is now decreed by the Councell of Trent for an article of faith Thus the knight But this is all false and grounded onelie vpon an erroneous persuasion of his owne videlicet that the worship which those people of which S. Augustin speaketh gaue to pictures is the same which the Roman Church practizeth at this daye according to the definition of those two Councells that which he neither proueth heere nor can euer proue in anie other place as being manifest by the doctrine of those same Councells in this point that they both condemned this superstitious practice of those people reprehended by S. Augustin the Church of his age eueÌ„ as much as he did in those former tymes And so neither this instance framed by Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustins wordes nor the whole argument it selfe concludes any part of his intent in this section but rather conuinceth by the fact of the same S. Augustin that no errour can possible so secretlie steale into the Church but it is either presently or within a small tyme espied and noted for such by one authenticall authour or other which is quite contrary to the position which the knight indeauoureth heere to establish and whoely conformable to the tenet of the Roman Church in this matter After this Sir Hum. maketh a large repetition of diuerse points of doctrine defended by the Church of Rome as if they were farre different from the intention of those who first taught or ordeined them but for this his conceipt he bringeth no proofe at all and so I leaue it as a voluntary tenet founded vpon his owne small authority True it is he produceth diuerse authours for the confirmation of the same alledging them all for Romanists and yet some of them are not so esteemed to be as is manifest in Cassander and Agrippa which the Roman Church houlds not for her true children but rather for illegitimate Be citeth also Ioannes Ferus who altho' he was at the lest once a Romanist whatsoeuer he was afterwardes yet there haue beene noted in his workes diuerse ill sounding propositions whether it be for that his bookes haue beene corrupted by the sectaries of these times as by some editions of his workes may be iustly suspected or whether it be that the man was something more rash in his assertions then he ought to haue beene But howsoeuer it falleth out with him in that nature yet the place cited out of him by Sir Humfrey if it be rightly vnderstood it proueth no more but that by the priuate abuses and superstitioÌ„s of some particular men many things ordeined by holy men with a good intention haue receiued some accidentall chaunge And although Ferus exemplifieth in the feasts of the Church Ceremonies images Masses monasteries yet certaine it is his meaning was not that all these are either vnlawfull or superstitious or that they are new articles of faith or not to be vsed in the Church of God as the knight and his coÌ„panions would haue theÌ„ to be but onely out of a pious zeale he wished that such abuses might be corrected as he perceiued in his daies to haue crept into the practice and vse of the same which is a thing so farre from Sir Humfreys purpose of prouing an alteration in the Doctrine of auncient tymes as it is both very conformable to reason and allso to the decree of reformation made in the Councell of Trent aboue cited He citeth allso Marius de schis Concil Et Polidore de inuent rerum as speaking of the vncertainty of the entrance into the Church of Priests mariage But this is nothing to the purpose the knight heere treateth For how I pray you doth this proue that there are errours of faith in the RomaÌ„ Church whereas the restraint of mariage of Priests it selfe is no article of faith as Sir Humfrey ignorantly supposeth but onely a precept of the Church and a matter of manners and yet in case it were so in it selfe neuerthelesse certaine it is that the question or difficultie about the first begining of the restraint of such onelie the cited authours speake is no matter of faith and consequentlie can be no errour euen in Sir Humfreyes owne false supposition of errours in the Roman Church To omitte that suppose the first begining of the restrainte of marriage in Priests were truelie an article of faith in the Roman Church yet this being but one particular instance or example drawne out of two Romanists onelie it cannot sufficientlie proue that generall position of Sir Humfrey to witte that there was a knowne tyme when those tenets meaning the points of doctrine which the Councell of Trent defined were not certainelie knowne or generallie receiued by the Roman Church since that according to the rules of Logike no generall proposition can be inferred out of a particular and that touching the rest of the articles of the Roman doctrine the reformers are so farre from the assignation of the time of their beginning that Sir Humfrey him selfe euen in this verie place is forced to hould this precise tyme of the beginning of the same to be vnnecessarie to be assigned And altho' by reason that both those authours are ceÌ„sured in the expurgatorie Index we are not bouÌ„de to giue credit vnto them yet this I saye that supposing they are both here produced to testifie that the beginning of the and prohibition of Preists mariage can not be assigned it is rather a great argument that it was appointed by the primatiue Church itselfe then introduced of later yeares Besides this Sir Humfrey doth falsifie Polydor in the place he citeth for he doth not affirme that mariage of Preists was not altogether prohibited til the tyme of Gregorie the 7. but that it could not be taken away till that tyme. Alijs snper alijs promulgatis legibus non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. coniugium adimi occidentalibus sacerdotibus potuit Pol. lib. 5. cap. 4. edit Antuerp 1554. Cassander altho' Romanists esteeme not of his authoritie either pro or contra yet here he is corrupted by Sir Humfrey for companie lest he should laff at his followes where for those wordes non temerè reperies thou shalt not easilie finde he translates was not expresselie defined speaking of the number of the 7. SacrameÌ„ts of which Cassander saith that a man shall not easilie finde anie who haue constituted anie certaine determinate number of Sacraments before Peter Lombard non temerè quenquaÌ„ reperies ante Petrum LombarduÌ„ qui certuÌ„ aliquem
the Osseni which I haue shewed all readie out of S. Epiphanius to haue beene of a farre different nature notwithstanding out aduersarie doth indeuoure falselie to persuade the same to his simple reader neither was this as the knight vntruelie affirmes to introduce seruice in a strange language but rather in the most knowne in the world that in which most nations agree and so this may serue to demonstrate that the Romanists deriue not this parte of their Pedagane frō auncient heretikes as our aduersarie doth calumniate but frō the practise of the most aūcient Church at the least in the west partes of the world to wit the Apostolicall Church And heare we see also that Sir Humfrey in steede of deriuing the Pedegree of the Roman faith from Iewes and heretikes he deriues his owne from the Father of lyes that is from the abuse of both scriptures and auncient Fathers of the Catholike Church In the next braunch of the Pedegree he plaplaceth transsubstantiation going about to proue that it was the doctrine or at least the practise of certaine heretikes named Helcesaitae who faigned a two fould Christ as saith Sir Humfrey the Masse Preists doe who admit one bodie with all his dimentions and properties in heauen and other in the Sacrament which hath noe properties of a true bodie Thus Sir Humfrey talkes most absurdely ignorantly and falsely Ignorantly for that according to this discourse he houldes the want of locall dimensions or properties of a bodie sufficient to cause an absolute indiuiduall sustantiall diuersitie in it and to distinguish it really from it selfe and so to make it an other distinct bodie which is so voyde of reason that if he had not bene grossely ignorant in Philosophie haue he would neuer vttered such doctrine vnworthie of other confutation them a schoole stampe or hisse He speake also falsely first in that he either affirmes or supposes Preists to admit that Christs bodie in the Sacrament is without anie properties of a true bodie For they all contrarily teach and beleeue that as Christs bodie in the Sacrament is the same which is in heauen so hath it all the same properties excepting locall extension Secondly he speakes falselie in that he Fathereth that on Preists which none of them either thought or tought and so makes them guiltie if the Helcesaits heresie onelie for that which he hath forged in his owne phantasticall braine Also abusing the authority of learned Theodoret in misaplying his words in which he vtters not anie iot or title by which it can be gathered that these heretikes meant of Christ in the Sacrament when they faigned a double Christ but of two visible Christs the one aboue I knowe not where and the other belowe in the world or I knowne not where els adding that the supernall Christ did in former times liue in manie but at being descended from aboue And more they sayde he passed into other bodies other such like fabulous stuffe they haue of Christ which neuer enterd into the cogitations of any people of learning and iudgement and therefore it is as great dotage in Sir Humfrey to impose this vpon Catholike Roman Preists as it was in the authour to inuentit as will yet more plainely appeare by the formall words of Theodoret which here I put in the margin Christum autem non vnū dicunt Helcesaitae sed hūc quidem infernè illum verò supernè eum olim in multis habitasse postremò autem descēdisse Iesum autē aliquando ex Deo esse dixit Elxai aliquādo vocat spiritū quandoque autem Virginem matrem habuisse in alijs autem scriptis ne hoc quidē Rursus autem eum etiam dicit transire in alia corpora in vnoquoque tempore diuerse ostendi Theodor. heret fab to 2. lib. 2. pag. 380. And the like absurditie Sir Humfrey commits in that which immediatly followees attributing the doctrine of transsubstantiation to one Marke an heretike because forsooth he by some kinde of inchaunting inuocation ouer the Sacramentall cuppe caused the wine to appeare like bloud which sacrilegious example and practise of Marcus what force it can haue to proue the Romanists to be of that fellowes Pedegree let any indifferent man be iudge And moreouer to take away all doubt and assure himselfe the more let the reader but consider what S. Irenaeus in the same place cited by Sir Humfrey videlicet libr. 1. cap. 9. saith of that Marcus I doubt not but he will see most clearely how egregiously our aduersarie abuseth the Romanists in this matter Marcus saith S. Irenaeus pro calice vino mixto fingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermonem inuocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit vt putetur ea gratia ab ijs qui sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare per inuocationem eius valde concupiscere presentes ex illo gustare poculo vt in illos stillet quae per magum hunc vocatur gratia By which words let the reader if he vnderstand Latin iudge how voyde of grace is he who so shamelesselie applies this to the Consecration of the Eucharist by Preists of the Roman Church And yet the preposterous knight not being content to haue spoken so irreasonably yet further addes that the authours of transsubstantiation were those disciples that beleaued the the grosse carnall eating of Christs Flesh. From whence he would deduce that the Romanists descend from the Iudaicall Capharnaits in this point But this is a most grosse and ridiculous conceipt of him to imagin that they can be successours to such as refused expressely and absolutely to beleeue that same which they hould for a matter of faith tho' not in the same grosse manner which those incredulous disciples of Christ did apprehend and as you also not like reformers but deformers out of the madnesse of your noddles grossely conceiue them to doe but in a much more spirituall manner and yet truely really and substantially and not onely in spirit as your priuate spirits would haue it Which if it were so onely it were not the true Sacrament which necessarily requires to containe really and not by faith onely that which it represēts but it were onely a meere shadowe or figure of a Sacrament as the sacrifice of Melchisedech the manna and bread of Proposition were signes and figures of the Sacrament of the holie Eucharist as not containing but onely representing the body and blōde there contained And supposing that Sir Humfrey himselfe absolutely denies the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and supposing also that as S. Iohn doth testifie the Capharnaits did also refuse to beleeue the same this fable of Sir Humfrey mutat o nomine may much more aptely and truely be verified of him and his companions I will not say then of the Romanists but euen then of the Capharnaits themselues in regarde the Capharnaites as farre as can be gathered by the
attributed by heretikes to ancient and good authours among which we may number one cited by Sir Humfrey in some parte of his worke intitled de fiducia misericordia Dei which Bell. in his booke de Scrip. Eccles declares to be counterfait and suppositious and none of Bishop Fishers on whom it is imposed Neuerthelesse how so euer the matter standes touching the truth of the foresaid homilie and admit it be neuer soe true and authenticall yet I am confidently assured that the wordes by Sir Humfrey cited out of it against the reall presence are not so obscure but that they admitte such a comodious exposition as doth not in any sort fouour the denyall thereof but rather impugne and it confute it First for that there is not one worde which includeth a denyall of the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the wordes onelie showe a differēce betwene the body in which Christ suffered and the bodie which the faithfull receiue which difference is not reallie in the substance of the bodie it selfe it being one and the same in nature in euery place where it existeth but onely in the properties and manner of existence or being in place it hauing beene in the passion visible mortall and with it entire locall extension but in the Sacrament inuisible impassible and vnextended in which sense allso it may rightly be called spirituall yea and not altogether improperly especially taking it with a relation or respect vnto the same body perfectly extended in the manner aboue declared it may be said to be without bloud bone sinn woe limbe or soule that is without extensiō or motion of these partes as the cited wordes doe signifie which by reason of the foresaid maner of being of Christs body in the Sacrament doe call it his spirituall bodie from thence as it were inferring concluding that noething is to be vnderstood there bodily but spiritually all which is noething contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point but rather most agreeable to the same which teacheth that Christs body though it be truelie in the Sacrament yet without extension and not in a Corporall but in a spirituall manner yea and very cōformable to the doctrine of S. Paul who speaking of the resurrectiō of the flesh douteth not to call one the same humane bodie both corruptible spirituall 1. Cor. 15. Seminatur corpus animale surget corpus spirituale and that not for the difference of the bodie in it nature and substance which it hath not but onelie by reason of the accidentall difference which it hath in it properties and māner of existence which the same bodie receiueth in the resurrection not hauing had them in this mortall life True it is ther is one passage in the homilie which in my opinion hath more difficulty showe of repugnance to the reall presence transsubstantiation then the former wordes to wit where the authour makes a comparison betwixt the manna and water which flowed from the rocke in the desert both which he affirmes to haue beene figures of Christ bodie and bloud as the Eucharist also is Neuerthelesse he hath consequenter an other passage or two which plainely declare that similitude to be nothing contrarie either to the reall presence or transsubstantiation For so he addes The Apostle Paul saith that the Israelists did eate the same gostely meake and drinke the same gostely drinke because that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeares and shat water which frome the stome did follow had signification of Christs bodie his bloud that now be offered daylie in Gods Church it was the same saith he which we offer not bodily but gostely But which wordes it is euident that Alfric puts a maine difference betwixt that spirituall meate and drinke of the Iewes the spirituall foode which Catholike Christians receiue in the Sacrament that being but a signification as the authour of the Homilie expressely affirmeth of Christs body bloud it being the same not bodilie but onely spiritually or figuratiuelie with that bodie and bloud of Christ which he auerreth Preists to offer daylie and of which he also teacheth the foresaid water to be a representation not the bodie and bloud themselues which as being euerie day sacrificed in the altar euen according to common sense they must of necessitie be reallie and truelie in the Eucharist And altho' the authour of the Homilie calleth if a figure of Christs bodie bloud yet doth he not say it is a figure of thē absent as the water flowing out of the rock was but truelie and reallie present as those his wordes in which he saith and diuers time repeateth that Christs bodie and bloud are offered in the same Eucharist by Preists in sacrifice doe euidently conuince supposing it is impossible to conceiue the authour of the homilie should affirme that Christs bodie and bloud be offered in the altar and yet not beleeue the same to be reallie truelie and substantially present in the Eucharist Moreouer the same Homilie saith in plaine termes the wine which in the supper by the Preist is hallowed shewe one thing without to humane vnderstanding and another thing with in to beleeuing minds without they seeme bread and wine both in figure and tast and they be truely after their hallowing Christs bodie and his blood throu ' gostelie misterie And afterwardes these wordes doe followe we said vnto you that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housell before his suffering and said this his my bodie and my bloud yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned trou ' in visible might the bred to his owne hodie the wine to his bloud which wordes how plaine they be for the reall presence and transsubstantiation anie one that is not violently partiall in his owne cause may easilie perceiue considering that for Christ to turne by inuisible might the bread and wine into his bodie and bloud is nothing els but that which both the definitions of the Roman Church and Catholike diuines call by the names of reall presence and transsubantiation Thirdlie it is manifest that the foresaid testimonie cannot in reason be alledged in fauour of the reformers doctrine in this particular for that they denie the bodie of Christ either to exist or to be receaued really in the Eucharist otherwise then by faith figure neither of which neuertelesse is denied by the words aboue cited but contrarilie they expressely and absolutelie auerre that the bodie of Christ is receaued by the faithfull and altho' they call it his spirituall bodie yet doubtlesse they doe it onelie for the reason alledged as also for that it nourisheth the receiuers spirituallie yet they neuer denie it to be a true bodie or to be trulie present in the Sacrament or affirme it to be receiued by faith onelie as the reformers commonlie doe and Sir Humfrey in particular most expresselie in diuerse places of his booke Fourtlie the wordes alledged call
thē if two should argue the one that the colour of the sea water is greene and the other blewe that some ignorant Cockes-come should step in and tell them that it followes on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all Which who so euer should presume to doe he deserued to be soundlie hist at for his audacious follie so doth Sir Humfrey And as for Biell whome the knight cites saying it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament he hath indeed those wordes which are quoted by him tho' not in his 49. as he puts it but in his 40. lection vpon the Canon but yet this his saying is not contrarie to the Romanists who easilie admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christs bodie in the Eucharist is neither expressedlie declared in the Scripture nor yet in all ages and by all authours expressedlie tought in the Church as matter of faith neuerthelesse this authour himselfe in the same place addes in plaine wordes that now that opinion which defendes transubstantiation is receiued by all Catholikes yealding for a reason of the same because saith he we ought to hould of the Sacraments as the holie Roman Church doth hould And afterwards he addes Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holie Fathers we ought to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is in the Sacrament by conuersion of the bread into it we are to fee c. And the like I say of Scotus Yribarne his Scholar who altho' they seeme to diminish the antiquitie of transubstantiation yet their meaning onelie is that it was not in auncient times declaredlie proposed by Publike authoritie of the Church as an article of faith yet both of them expresselie beleeuing and defending the same professedlie as a matter of faith And by occasion of this I desire the reader to take notice that whensoeuer he findes anie Catholike authours to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time their meaning is not that the obiect in it selfe was no matter of faith in anie one time since it was first reueiled by God either expresselie in it selfe or as included in some other veritie but onelie that it was not expresselie and generallie knowne and beleeued for such by all faithfull people by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publikelie vnto them by the Church in anie Generall Councell For that as much as concernes the doctrine in itselfe it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church then it was euen before it was so defined as may appeare in the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his eternall Father in the vnitie of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like which in them selues were reueiled verites and matter of faith euer since the newe Testament and the lawe of Christ was published to the world not obstanding they were not declaredlie and vniuersallie knowne for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene Ephesin Chalcedon Councels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian Nestorian Euthycian heretikes And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this breefe obseruation may suffice to satisfie anie indifferent mynde Nowe as I said of Scotus and Yribarne the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez in his comment vpon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it vpon the first art Of the 15. quest he saith transubstantiation which ther he calles conuersion is not in the Euangell expresselie conuersio non habetur explicitein Euangelio and before he saith we expresselie receiued from the Church that which the Gospell did not explicate Yet afterwardes the same authour expresselie teaches and inculcates that those wordes this is my bodie cause both the reall presence and transubstantiation For thus addes Et perhoc verbae Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scrilicet conuersionis continentiae c. That is And by this because the wordes of Christ this is my bodie doe effect both nouelties videlicet of the conuersion and the containing By which wordes it is manifest what this authours meaning was absolutelie touching the reall presence transubstantiation howsoeuer he spoake of the manner in which it is cōtained in scripture which is not our questiō And in this sense speakes Aliaco when he saith in the place cited by our aduersarie that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remaine still a possible neither it is contrarie to reason nor to the authority of the scriptures c. For he meaneth onely it is not repugnant to anie such expresse scripture as doth conuince the transsubstantiatton plainely to euerie one without the authoritie and declaration of the Church and therfore he addeth if it could stand with the determination of the Church in which Aliaco showes such obedience to the Church as Sir Humfrey and his fellowes obstinately denie vnto her most piously captiuating his vnderstanding euen in that which he held more easie and conformable to reason and scripture according to humaine intelligence and discourse More euer touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl cap. 10. His intent in that place was onely to proue that meerly by the bare wordes of scripture without the traditionarie interpretation of the Fathers no certaintie can be had in questions of controuersie or matters of faith And to proue this which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humfrey and the rest of our nouelists he argueth exhiposthesi or vpon supposition saying that not obstanding it is true and certaine that our Sauiour by vertue of those wordes this is my bodie did make his owne bodie really present in the Sacrament yet if one were obstinate standing preciselie to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers and sense of the Church he might denie that it doth thence followe that in our Masse Prests make really present the bodie of Christ Not meaning to affirme that they doe not in deed for that the rest of his booke doth demonstate him to beleeue the reall presence in Masse especially the fourth chapter but onely intending to declare by examples and reasons that it can not be conuinced that Catholike Prests doe so by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctours of the Church and her infallible authoritie And now this being the true sense of B. Fishers discourse Sir Humfrey verie coningly by leauing out the precedent and subsequent wordes of the authour so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse And that this is the true
Ecclesiasticall custome or lawe onelie or that there is anie such matter as oblation in the celebration of diuine seruice for that they themselues haue it not in their newe Raphsodie For Cassanders authoritie we do not care And yet I can not finde in Mycrologus those wordes which Cassander and Sir Humfrey alledge out of him to wit it can not properlie be called a communion except some besides the Preist doe communicate How be it the same Cassander in the same place doth not condemne priuate Masses for a Sacrilegious action or to be prohibited as Sir Humfrey and the rest of the Nouellists commonlie maintaine But onelie playing the parte of a Pacifyer which he professeth persuades that the auncient custome may be restored Nay and he addes further and that truelie that the Preists say when they celebrate priuatelie they doe not participate of the Sacrament in their owne priuate name but in the name of the Church and people which doubtlesse in reason is sufficient to make it a true communion if otherwise it were not And as for Mycrologus certaine it is that he is no condemner of priuate Masse how soeuer he might esteeme that communion lesse proper according to the Etymon of the worde Vid. Cassander pag. 998. in which more then one doe not actuallie receiue which is all he intendes if anie such saying he hath which notwithstanding is not contrarie to the doctrine or practise of the Romanists Innocentius tertius onelie explicates the ancient custome of the Church touching the communion of the people at euetie Masse and the change of it at seuarall times and by degrees And surelie if we consider that the Nouelists hould this Pope for one of their greatest opposites in doctrine it were madnesses to imagin that he should in anie sorte fauoure their tenets And because I reflected that Innocentius as being a Pope had no reason to finde anie greater fauour at Sir Humfreys hands then other Romanists haue founde vpon vewe of the place I discouered that he had falselie translated some parte of Innocentius wordes which make against him to wit for these wordes quia nec hoc digne potuit obseruari he translates by reason this custome was neglected whereas he should haue put in English Because neither this could be dignely or with due reuerence obserued By which false translation he inuertes the true cause of the altetation of the foresaid custome Hoffmeisterus onelie declares the publicitie of the auncient custome with a desire that endeauours may be vsed for the restitution of it with whome we Romanists all ioyne to our power so this is out of the compasse of our question The allegation of Doctour Harding who speakes much to the same purpose I haue ansered in an other place and showed the deceite of the relatour altho' in this place I finde he rehearses his wordes truelie by reason it had auailed him nothing to haue here abused him Iustinian makes no mention of either priuate or publike Masses but onelie of the participation of one consecrated bread or loafe to signifie more expresselie the vnion of charitie which is not to this purpose as neither is the place of Bellarmin following lib. 2. de missa cap. 9. as afterwardes I will declare But to returne to Doctour Harding it is true I find Sir Humfrey cytes him towardes the end of the same paragraffe out of Iewell which altho' he makes nothing for the proofe of his intent in this place but is onelie brought in vpon the by to enlarge and fournish his discourse as I suppose yet doth he abuse that learned diuine in that he leaueth out one speciall reason which he alledges why the primatiue Catholikes vsed to communicate euerie day with the Preist because sayth he they looking hourelie to be catched put to death by the Panimes I relate the sense not the formall wordes should not departe without the viaticum Which wordes being the verie harte of the authours sentence Sir Humfrey verie slylie omits it as if it were not to the purpose and by that meanes he most deformedlie couples the head and the heeles together which corruption altho' it doth not much auaile him yet it seemes he makes a recreation of that arte and so he will rather playe smale game then sit out Lastelie the wordes of Iustinian taken out of his Commentarie vpon 1. Cor 10. are impertinent for he does not affirme that the Communion directlie was giuen to all that were present as his wordes cited by the knight doe testifie which authour being the laste which he cites and no more to his purpose then the rest let this suffice for the censure of the contents of this whole paragraffe and particularlie for the confutation of that aspersion of Noueltie and corruption with the knight doth indeuore calumniouslie to cast vpon the Roman Creede it nowe being plainelie cleered and iustified by that which hath beene said and he himselfe conuinced of false dealing and forgerie The paragraffe insueing is of the seuen Sacramēts And to be plaine with Sir Humfrey I say that in the verie entrance of his treatie he telleth a plaine lie to his reader affirming the Romanists to relie wholie vpon the Councell of Trent in this pointe For this Councell expresselie hath in the margent of the decree of the septenarie number of Sacraments the Councell of Florence and in the decrees of euerie seuerall Sacrament there is reference to scriptures Councels and Fathers as the margines doe testifie Wherefore thus the knight beginneth and how he will proceed I know not but yet for the most parte an ill beginning makes an ill ending First he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying that the authoritie of the Councell of Trent if there were no other ought to suffice for proofe of the septinarie number of the Sacraments But he might with farre greater reason haue reprehend both his owne temeritie and the presumption of the reformed Churches Which without anie such authoritie as the Councell of Trent hath doe denie the foresaid number of Sacraments Besides that Bellarmins meaning is not that the Coūcell of Trent hath sufficient authoritie to define the same without foundation of the worde of God or without scripture as it seemes Sir Humfrey falselie supposeth but that supposing such a foundation it hath infallible power to declare the same as conformeable to trueth to the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church in former ages and consequentlie as a matter of faith And certainelie that Church which hath not this authoritie is no true Church nor such an one as is described in the scriptures but a meere conuenticle or Scismaticall cōgregation vnsuteable to the worde of God And whereas it seemes straunge to Sir Humfrey that according to Bellarmine one testimonie of a late Councell might suffice for the establishing of an article of faith for that by his owne tenet such an article requires both antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent let him but truelie and sincerelie consider what Bellarmines
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 circumstāces 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 à 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 Sacramētis Ergo in Sacramento Eucharistia And yet more plainelie f. 175. Quēadmodum 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 impertinētlie 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 Sacramēts 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. Cypriā 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 Hūfrey will be loath to graūt fiue Sacramēts 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 à 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. Bonauēture 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
in both kindes is hereticall but onely that it is heresie to condemne the communion in one kinde for vnlawfull or repugnant to Christs institution and so his position is both false and calumnious as appeares not onely by the decree of the same councell but also by the tenour of the decree of the Councell of Trent neither of which councels defined communion in both kindes either conformable or disconformable to anie precept of either God or man in the nature of faith but they onely declare the practise of the communion in one kinde as a thing not vnlawfull or cōtrarie to Christs institution or precept but otherwise conueniēt for the present state of the Church in respect of the reuerence due to the Sacrament Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christi fideles vtrāque speciē sāctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit Cōc Trid. de cōmun sub vtraq specie can 1. vid. can 2. and for other iuste causes also condemning them that shall affirme that all and euerie faithfull person is bound to receiue both kindes either by the commaundement of God or as necessarie to saluation by vertue of Christs institution or that the communion in one kinde is vnlawfully appointed by the Church or that the Church did erre therein Which doctrine is so plainely declared by the two foresaid Councels and especially by the Councell of Trent and so often repeated and inculcated by moderne diuines to say nothing of the more auncient that if our aduersaries were not ouer much disposed to cauill they would neuer haue the face to calumniate the same by their misconstructions as Sir Humfrey doth in this place The knight cites some ten or eleuen Roman diuines and among them to increase the number he foysteth in Cassander whom yet he either knowes or ought to know he is none of ours but the matter is not great because neither he nor the rest teach any thing here cōtrarie to the doctrine of the Romā Church in this point but they onely relate the custome of the Primatiue Church to haue beene that the lay people commonly receiued in both kindes yet not denying but that the same succeeding Church hath vpon iuste reasons altered that manner of communion Yea and the same authours here cited defending the lawfullnes thereof either in the verie same or in other places of their workes nay and Cassander consult de vtraque specie some of them if not all teaching with all that some times the communion in one kinde was practized in auncient ages so that it was great madnesse in Sir Humfrey to produce then either as confessers of want of antiquitie and vniuersalitie in the Roman Church or for the proofe of them in the doctrine of the pretensiue reformed Churches since that out of their testimonies as shall be declared neither the one nor the other can with anie colorable probabilitie possible be collected and for this reason and because I haue in an other place ansered what our aduersarie can say in this matter I knowe I haue no need to proceed to particulars but onelie pronounce my sentence of this whole Paragraph in generall termes yet because I finde all or manie of the authours cited to haue their sentences and meaning mangled and peruerted therefore I deemed it conuenient to giue the reader notice in particular of the authours ill proceeding And first altho' Vasquez with some others is of a contrarie opinion to Taper manie other diuines to wit houlding as more probable that those who receiue the Sacrament in both kindes doe receiue some more spirituall frute then the receiuers of one alone yet neither doth he condemne the contrarie opinion and practice not yet doth he conclude that it is absolutelie better or safer for the laytie to receiue both formes then one onelie but rather defendes the quite contrarie expresselie in his 216. disputation and last chapter where not obstanding his owne opinion defended in one of his former questions yet he solues the sectaries argument in this latter place and so cleareth the difficultie of their obiection that it is impossible for Sir Humfrey or anie of his confederates to gather anie thing in fauour of their position out of that authour as his owne wordes doe make apparent to the reader of them as here I place them in the margen Licet secundum aliquorū opinionē quam praecedenti disput defendi laici aliquo fructu priuētur dum ipsis calix denegatur tamen cū sumentes tantum vnam speciem nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem careāt vt notauit Conciliū omissis alijs causis postulantibus recte potuit Ecclesia laicis alterā speciem denegare Vasq to 3. in 3. p. disput 216. cap. vlt. Salmeron is abused by Sir Humfrey in regarde he takes onelie some certaine wordes of his which seeme to make for his purpose and omits others which make against him which follow in the verie next leafe and doe so temper the sense of the former that taking them together neither the one nor the other fauoure the reformed doctrine For thus he saith Nos enim c. For we quoth hee doe so confesse the custome to haue beene of communicating the laye people vnder both kindes that yet allwayes in some cases the vse of one kinde hath beene practized Which wordes quite dashe Sir Humfreys designe of prouing that the Church of Rome in this particular hath created a newe article of faith manifestlie repugnant to Christs worde institution practice of the primatiue Churh except hee will be so audacious as to condemne here also of sacriledge for her practice in those cases as he doth our present Church In which passage I much wonder at the slownes of him that otherwise vseth to be so nimble and actiue as that in this place he tooke not paines to turne one leafe further for the discouerie of the truth And the same I say of Valentia who speakes iuste to the same sense and purpose de legit vsu Eucharistiae cap. 10. as also did Father Fisher and Castro in the places cited by our aduersarie And as for sainct Thomas vpon the 6. of sainct Iohn And lyra in 1. Cor. 11. they neither of them disproue communion in one kinde as Sir Humfrey doth alledge but expresselie defendit Vide S. Thom. in 3. part S. Thomas relates that the custome of the auncint Church was to communicate in both formes which custome he saith was obserued euen till his dayes in some Churches where also quoth hee the ministers of the altar doe continuallie communicate the bodie bloud But for danger of effusiō saith he in some Churches it is obserued that the Preist onelie receiue the bloud and the rest the bodie Neither is this saith he contrarie to the sentence of our Lord because he that communicates the bodie communicates also the bloud since that Christ is whole in both the
safer way to attribute them wholelie to God because although we will yet it is God that worketh in vs to worke All which is quite out of this matter serueth for nothing but to stoppe holes with a vaneflorish graunded onelie vpon the wordes safe way which the knight founde in S. Augustin to sounde to his owne tune ther vpon founded a verball argument And the like dictionariall maner of proofe doth he vse wherby to showe his safer way in the points of priuate Masse communion in both kyndes but most rediculously For whereas he findeth in some of the Romanists that the Masse as being not onelie a sacrifice but also a Sacrament is both more commendablie administred more frutfullie receiued when both Preist people together are partakers of it Sir Humfrey applyeth this to the Raphsodie of the reformed Churches which neuerthelesse hath not a scrap in it either of true sacrifice or Sacrament but is onely a pore hungerie scamling of bread wine not conformable either to the forme of the ancient Lythurgies of S. Chrysostome or S. Basil nor euer heard on in the Christian world before the dayes of Luther and of so smale estimation euen among themselues that if it chance to fall they will scarce take paines to take it from the grounde as may appeare by a prittie passage of that nature which not manie yeares past I receiued from the mouth of one who was then of the ministrie what he is nowe I knowe not who tould me that coming in to a certaine Church the minister as he deliuered the communion to his parishoners did let a peace fall from him but there was not one in the whole congregation excepting a dogge that showed so much deuotion towardes their vnuenerable Sacrament as once to offer to take it from the grounde It is true he tould me with all that the honest minister by tasting a little to often of the cup was some what distempered in his head but that me thought was but a pore excuse for a man of his coate a teacher of reformed doctrine especiallie at such a tyme in such an occasion Which want of respect in the reformed brothers towards their communion doth yet further appeare if we compare it with the extraordinarie great diligence care which the Preists people vse in the Roman Church for the auoyding of all Kynde of irreuerence towardes the holie Eucharist as both the rubrickes of the Missal the ancient Canons dayly practice testifie in so much that one perhaps the cheefest reason of the restrainte of the Sacramentall Cup to the laytie was for the auoyding of such irreuerences as might easilie haue happened amōg such multitudes of people as vse to Communicate at one tyme in the Roman Church So that now we see it was great absurditie in Sir Humfrey to argue the greater saftie of the doctrine of his Church out of that which the Romanists speake onelie of their owne especiallie considering there is not one worde of safetie to be founde in anie of the places cited by him the authours of them not intending to show anie lesse safetie to be foūde either in the doctrine or practice of the Roman Church concerning priuate Masse single cōmunion but onelie at the most that some more spirituall profit would redounde to the people then nowe doth if either their deuotion were so farre extended as that in euerie Masse some would communicate or that the Church in other respects had greater reason to permit the vse of the Chalis to the laitie then not to permit it alwayes supposing as a certaine trueth that not withstanding in some respects the contrarie to that which is nowe practized might be more profitable yet that all circumstances considered that is the safest for mens consciences which is done according to the present custome of that Church which is knowne euen by our aduersaries to haue visibly succeeded from the Apostles at the least personallie is also knowne euen by Iewes gentils to be the most vniuersall Church in the Christian world And let this be sufficient to redargue the proceedings of the knight in this matter yet not omitting that two of the authours he citeth for Romanists to wit the Apostata Deane Cassander are not such that in the citation of Bellarmin he vseth one of his accustomed trickes whose wordes although he rehearseth them truelie in the margen yet he translateth them corruptedlie For whereas Bellarmin saith that the Masse in which communicants are present is more perfect legitimate ex hac parte that is in as much as it is ordained to the spirituall refectiō of the people the knight omitteth in his translation the wordes ex hac parte by that tricke doth notablie peruert Bellarmin's meaning making the reader beleeue he affirmed that absolutelie which neuerthelesse he did expresselie purposelie vtter with limitation with an intention to showe that altho' in one respect priuate masse is lesse perfect lesse conformable to the ancient custome of the Church in regarde of the profit of the people yet that absolutelie in it selfe it is as perfect lawfull as that in which communicants are present Furthermore touching the mariage of ministers Sir Humfrey sayth it will appeare by the confessions of the Romanists that it is the safer way to liue chastlie in matrimony thē by a single life to hazarde their soules by incontinēcie thus the knight which if he meanes of the ministers of his owne misreformed Church onelie I will easilie graunt that supposing their slipperie inclination to lecherie and the smale meanes they vse for mortification of the flesh conseruation of chastitie it is a safer way in my opinion for them to marrie then to liue a single life especillie considering they are no true Preists but onelie equiuocall Clergie men both in Order function that if they had not wiues it is to be doubted the maydes of their parishes would scarcelie liue with out danger among them But if Sir Humfrey speakes of Roman Preists which haue true vocation true ordination sacred function then I will say with diuers graue authors that if the Preists of the old testament obserued those dayes continencie in which they sacrificed by their turnes then ought the Preists of the new testament to obserue chastitie euerie day because they euerie day offer sacrifice Hier. ◠tit ◅os l. ◅fi c. ◅ ve◅ ◅ ◅ ca. ◅c And therefore the Roman Church hath most religiouslie ordained the lawe of perpetuall chastitie of Preists for that altho' perhaps it may seeme more safe for some particular persons to marrie supposing their negligence frayltie in that nature abstracting from a vowe alreadie made the lawe of the Church in that particular yet althings cōsidered for as much as euen the most inclined to vice may liue chaste with Gods grace if they will make vse of his gifts of such meanes as the
Humfrey it plainelie appeares by the examen of witnesses which I will make presentlie and in the meane time let but the reader reflect vpon that which hath hitherto ben sayd he will easilie perceiue that Sir Hūfrey himselfe is conuinced not onelie of a bad cause an ill conscience but also of such grosse proceedings as is not able either to the partes or su credit of a Caualier But now to particulars His first charge is layde vpon the inquisitors for blotting out a certaine note made in the margen of the Bible of Robertus Stephanus vpon the 4. chapter of the deuter That God prohibiteth grauen images to be made But what razing of recordes is this Is a newe note made by some one moderne vnknowne authour not sutable to the true sense of the text in such an edition of the bible as cannot be of anie long standing to be accounted one of your recordes And if it be yours how came it into the Bible what doth it there hath not the Inquitor as much authoritie to put it out as some obscure brother of yours had to put it in the true meaning of the scripture neither in the place of that note nor anie other is that God did prohibit absolutelie all grauen images as one of the greatest diuines you haue doth ingenuouslie confesse Daniel Chamierus Panstrat l 21. de imag c. 8. n. 1. but onelie he did forbid them to be made to the end to adore them as Gods or at the least to adore them with danger of idolatrie and yet the foresayd wise annotation maketh the scripture to forbid all grauen images absolutelie Wherefore it s nothing but a false recorde ordayned to deceiue the reader by abusing the true sense of Gods worde so the Inquisitor when he branded it with a deleatur he did but execute iustice vpon a falsifier of the Kings letters which in him neither argueth bad cause nor ill conscience but sheweth both of them to be in the authour of the counterfet recorde which he foysted in to the sacred bible To omit that it being no note of anie Roman authour as it manifestlie sheweth it selfe not to be yet the knight leap'd quite out of the quire when he cited it for a record of his owne except he supposeth al the writings of the pretended reformed Doctors of what sect soeuer they be to be recordes for his Church against the Roman doctrine which is both most ridiculous in itselfe nor yet was anie such razing of the reformers recordes euer intended eyther by the Inquisitors or by anie other censurer of bookes in the Church of Rome His second charge is aboute a certaine glosse vpon Gratian which glosse affirmeth according to Sir Humfreyes relation that the Preist cannot say significatiuelie of the bread this is my bodie without telling a lye This glosse saith hee is condemned by the inquisitor to be blotted out It is true the Inquisitor did so but what then did he therefore doe it wit an ill conscience I denie the consequence And in your conscience Sir Humfrey is it not an idle glosse indeed Doe not your ministers themselues when they deliuer the communion call it the bodie blood of Christ And if the Preist lyeth when he sayth so not of the bread as the false glosse sayth if so it saith but of that which is contained vnder the forme of bread surelie your ministers tell a farre greater lye when they say significatiuelie of the bare bread that it is the bodie of Christ truelie reallie as Master Caluin affirmeth Instit l. 4. cap. 17. And so I conclude this point that Sir Humfrey had no reason at all to accuse the Inquisitor of an ill conscience in razing onelie such a recorde as is no lesse repugnant to the doctrine of the reformed Churches then to the Roman faith if anie matter of faith it were which indeed it is not so by consequence it is also impertinent to the matter here in question Thirdlie Sir Humfrey chargeth the Inquisitor for blotting out Cassanders whole tract of the Cōmunion in both kynds But what worse conscience sheweth the Inquisitor in this fact then the Inquisitors of the reformed Churches doe who are not content with a simple doleatur but daylie condemne whole Catholike volumes to the vnmercifull Vulcan And as for the recordes which you take out of Cassander we make no more accounte of them then we doe of those which you take out of Luther or Caluin so you may take them make your selfe merrie Fourthlie Caietans opinion that the wordes this is my bodie doe not sufficientlie proue transubstantiation is no recorde for you as you falselie suppose for he doth not denie transsubstantiation as you doe but expresselie defended it as his owne wordes declare which I afterwardes recitie nay he doth not affirme absolutelle as suarez wordes quoted by your selfe in your owne margent expressely declare that the foresaid wordes doe not sufficientlie proue transsubstantiation as you corruptedlie relate but onelie sayth at the most that secluding the Churches authoritie they doe not proue it which not as contrarie to faith but as a singular extrauagant opinion of that authour Pope Pius did if perhaps he did piouslie blot it out not preciselie because it fauoreth the reformers as in trueth it doth not to anie purpose but because it sm'at disfauored the truth which is that transsubstantiation is indeed plainelie enough contayned in those wordes of Christ this is my bodie Howbeit I must needs aduertice the reader that I neyther finde those wordes supposed to be Caietans blotted in anie Index that I haue seene nor yet can I finde them in anie edition of Caietan in the place cited by Suarez that is vpon the 75. q. art 1. But onelie these Conuersio non habetur explicite in Euangelio these Quod Euangelium non explicauit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus Nay more then this I finde other wordes in the same place which conuince that Caietan held transsubstantiation to be sufficientlie contained in those wordes this is my bodie for so he argues Sacramenta nouae legis efficiunt quod significant ac per hoc verba Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scilicet conuersionis continentiae vt expresse dicta sacri Concilij authoritas testatur consequens est vt cadem Christi verba significent vtramque nouitatem Wherefore supposing Caietan said not that the wordes this is my bodie conteine not sufficientlie transsubstantiation but onelie not expresselie I cannot conceiue what foundation Suarez might haue for this his relation except peraduenture Pius quintus founde that edition alone of Caietan to haue ben corrupted by heretikes therefore caused it to be corrected in that passage as indeed an other place of the same Caietan 2. 2. q. 122. is discouered by the authors of the prohibitiue Index to haue ben in that same fashion fraudulentlie depraued as the same Index expresselie
as a false erroneous path by all those that tender the safetie of their soules eternall Saluation And thus hauing now resolued the man into his principles or prime matter I meane into the dust ashes which he casteth in his reader eyes hauing passed throu ' all the passages of his imaginarie safe way I haue founde it shewed it to be no way at all but an intricate diuerticle or obscure path leading pore distressed trauellers quite out of the true royall street with an impossibilite euer to come to the end of their iourney that is to the true ancient Catholike faith which faith altho' the knight both in the title of his booke in diuers other places of it hath seriouslie promised to shew it to be the same which is now professed in England euen by the confession of the Romanists yet haue I made it manifest that no true Romanist that is no authour which is acknowledged by the Roman Church for a member of the same did either in generall or in particular euer confesse the foresaid faith of England to be the ancient Catholike faith or that did euer absolutelie in the same sense in which the reformed Churches doe defende anie one article of the pretensiue reformed doctrine in matter of faith or generallie defined manners In regard of which because my cheefe intent was when I first resolued to vndertake this busines out of a tender compassion to free the readers from the great generall delusion which I vnderstood this pamphlet of Sir Humfreys had caused or might hereafter cause in the myndes of manie especiallie the more vnlearned sorte of people altho' in verie truth in itselfe it containeth nothing worth the labour of a scholler I doe now aduertice them as they esteeme the saftie of their soules to beware of it as of a shop of most deceitelie poysonous drugges of which they cā not safety taste without an antidote I meane the illiterate or vnexperienced persons in this kynde of studie can not securelie reade the the booke except with all they view the aduerse parte so by detection of the authours fraudes couning deceipts they behould the truth discouered which otherwise as being most subtillie inuolued mixed by him with abundance of plausible vntruthes equiuocations false suppositions Sophismes can hardlie be founde out euen by those of greater learning capacitie then ordinarilie the laytie vse to be And as for Sir Humfrey him selfe altho' I haue smale hope of his reclamation in regard of the great arrogācy which I perceiue in him as being mightily blinded with the vanity of his owne conceite If truly the worke is this yet will I not omit to crie a loude vnto him with the sacred psalmist vtinam saperet intelligeret ac nouissima prouideret would to God he would seriously consider that there will come a time when his booke shall passe a farre more strict examen sentence of condemnation then here it hath passed or can possible passe in this mortall life And yet if perhaps he findes in the answere of it any more sharpe or vnpleasing speaches then he would willingly heare I earnestly intreate him to account them not as spoken against his person but precisely as he is infected with the spirituall plague of schisme heresie and as whose conuersion to the most vniuersally florishing Church an faith notobstanding whatsoeuer wordes haue passed in heate of disputation I earnestely desire praye for And with this desire affection I commend him to the infinit goodnesse mercy of allmightie God THE ROMANISTS AGREE WITH S. AVgustin in the diuision of the Commaundements In his 71. question vpon the booke of Exodus and in his 119. epistle to Ianuarius he diuideth them in this manner 1. THou shalt haue no other Gods but me 2 Thou shalt not take the name of God in vaine 3. Thou shalt sanctifie the sabboth 4. Honor thy Father thy mother 5. Thou shalt not kill 6. Thou shalt not commit adulterie 7. Thou shalt not steale 8. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse against thy neighbour 9. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbours wife 10. Thou shalt not desire any of thy neighbours goods The Romanists in their briefe Catechismes for children commonly rehearse them thus 1. THou shalt haue no other Gods but me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of God in vaine 3. Remember to sanctifie the Sabbaoth day 4. Honore thy ffather thy mother 5. Thou shalt not kill 6. Thou shalt not commit adulterie 7. Thou shalt not steale 8. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse against thy neighbour 9. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbours wife 10. shalt not desire thy neighbours goods The misreformers diuision of the Commaundements is this THou shalt haue no other Gods but me Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image c. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine c. Remember that thou keepe holy the Sabbath day c. Honor thy father thy mother c. Thou shalt doe no murther Thou shalt not commit adultery thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not beare false witnesse Against thy neighbour Thou shalt shalt not couet thy neighbours house thou shalt nor couet thy neghbours wife nor his seruant nor his made nor his oxe nor his asse nor any thing that is his In this diuision they dissent both frome S. Augustin the scriptures as appeareth by their Catechismes publissed euer since the change of Religion in England From S. Augustin in that they put for the second Commaundement thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image where as hee on the contrary in his epistle to Ianuarius expressely putteth not for the second but for the first Commaundement these wordes Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any idol They dissent alsoe from the scripture both in that those wordes which they put for the second Commaundement the scripture setteth them downe in the very same tenor continuation of style with those which according to both parties is the first Commaundement to wit Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me adding alsoe one the same punishment after that which the Reformers will needs haue to be an other Commaundement which yet if they were distinct commandemēts they should rather haue had distinct punishments assigned them seuerally As also secondly because in the text of Exodus out of which the reformers rehearse their Commaundements the words are not as they corruptedly translate relate them Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image but thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing Which is yet more plainely explicated in the fourth of the Deut. to be vnderstood not so that there ought not any grauen similitude to be made but that ther ought not anie to be made of those things which God prohibited especially supposing that the Deuteronomie as the word it selfe doth signifie is an exacte explication
fuisset siue quod tam leue esset vt a quolibet redargui facillime posset AN APPENDIX TO THE VVHETSTONE OR A COMPENDIOVS ANSER TO THE BY-WAY CHEEFLY consisting in a breife discouery of the authors indirect partiall false dealing with a detection of some particular examples of falsification BY THE SAME AVTHOR Sicut nouacula acuta fecisti dolum Psal 51. CATVAPOLI Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS Anno M.DC.XXXII THE INTRODVCTION TO THE APPENDIX BY that tyme I had in a manner finished my censure of knight Humfreyes nicnamed false way I receaued sodaine newes of another way eyther of the same author or of his frend for him which like a second parte of the Pickro came ruflling out with a greater noyse then the first the reason is as I suppose as well for that it carrieth a more extrauagant title to wit via deuia as also in regard it is some what larger both inleaues as I thinke in lyes Why the author should call his firste booke via tnta or the safe way this via deuia or the by way rather then the contrarie in my conceit few will be able to imagine anie other reason then his owne knightlie pleasure for my part I must needes confesse that his titles seuerallie applied to the contents are to me meere riddles as not conteyning eyther explicitlie or implicitlie that which they make showe of but rather standing onelie for cyphers or markes of the authors affected follie promising much but performing nothing as I haue made appeere in part by myne ansere to his first worke partlie also shall be showed by Gods assistance in this against which I now write of which altho' I doe not intend to make anie fotmall confutation in euerie particular point of doctrine as I did before more then once repenting my selfe that I spent so much time vpon such idle matter yet will I make a breife suruey of euery distinct section principallie noting notifieing to the reader such faultes as I shall finde the author guiltie of whome I also aduertise that notobstanding the knight with these his two bookes as it were with the deliuerie of two prodigious twinnes would seeme to haue brought forth some great strange noueltie to the world yet in veritie there is nothing of moment alleaged by him eyther in this or in his former treatie eyther out of scriptures Councells or Fathers which hath not binne long since examined confuted by a greater farre more learned number of Catholike diuines then all the pretensiue reformed Churches can affoord as apposers of the Roman doctrine And altho ' I doe ingenuouslie confesse that Sir Humfrey hath vsed no smale art industrie in the application of his predecessours labours to his owne intent purpose neuerthelesse he hath performed the same in such a cousening deceitfull manner that the reader may assure himselfe t' is almost one the same labour to discouer his lyes equiuocations false suppositions impertinent corrupted allegations other his insincere dealing to confute his doctrine it being little more then a masse or compound of those the like corrupted vitious ingredients nor contayning anie graue or solid discussion of anie one question in terminis or professedlie but onelie or cheiflie consisting in a certaine abstractiue way by compacting patches shreads of furtiue stollen diuinitie deliuered in a plausible persuasiue manner of which altho' I doe not denie but the author hath receiued great parte at the second hand from his antecessors especiallie from his great Patron Daniel Chamier who in the art of cheating doth in my opinion eyther exceed or at the least equalize anie that euer writ before him in regard of which altho ' the knight might seeme in some sort excusable at the least by ignorance yet hath he or his chaplins inuented added so much in that nature of his owne coyning that I doe not see what coulourable excuse can possiblie be alleaged for iustification of his bad proceedings And when reading of Bellarmines bookes of controuersies I found so manie vntruthes falsifications corruptions by him discouered out of Luther Caluin Beza Brentius Kemnitius other sectaries who had writ before him I imagined that at least for verie shame their successors as being such great professors of reformation would haue reformed themselues in that kinde but now of late since I came to read the workes of Daniel Chamier Sir Humfrey Lind I professe I haue quite lost my hope of their reclamation especiallie reflecting that as they are all men of one profession haue all of them an ill cause to maintaine so are they all fallen into a fatall necessitie of abusing their readers with trickes sleights the reason of which is plaine in regard that falsehood as being of a contrarie nature to truth it cannot possibly be defended patronized by the same truth but must of necessitie be defended by it selfe And as for Sir Humfrey he is so deepelie plundged in that muddie ditch that he his honour are like to lye there for euer his ill custome being now almost turned into nature as proper to him as blacke is to an Ethiopian or white to a swanne And to proceed to particulars he is so voyde of shame that he doubtes not to abuse Bellarmine in the very frōtispice of his booke where for posye or sentence of the same he putteth certaine words of his taken out of his first booke de verbo Dei cap. 2. intending by this indirect meanes to perswade his readers that the contents of his whole worke haue that famous Cardinall for their patron approuer which in my iudgmēt is a point of the greatest cousenage impudency that euer was heard of among Christian writers since that neither that which Bellarmines words import containe the whole or yet the cheife drife of Sir Humfreys booke neither are they vttered by him in that sense in which he doth apply them to wit that the scriptures are the sole rule of faith that there is no other rule but onely them wher as Bellarmin onely affirmeth that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe rule in case they be rightly interpreted according to the ancient tradition of the Church Vid. li. 1. de verb. Dei c. 2. l. 3. de verb. Dei c 1. seq Scriptura regulacredendi certissima tutissimque est supra Lib 4. de verbo Dei cap. 12. that they are not to be neglected by imbracing the priuate spirit which is fallible vncerteine to be relyed vppon by none but such as neglect the certaintie or safe way of saluation in which sense meaning how the wordes of Bellarmine can possibly be applied to Sir Humfreys Deuia or by way let the indifferent reader iudge especially considering that he could not be inuincibly ignorant that the learned Cardinall in another place plainly declareth himselfe touching the totallity
may be made in S. Augustine who as Caluin confesseth being a faithfull witnesse of antiquity Lib. 18 de Ciuit. cap. â—6 Calu. li. 4. â—nst c. 14. Sac. testifieth touching the bookes of the Machabees that althou ' the Iewes receiue them not for Canonicall yet the Church doth receaue them And according to this it being true that few or none of the great multitude of writers which the kinght produceth in euery seuerall age doe positiuely affirme that those 22. bookes of scripture onely which the reformers vse were by the vniuersall Christian Catholike Church held to be the complete or intire Christian Canon of the ould testament or that those particular bookes now in controuersie betwixt vs them were expresly reiected eueÌ„ by the Iewes themselues as not Canonicall or not of infallible credit not rather held by them for sacred diuine althou not registred in their Canon which is the cheife part of Sir Humfreyes proposition it followeth cleerly that he quite faileth in his proofe that for all his braggs he onely steppeth out of his pretended safeway into the same by path he hath euer walked in since he firste began to write neuer omitting his occustomed sleightes in the allegation of authors concluding his section with that laregelye so often repeated by him in this other places as affirming that by his aduersaries owne confessions the true orthodox Church did reiect those Apocriphall bookes which his Church reiecteth the Trent Councell alloweth at this day for Canonicall out of which thrasonicall audacity of this boysterous Caualier the reader may easily take a scantling of the rest so come to know the fox by his tatterd tayle â—ec 6. In his sixt sex section he pretendeth to solue the Romanists arguments deduced froÌ„ authoritie of Fathers Councells for those bookes which the reformers hold for Apocriphall Touching which point althou ' it cannot be denyed but that doubt was made in former times among the fathers whether the foresayd bookes were Canonicall or not in which there was diuersitie of opinions especially before the Councell of Carthage neuerthelesse it is certaine that neither the whole Church in any Councell nor yet anie of the Doctors or fathers did positiuely at any time euer agree to exclude them out of the Christian Canon but as some of the fathers made doubt of the same so others made none at all among whome S. Augustine was so confident in that matter that in his 2. booke of Christian doctrine that not obiter but professedly treating of it he setteth downe the very same number names of the very same bookes which the Roman Church defendeth for Canonicall at this present day yet notobstanding this our aduersarie is so presumptuous voyde of shame that he doubtes not to affirme that Sainct Augustine did not allow the bookes of Iudith â—… 132. wisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees for Conanicall In iustification of which his impudent assertion it is wondrous to consider how the crafty Sicophant doth excercise his witts in framing euasions wherby to elude the plaine testimony of that renowned orthodox Doctor the decree of the Councell of Carthage in that particular to which the same S. Augustine subscribed eueÌ„ in this same point of the Canonicall scriptures reiected by the preteÌ„siue reformed Churches Howbeit all that Sir Humfrey could inuent for the infringeing of these two sound irrefragable authorities consists either wholely or cheeflie in equiuocations insincere dealing in the citing construeing of the authors he alleageth yea in vttering of diuers plaine vntruthes as where he saith of the third Councell of Carthage that it is not of that authority as the Romanists themselues pretend adding presently after for reasoÌ„ of his first lye another as great or greater against Bellarmine affirming that the Cardinall wheÌ„ the Protestants produce this Councell against the head of their Church answereth that this prouinciall Councell ought not to binde the Byshops of Rome nor the Byshops of other Prouinces citing him for this sayeing in his 2. booke de Rom. Pont. cap. 31. where neuerthelesse there are no such wordes to be found And finallie to omitt other of lesse noyse he affirmes that S. Augustine declares by pregnant seuerall reasons that the Machabees are Apocriphall yet he denyeth not euen in this very place but that the same S. Augustine both put them in the Canon of the scriptures in his second booke de doct Christ nor yet that he affirmed in his 18. booke de Ciuit. Dei cap. 36. that the Church hath them for Canonicall thou ' the Iewes hould them not for such By which it appeeres that Sir Humfrey touching this point of controuersie is not in the way of S. Augustine of the determination of the Church of Rome in his times but is with shame enuffe fallen againe into his owne by way where he his progenitors haue euer wandred since the daies of Luther Sect. 7. In the seuenth section he reprehendeth the proofe of Catholike doctrine by traditions makes such a trade of dealing vntruelie that one would thinke sure he liues by lyeing And now I verilie persuade my selfe it is most true which a certaine ingenious Protestant sayd of the Puritans that they will rather affoord ten lyes then one oath In his verie firste wordes he affirmes that to admit traditions other constitutions of the Church is the firste article of the Roman Creed to which all Bishops Preists are sworne citing in the margen the Bull of Pius the fourth this is his first lye in this section but he will make sure it shall not be his last for he incontinentlie addeth two or three more one in the neck of another affirming that those obseruations constitutions of the Church which Pope Pius mentioneth are declared by the Councell of Trent to be those traditions which the Church receiueth with equall reuerence religious affection for so the knight insincerelie translates the wordes pari pietatis affectu as she receaues the holie scriptures Ego firma fide credo omnia singula qua contineÌ„tur in symbolo fidei c. Bul Pij 4. sup form iur prof fid adding more that heere was the firste alteration made touching the rule of faith with diuers other falsities too large to recount And yet if when he read the foresayd Bull he had not for hast scipped ouer the whole Creed which the Pope placeth in the verie firste part of the profession of faith showeing euen by that vnfaithfull tricke how little faith he hath I thinke he would neuer haue had the face to calumniate in this manner And if to speake in commendation of diuine Apostolicall traditions in that forme of speach which the Councell vseth were to make alteration in the rule of faith as the knight will haue it yet is it apparentlie false that the Tridentine Councell was the firste author of that
Cipher to increase the number He begins with a great commendation of the scriptures because he would seeme to say some thing plausible to the common people but I knowe none make lesse estimation of thē in reallitie then he his consorts who tye them like a nose to the grindestone to the interpretation of those priuate spirits who haue walked with in the compasse of a hundred yeeres or little more rather then to the consent of all succeeding ages since they firste were penned And I pray you what is this preamble to the purpose of prouing the Roman faith not to haue binne taught by the ancient Fathers or the primitiue Church the knight produceth certaine places out of sainct Augustine Ambrose to proue that they preferred scriptures before the writings of the Fathers that they appealed from them to scriptures but what Romanist in the world denyeth that the scriptures haue incomparable preheminence aboue all other writings whatsoeuer or what Roman Catholike doth not willinglie graunt that when the scriptures are plaine the doctrine of the Fathers obscure or doubtfull prouocation from them to the scriptures is rightlie made But that euen in such cases as the Fathers doe vniformlie agree in matter of faith or generallie receaued practise of the Church it is vsuall lawfull to appeale from them to scriptures especiallie when they are not plaine manifest this I say neyther those holie Fathers produced by the knight did euer teach neyther can anie reason be found to proue it but rather it is cleerlie against all reason as opening the by-way to all sortes of heresie And if Sir Humfrey when he read S. Augustine contra Crescon had but passed one other step forward he might haue found that famous Father not to appeale to scripture onelie but also to the authoritie of the Church since that presentlie after he had sayd that he held not sainct Cyprians epistle for Canonicall but examined it by Canonicall scripture which are the words our aduersarie cites he addes that with a great emphasis sayeing Non accipio inquam I say I doe not receaue that which S. Cyprian holdeth of rebaptization because the Church doth not receaue it for which blessed sainct Cyprian shed his bloud By which the reader may plainelie perceiue that one as it were the cheife motiue which sainct Augustine had to reiect the doctrine of rebaptization was not the sole authoritie of the scripture as not being in that case so cleere as to conuince S. Cyprian but he struck the last stroake by force of the authoritie of the Catholike Church And thus you see Sir Humfrey is still out of the way of the Fathers which he himselfe citeth if they be ritelie vnderstood followeth his owne crooked tract relating the particular pointes of the Roman doctrine vnfaithfullie as he vseth to doe making manie conditionall promises to subscribe in case the ancient Fathers be found for vs but remitting the performance to his next opportunitie which is so farre to seeke that I assure my selfe he will neuer finde it Sec. 12. In his twelfth section he comes to particulars contending that S. Augustine is reiected by the Romanists in the seuerall pointes in which he agreeth Page 317. as he supposeth with the Reformers I expected Sir Humfrey would haue performed the large promise which he made in his precedent section sayeing he dares confidentlie auowe that in all fundamentall pointes of difference the Romanists eyther want antiquitie to supplie their firste ages or vniuersalitie to make good the consent of Christian Churches or vnitie of opinions to proue their Trent articles of beleife but in steed of prouing this he goeth about the bush euading the difficultie which he found impossible for himselfe to ouercome he onelie indeuoures to persuade his reader that according to the Romanists owne confessions sainct Augustine is wholelie for the presumed reformers doctrine for proofe of which he produceth diuers instances out of Roman diuines but effecteth nothing in regard that althou ' it is true that some of the Romanists confesse that S. Augustine did dissent from their opinions partlie in the interpretation of some certaine passages of scripture partlie in some other particulars yet none of them confesse that in anie mayne point of religion or faith euen those which haue binne declared by the late Councell of Trent that holie Doctor dissenteth from them in this consists the equiuocation which togeather with some vntruthes which he vttereth as when he affirmes that those which he rehearses heere be cheife points in question betwixt vs such like is the by-way in which his worship walketh with great grauitie all the lenght of this section Sec. 13. In his next ensueing section which is the 13. in number he pretends that S. Gregorie who sent S. Augustine the monke into England to preach the Christian faith is directlie opposite to the Roman religion in the mayne pointes of faith By the contents of this section it appeeres that the knight is as fitte to write matters of diuinitie as an asse is fitte to play on the fiddle he makes such fiddling worke as one may plainlie perceiue that eyther he doth not vnderstand the Fathers other Catholike authors that write in Latin or that passion malice quite obfuscate his witts when he reades them In his 350. page he affirmes that in the vndoubted writings of Gregorie there will be found few or no substantiall pointes which are not agreable to the tenets of their Church altogether different from the Roman this he sayth but in stead of proofe comming to particulars he committs diuers palpable fraudes for firste whereas he professeth to compare the doctrine of Tridentine Councell his owne with the doctrine of sainct Gregorie in lieu of that he cites the doctrine of Bellarmine the notes vpon the Rhemes testament the expurgatorie Index which altho' they be authenticall Catholike authors yet are they not rules of the Roman faith Neither yet doth our aduersarie conuince them to be repugnant to sainct Gregories true meaning in anie one point of faith And I earnestlie wish I had time place to discouer to the reader the egregious fraude the knight hath vsed in his trāslation interpretation of this holie Fathers wordes touching the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist Greg. in 6. ps poenit for by this onelie passage he might frame a coniecture of the rest Secondlie wheras our aduersarie treateth in this section of substantiall pointes of faith yet some of the particulars in which he exemplifies are not substantiall points of faith but rather of manners which according to diuersitie of times may alter change as priuate Masse the double Communion reading of scriptures in vulgar language in which there is a mayne difference from matters of faith which can neuer varie Thirdlie of all the pointes which he rehearseth being all as I take it 9. in number There
first chapter of his Euchyr saith these wordes praestantia huius scripturae c. the excellencie of this scripture doth surpasse the scriptures multis partibus in manie respects or by manie degrees those scriptures which the Apostles left vs in partchement he doth not speake of the vnwritten tradition of the Church but of that scripture which as afterwardes he declareth Spiritus sanctus in cordibus imprimere dignatus est that is which the holie spirit doth digne or voutsafe to imprinte in our hartes Which as he speakes before in the same chapter is nothing els but the spirit of consent of the Catholike Church in faith and the concording doctrine of all faithfull Christians not of those onely which now liue in the whole world but those alsoe whoe by continuall succession haue propagated the faith of Christ from the tyme of the Apostles which is that Scripture which the Apostle saith 2. cor 3. is read by all men and the vnction quaest 2. Io. 2. docet nos de omnibus c. which teaches vs all things which as he further addeth afterwardes hath all truth in it selfe and containeth all faith and mysteries of Christian religion and resolues all doubtes which may aryse in matter of faith and soe costerus compareth not the vnwritten worde with the written precisely but the internall with the externall which internall scripture is iustely preferred by him before the bare written worde or caracter because as he takes it here it includes the true sense of both the one and the other by which it appeares that the exceptions which Sir Humfrey takes at this authors wordes ar captious and voyde of reason Vrspergensis is produced by Sir Humfrey page 400. of his deuia as a witnesse that the second councel of Nyce or seuēth generall synod assembled in the yeare 788. was reiected in the councell of Francford as vtterly voyde and not to be named the seuenth And yet hauing examined this passage in that author I fynde he speakes not a worde of the Nycene councell but of a cettaine councell of Constantinople which he affirmes to haue ben called the seuenth synod general by the Emperatrice Irene and her sonne Constantine his wordes are these Sinodus etiam qua ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli congregata sub Irene Constantino filio eius septima vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacua ab omnibus nimirum patribus Concilij Francfordiensis abdicata est Vrsperg pag. 176. in which wordes of what soeuer Councell vrpergensis intended to speake yet none of them mention the Councell of Nyce as all those whoe vnderstand latin may easily perceiue And if Sir Hunfrey will replye and say that tho' that author doth not mention the Nycene Councell in wordes yet doth he sufficiently declare his meaning to be of no other Councell then the seeond Nycene Synod in regarde he affirmes it to haue ben vnder Irenne and her sonne and the same which was condemned in the Councell of Francford I anser that by reason this author doth vtter twoe things which seeme to implye contradictiō to wit that this Councell was assembled at Constantinople and yet that it is the same which was reiected by the Councell of Francford it euidently followeth that no certaine argument can be drawne frō his wordes whatsoeuer his meaning was and this is sufficient to shewe that he is cited in vaine by the knight Secondly I say not obstanding vspergensis hallucination and suppose he did truely meane that the Councell of Nyce concerning the adoration of images was reproued by the Synod of Francford as some other authors admit in their disputatiōs with the sectaries of our tymes yet doth this nothing auaile our aduersaries cause both in respect the Synod of Francford is not accepted by the Romanists for an authenticall Councell in this particular as alsoe for that as some opinate it proceeded vpon false information and persuasion that the foresaid Synod of Nyce had decreed that images were to be adored with diuine honor and by this meanes the Fathers and doctors ther assembled were deceiued and committed an error of fact Which error neuerthelesse neither can nor ought to preiudice that doctrine which was before established by an authenticall generall Councell as was the secōd Synod consisting of a happie cōiunction of both the latin Grecian Church as of sune and moone And the reader may see that Sir Humfrey hath both dealt some thing insincere in the allegatiō of Vspergensis and alsoe hath proceeded preposterously in that he indeuored to infringe the authoritie of the greater Councell by the vncertaine proceeding of the lesse Page 261. of the same deuia he detortes the S. Irenaeus wordes contrarie to his meaning against Apostolicall traditions And yet S. Irenaeus euen in the wordes which are cited by him speakes onely against those who denyed absolutely that the trueth is deliuered by the Scriptures but onely by tradition and soe made them selues or their onwe traditions the rule of faith Of which number of hererikes saith he were Valentinus Marcion Cerinthus Basilides of whome he vttered the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey as affirming that the truth could not be founde by Scriptures by those whoe were ignorant of traditions for say they the truth was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth yet notobstanding this the same Irenaeus afterwardes speakes against others whoe doe not denye scriptures or rather against such as follow scriptures onely and reiect traditions receiued from the Apostles by succession of preists and conserued or obserued in the Church saying that they haue founde the pure truth as the pretended reformers nowe commonly babble of whome he saith that They neither consent to scriptures nor tradition and against whome saith the saint we ought euerie way to resist Soe that it is cleare that he disputes here onely against such heretikes as neither yealde to scriptures nor traditions and therfore he putteth for the litle of his chapter in this place quod neque scripturis neque traditionibus obsequantur haretici that heretiques neither obey scriptures nor traditions both which S. Irenaeus doth expressely imbrace And by this lett the reader iudge how intempestiuely the knigh doth produce this testimonie against those I meane the Romanists who neither reiect the scriptures nor approued traditions but like twoe indiuided companions receiue them both and let him alsoe consider whether the doctrine of holye Irenaeus in this place be not farre more contrarie to the tenet of the pretēded reformers then to the doctrine of the Roman Church whoe make onely scriptures expounded according to their owne sense the sole rule of faith Especially considering that the same ancient Father in the next ensuing chapter doth expressely receiue Apostolicall traditions saying in the verie first wordes traditionem itaque Apostolicam in toto mundo manifestam in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera volunt audire habemus
chapter of the third booke of Bellarmin de verbo Dei pag. 15. And of his owne by way page 503. And secondly in the same Gretzers defense of the first chapter of the first booke of Bellarmine verbo Dei In the first place he abuseth that author in that he produceth him to proue that the Church is finally resolued in to the Pope as head bodie of the same And yet in the verie same chapter page 1456. next leafe Gretzer plainely teacheth that our faith is lastely resolued in to diuine reuelatiō or in to God reueiling or that which is the same in to the prime veritie in which our faith is founded His wordes are these in latin Nam sides nostra vltima resoluitur in reuelationem diuinam seu in Deum reuelantem seu quod idem est in primam veritatem qua nititur fides nostra tanquam fundamento paimario tametsi non inficior fidem quoque resolui in Ecclesiam seu Ecclesiae propositionem altho I doe nor denye that faith is resolued in to the Church or the proposition of the Church c. Immediately after this he saith Sed haec resolutio non est omniuo vltima in principium plane substantiale essentiale sed tantum vt in fundamentum secundarium seu vt in conditionem sine qua fides neque recipitur neque retinetur And euen in these wordes by the knight the Pope alone is not put by Gretzerus for the whole Church but he doth onely say he denyeth not that the Romanists vnderstand by the Pope the Church in one acception not absolutely Which is manifest out of his wordes in the precedent page where he saith Intelligimus etiam nomine Ecclesiae Pontificem pro tempore viuentem quod ipse congregare conuocare potest Concilium hunc summi Pastoris aliorum Praesulum caetum dicimus esse immediatum ordinarium visibilem omnium Controuersiarum quae de religione existunt Iudicem By which wordes it is apparent that Gretzerus doth not take the Popes person alone for the head bodie of the Church but for the head of the bodie of the Church How be it I doe not denye but that the Pope as head cheefe parte of the whole Church may by a senecdoche be taken for the whole Church as he is accepted both by Gretzer and other diuines but yet this acception will nothing profit Sir Humfrey whose wise designe in this place is to persuade his simple reader that the Romanists take the Pope alone without a generall Councell truely and properly for the whole Roman Catholique Church which is his owne phamtasticall dreame not our doctrine In the other place Sir Humfrey plainely falsifyeth this author for wheras Gretzerus onely redargueth his aduersaries whoe falsely affirmes that what soeuer the deuill suggesteth to this or that Pope in particular euen against manifest scripture the Romanists receiue it for Gods worde saying that these things be crepitacula nugantium Praedicantium the clappers of prating preachers that in truth wee Romanists onely receiue reuerence for the worde of God that which the cheefe Bishop doth by Cathedrall definition propose vnto vs as the supreme master Iudge of controuersies Sir Humfrey by fraudulent displaceing of the worde onely putting it before the worde of God quyte peruertes the sense making his reader beleaue that Gretzer affirmes that onely to be the worde of God which the Pope proposeth and as if they held not the scripture it selfe to be Gods worde the contrarie of which neuerthelesse the Iesuit deliuers immediately before in expresse termes saying that it meaning the scripture is had reuerenced by the Pontificians for the worde of God which is soe well knowne that the impudencie of the Predicants can not denye it And thus much touching the corruption abuse of Gretzere by the calumnious knight Moreouer wheras Sir Humfrey cites Castro in his 12. booke as affirming the denyall of Purgatorie to be a most notorious knowne error of the Greciās Armeniās that author is abused by him for he meanes onely of the moderne Grecians not of the ancient Grecian Fathers as the knight giues his reader to vnderstand falsely applying Canus wordes page 181. to the Greek Church of the first ages soe that here is plaine forgerie In like fashion in his 536. page of the Deuia he falsifyes the same author lib. 1. cap. 9. For where Castro saith quamuis enim teneamur ex fide credere verum Petri successorem esse supremum totius Ecclesiae pastorem for those wordes quamuis teneamur that is altho' we are bound Sir Humfrey translates admit we are bounde to beleeue that point as if Castro had doubted of it of which neuerthelesse he makes not anie question but onely saith men are not obledged to beleeue by faith that this or that particular person is true Pope Neither yet doth he denye that euerie Pope hath infallibilitie in a reight line of succession frō S. Peter as the knight doth falsely taxe him but he affirmes onely that it is not a matter of faith soe to beleeue of euerie Pope in particular And therfore he addeth that altho' he were not to be accounted an heretike that should denye obediēce vnto this or that particular Pope to wit Clemēt or Leo yet should he not for doubt of his election sustract him selfe from his obedience And soe we see that here his no other argument then of want of honest dealing in our aduersarie And yet in his 21. section of the deuia page 551. he traduceth the same Alfonsus as if he had scoffed at the Dominicans in generall for that thay were wonte to brag before the people that he that hath once receiued their habit can not erre or fayle in fairh Wher it is true that Castro reprehends sharpely not without reason some particular religious men that vsed such speeches but he is soe farre from saying they are Dominicans that he expressely addes that least he should seeme to taxe the whole order he purposely conceiled the name Ne hoc toti ordini ac societati impressisse videar nomen ordinis ex industria subticui this he did of Charitie But Sir Humfrey contrarily is soe farre from the exercise of that great virtue that he will needs make Castro to impose that vpon a whole order which he meant onely of some particular person of persons Which is a trick of a iuggler thou ' a verie pore one Neither can I conceiue except it were by reuelation howe Sir Humfrey came to know that Castro spake of the Dominicans more then of anie other religious order but let that passe for one of his great miracles Touching the mariage of priests cassander is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey in the 23. art of his consult p. 990. where for antiquae consuetudinis immutandae he puteth in English the change of the lawe and soe leauing out the worde ancient as alsoe the wordes
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 violēce 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 distinctiō 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 reformatiō 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
THE VVHETSTONE OF REPROOFE OR A REPROVING CENSVRE OF THE misintitled 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 Errare fecit eos in inuio non in via Psal 106. WITH A POSTSCRIPT OF ADVERtisments especially touching the homilie epistles attributed to Alfric a compendious retortiue discussion of the misapplyed by-way AVTHOR T. T. Sacristan Catholike Romanist CATVAPOLI Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS Anno M.DC.XXXII THE PREFACE I Haue viewed perused exactly a certaine smale vollume published by Sir Humfrey Linde He intituleth it the safe way but I finde it containes nothing either safe or sound To make it more plausible he giues it a Latin inscripton printing in the front of it via tuta not much vnlike to the practise of Mountibanks who to make their pouders more vendible set on their boxes strange titles to persuade the ignorant they are farre fetched of care vertue He calleth it a waie leading alle Christians to the true Catholike Church But indeede it is no waye but rather a diuerticle or diuersion or if it be a way it s onely a by-way leading sinple soules into woods deserts leauing them there vnmercifully to be deuoured by rauenous beasts If it be any way at all it is not via tuta but rather via torta a Kinde of negatiue way consisting in negation of the true Catholike way therefore as according to the doctrine of Aristotle negatio est malignantis naturoe negation is of a malignant nature so it being a negatiue way it cannot possible be any other then via malignantium the way of the malignant reprobate people He addes it leadeth to the true auncient Catholike faith now professed in the Church of England but this confirmeth that which I said before that his way is no true way but a by-way as leading to a by-place to a Countrie people separated from the rest of the world Tote diuisus orbe Britannus conducting to a nation diuided from the rest of the earth as in situation so is it separated in Religion from others yea from it selfe from the trueth from antiquitie as being no more auncient in all poynts then the daies of Queene Elizabeth as her 39. articles plainely testifie diuerse of them being first proclaimed by her her parliament hither the way leadeth there it leaueth the poore traueller at a non plus without any meanes to passe vnto Christ his Apostles He saith farther in the title that euen the Romanists his aduersaries doe testifie the safety of his way but this is most ridiculous most false of all the rest of his inscription he citeth indeed greate tropes of authors in pretense of his positions some of which are true Catholike writers but others not acknowledged for such by vs others manistly knowen to be his owne consectaries all those that are truly ours he doth eyther malitiously or ignorantly abuse so doth but make checker-worke or Crosse lines of them alto gether for his ministers to play in the pulpit with their parishioners at fox geese I imagin'd his name had bene Line but now I perceiue certainely it is not for he vseth neither line nor square in his booke I meane neither method nor square dealing For setting aside his prologue Epilogue his first chapter or section might aswell haue bene the last the laste his first as otherwise as for his sinceritie it is not to be found either in the beginning midle or ending wherefore if his name be Linde as he subscribeth it is more agreeable to the inside of his worke which is very well linde indeede I meane with lies And the trueth is the greatest part of his pamphlet is but ouerworne brokery stuffe dropped from whites way B. Mourtons patched Appeale forged Imposture vshers outrages excepting some frenchwares taken out of the corrupted store house of that famous mountibanke Daniel Chamiere with whom I perceaue his worship hath had no smale corespondence He stileth himselfe knight which no doubt he is but as that title soundes honestie honor and nobillitie so none of that I finde in his booke which is so replenishsd with bragges boasts and protestations as one would sweare him rather to be a protesting puritan then a pure Protestant Which with other reasons moue me to suspect the booke is not his but a ministerial bastard fathered vpon his nobilitie for the greater authoritie of the worke but that I will not much examine onely this I say that when I had read it I did soma't doubt whether the knight could be so versed in our Roman diuines as thou ' to little purpose the penner appeeres to be which caused me to suspect the true authour is some one of greater reading and industrie then I imagin Sir Humfrey is Spuria multorum patrum proles yet on the other side I am verelie perswaded that considering the multitude of ignorant absurdities it conteines the authour of it cannot be a man of any sollide learning in diuinity which being supposed I cannot absolutely condemne Sir Humfrey for taking vpon him the name yet he cannot be iudged wholely excusable in his honor for that he consented to be the putatiue Father of so base a bratte This which I haue is the third edition the fourth may be dailie expected in regard the booke is so full of matter I meane of corruption Yet after the contents come once to be exactely discussed discouered I persuade my selfe it will quikly loose it vndeserued credit the dubtlesse if the leaues were larger it would ride poaste to Tobaconistis grossers shops I confesse Sir Humfrey I am Tom. Teltruth who cannot flatter or dissemble yet may you assure your selfe that altho' my speeche be ordinarily directed vnto your selfe my intent is directly to reprooue those onelie who in their contriuing of the worke for you in your name haue so profanely misapplyed abused sacred scriptures ancient Fathers an number of other graue Catholike authors so corruptedlie produced against their owne professed faith Neyther yet haue I anie meaning by my words to offēde the dignitie of your person which I respect in the highest degree of desert as neither the persons of those who truely are the authors of the worke haue deceiued both you others but rather with charitable S. Aug. I chiuse to say of you euery one of my aduersaries in religion Homo viuat moriatur error Let the man liue the error dye But now I will descend to particulars after due examine passe my sentence vpon euerie seuerall section cheefelie insisting in discussion of the citations of the aduersarie dedicating my whole censure not to the gentrie of my Countrie as Sir Humfrey doth and of whose mature Iudgments I can
not conceiue so basely as once to imagin they will be dangerouslie enamored with his booke but I will cheefelie offer it to the more vulgar ranke of people who by reason of their smaler tallents may more easely be circumuented whom if by conferring the one booke with the other I shall vnderstand they come to be right informed of the trueth I shall hould my selfe sufficientlie rewarded by them as by those whose wauering mindes I onely intend to rectifie by my labors which otherwise for anie matter of substance I finde in the booke I professe I should neuer haue esteemed it worth the paines I haue taken in the confutation of it A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS PERIOD 1. THE proceeding of the Roman Church with the sectaries clered defended from the iniurious impositions of the aduersarie Father Campian other authors ill alledged Where likewise the Romanists are freed from all cause of contention betweene themselues the pretended reformers who are truelie the cause of all dissention in the Church by there Preposterous pretended reformation PERIOD 2. Neyther are there any corruptions in either faith or generally approued manners in the Roman Church Nor anie want of care zeale in the Popes in procuring all necessarie reformation in the Church But the aduersaries abuse of the Councels of Trent Pisa his lyes equiuocations discouered His calumniations against Purgatorie indulgences prayer to Saints reproued PERIOD 3. No true Romanist euer renounced Poperie either in his life or at his death yet some formerly Romanists for desire of licentious libertie other temporal motiues haue apostated from the Catholike Roman Church Witnes Luther Caluin other founders of the misreformed Churches to omit those of smaler note Some cited for Romanists which are not such with abuse of some other authors PERIOD 4. An idle calumnious discourse of the aduersarie foolishly affirming that the Roman Church is hinderd frō reformation by bumane Police reproued PERIOD 5. The irrefragable argument of Catholikes that the pretensiue Reformers cannot assigne a time in which anie one point of the Roman faith was by anie publike authoritie before the dayes of Luther condemned for erroneous maintained fortified against the friuolous euasions of the aduersarie Some Romanists by him impertinently alledged others cited for Romanists which are not such PERIOD 6. The Catholike Roman doctrine cleared in it succession from all touche of heresie But contrarily the pedegree of the misreformers much stained with the same where diuers ancient Fathers are abused corrupted at the least in sense meaning PERIOD 7. The pretensiue reformed doctrine is not proued eytherby testimonie of Romanists or otherwise to haue eyther vniuersalitie or antiquite but conuinced to be quyte voyde of them both And the aduersarie promissing to proue the antiquitie vniuersallitie of his faith by testimonies of Romanists onelie produceth two or three in two or three onely points yet those impertinentlie PERIOD 8. Neyther iustification by faith nor the deniall of the reall presence or transubstantiation or priuate Masse not the dual number of Sacraments not anie vnlawfulnes of communion in one kynde of prayer or seruice in an vnknowne langue of due honor of images or Indulgences proued by testimony of Romanists or by anie other apparent argument but all the aduersarie alledgeth is discouered to be faultie friuolous or forged PERIOD 9. Not one testimonie of Romanists for the certaintie of the pseudo-reformed faith or vncertaintie of the Roman as the aduersarie idlely pretended But diuers of them abused detorted PERIOD 10. No safetie comfort or benefit for the soule but much for the bodie in the pretensiue reformed faith neyther did anie Romanists euer confesse more then this second parte of saftie comforte or benefit to be in the new Religion Where diuers authors are depraued abused by the false aduersarie PERIOD 11. It is conuinced to be absolutelie false calumnious that the Romanists eyther elude or reiect the ancient Fathers but contrarilie esteeme much more of them then anie of the misreformers euer did Where diuers authors are falsely accused abused PERIOD 12. No true recordes euer razed by the Romanists but manie by the false reformers partelie razed partely exauthorized or destroyed With discouerie of some false dealing in the aduersarie PERIOD 13. It is a miere calumnious accusation of our malitious aduersarie to affirme that the Romanists blasphemie the scripture where it is conuinced that the Romanists vse the scriptures with much more reuerence then the Nouellists doe And diuers Catholikes are traduced corrupted touching this matter PERIOD 14. It is miere phrensie to imagin that Bellarmine testifies the trueth of the misreformed doctrine eyther in ihe principal points of controuersie or in anie other point of their newe tenets And the same Cardinal is much abused by the aduersarie in this passage PERIOD 15. Ancient martyrs not pretended but defended to haue shed their blood not for defense of the newe pretended reformation but in defense of the ancient Catholike present Roman faith And the weakenes and folie of the aduersarie discouered in his proceeding PERIOD 16. The Romanists haue no need to drawe any argument for proofe of their Religion from the confession of the sectaries And to treate of this was impertinent to the aduersaries proiect PERIOD 17. It is demonstrated to be plainely false that the aduersarie hath proued by confessions of Romanists that his Religion is safer then theirs And this is founded onely in his owne crasie iudgement fayling miscarying in the verie foundation of his worke APPROBATIO VIso testimonio cuiusdam viri docti mihique de fide doctrina probè cogniti quo testatur hanc Censuram cuiusdam libelli qui inscribitur Viatuta nihil continere fidei vel bonismoribus aduersum sed multa Catholicae religionis dogmata subtiliter explicata orthodoxorumque scripta vindicata diligenter Dignam censui quam ego approbarem Duaci 28. Nouembr 1632. GEORGIVS COLVENERIVS c. Correction of faultes supplie of omissions PAge 60. line 13. reade Church Apostacie p. 114. l. 18. for them reade it p. 116. for be reade were for there formers reade the Reformers p 127. omit real presence l. 134. for sainte reade smarte p. 142. for to dissent reade not to consent p. 154. for to such contrarie reade contratie to such in the same page l. 23. for which is true reade which in his opinion is true p. 155. touching the same matter l. 15. for none of which is contrarie reade none of which abstracting from the institution is contrarie p. 145. for but hath reade but since it the rest were there included hath pag. 156. line 2. for the manner reade the whole intire manner p. 158. for declaredly vniuersally reade so declaredly vniuersally page 226. for the worde of God reade either the vnwritten worde of God in the same p. l. 14. adde althou ' there were no
abuses are decreede to be reformed those same abuses are of necessity supposed to be either in times past present or future and so farre I graunt the testimonies cited by the K. out of the two Councels and other Catholike Authors be of force but to prooue that those abuses be corruptiōs in faith or yet in manners except we meane of the euill faith and māners brought into the Church by Luther his followers or that they being truly knowen to be in the Church yet the Pope will not haue them reformed this I say is a meere calumniation diuised by Sir Humfrey in disgrace of the chiefe Pastour of the Roman Church and cannot possiblie be deduced out of the foresaid testimonies but rather the quite contrary is expressely to be found and lastely in the decrees of the Tridentine Councell as we haue already said Decret de Refor That which Sir Humfrey affirmeth in the beginning of his 20. page is conuinced to be a manifest vntruth to wit that the day of the Roman reformation is not yet come And although the Knight out of the aboundance of his wit is not content onely to saye that the Romanists confesse there are corruptions in their Church onely in manners but alsoe that they confesse the same in doctrine neuerthelesse of the poynt of doctrine he bringeth not any proofe at all eyther out of Romanists or any other waye but insteede of proofes he vttereth diuers vntruths mingled with some impertinences and equiuocations Hee telleth his reader in the 20. page that the Councell of Trent in Paul the thirds time complained of Indulgences but this is most false for the Councell doth not in anie sorte complaine of the Indulgences them selues but onely that the Popes officers in collecting the almes or contribution of the people vppon the graunt and gayning of them gaue scandall to faithfull Christians as appeareth by the very same wordes which he himselfe citeth Vide Con. Trid. sess 21. cap. 9. among which there is not any one repugnant to the doctrine of Indulgences but onely to the abuses of the questours as also the same wordes cited in Sir Humfreys margent in lattin do yet more plainely declare so that this is no lesse then an inexcusable falsitie vttered by the knight for want of an argument as it seemes to prooue corruptions in doctrine in the Roman Church Another vntruth he hath in the 22. pa. where he saith thus neither did those men meaning the Fathers of the Councell of Trent seeke a reformation in manners onely but in the doctrine it selfe Whereas they in that very place by the knight alledged wish onely that the priuate masse might be restored to the auncient custome of the communion of the people together with the priest which as you knowe is no matter of doctrine in cōtrouersie betweene the Romanists and the reformers but onely of practise and consequently it proueth not the knights intent in this place but rather his ignorant mistaking of the true state of the question in that pointe of controuersie about priuate masse Now that which he addeth of the Latin seruice in the Roman Church to wit that the Councell commaunds all Pastours that they at the Masse doe frequently interpret and declare vnto the people the mistery of the Sacrament who doth not see how impertinent it is to the matter of doctrine and how vnapt a medium it is to proue that the Doctours of the Councell either did seeke reformation in the same or to shew how neare the same doctours came to the doctrine of the reformed Churches as he presently addeth affirming them so to doe since the Councell proceedeth not there by way of definition or decree in matter of doctrine but onely by way of ordinance and cōmaund as the wordes by him selfe rehearsed doe plainely specifie yet not so but that the same Councell and in the same place doth either expressely commaund or at the least suppose that the Masse ought to be for the most part celebrated in the lattin tongue Moreouer touching equiuocations certaine it is that he doth equiuocate in his allegation of Pope Alexander out of the Councell of Pisa where he saith that the Pope promised solemnely to intend the reformation of the Church whereas in truth Alexander meaneth not of the faith of the Romā Church as the knight would haue it but of the reformation of manners or of some abuses practized in the Church by particular persons Besides this it is not probable that the Pope would meddle himselfe in matters of doctrine in such a Councell as was assembled purposely for the taking away of a schisme But cōcerning manners I finde that in the laste period of the same Councell of Pisa which Sir Humfrey cites ther is expresse mention both of some reformatiō already made by the Pope Cardinals also of more referred to the next generall Sinod the words of which determination are these Item cum Dominus noster Papa cum consilio Concilij intendere◠reformare Ecclesiam in capite membris iam multa per Dei gratiam sint expedita per ipsum Dominum nostrum Papam moreouer in the same Councell of Senes which the knight also here produceth I finde no mention of corruption in faith except by faith Sir Humfrey will vnderstand the corrupted faith of the wiclefists Hussits or the Grecians the reformation and reduction of all which both the Pope and Councell indeuored so farre to effect and compasse as they declared the first two sectaries to be heretikes and that so earnestly as they threatened all those with excommunication who should any way fauore them euen with as much onely as to giue them salte to their pottage as for reformatiō of manners there is not a word which proueth that the Pope made anie resistance therein but rather expressely laboured for the same tho by accident of impediments incident it was actually hindered at that present Sacrosancta Synodus vniuersalem Eccles representans nuntijs sanctissimi in Christo Patris ac Domini nostri Martini quinti summi Pontif. specialiter deputatis ipsius reformationem intentus incipiens à fidei fundamentō praeter quod nemo potest aliud ponere damnationem haeresum Wiclefistarum Hussitarum suorumque sequacium c. In decret Cōtra Hussitas haereticos Con. Sen. By which it is manifest how great the impudencie of Sir Hunfrey is in alledging these two Councels to proue want of reformation in the Pope or Roman Church they standing both so plainely for the contrary to his positiō or rather impositiō He equiuocateth also in that allegation of Card. Schomberg whom he affirmeth to haue opposed the reformation made in the Councell of Trent Whereas yet he citeth no wordes of the Card. but onely a bare relation taken out of a certaine history of the acts of the Coūcell published in English touching the foresaid Cardinals oppositiō or rather proposition onely in the point of reformation Which fact being related
ornantes expanso super ipsum linteo in die quadam illustri anni per aliquot dies panem ponunt offerunt Mariae Epipha impres Basilicae Iano Corn. interp omnes autem panem participant in ◅tum enim hoc m◅lier◅ opinio est ibidem Continentiam praedicat nuptias autem scortationem putat asserens nihil differre matrimonium a scortatione sed idem esse Epipha ibid. nec recipiunt in suorum numerum coniugio vtentem Aug. haer 25. and restraint of the mariage of Priests he attributeth to the Tatians and Manicheis and for proofe of this he citeth Epiphanius heresie 79. and 46. But he abuseth this authour in both those places And first touching the Collyridians both the same Epiphanius and others doe expresselie teach that they worshipped our blessed Ladie idolatrously by attributing diuinity sacrificying vnto her or her image a cake of bread or tart as the verie worde it selfe in greeke doth signifie and so this superstitious heresie can be no part of the Popish pedegree Moreouer Sir Humfrey doth falselie affirme that Epiphanius calles thes women Idolaters for he doth not in anie place giue them that generall name altho' they iustelie deserued it but he calles them simulachrificae that is sacrifiers to images which is an heresie as much repugnant to the Roman Catholikes doctrine as it is to Protestancie which worde alone is sufficient to cleare the Romanists from the heresie of those profane people but this as it seemes the craftie Cauallier dissembled for the aduantage of his false accusation Secondlie concerning the heresie of the Tatians it is certaine out of that Epiphanius Ireneus and others that they reiected Matrimonie absolutelie and compared it to fornication which as the world knowes the Roman Church doth not but onelie for the greater decencie and reuerence to the seruice of God prohibits it in those onelie who dedicate themselues to the same by receauing holie orders and priesthood And thus you see Sir Humfrey insteede of deducing the succession of the Romanists from auncient heresies he makes but a Pedegree of his owne lyes And the like I say of the Manicheans whome the knight falselie and iniuriouslie affirmes to haue beene our predecessours in that they prohibited mariage in Preists quoting in the margent S. Epiphanius heresie 46. whome neuerthelesse I haue diligentlie read but cannot finde it Yet I finde in Saint Augustin who both followed S. Epiphanius much in his descriptions of heresies and also was better acquainted then anie writer of his tyme with the errours of the Maniches that they did not onelie prohibit matrimonie in Preists but that they absolutelie detested the same for so he saith of those sectaries Verum si ad virginitatem sic adhortamini quemodum hortatur Apostolica doctrina lib. 3. contra faust Manich. cap. 6. qui dat nuptum bene facit qui non dat nuptum melius facit vt bonum esse nuptias diceretis sed meliorem virginitatem sicut facit Ecclesia quae vere Ecclesia Christi est non vos spiritus sanctus ita praenuntiaret dicens prohibentes nubere Ille enim prohibet qui hoc malum tsse dicit non qui huic bono aliud melius anteponit Denique eum vos precipue concubitum detestamini qui solus honestus coniugalis est quem matrimoniales quoque tabulae praese gerunt liberorum procreandorum causa vnde vere non tam concumbere quam nubere prohibetis And presentlie after Nec ideo vos dicatis non prohibere qui multos vestros auditores obedire nolentes in hoc vel non volentes salua amicitia toleratis illud enim habetis in doctrina vestri erroris hoc in necessitate societatis Thus plainelie S. Augustin whose wordes to make them also plaine to those who vnderstand not Latin I will put them in English But if saith he you so exhorte to virginitie as the Apostolicall doctrine dōth exhorte he who giueth in mariage doth well he who doth not giue in mariage doth better so that you should say that mariage is good but virginitie better as that Church doth which is truelie the Church of Crist the holie spirit would not thus prenuntiate you saying prohibiting to marie for he doth prohibit who saith this is euill not he who doth preferre before this good thing an other thing better then it Finallie you doe cheeflie deteste that carnall coniunction which onelie is honest and matrimoniall and which the matrimoniall writings also declare to be for procreation of children whence it is that you doe not so much prohibit carnall copulation as you prohibit mariage And presentlie after the same S. Augustin addeth Neither therefore can you say that you doe not prohibit to marie Because manie of your auditours being not willing or refusing to obey in this you tolerate them for frendship sake for you haue that in your doctrine of your errour this in necessitie of societie By which wordes of this most famous doctour we may plainelie gather that suppose S. Epiphanius had those wordes in sacerdotibus yet he did not meane of Preists onelie when he spoake of the Manichean heresie but of a direct and absolute prohibition of mariage as vnlawfull and detestable in all sortes of persons and consequentlie this passage of Sir Humfrey drawne out of the wordes of S. Epiphanius containeth no kinde of disproofe of Roman Catholike doctrine in this particular but a faule imposture of his owne if he can not produce out of this authour the wordes which he citeth And whereas he affirmes that the Maniches were our predecessours prohibited mariage in Preists quoting S. Epiphanius in the margent Dices mihi omnino in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gignere presbyteros Diaconos Hypodiaconos at hoc non est iuxta canonem sed iuxta hominum mentem Epiph. Haeres 59. I finde no such heresie in his Cathalogue of the heresies of Manicheus but contrarilie I am sure I finde in an other place of his workes that Preists were by the Ecclesiasticall Canons prohibited to marie For thus he speaketh Doubtlesse you will tell me that euen yet in certaine places Preists Deacons and Subdeacons gette children But this is not according to the Canon but according to the myndes of men c. And with these and other errours which he affirmeth to be taught in the Roman Church but doth not specifie he endeth his Pedegree of the Romanists which though he houlds it to haue descended either from auncient heretikes or at the least to haue as he saith neere affinitie with their adultered issue neuerthelesse presentlie after hauing better examined his conscience and considered more deliberatelie of the matter he seemes to loose some of his former confidence and so addeth that if he hath fayled in calculating the right natiuitie of their auncient doctrine yet sure I am saith hee they are vtterlie destitute of a right succession in persons and doctrine from the Apostles and the auncient orthodox
being a matter in this sense either of indifferencie or at the most of greater merit and perfection it might lawfully be altered by an introduction of the contrarie custome or practise of the Church especially the communicating or not communicating of the auditours of euerie Masse being a thing wholelie depending vpon the deuotion of the people themselues Which deuotion although the Church could haue desired it had continued in the same feruour in which it was in those primitiue times neuerthelesse ther was no reason why either she should obledge the people to the same or yet that the Preist for want of deuotion in the people should omitte his owne and cease to exercise so high and profitable a function to the members of the whole Church as is the publique liturgie and common praier of the same And truelie this is a matter so conformable to reason and pietie that if it were not that our aduersaries are quite possessed with a spirit of cōtradiction they would neuer contend so much aboute it as they doe Especially supposing that of all points of controuersie betweene them and vs that is of the least moment and a thing for which they haue the smalest reason to striue as well because they themselues reiect all sorts of Masses as vaine and superstitious whether they be priuate or publique with communion of the people or without as also because euen they themselues after their newe manner celebrate their owne liturgie as they call it oftentimes yea most ordinarily not onely without the comunion of the people but euen with out the comunion of either Priest or clarke as is euident by the most common practise of all the reformed Churches which onely with a drie fothering passe the greater part of the sūdaies of the whole yeere And yet these same Zealous brothers are so Crosse in their proceedinge that they are not ashamed to reprehend in vs the same which they thēselues ordinarily practise in a much worse manner In regard of which preposterous dealing of theirs in my opinion we may not vnaptlie applie vnto them the saying of a certaine ingenious Protestant in his description of a Puritan to wit that they are become so crosse in their teaching that he thinkes verily that if the Roman Church should inioyne the puting on of cleane shirts euery sunday rather then obey her precept they would goe lowsie Ouerb Caract But besides this Sir Humfrey for the proofe of his Irish faith alledgeth scripture out of S. Matth. 26. Marke 14. Luke 22. but the wordes he citeth doe not argue Christs institutiō in both kindes in respect of all sortes of people Accepit Iesus panem benedixit dedit discipulis suis dixit accipite manducate but onely his action manner of administration not his ordination we know as well as the reformers Christ did comunicate his bodie and bloud to all his disciples there present at the institution of the Sacrament euen to the traitour Iudas as many deuines doe hould but we know with all he did not ordeine it so to be administred in all occasions Neither doe we finde one worde of commaund in the whole bible by virtue of which the Priests are inioined to celebrate this misterie alwayes iust in the same manner that Christ did And otherwise if we should be so tied to euery circumstance which Christ himselfe vsed and particularie to giue the communion to all that are present we should be bound to giue it to those also which we know are vnprepared for it nay euen to excommunicated persons and to such traitors as Iudas That which neuerthelesse I persuad myselfe the most pure precisian of them all will scarsely doe though otherwise I hould thē not for very scrupulous in that nature so they know the receiuers to be mēbers of their cōgregation And touching the foresaid citation out of the Euangelists it is to be noted that because Sir Hum. will not haue his reader heare of the consecration of the Sacrament which the reformers neuer vse in their Churches therfore he left out the wordes and he blessed it puting onely the wordes of thākes giuing whereas yet the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both blessing and giuing thankes therefore when our Sauiour multiplied miraculously the fishes Luc. 9. the Euangelist saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he blessed them The knight also citeth a place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. But the Apostle indeed reprehendeth there the fault of the richer Corinthians in that they did exclude or at the least not expect the poorer sorte to eate the vsuall supper with them when they met to gether to receiue the blessed Sacrament but giueth no precept to them that all that are present should euerie time they did meete in the Church actually receiue the communion with the Preist or that the Preist ougth not in anie case to celebrate without a competent number of communicants which is our question in this place but at the most S. Paule there ordaines that when the people comes together to eate either the vsuall and common supper or the bodie and bloude of Christ in the Sacrament they vncharitablie exclude not or preuent one an other but expect and doe it with order and sobrietie and like brethren together without scisme or separation and as Christ himselfe did who imparted his supper most louinglie to his disciples there present without exception of persons to which altho' I admit the same S. Paule in parte alludes in his first verse of this chapter saying be you followers of me as I also of Christ yet not in that sense as if he had persuaded the Corinthians that our Sauiour commaunded that the Eucharist should neuer be celebrated by the Preist alone with our receiuers as our aduersarie foundlie infers for profe of the article he opposeth to the Councell of Trent Neyther is the doctrine of that article in anie sorte fauoured by S. Augustin in his 118. Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey he onelie there affirming at the most that the Apostle speaketh of the Eucharist when he saith those wordes Propter quod fratres cum conuenitis ad manducandum inuicem expectate c. That is in English Therefore my brethren when you come to eate expect one an other c. Which wordes eyther of S. Augustin or those of the Apostle are not contrarie to the celebration of priuate Masses except it be in the imagination of the Nouellists as I haue sufficientlie aboue declared To omit that the greater parte of diuines both auncient moderne expounde not those wordes of S. Paule rather of the Eucharist but of the common supper the trueth of which exposition the text itselfe in my iudgemēt doth plainely conuince Yet not to stand vpon this it is sufficient for the defence of the doctrine of the Councell of Trent in this particular and confutation of the contrarie position that neyther in the cited place of S. Paule nor in anie other place of scripture priuate communion
anie other language excepting their owne mother tongue yea then anie other publike language I meane then either hebrew or greeke and finallie it is a language fitter for mutuall communication in religion then anie other tongue and among the more learned sort of people of all nations the most familiar of all And I would faine knowe of the reformers what they haue to doe to call that in question which hath binne generallie practised in the Church for manie hundred yeeres before they and their reformation were hatched Who appointed them for iudges in this matter Let them meddle in their owne affaires their cause is not ours we are all one both in our religion and in the forme and rites of our religion we communicate with all the members of our Church euen in the same externall Ceremonies in what place soeuer they be and they with vs. But you in England haue built a new Church different euen from the rest of the pretended reformed Churches of other Countries you are not vniforme neyther in doctrine nor Ceremonies and so it is not amisse for your purpose that you vse a language in your publick seruice in which you as little agree with your brothers as in your religion Nay in my opinion supposing your separation in communion of religion you haue taken a politick course to separate your selues also in the language of your seruice otherwise it might happen vnto you and your French and dutch brothers as it hath donne alreadie betweene the Gūmarists and Arminians especiallie now whē Arminianisme begins to spred itselfe who are knowne to haue entered into the Church with zealous communication one with another and yet the feruour of their spirits hath so much increased that before the sermon was ended there hath appeered good store of broken pates and perhaps worse for auoyding of which inconueniencies our English Nouellists as it may be supposed haue their seuerall Churches and formes of seruice and doctrine for themselues the French and the Dutch whereas one the contrarie the professours of the Romane Church by reason of their publick seruice or Masse is in a common language are put to no such shifts but wheresoeuer they meet they finde meanes to serue God and to communicate together in the verie same manner they doe in their owne Coūtries whether they be old or yong learned or ignorant of which great comfort the reformers by reason of their new forme of seruice in the vulgar tongue in manie occasions doe wilfully depriue themselues To say nothing of the dignitie which the seruice of God receiueth from the grauitie of the Latine tongue and the disparagement which it suffereth by a vulgar language supposing also that by that meanes euen the secret misteries of the Christian faith come to be as familiar in the mouthes of euerie apish boy as they be to the greatest Doctour of the Church a thing both much repugnant to the practise of auncient times and also which giueth great occasion to manie to vilifie and disesteeme the sacred wordes of God included in the publike seruice yea and oftentimes the thinges themselues by the wordes signified as experience doth daily teach vs to omit the alteration corruption which it is more subiect vnto in a vulgar tongue then in Latine which is alwaies the same as the same experience doth make manifest But Sir Humfrey goeth on and tells his reader that some of the Trent Bishops adiudged the first part of the decrec of the Councell to be questionable for that it seemed to contradict itselfe in that it affirmeth the Masse to containe much instruction for the faithfull and yet commaundeth that parte of the seruice to be vttered with a lowe voyce and in an vnknowne tongue and for this for want of better authours he citeth the historie of the Councell of Trent But all this is but a meere cauill grounded in the relation of a false historiographer for that if anie such thing had happened after the foresaid decree was once confirmed it is not so long a time since the Councell was finished but that the fact of those Bishops would haue binne knowne to the world yea and their punishment for such their temeritie if they had remayned refractorie would haue binne so published as at the least some one or other writer would haue taken notice of the same as well as the authour of that relation neyther is their anie contradiction in the said decree in regard it is manifest that by the instruction of the people the Councell meaneth eyther wholie or cheeflie the epistle Gospell of the Masse as also for that the same Councell withall doth expresselie giue Order that the Pastours of the Church interpret and declare the misteries of the Masse to their parishoners which order taketh away all colour of contradiction which can be imagined in the wordes of the decree especiallie supposing that in what language or with what voice soeuer the Masse be celebrated the foresaid exposition will supplie all the obscuritie which from thence can arise But how be it this which I haue said is true yet I haue discouered by reading that passage in the foresaid Historie that it doth not so relate it but quite in an other manner for that historie doth not affirme that the Tridentine Bishops made that doubt or question of the decree which ordaineth the celebration of Masse in a lowe voyce and vnknowne language as ambiguous in the construction Mandat sancta Synodus pastoribus singulis curam animarum gerentibus vt frequēter inter missarum celebrationē vel per se vel per alios ex ijs quae in Missa leguntur aliquid exponant c. Concil Trid. Sess 22. cap. 8. but the historie saith expresselie that the Protestants made that doubt by way of obiection to which the Bishops ansered in that forme which the same historie relates Which is so foule a falsification in Sir Humfrey that I confesse I had smale mynde to make anie further examen of the rest of the citations of this booke if otherwise I had not alreadie so farre engaged my selfe Let the reader suruey the 650. page of the Trid. historie printed in Latine at Franckford 1621. and he will easilie finde the deceipte And now you see this is but a fiction of a contradiction deuised in discredit of the doctrine of the Councell in this point either by the knight or some other Sycophāt of whome he receiued it vpon truste Besides that if anie such thing had happened in the time of the discussion of the doctrine of the Councell yet certaine it is that all such doubt was cleered and quite taken away by the establishment of the decree itselfe whence it also appeereth how false a consequence Sir Humfrey deduceth out of the same decree to wit that because the Councell affirmeth that the Masse doth affoard great instruction to the people and for that end ought to be interpreted vnto them therefore sayth the knight the Fathers of the
as we also praye for them but rather so that they praye for vs. And in his booke de cura pro mortuis Cap. 14. he expresselie speaketh of the prayer of Saints for those that are buried neare vnto their tumbes All which sayeings of S. Augustin are plaine enuffe yet our noble aduersarie turnes the cat in the pan persuades his reader that he flatly denied inuocation of saints but to conuince him his followes yet more plainelie I will conclude this point with the wordes of the same S. Augustin in psal 99. where speaking of the worship of Angells against the Gentils he sayth vtinam vos colere velletis facile enim ab ipsis disceretis nō illos colere Would to God you also would wosship them for you might easily learne of them not to worship them That is not to adore them as Gods but as saints To this I adde that Bellarmin professeth he could neuer finde the foresayd wordes in S. Augustin neither could I hauing deligently searched for them euer finde them In this same manner Sir Humfrey proceeds in the matter of Purgatory For wher as S. Augusitn in his 69. chapter of his Enchir. speaking not of the existēce of Purgatorie but onelie of some particulars which are consequent vnto it propoundeth a question whether the soule seperated from the bodie be subiect to those inordinate affections to temporall things to which shee was subiect when shee was united to the bodie to which question because Sainct Augustin answereth doubtfully with vncertainetie the kinght handleth the matter so nimblie cunninglie that the reader may easilie be persuaded by him that S. Augustin was doubtfull of the existence or being of Purgatorie it selfe so for the greater furtherance of this persuation wher S. Augustin speaking onelie of the foresayd question saith it is not incredible that some such thing should be aftfer this life honest Sir Humfrey to make his market the better foysteth in the word Purgatory in the beginning of the sentence as if that were it of which S. Augustin saith quaeri potest it may be questioned so deludeth his reader egregiously with the falsification both of his wordes sense Some other particulars touching this same metter Sir Humfrey addeth partely impertinent partilie false Impertinent for example is that passage of his 248. page in which he affirmes that Bellarmine saith it is dpubtfull whether the punishment of Purgatorie be by materiall fyre or some other meanes For what incertaintie soeuer there were in the Church aboute this point yet this being I say not touching the paine it selfe but onelie the qualitie or maner of the paine it is out of our controuersie in this matter which is not here of the circumstances of Purgatorie but of the existence or being of Purgatorie it selfe the manner continuation of time instruments by which the soules are punished the like being left to Catholike diuines to dispute at there pleasure And so this allegation of Bellarmin by the knight against the certaintie of the Roman doctrine concerning Purgatorie is as farre out of quare as if he had alledged eyther our diuines or his owne to proue there is neyther Hell nor Heauen because they make disputable questions or doubts concerning the paines of the one glorie of the other And yet besides this it is not true that Bellarmine makes any such doubt of the materialitie of the fire of Purgatorie but he expressely auerres that the common sentence of diuines is for it Adding that it is not in deed a matter of faith because it is in no place defined by the Church Yet saith he it is a most probable opinion besides other reasons he alledges in regarde of the cōsent of the Scolastikes which cannot be contemned without temeritie And now supposing the Cardinal speakes so plainelie Sir Humfrey proceeded not sincerelie in that he insinuates the contrarie by a defectiue citation of his wordes Secondlie he falsely affirmeth that S. Greg. gaue the first Credo to Purgatorie that he learned it by reuelations insinuating also that the Roman Church groundeth the faith of Purgatory vpon the spirits apparitions of dead men which is all false calumnious for that neither S. Gregorie nor any other Romanists euer founded anie doctrine of faith vpon such groundes but onelie at the most vse them for confirmation illustration of those arguments which are founded in scripture for that purpose as their writings make manifest And that S. Gregorie was not the first established or gaue the first Credo as the knight speakes to Purgatorie it is manifestly conuinced by the testimonies of such Fathers as liued long before him make expresse mention of it And to omit others yet more auncient S. Gregorie Nyssen in his oration of the dead hath these plaine wordes Non poterit à corpore egressus diuinitatis particeps fieri nisi maculas animo immixtas purgatorius ignis abstulerit The departed can not be partaker of the diuinitie vnlesse purgatorie fyre take away the spots residing in his soule adding after wordes alijs post hanc vitam purgatorio igne materiae labes abstergentibus Others clensing after this life the corruption of the matter with purgatory fyre I indeed finde these words smat different in an other translation as also the wordes of an other pregnant place of the same author to the same purpose in his precedent page aboute the midest of the oration but the sense is the same in all places versions S. Austin also in the 16. of his 50. homilies saith thus Qui temporalibus paenis digna gesserunt per ignem quendam purgatorium transibunt de quo Apostolus ait saluus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem Those who haue done things deseruing temporall paines shall passe by a certaine purgatorie fyre of which the Apostle saith he shall be saued yet so as it were by fire So that all this which the kinght vtters of S. Gregorie is friuolous vntrue as these testimonies conuince Onelie one place which Sir Humfrey citeth out of S. Augustin carieth some more apparence then the rest Where in his booke de vanitate saeculi the first chapter he saith thus Knowe that when the soule is separated from the bodie presentlie it is either placed in Paradise for it good workes or cast headlong in to the bottome of hell for it sinnes To which I say First that booke attributed to Sainct Austin is not founde in the Index of his seuerall workes collected by Possidonius nor cited by Beda in his commentarie vpon the Apostles of S. Paule consisting of the sentences of S. Aug. Wherefore it is noted by Bellar. de scrip Eccles not to be his yet because it is printed among his workes perhaps composed by some ancient author I answere Secondlie that suppose it is his worke yet S. Augustin speaketh onelie of those that either dye in mortall sinne or of those that die quite free from
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
aboute the yeare 996 neuerthelesse in two seuerall respects he proceedes most deceitefully and quite contrarie to common honestie and reason First for that he feigneth and prefixeth a title against the reall presence and transsubstantiation to the said homilie secondly because in his rehearsall of the tenor of the same he leueth our the relation of two most manifest and palpaple miracles for the proofe of both those points of the Catholique faith in it alledged by the author which craftie and vulpine trickes of Fox with which and manie others of like nature he farceth his huge volumes as it appeares seemed soe shamefull that his successor the late diuulger of the same homilie was ashamed to imitate him yea and not obstanding he was bounde vnder paine of losse of the labor of his translation and publication of that worke which otherwile he well considered would haue ben in vaine to taxe the said miracles of fiction as he did in a marginall note yet was he not soe impudent nor frontlesse as to raze thē quite out of the copie inexcusable deceipt in Fox And how be it I cā not denye but ther is a great difference belweene these twoe actions yet must they giue me licence to tell them that neither of them both is cleare of ill proceeding the one being guiltie of plaine imposture the other of plaine temeritie For supposing they would venture to make vse of the homilie for the aduantage of their denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation for all that they ought to haue taken it as they founde it for better or for worse not goe a boute to pick out what they finde for their purpose and cast a may the rest like such vnreasonable caterers as will needes buye flesh without bones And in deed those twoe bones that is those twoe most patēt cleare miracles by which both the reall presēce of the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ar manifestly demonstrated against the new doctrine of these our tymes were too harde for old Father Foxs teeth to chewe or for his stomake to disgeast therfore doubtlesse he left them out both in his saxon and English transsumpte But these sycophants as they deale with the scriptures them selues soe they deale with ancient authorities testimonies lib. de bono person c. 11. Suo quidem priuilegione dicam sacrilegio vtquod volunt accipiant quod nolunt reijciant as S. Augustin said of the Manichies Againe concerning the Epistles attributed to Alfric ther is yet more discorde among our aduersaries For the publisher of them and the homilie aboue mentioned in his preface vnto them affirmes ther were certaines lines rare zout of a booke extant in the librarie of worceter which lines saith he which contained the cheefe point of cōtrouersie that is as he supposeth against the reall presence and transsubstantiation were taken out of twoe Epistles of Alfric written by him as well in the Saxon tongue as in the latin But Doctor Iames and Sir Humfrey tell vs that the foresaid passage was razed in a latin Epistle manuscript of Bennitts Colledge in Cambrige yet there to be seene And wheras the author of the publication saith that the lines razed ar to be restored by twoe other Epistles of the same Alfric in latin extant in the librarie of Exceter contrarily D. Iames tolleth vs they ar to be restored not by anie latin copies but by certaine Saxon copies of the same Epistles which he affirmeth to haue ben in the publike librarie of Oxon when he writ his booke which was the yeare 1611. Besydes this the same Iames out of Fox saith the Epistle which he affirmes to haue ben thus mangled and torne was to wulfstan Archbishop of yorke and hath for title de consuetudine Monachorum wheras yet the foresaid publisher of Alfrics new founde writings intileth that Epistle of Alfric de consuetudine monachorum of the order or manner of monkes Egneshemensibus fratribus to the fryres or brothers of Egnesham Which iarres I confesse I am soe vnable to compose that I can not but vehemently suspect these mens reportes to be false and counterfet Especially considering that Iames affirmes the latin Epistle soe razed as they reporte to haue ben directed by Alfric to that wulstan whoe was Archbishop of yorke aboute the yeare 954. wher as yet the author of the pamphlet in which these writings ar contained in his prefate to the same saith that this Alfric to whome he attributes them was equall to Alfric Archbishop of Canterburie which he alsoe affirmes to haue ben in that seat six yeares before that wulstan to whome Alfric's Epistle was writen was Archbishop of yoke soe that the one reportes this Epistle to haue ben wriren to the first wulstan and the other to the second not obstanding all histories and Cathologues of Bishops among which is Godwins doe testifye soe long a space of tyme to haue passed betweixt their standings as it is from the yeare 955. and 1003. soe that these twoe relators drawe back warde and fore ward like twoe ill match asses More ouer the foresaid publisher will needs haue Alfric the supposed author the homilie and epistles to haue ben a distinct man from that Alfric whoe was Archbishop of Canterburie wheras neuershelesse Iohn Leland whoe professedly writ of the writers of England relating the seuerall workes of Alfric the Archbishop of Canterburie maketh noe mention of anie other writers of that name but of him onely neither doth he put anie epistle among his writings but onely one intituled de consuetudine Monachorum of the māner or custome of monkes which subiect how farre it disagreth frō the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation I leaue to the iudgement of the reader to consider In fine to conclude my whole discourse touching this matter I say first that if it were true as our aduersaries pretend that in the foresaid writings ther weere anie thing contained contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation yet haue I cōuinced by insoluable reasons that neither Alfric could be the author of them neither could anie such doctrine haue ben publikely maintained in the Church of England in or aboute his dayes But what soeuer doctrine was then published and tought in our countrie was canformable in all points with the doctrine and faith then professed in the Church of Rome with which the English Church and her Pastors had correspondence and subordination as I haue manifestly declared Secondly Althou I am not able to iudge determinately whoe might be author of those writings because I haue noe meanes to come to the view of them otherwise then in that patched and mangled manner in which they are published by our aduersaries neuerthelesse I persuade my selfe they were writ by some Romane catholique author soe that taken in their innocencie and prime puritie and piously interpreted they containe no vnsounde or erroneous doctrine but rather expresse testimonie and proofes of diuers points controuersed
Sir Humfrey passeth to another matter that is to the testimonies of the ancient fathers where he chargeth the Romanists that they eyther openly reiect them or secretly decline their authority by euasions in particular pointes This is the tenth section a great part of which is repeated out of his firste booke ansered by me in my censure He makes a large preamble touching the clayme the Romanists make to the ancient fathers as patrons of their doctrine as if they did arrogate that which is not their owne but the discourse is very idle mutatis mudandis may be verie iustely verified of the knight his predecessors especiallie Iewell Plessis who both of them were the greatest braggars in that kind that euer were yet none so shamelesse in corrupting the Fathers workes abusing their sense as themselues The rest of this section is verie meane stuffe consisting of captious constructions of the sayeings of some Romanists contorting them to this matter as if they did disesteeme or reiect the ancient Fathers authoritie which is impossible to be true as is manifestlie conuinced by the continuall vse they make of them much more then the Nouellists as it is well knowne to the world And the truth is that the Romanists onelie modestlie confesse especiallie when they are vrged to it by the clamours of the sectaries that some of the Fathers in their single opinions or in such cases as they did not all consent together did sometimes perhapps fall into some erroneous point of doctrine that they are not alwayes in euerie point to be followed in their expositions of scriptures or otherwise in matters nothing concerning the controuersies of these tymes But onelie when they all agree in matters of faith or by graunting that in pointes of practise for example about the Communion in one kinde or priuate Masse they are not all in all matters expreslie for them How beit they knowe they neither are against them all things considered Which if it be duelie pondered is no inconuenience at all in regard that these things such others be mutable according to the diuersitie of times persons consequentlie might be otherwise thē by practised thē by vs. Neyther doe the Romanists when they affirme the Fathers to be for them teach as the knight doth falselie deceitfullie suppose that all the Fathers in euerie point of faith be it transubstantiation or anie other are positiuelie for them but onelie that the whole streame nay nor anie part of them is positiuelie against them in anie such doctrine that in the most pointes they are expresselie wholie for them against the reformers in all Pag. 290. Out of which the reader may collect how impudently the kinght doth belye the foresaid Romanists when he affirmeth that they are reputed no good Catholikes by their owne tenets that teach not contrary to the vniforme consent of Fathers especiallie considering that he himselfe hath already related how the same Romanists take an expresse oath to follow that consent Sect. 4. init And by this it may in like fashion be easilye perceaued how little credit this man deserues when he accuseth his aduersaries of citation of counterfeit authors wheras he himselfe doth deale so vniustly in that nature especially with Bellarmine that he doth not onely mutilate his wordes but also citeth that which is not to be found as by way of example you may see page 290. where he affirmes Bellarmine to professe that they are not to be numbred among Catholiques that thinke the Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne for hauing deligently passed ouer two seuerall times the 15. chap. of the 4. booke de amiss grat which is that same Sir Humfrey citeth I find no such sentence nor words in it but rather the quite contrary doctrine as by his owne words in my margen related clerely appeares Neque desunt qui impudenter affirment ab Ecclesia Romanae defendi cōceptionem immaculatam Virginis Mariae tanquam articulum fidei Bell. loco cit neither is it lesse plainly false which he affirmeth for the conclusion of this section to wit that Bellarmine the Romanists in generall some times condemne the Fathers as counterfeit some times they purge them as if they were full of corruptions that according to seuerall occasions they haue their seuerall deuices to produce them or auoyd them at their pleasure yea that they cōfessing thē to be counterfeit yet produce them for their doctrine all which particulars are so farre from truth that they cry shame on the author so much the more in regard that he his brothers are not a little guiltie in this busines but doe daily offend in the same kinde as by many instances might be proued particularly in that one for example of the Imperfect which passing vnder the name of S. Chrisostome is conuinced by Bellarmine others not to be his in regard it houldeth the Homousians for heretikes yet is it commonly cited by our aduersaries euen by Sir Humfrey himself in diuers places of his workes in which they verifie most fitly that of the Apostle Rom. 2.21 in that while they preach to others that they must not steale they steale themselues Neyther yet doe any of the testimonyes which the kinght produceth for his accusation of Bellarmine in this nature proue his intent nor any thing more then that both Bellarmine other Romanists doe indeed some times produce such authors in fauour of their doctrine as are not by all Romanists held to be of certaine vndoubted authority or at the least not certainly iudged to be the workes of those authors whose names they beare thou ' otherwise althose who cite them hold them for workes of ancient standing not counterfeit at least in the substance of theie authority as the knight doth counterfeitly indeuore to perswade his reader nay Bellarmine whome the knight particularly taxeth in this behalf showeth himself so iust sincere in this point that he is not content eyther alwayes or for the most parte to aduertise the reader when he cites doubtfull authors in his tomes of controuersies but also to take away all occasion of scruple in himself of calumniation in others he hath made a particular censure of such authors as are in anie sort held for doubtfull or Apochriphal or otherwise called in question And so to conclude this the reader may see by what indirect courses Sir Humfrey huddles vp this parte of his by-way for himself freinds to spend their tyme in Sec. 11. In his eleauenth section he indeuoureth to proue that the substantiall pointes of the Romane faith as they are now receiued taught by the Church of Rome were neuer taught by the primitiue Church nor receiued by the ancient Fathers these are the contents of the section but it containes so little substance that we may trulie say it stands onelie for a
witts about him to perceaue he intendeth nothing else but to leade his reader into that same by-way which he still laboureth to finish for himself others of his owne profession Sec. 16. In his sixteenth section the knight makes hoat warre against the Councell of Trent after he had in a couning secret manner spit his poyson at diuers other Councells of more ancient standing in the precedent section he singles this out alone as his most professed enimy most seuere censurer of his faultes crimes vsing all his whole forces art to diminish his strength power that not in hugger mugger but in plaine manifest termes affirming the same to be of smale or no credit as being neyther lawfully called nor free nor eyther generall or generally receiued He sayth it was not lawfully called because it was assembled by the Popes vsurped authority not by the Emperour but this being the firste part of he proofe it is both false in it self also left vnproued otherwise then by his naked affirmation Serenissimo etiam Imperatori gratias agere gratulari iure optimo debemus ille de nostris his rebus pro sua eximia pietate sollicitus mirifice fuit Orat. hab ses 9. so it needes no other confutation then denyall how beit so certaine manifest it is that the Emperour consented vn to that Councell approued both the conuocation proceedings of it as much as lay in his power that I am persuaded the sectaries them selues with all their audaciousnesse haue not the face to deny so playne a truth so plainely expressed in the oration had in the last session of the sacred synod in which great thankes ar rendered vnto him for his zeale care therin imployed The second part of the proofe consists of a false supposition that no Councell can be legitimate except it be conuocated by the Emperour but that this is false it is clearer then the day otherwise it would follow that those Councells which were celebrated before there were any Christian Emperour in the world should haue binne vnlaufully called as euen that of the Apostles themselues Act. 15. more if that position of the nouellists were true what truth or authority can the Councells of the pretensiue reformed Churches haue none of which as yet had euer any Emperour of their religion as I hope in God neuer will haue at least since the daies of Luther euen by their owne confessions which pouerty of their poore ragged flock it seemes Sir Humfrey had quite forgotte when he vttered that false maxime of the reformed doctrine Secondly he sayth the Councell of Trent was not free Hi nuncij Aquilon is partes prope omnes peragrarunt rogarunt obsecrarūt obtestati sunt tuta omnia atque amica promiserūt c Orat. vt supra yet he confesseth in this same place that he denieth not but that safe conduct was promised as well to the Lutherans as to the Romanists yet as it seemes like cowardelie dastardes they feared danger timuerunt vbi non erattimor And if they feared where there was no feare in whome I praye was the fault now for freedome of speech in proposing of matters discussing them Sir Humfrey cannot deny if he will stand to the testimony of his owne Dudithius cited by himself who plainly supposeth freedome in that nature in that he affirmes being a Protestant that the feild had binne theirs if they had not binne ouercome by number Thirdly he affirmes that it was not generall but how could it be more generall then by a generall amicable conuocation of all Princes Prelates learned diuines which the Bull of indiction declares And as for the number of those who came vnto it thou ' the knight doth vse all his art for the diminution of it yet was it farre greater then he vouchsafed to recount as the Catalogue prefixed to the Councell doth plainly declare amounting to the number of 255. Acclam Patr in ◅nc Conc. of those who subscribed to the decrees the truth is if more had come more had binne admitted none reiected which euen of it self alone excepting others is a sufficient note of Generallity Fourthly he saith it was not generally receiued but in this he vseth one of his vsuall equiuocations for althou ' in some places as yet it is not receaued in matters of reformation practise as in those places especially in which it hath neuer binne proclamed Neuerthelesse in matters of faith it is generally receaued of all Roman Catholikes wher soeuer they bee farre or neere in Europe Asia or America or other forreigne Countries conuerted to the christian Catholike faith so the reader may see that this saieng of our aduersaries which they perpetually buzze into the eares of the simple people that the Councell of Trent is not generally receaued by the Romanists themselues is meere cousenage imposture malitiously inuented to auert their mindes from the most wholesome doctrine profitable precepts of the same for the generall reformation of the Church which because the false reformers plainly see it trenches to neere vppon their Copyhold they ioyne heauen hell together to infringe its authority And here I aduertise the reader that our aduersarie vseth the relations of Some histories touching the proceeding of the Tridentine Councel which ar not admitted by the Romanists particularly those passages of Thuanus of whome I haue receiued credible information that dying a Roman Catholike he made a general retractation of all such positions or relations as he had publishedlesse aduisedly or any way dissonant to the doctrine or practise of the Roman Church so all such passages as Sir Humfrey produces out of his workes ar esteemed as voyde of force for confirmation of anie parte of his doctrine The rest which Sir Humfrey vttereth in this section is nothing but certaine hereditarie vntruthes impostures which he receaued from Caluin Illiricus Tertium nonnulla atque etiā quartum discussa summa saepe contentione certatum c. Orat. hab ad finem Concil Sleidan the counterfeit historie of the Councell of Trent published in the English tongue in disgrace of that most renowned Synod whose authoritie will they nill they they must suffer vs to honore imbrace obey at the least till such time as they can showe vs one of their owne of the like generallitie grauitie authenticall exacte proceeding which it hath vsed in discussion determination of the most receaued doctrine of former present ages which if they cānot performe then let thē confesse they haue left the cōmon royall way of the anciēt Church fallen into a by-way of parlamentall or pure consistoriall gouernment in matters of faith not heard of in primitiue ages as neyther was their extrauagant forme of Conuenticles trulie generall nationall or prouinciall as appeeres in their Pseudosinods of Gappe
Concedimus quod oramus Sanctos proprie ipsi orant pro nobis proprie vt cum dicimus sancte Petre ora pro nobis c. Wee graunt saith Antisiodore that wee praye to the saincts properly that they pray for vs properly as when we say Sainct Peter pray for vs. And now loe here how faithlessely the knight hath proceeded in his allegation of the testimonies of these twoe authors whoe both soe plainely conspire against him let the reader alsoe consider how little reason our aduersarie had to conclude that inuocation of saincts hath neither antiquitie vniuersalitie nor succession supposing that he can conclude no other safetie out of these and the like premisses then such as proceeds frome his owne forgerie deceite And altho' Gabriel cites an opinion of manie others that graunt the Saints doe praye onely improperly for vs by mediation of their merits yet doe they not exclude all prayer to saincts as Sir Humfrey the rest of his pretensiue reformed brothers doe whoe if they would but graunt the same the Roman Church would not soe much complaine of them neither is the difference of those Romanists frome others in the substance of this question in controuersie which is whether the saincts intercede praye for faithfull Christians liuing in this world whether we may praye vnto them inuocate them in both which partes of doctrine all Romanists agree but these diuines mentioned by Biel doe dissent from the rest onely aboute the maner of intercession which saints doe vse making a question whether they performe that charitable acte by formall prayer made vnto God for vs or by interposition of their merits by that meanes to moue his diuine maiestie to graunt our requests which manner of mediation as it is not the cheefe question betwixt our aduersarie of these tymes vs soe neither is it an argument of defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or succession in the Roman doctrine nor anie proofe of the same notes to concurre in the tenets of the moderne sectaries as Sir Humfrey doth falsely suppose proueth not but onely equiuocateth in the state of the question or rather by affected ignorance transuersteth the meaning of the foresaid diuines touching this point taking the maner for the substance of the matter soe either throu ' affected ignorance or plaine malice diludes his reader To let passe that altho' the foresaid authors doe not graunte that the saints vse anie formall or proper forme of prayer to God for vs yet doe they not deuie our in vocation vnto them Nay supposing these diuines of whose doctrine the kinght would faine take hould as if it were contrarie to the vniuersalitie of the Roman faith supposing I say as Sir Humfrey him selfe relates out of Gabriel they defend the mediation of saints by their merits at the least if he had had is senses in readinesse he might easily haue either inferred that those same authors in like māner hould that we may inuocate pray vnto them euen peoperly formally or at the least it is plaine he neither ought nor could deduce the non inuocation of saints frome the foresaid mediation as erroneously he doth consequently he greatly abuseth the maintainers of that opinion in that he produceth them against the vniuersalitie antiquitie and continuall succession of the Roman doctrine in this particular seeing they differ not a iot frome other Catholique diuines in it touching the substance of faith yea they are soe farre from this that they expressely consent with them both in the doctrine of mediation merits both which points neuerthelesse the Nouellists doe obstinately impugne soe that it appeareth as a manifest trueth that Sir Humfrey can not possible with all his arte deuises scrape anie thing out of them for the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of his pretensiue reformed congregation but rather that which doth quite destroye it if he had his dyes aboute him to perceiue it To the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey page 263. concerning images Biel subioyneth these Nec tamen propter haec imagines proijciendae sunt aut de oratorijs eliminandae occasione idololatriae deuitandae aut peregrinationes ad certas imagines vel certa loca praesertim consecrata vel etiam consecranda penitus reprehendenda non enim vsque quaque negandū est quin in certis locis singulariter reluceant beneficia maiora crebrius quam in alijs vel propter imagines sanctorum reliquias ibi conditas uel occulta ministeria alias mysteria futuris temporibus ibi celebranda aut celebrata vel alias causas nobis occultas propter quas Deus vnum locum elegit suo cultui non alium Thus much Biel in can missae sec 49. Which wordes neuerthelesse are slylie omitted by Fir Humfrey his freind Cassander which other wise are soe plaine for the Catholique practice in this matter euen at this day that they confounde them both And this is their false plot which they vsed to make this most Catholique author seeme to fauore their ill cause wheras in reallitie he is plainely against them Page 152. of the by-way Canus is cited by Sir Humfrey lib. 3. cap. 3. And falsely alledged as if he gaue a reason wherfore traditions are aboue scriptures For he onely affitmes that they are of greater force to conuince haeretikes then scriptures that which in substance was taught long since by ancient Tertullian is no blemish vnto the written worde of God which in other respects both the same Canus all other Romanists at the least equalize yea prefer before the vnwritten doctrine of the Church in generall In his citation of Canus page 399. of his by way Sir Humfrey puts the obiection as if it were the doctrine of the author whoe propoundeth ansereth the same in his last chapter of the first booke sharpely reprehending Pighius out of whose opinion the obiection is framed by Canus reproued Altho' he insinuates with all that the error of Pighius Is not in matter of faith doctrine necessatie to saluation which is that onely which Canus professeth to maintaine in the defense of the authoritie of Councels Nos enim in dogmate fidei deeretis ad salutem fidelium necessarijs Conciliorum authoritatem asserimus in rerum gestarum iudicio ordine non asserimus Canus de locis lib. 5. cap. vlt. ad sep argumentum When Costerus pag. 44. of his Enchir. prefers traditions before the word of God he takes tradition as it is writen in carnall tables of the harte by the finger of the holy spirit on the contrarie he takes the written worde of God precisely as it consists in letters caracters which may perish or be corrupted by the false construction of heretikes or otherwise And therfore Costerus calles the first internall the secōd externall scriptures in the margen of the same page 44. And when the same costerus citcd by Sir Humfrey page 149. of his Deuia in the