Sacraments yet doth she not confesse that there are onely two Sacraments instituted by Christ as the reformers professe but houldeth and beleeueth fiue more as well as those two to haue beene instituted by Christ which fiue being denyed or at the least three or foure of them both by Luther and the rest of the pretended reformers and on the contrary hauing beene receiued for Sacramēts in aūcient times as afterwards shall be declared the deniers of thē whosoeuer they be cannot rightly claime either antiquity of vniuersality of doctrine in that particular And the same may be said for the same reason of the 22. bookes of Scripture and the seuen first generall Councells in the which he faith of the reformers is neither aunciēt nor vniuersall first for that they hould those twenty two bookes for canonicall Scripture exclude all the rest out of the canō which neuerthelesse as appeareth by the testimony of S. Augustin herecited in the margē Totus autem canon Scripturarum in quo istam considerationē versandam dicimus his libris continetur Quinque Moyses c. Tobias Hester Iudith Machabeorū libri duo Esdrae duo Et postea Nam illi duo libri vnus qui sapientiae alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur nam Iesus filius Sciach eos scripsisse constātisse perhibetur qui tamē quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerūt inter propheticos numerādi sunt Aug. l. 2. de docti Christiana c. 8. were also canonicall in the auncient Church And secondly because they receiue but onely foure of those seuen generall Councels which neuerthelesse Sir Hūfrey himselfe here confesseth to haue beene genenerall by giuing them all that title as well as the four first To omit other generall Councels which he his brothers violently reiect And now touching Apostolicall traditions Sir Humfrey doth no lesse plainely Sophisticate then in the former points for that it is well knowne that the reformers either hould no traditions at all to be beleeued but rely wholy vpon pure or sole Scripture as the totall rule of their faith or if they hould any traditiōs to be necessary yet do not they hould all those which the auncient now the moderne Roman Church doth hould and consequently their manner of houlding Apostolicall traditions is in words onely and hath no true discent from the Apostles nor any vniuersality or antiquity at all as neither hath their booke of common prayer manner of ordination and vocation of Ministers or Pastours and so altho' they haue some parte both of the auncient liturgie and also of the Apostolicall māner of ordination yet because they doe not wholy agree with them no not in the substance and essentiall parts of the action that is to say not in the consecration of the Eucharist nor in the essentiall forme and matter of order which are the wordes and imposition of hands they are defectiue in the antiquity and vniuersality of the same in regard that the manner and forme of prayer and administrations of Sacraments which the reformed Churches vse at this present is different from that of the auncient Church neuer knowne nor heard of in former ages but broach by Luther and his sectatours quite contrary to that which the knight affirmeth and indeauoureth to prooue as by comparing their Church seruice their booke of common prayer and of ordination of Ministers with the auncient liturgies as that of Sainct Iames Sainct Basil Sainct Chrisostome and others doth clearely appeare as also by confronting the same with the writings of the auncient Fathers and their formes of administration of Sacraments by which we shall finde a maine difference betwixt the one and the other in regard that in those auncient monuments of antiquitie be founde sacrifice oblation altar incense hoste chalis holy oyle Chrysme and the like But in the forme of seruice and administration of Sacraments vsed now in the pretensiue reformed Churches ther is none of this to be found or hearde By which it may farther appeare that it is no silly or senseles question as our aduersarie would haue it to demaunde of the reformers where their Church was before Luther Because it hath nowe beene made manifest that allthough some parte of their doctrine that I meane in which they and the Romanists agree hath both vniuersality and antiquity if it be considered in it selfe yet diuerse other points of it hath neither the one nor the other That which cannot be found in the doctrine of the Romā Church for that allthough it is true that some parte thereof was not expressely definde as matter of faith before the tyme of the later Councells and sectaries who by their defection from the euer succeeding Roman Church and their new errours gaue occasion of new declarations of some particular points yet were those neither new in them selues nor first broached taught by the foresaid councells but onely they by their authority determined established for certaine doctrine that which diuerse nouellists presumptuously brought in question the same neuerthelesse in all the ages before Luther hauing bene both aunciently and vniuersally tought or at the least by many doctours of the Church with out contradiction of the rest or perhaps if anie were of a different opinion it was because matters were not then so plainely declared by the Church and vnder her correction And so the question proposed by the Romanists to the reformers can neither be rightly detorted vpon them as the knight vainely auerreth nor yet can the reformers euer be able to answer it as plainely appeareth both by that with hath beene allready said as allso by the doctrine of their 39. articles diuerse of which are not onely new in themselues and neuer heard of in auncient tymes but allso expressely broached by Luther himselfe and that not only in negatiue but allso in some positiue doctrine as is euident particularly in the point of iustisicatiō by faith alone And hence allso it is manifestly inferred how vntruely the knight affirmeth in his 77. page that noe Romanist can deny but that the doctrine of the reformers lay inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church as corne couered with chaffe or gould with drosse for neither is it true that either all the doctrine of the reformers hath beene in the Church before Luther as I haue showed nor yet that any Romanist euer affirmed the same so S. Hūfrey deliuereth two falsities vnder one forme of speech continuing the same for the space of a whole leafe grounding his discourse vpō false suppositions equiuocatiōs promising to produce testimonies of his aduersarie the Romanists for the antiquity and vniuersalitie of the protestāt faith he meanes the Puritan faith in generall yet produceth not one for the same excepting Pope Adrian the 6. and Costerus and D. Harding in Iewell none of which three authours proue S. Humfrey intent Costerus and Harding onely speaking of one or two
the same yet that is not truly the Iesuites challendge but that you produce some which haue professed your religion in euery point in euery age before the daies of Luther This is the charge you haue vndertaken till you haue discharged your selfe of this your honor still remaines at the stake for all your bragges your safe way is to the Romanists all other of mature iudgment but onely a by-way serueth onely for a cowardly excuse of your want of abillitie to performe your promise But now to returne to the contents of this section in particular from which I haue in some sort digressed I say it consists onely in a recapitulation of those seuerall pointes of controuersie which I haue alreadie examined in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I haue not sufficiently confuted conuinced to be of no force but all eyther false equiuocall or impertinent it is most apparent that what soeuer he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is noe conclusion nor of any more authority then his owne bare affirmations or negations consequently notobstanding the vaine knight will needes seeme to haue the victorie to haue gained his cause yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather iudge in fauour of the anserer then of the abiector especially considering how farre more easie a matter it is for any man to impugne the doctrine of another then to defend his owne Wherfore I ioyne issue with myne aduersaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath heere sett downe applying the same to the safe way by-way as he hath donne by-way of antithesis or oppositiue comparison betwixt them both in the manner followeing And firste I say The Romanists teach that not scripture onely but scripture with diuine Apostolicall traditions receaued for such by the vniuersall Church in all ages the approued generall Councells the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the onely certaine meanes safe way to saluation But Sir Humfrey with his complices teach that scripture onely interpreted otherwise them by authoritie of the most vniuersallie florishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers doctors of the same is sufficient to saluation this is a doubtfull by way Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe perfect rule of faith yet in some places obscure ambiguous as euen some of their aduersaryes confesse therfore it is not sufficient alone but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter this is a safe way to saluation but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation conference of one place with another by euerie priuate man or woman that can but reade it is a sure euident perfect rule of faith this is an vncertaine by-way Thirdly the Romanists teach that traditions appertayning to faith or manners receaued from Christe by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselues by inspiration of the holie Ghost as such conserued in the Church by continuall succession are to be imbraced reuerenced with like pious affection as the scriptures this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that onelie those traditions concerning faith manners that can be proued by scriptures of which sort they denie anie to be in the Church notobstanding sainct Paul in the scripture expresselie commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions deliuered vnto them by word of mouth or by epistle And this is an vncertaine by way Fourthly the Romanists teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures some certaine persons in the Church as professors of diuinitie some others for the auoyding of noueltie in doctrine take an oath of the same moreouer that where they finde that consent they are to receaue it as a certaine rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or inuention of other new sense or glosses this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed onelie so farre as according to their priuate spirit or iudgment they agree with scriptures which is a captious deceitfull rule of expounding them And this is an vncertaine by-way Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholike Church is a congregation or companie of people beleiuing professing the true faith of Christe vnder one cheife head our Sauiour Iesus Christe his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as cheife Pastor visible gouernour of the same vnder Christe sayeing with all that the notes whereby the true Church is knowne from all other hereticall scismaticall conuenticles are not onelie cheiflie exteriour splendour amplitude miracles as our aduersarie doth deceitfullie insinuate but principallie the name Catholike antiquitie continuall succession c. And this is a certaine safe way but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastours people with out anie certaine infallible authoritie assigning for markes of the same that which is common to all congregations euen of heretikes schismatikes according to their seuerall opinions as all euerie one of them holding they haue the true word Sacraments rightlie preached administred in their conuenticles which consequently can be no certaine markes of the true Church in particular no more then the name of a Christian in generall can be an infallible note of a true beleiuer this is an vncertaine by-way Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Councells by the Popes authoritie or approbation conuocated confirmed are not onelie of great vse in the Church But also of certaine infallible power for the determination of all doubts controuersies in religion which may arise in seuerall times occasions this is a certaine safe way But the Reformers teach that General Councells althou ' they say they be of great vse authority in the Church to determine controuersies in religion yet they hold them of vncertaine authoritie subiect to errour both in faith manners this is an vncertaine by-way Seauenthly the Romanists teach that the cheife rock angular stone vpon which the Church is built is Christe the Sauiour of the world yet they say with Christe himselfe that Peter is also in his kinde a rock vpon which he promised to build his Church this is a certaine safe way But the reformers teach that Christe alone is the onelie rock vpon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the expresse wordes of Christe in the scripture sayeing to Peter vpon this rocke will I build my Church this is a diuerticle or by-way Eightly the Romanists teach that the
secret Apostacie it is much more friuolous then all the rest you haue brought for the proofe of your purpose in this section And although perhaps you shewed no small subtiltie in it as you thought yet is it in it selfe a most ignorant piece of doctrine for that not onelie the common and vsuall sense of the worde Apostasie but the verie etimologie of the same worde which signifieth a defection or discession doth demonstrate that the thing signified by it must be a much more externall and publike action in it selfe then heresie vsed to be and so that which is ordinarilie and vulgarilie called Apostasie must be publike and not secret and therefore when anie errour comes to that degree of malice as it may truely be called Apostasie in this sense it must of necessitie be knowne and consequentlie it is such as cannot be kept secret but may be most easilie discerned yea much more easilie then anie heresie how publike soeuer it bee as being an aggrauating circunstance of the same And thus we see that for the knight to yeeld a reason why the errours of the Roman Church could not easilie be discouered because they were secret Apostasie is both most absurd in itselfe and also inuolueth a contradiction in regard it includeth that a thing may be Apostasie that is a thing of it owne selfe publike and yet remaine so secret that it cannot be discouered Neither is that which Sir Humfrey farther addeth in the same place lesse absurde to witt that secret Apostasie worketh warelie and closelie in the tyme of Darkenes when the seruants of the husbandman are asleepe for if all Apostasie as it is commonlie taken must be publike as I haue showed how can it then truelie be said to worke in darkenes or by night or how can the seede of it be scattered at vnawares to the seruants of the husbandman certainlie except the seruants be so sluggish that they sleepe both nights and dayes moneths and yeeres yea and manie hundreth of yeeres together naye and all the daies of their life they cannot but discouer the tares of Apostasie which is not euer in seede as the knight falselie supposeth but is the increase or rather full growth it selfe or yet rather the ouergrouth of the crop of heresie which is truelie the seede of it From hence the knight proceedeth to the second parte of his section in which he endeauoureth to shewe vs an vndeniable trueth as he termeth it that some opinions were condemned in the Primatiue Church for eroneous and superstitious vhich now are established for articles os faith in the Roman Church And for this his position he produceth an instance out of S. Augustin lib. de moribus Eccles Cath. cap. 34. in which place he complaines that in his tyme the ruder sort of people were intangled with superstition euen in the true Church I my selfe saith he know manie that are worshipers of Images and sepulchers whom the Church condemneth and seeketh euerie daie by correction to amend them as vngratious children Thus farre Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustin To which I answer that this place of S. Augustin hath bene so often obiected by the moderne sectaries that it is worne quite thred bare with handling and I persuade my selfe that all the Catholike authours that euer writt of controuersies haue sufficientlie answered it if it came in their way Neuerthelesse least Sir Humfrey should thinke himselfe neglected by me Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti vt obliti sint quicquid promiserint Deo Aug. supra I answer first that S. Augustin complaineth in this place of certaine gentillicall errours and abuses in the adoration of images and sepulchers then practised in the true Church by some priuate ignorant and vitious persons who without distinction either of the one or the other did worship the tombes and pictures of all sortes of people Secondlie I answer that S. Augustin in the place cited speaketh not of anie generall doctrine taught in his tyme touching the adoration of pictures but onelie of some superstitious abuses in the practise of the same and so also in this respect the obiection is impertinent I answer thirdlie that suppose there were some particular persons in the tyme of S. Augustine guiltye either in the manner of their worship of pictures or in their doctrine cōcerning the lawfullnes of the same doth it thence therefore follow that Catholikes are guiltie also of the same crime or is it consequent that that honour which Catholikes graunte to the pictures of Christ and his Saincts is iust the same with that which Saint Augustine mentioneth No suerlie For as there may be abuse committed in the due honouring of pictures so there may be also lawfull vse in the due adoreing of them and so it is cleere that it is no true manner of argument or true consequence to collect so Those people whom S. Augustin reprehended for adoring of pictures in his tyme did worship images reprehensiblie But the Romanists doe also worship images therefore the Romanists doe worship images reprehensiblie This I say were it in anie figure yet is it a captious forme of argument containing a manifest fallacie or equiuocation in the minor by reason of which the Sylogisme concludeth nothing Now vpon the foresaid wordes of Saint Augustin Sir Humfrey addeth a descant of his owne in which he comits diuerse faults First in that he saith that although S. Aug. did note some people of his time for superstitious worshippers of images yet did hee neither name the authours of that errour nor sheweth the tyme when it began tacitlie intending hence to inferre that neither are the reformers bounde to assigne the names of the authours of those errours which they attribute to the Roman Church nor yet the tyme of their defence of them But this inference of the knight is no conclusion at all for that the case of S. Augustines tyme which is the antecedent of the foresaid illation of the knights is farre different from the case of the reformers as well for that S. Augustine speaketh of an errour which happened in his owne daies as Sir Humfrey confesseth and perhappes by such persons as he could not name without preiudice of their fame as being such as practised those superstitions so priuatelie that they were not knowen to more or at the least not to manie more then himselfe after which manner preachers do vse to reprehend vices of persons knowen vnto them and yet name them not as also and chiefelie because S. Augustine was neuer demaunded of them in particular or anie other waye vrged to declare their names None of all which circumstances occurre in the case betwixt the Reformers and the Romanists and so out of the wordes of S. Augustine which be the Antecedent of the knights argument no true consequence can be deduced against the Romanists In has autem sanct as ac
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
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
particular points that in no matter of faith to wit aboute the manner of the introduction of communion vnder one kinde and priuate Masse into the Church as their owne wordes declare And as for Pope Adrian his owne wordes truely and compleatly cyted showe him to speake onely of the conditionall adoration of Christ in the Eucharist in case the hoste should not be consecrated and so he is here produced by the knight both most falsely and most ridiculously to proue for sooth that the Romanists excuse their absolute adoration of Christ in the Sacrament by that conditionall I adore theif thou be Christ which manner of adoration neuerthelesse they neuer vse but onely in speciall cases of doubt whether the Preist performed his office according to Christ◠institution The Popes words are these in Latin Concilium Constantiense excusat simplices adorantes hostiam nō consecratam quia facite implicatur condition si consecration sit recte facta c. And now let the reader iudge how conueniently they be applyed to S. Hūfreys purpose of prouing absolutely that the Romanists excuse their adoration of Christ in that manner Further more Sir Humfrey doth not adduce any reason at all for the proofe of his antiquitie and vniuersality but onely vseth his owne conceiptes cōsisting mearely in iffes an andes or conditionall asseueratiōs thus quite throu ' the rest of his section he rides poste like a man that caries newes of a false victorie now and then dropping a lye by the way for the haste he maketh to come to the end of his iourney which is nothing els but his owne discredit which because it hath beene already sufficiently manifested I neede not goe to particulars for more proofe of the same especially for that I know I shall haue occasion hereafter to handle more largely all those seuerall points which our aduersary cōgesteth in this place rather by way of recrimination then of treaty as that Costerus Harding excuse the cōmunion and priuate Masse the one by saying that the cup was not taken away by the commaundement of the Bishops but that it crept in the Bishops conniuing ther at which he attributeth to Costerus the other that it is throu the negligence of the lay people that they cōmunicate not at euerie Masse which he ascribes to D. Harding All which is imposed by the knight vpon those two Catholike authours cōtrarie to their true sense and meaning for that as it is apparent by their owne wordes which I will rehearse in an other place they say not those things by way of excuse in regarde they know ther is no need of excuse wher no faulte is founde nor acknowledged it being certaine to them and all other Romanists that how soeuer priuate Masse and single communion were at first introduced yet they are both lawfully practized And so I conclude this section of his inroling il with the former censures or rather I may with greate reason frame a more rigorous censure for it in regard that the knight hauing promised more then before yet he hath performed lesse and hauing vnder the name and punishment due to heresie vndertaken to showe by the testimonies confession of his aduersaries the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith that his way euen by the confession of the Romanists is more certaine then their owne yet he hath performed nothing but spent his whole discourse in equiuocations and iuggeling tricks and so he cannot possible escape the same sentence which his owne execration called vpon him THE VIII PERIOD THIS Period shall conteine the ninth section of S. Hūfreys booke with though by reason of the largenes of it he diuideth it in to seuerall paragraffes yet because they haue but small substance in them as he handleth them though otherwise they be in themselues matters of importance as alsoe for that his doctrine in te same points hath beene already in parte examined cōfuted therefore I will not stand to make so many seuerall distinctions in the treaty of them as he doth but reduce them all to one onely period briefely examining how farre those testimonies of Romanists which he promiseth to produce as witnesses of the antiquity of his owne doctrine and the nouelty of theirs doe reach in the particular points of the same He beginneth therefore with iustification by faith onely Page 85. I saith he will make it appeare that before and after the conquest the priests and professours of those tymes protested openly against the doctrine of Romish merits preaching saluation by Christ alone and with all publikely professed and administred the same sacraments in the same faith and truth which we teach and administer to this day Thus he proceedeth by way of assertion with a promise to make it appeare which assertion neuerthelesse contayning two partes yet neither of them is true but both either false or equiuocall or rather partely false and partely equiuocall The first parte is cleerely false in of it affirmeth that the priests and professours both before and after the conquest protested openly against Romish merits That this is false it is manifestly conuinced first because all the workes of learned men and histories both of England and other contries that write of that matter doe testifye that from the tyme of S. Gregories mission of S. Augustin into England to preach and establish the Roman faith to omit more auncient times both the Kings priests and people as well before as since the conquest haue continually professed the same Roman doctrine which then they receiued vntill the time of Henry the eight at the least and among the rest the very same doctrine of merits which now the Church of Rome defendeth As is diligently proued by the authour of the protestants apollogie in the first section of his first treaty the 63. page euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues And what S. Gregories owne doctrine was in this particular he himselfe testifieth in his booke of moralls the 42. chap. saying that because in this life there is diuersitie of workes among vs therefore with out doubt there will be in that diuersitie of dignities to the end that as heare one doth surpasse another in merit so there one may transcend another in the retribution Thus Sainct Gregorie to whose testimonie as I could if neede were ioyne the expresse authorities of Fathers of precedent ages for witnesses of the doctrine of merits as of S. Augustin Hierome Ambrose Hilarie Cyp. Tertull. and other Grecian Doctours euen till the time of the priuatiue Church so may the consent of those who succeeded the the same S. Gregory be added for the confirmation of it S. Bernard to omit other places alledged by me in an other occasion in his 8. serm vpon the Cantic saith Omne quod feceris bonum malumne quod quidem non facere liberum sit meritò ad meritum deputatur Concilio Aran. can 18. debetur merces bonis operibus si fiant sed gratia
thy whole confidence in his death onelie haue confidence in no other thing that which is so farre from the deniall of merits as that it is counselled aduised euen by those who are most professed defendours of the Roman doctrine in that point as out of Bellarmine and other diuines we haue showed before Period 4. Nay and besides this it is most plaine in my iudgment that the foresaid rituall in certaine other words following in the same place did neuer intend to exclude all kinde of merit from the workes of man performed by Gods grace and assistance for that it expressely saith in the person of that sick man I offer his merits that is the merits of Christ in steede of the merits I ought to haue for if he ought to haue merits as he affirmeth euen vpon his death bed though he haue thē not euident it is that he denied not the same but plainelie supposed the truth of them And thus we see that the words of the order of baptizing benigniouslie interpreted make nothing for S. Hūfreyes position nor against the Romā doctrine of merits How be it the same was iustelie corrected by the Inquisitors both because the manner of phrase which it vseth might easily giue occasiō of errour especially in these our dayes as also because it is iustelie suspected to be Apochryphall in regarde it containes certaine ill sounding sentēces not onely in the doctrine of the Roman Church but also according to the tenets of the Reformers As where it saith thus These protestations of such as lye a dying were reuailed to a certaine religious man And those wordes he that shall protest such things as followe from his harte cannot be damned c. All which propositions and some othgers are commaunded by the authours of the Index to be blotted as well as the wordes which Sir Humfrey here cites And yet more ouer it is to be aduertised that there is not a worde in all that which our aduersarie produceth against merits which doth proue iustification by faith onelie which is that which he intendes to proue in this place as the title of his paragraph doth declare And so by this meanes he hath quite fled from his text And so this may suffice to demonstrate the falsitie of the knights assertion and the nullitie of the proofe thereof by the testimonies of his aduersaries seeing plainelie that he doth no thing therein but partlie by vntrueths and partlie by equiuocations deludes his reader not citing anie one authour either Romanist or reformer in all this paragraffe more then the wordes rehearsed out of the foresaid Rituall which neuerthelesse hauing bene as suspected of corruption chasticed by the Inquisitours the vncensured coppies which doubtlesse he and his fellowes onelie vse haue no authoritie nor credit in the Roman Church or at the most verie little and consequentlie he proceedeth most weakelie in produceing for a testimonie of his aduersarie that which they doe not acknowledge for theirs especiallie considering he alledgeth nothing els for the proofe of his tenet The second paragraffe is of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation As concerning the Sacraments of the Lords supper saith the knight In the dayes of Alfrick about the yeare 996. There was a Homilie publikelie to be read to the people one Easter day wherein the same doctrine which saith hee our Church now professeth was publikelie taught and receaued and the doctrine of the reall presence which in that time had gotte some footing in the Church was plainelie cōfuted and reiected The wordes which he citeth are these There is a greate difference betwixt the bodie wherein Christ suffered and the bodie which is receaued of the faithfull the bodie that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of marie with bloud and with bone with skinne and with sinewes in human lims with a reasonable soule liuing and his spirituall bodie which nourisheth the faithfull spirituallie is gathered of manie cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodilie but spirituallie c. Thus farre out of the homilie And this doctrine faith the knight was deliuered in those times not by one onely Bishop but by diuerse in their Synods and by them commended to the Clergie who were commaunded to reade it publikelie to the people one Easter day for their better preparation and instruction in the Sacrament and for the same cause translated into the saxon language by Alfrick and to the same purpose the Knight also citeth two other writinges or Epistles as published and translated also into the vulgar tongue by the same Alfric But to this I answer first that whatsoeuer doctrine is conteynd in the Hom. Epistles cited the Romanists are not boūd to beleeue it because the knight onely citeth them out of his owne authours and as printed by the members of his owne Church to wit out of B. Vsher and Doctour Iames and so it is both absurd and impertinent to produce thē as testimonies of his aduersaries as he professeth to doe in the title of his section especially supposing that he hath not aledged any one author of the Romanists religion where by to proue them authenticall nor yet any other indifferent witnesse but onely those two reformers whom we haue named whoe by the Romanists may iustly be suspected of partiallity in fauour of their owne cause especially if we consider that Sir Humfrey himselfe graunteth that the Latin epistle written by Alfric is to be seene mangled and razed in a manuscript in Benet colledg in Cambridge And certainely the English coppies being found not to aggree with the Latin manuscript which is either the Originall it selfe or at the least cometh much neerer the time in which the authour of it liued then any other coppie the knight could possible haue there is farre greater euidence that the latter translations and impressions are corrupted by the reformers then that either the Index expurgatorius or any other Romanist hath made any alteration or chaunge in the originall coppies or first authenticall manuscripts or in any other except it were onely to restore them to their prime innocenty and originall trueth cheefely supposing that the inquisitors in their expurgation of bookes intend no other thing more then to reduce such as be corrupted to the former purity of their originalls Thirdly I answer that admitte the editions which are published in England be true and sincerely translated and printed which neuerthelesse may iustly be suspected by reason of the manifould corruptions found to haue bene vsed in that nature by diuerse of the reformed profession as by the expurgatory Index doth plainely appeare the authours of which Index haue discouered diuers workes Fathered partely by auncient and partely by moderne sectaries vpō those who neuer writ them which was the cause as I suppose why Antonius posseuinus in the preamble to his select Bibliotheke saith that Sixtus Bellarmine and others haue manifested very maine pestilent bookes
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
I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authours true sense in which I was forced to inlarge my selfe more then the substance of the matter required the more plainelie to discouer vnto him the fraude of the aduerfarie both in detorting the sense and mangling the tenor or continuation of the text of this most Catholike and renowned Prelate Moreouer Sir Hūfrey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par q. 75. ar 7. as also the Romā Cathecisme at randome as affirming that the substance of the bread remaines till the last worde of the consecration be vttered But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long souer the substance of the bread remaines if at lenght it ceaseth as they both confesse they both agree with vs Romanists and not with the nouellists in the faith of transsubstantiation so professedly that it was more then ordinarie impudencie and madnes once to mentione them for the contrarie Now for cōclusion of the secōd paragraffe of his 9. section Sir Humfrey affirmes in his 115. p. out of Bell and suauez that manie writers in our Roman Church professe the tenet of transsubstantiatien was lately receiued for a point of faith Which affirmation neuerthelesse is not iustifiable but false and calumnious to the authours he cyteth for it videlicet Scotus Durand Tunstal Ostiensis and Gaufridus Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce supposing Erasmus whome he likewise alledgeth is no Romanist in much of his doctrine in what faith soeuer he ended his life of which I am not able to iudge yet none of these Romanists I say euer affirmed the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be no point of faith as I haue aboue sufficiently declared in my answer to euerie one of their testimonies in particular And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alledged by our aduersarie as affirming Scotus to haue said that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not dogmafidei a decree of faith before the Councell of Lateran the other as aduising to haue him and those other schoolemen corrected who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not verie auncient I professe I haue diligentlie read Scotus in this matter and I sinde he onelie saith that what soeuer is auerred to be beleeued in the Councel of the Lateran capite firmiter is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemne declaration yet he in no place hath this negatiue transsubstantiation was not a point of faith before that Councel not obstanding our aduersaries allegation to the contrarie out of the Cardinal who if he conceiued right of his whole discourse could not iudge Scotus to haue absolutelie denyed transubstantiation to haue beene a point of faith in it selfe as Sir Humfrey will haue it but at the most quoad nos or in respect of our expresse and publike faith of the same For that some of Scotus his owne wordes plainelie importe that trāssubstantiatiō is included in the institution of the Eucharist howe be it it was not explicitly or expresselie declared for such in all ages before the solemne declaration as he termeth it made in the Generall Councel of Lateran The wordes of Scotus to this sense and purpose are these Scot. d. 11. q. 3. ad ar Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis That is For it was not in the power of the Church to make this the point of transsubstantiation true or not true but of God the institutour And according to the vnderstanding deliuered by God the Church did explicate it directed as it is beleeued by the spirit of trueth By which ratiocination or discourse of Scotus it is most cleare and apparent that the point of transsubstantiation was in it selfe a matter of faith euer since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ in regarde that it being now a point of faith it must of necessitie in substance haue beene ordained for such by God himselfe for that it is not in the power of the Church to make but onelie to declare and propose to beleeuers the articles of Religion And according to this I say that suarez sauing the due respect I owe vnto them both had yet lesse reason then Bellarmin had concerning Scotus to taxe the same Scotus and some other diuines as if they had tought that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is not verie auncient For neyther Scotus as his wordes which I haue related doe testifie nor anie other approued diuine of the Roman Church doe vse anie such manner of speech or at the least haue no such sense in their wordes as euen by all those their seuerall passages which our aduersarie could alledge doth manifestlie appeare How be it some of them haue not omitted to say that the worde transsubstantiation hath not beene auncientlie vsed in the Church but eyther inuented by the Fathers of the Lateran Councel or not long before or at the most that there haue beene some in the world of a contrarie opinion to the trueth of transsubstantiation in itselfe which altho' we Romanists should graunt to be true yet doth it not argue anie noueltie in the doctrine but rather the nouellitie of some fewe extrauagant wits as heretiks or corrigible Catholikes in opposing the same which otherwise was generallie maintained by the rest of the Orthodox diuines in all succeeding ages the antiquitie of which doctrine euen those same authorities which the same Scotus himselfe professeth to be produced by him out of S. Ambrose Scot. d. 11. quest 3. §. quāt ergo to the number of 11. doe euidentlie conuince yet further adding that manie others are alledged cap. de consecrat and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better haue spared to passe their censures in that manner vpon anie Catholike diuines supposing such reprehensions serue for little or no other vse then to aforde our aduersaries the nouelists newe occasion and matter of contention without eyther necessitie or conueniencie of which the present fact of Sir Humfrey lind euen in this place doth alreadie yealde vs some experience In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might haue saued the labour for that the Romanists hould him absolutely for none of theirs as in like manner neither doe they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which neuertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though onely by waye of omission howbeit in this particular Erasmus onely affirmeth that it was late before the Church definde it which is not contrarie to the certainetie of the doctrine in it selfe but onely a superficiall relation of the time when it was declared expressely for a matter of faith or infalible trueth in
meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstāding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was boūd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questiō diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knowē for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all Christiās but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of Trēt and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the Romā Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of
the saddle for S. Bernard speakes not directlie of merits but of cōfidence in merits which we Romanists graūt to be vnsafe by reason of the vncertaintie of them in this or that particular man In an other place the same S. Ber. sayth he duelleth in the woundes of our Sauiour with more saftie which saying we graunte also to be true in the highest degree but what is this to the denyall of true merits grounded in the mercie grace of God of which the same S. Bernard sayth in an other place indeuore or procure to haue merits but when thou ' hast them acknowledge that thou hast them giuen thee merita habere cura habitadata noueris And the trueth is that by reiecting the counsell of holie S. Bernard in this particular the reformers commit a most pernicious errour in regarde that by houlding all merit of man with God impossible they come to neglect the exercise of virtue those good workes in which both merit doth consiste without which the Kingdome of Heauen is not obtained which doctrine howe domageable it is to the Saluation of soules let the indifferent reader consider Sir Hūfrey cytes also frayer walden whome he most falselie affirmeth to agree with the Protestants in the doctrine of merits For as appeareth by those same wordes which he citeth here he doth not denie all merit as they doe but at the most such a kynde of merit in particularie that is that no man simpliciter simplie meriteth the Kingdome of Heauen which merit yet he doth not absolutelie denie but onelie sayth that no man can merit it but by the grace of God or will of the giuer which are his owne expresse wordes as they are rehearse by our aduersarie and in a sounde sense doe not differ a iot from the doctrine of other diuines In fine he doth with the rest of the Catholike diuines expresselie teach that the good workes of the iust performed by the grace of God are absolutelie meritorious of the Kingdome of Heauē yet he is opiniō that the words ex condigno congruo are not to be vsed in which he differeth in deed from the opinion of most diuines but not from the Roman faith which standes not vpon those termes but onelie vpon true merit as may be seene in the Councell of Trent ses 6. Can. penult p. 48. Which Councell vseth not those tearmes but onelie the wordes vere mereri that is to merit truelie And consequentlie fryer walden agrees with the Councel of Trent but not with Sir Humfrey and his precise brothers who flie the verie name of merit as deuils flie the Crosse And to descend to a more particular discussion of fryer waldos meaning touching the doctrine of merits of which the knight subtillie contendes to make him a flat denyer I say in primis waldo in the place cyted by Sir Humfrey disputes against Wiclef who thought such confidence in proper merits that he seemed to exclude the merits of Christ his saints And therefore speaking of his peruerse tenet he sayth thus Maledicta ergo doctrina Wiclef quae potius confidere iubet in merito hoc proprio vt Christi Sanctorum videatur excludere quam in oratione humili pro Christi gratia That is Maledicted or cursed be the doctrine of Wiclef which rather commaundes to confide in merit that proper so that it may seeme to exclude the merits of Christ his Saints then in humble prayer for the grace of Christ Now this Kynde of confidence in merits as our aduersaries themselues can witnesse if they please is not anie parte of the Roman doctrine but rather we Romanists concurre with fryer waldo in his approued cursse Yea we are so remote auerted from the doctrine of Wiclef in this point from teaching such confidence euen in true approued merits that we cantelously aduise the members of our Church as the safer way not to relie vpon them but vpon the mercie of God as in an other place I haue more largelie declared More hauing most attētiuelie read his seueral treatises vpon that subiect I plainelie perceiue that religious zealous defender of the Roman doctrine against Wiclef did onelie reiect such merits as either excludes or at a the least preferres not the grace of God before them or admits not grace as the foundation of merits For touching merits founded performed by the concourse of Gods grace fryer waldo absolutelie grauntes both in this same chapter cited by our aduersarie where he mentiones both the merits of Chtist his saints particularlie of Sainct Paule in these wordes Whence it is that neyther the Apostle did applie anie thing to his owne merits but by premitting or preferring the benefits of God according to the psalmist saying Because he would so haue me As also more clearelie in his tenth Title 98. chapter where he most professedlie defendes against Wiclef the verie participation of merits especiallie among religious persons Which doctrine of participation of merits necessarilie supposes a graunt of merits themselues as common sense doth easilie apprehend Not to let passe that some of the authours owne wordes in that same place euidentlie conuince the same to be true For that thus he questiones his aduersarie cur merita non ijs partimur quos reddimus bene meritos nostris meritis Why doe not we parte merits with them whome we make well merited by our merits By which wordes waldensis appeares to be so cleare from denial of merits maintained by the Roman Church that he rather heapeth merits vpon merits in defense of the same And in the 8. chapter of his first Title he speakes most expresselie euen of merit of eternall life saying Sed noueriut vitam aeternam dari nobis pro meritis si cum meritis ipsis numeremus gratiam sine qua nec ipsa sunt merita quia nec Dei dona But let them knowe sayth walden that eternal life is giuen vs for merits if with merits we number grace without which neyther are they merits because they are not the giftes of God And by this it further appeares most manifestly that those wordes of waldensis alledged by Sir Humfrey with which he makes his florish to wit I repute him the sounder diuine more consonant to sacred scriptures who simply denyes such merit in reallitie ar not for his purpose in regarde that ther is not in them anie denyal of that merit which the Romā Church defines appooues no not the merit of eternal life but the author of them onelie reiects from the desert of eternal life tale meritum that is merit as it is signified by those tearmes de condigno And de congruo vsed among diuines both in his time at this present from the vse of which according to his priuate dictamen it were more conformable both to diuinitie the scripture to refraine to the end as he after addes they might by the auoyding of those
termes be founde both to accorde better with the former saints he meanes the ancient Fathers of the Church with the phrase of the Apostle saying 1 Cor. 3.5 sufficientia nostra ex Deo est our sufficiencie is of God As also for that in respect of the grace of God they might be founde more disagreable as in their doctrine so in their manner of speech from the Pelagians wiclesists who as the same walden saith either conceile or denie the grace of God wholely confide in the merits of men Qui gratiā Dei vel tacent vel abnegāt in meritis hominum omnino cōfidunt Ibid. so you see that all the controuersie which fryer walden hath with our Roman deuines is onelie a boute the vse of those two phrases meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo as persuading the foresaid diuines that when they dispute of merits they neuer silence the grace of God but either expresse grace not merits or else preferre grace before meritis and as he saies in Latin exprimentes gratiam silentes de meritis aut gratiam meritis praeferentes All which is but questio de nomine a nominal or verbal disputation or aboute what manner of speech may seeme most fit to be practised in this point for a voyding offense in the heares yet walden those same diuines vniformelie according in the substance of the doctrine of merits themselues as I haue said once before And so now let this be sufficient to declare vnto the reader how farre out of square our Crosse aduersarie hath detorted the true sense of this religious diuine to make him seeme to teache according to his owne newe diuinitie in the matter of merits I confesse I haue inlarged my selfe much more then the matter requires if otherwife I had not considered how much it importes in all occasions to daunte the audaciousnes of a presumptuous aduersarie who by making most plausible vse of that is least for his purpose maintaines the smale reputation of his owne newfashioned religion cheefelie by the ruines of other mens honor not sparing this his owne renowned contriman indeuoring by indirect meanes to make him speak against his owne faith conscience among the rest of which I could not possiblie be insensible but was obliged euen according to the rules of natural affection to labore to cleare him of such a foule iniurious aspertion But now I come to a conclusion where yet the reader if he please may further take notice of some other more triuiall abuse offered to this same famous diuine by the sliperie knight by leauing out the aduerbe igitur in his translation of the Latin in to English which in reason he ought not to haue omitted in regarde it necessarilie implyes a relation or reference to the authors former discourse in which he argues against merit without mention of grace of which he speakes in his subsequent wordes tale meritum c. alledged by Sir Humfrey in a cōtrarie sense to his meaning Besides this the same Sir Humfrey hath not a little transposed some of waldens wordes in his recital of them in English Connecting to these or will of the giuer those as all the former sants vntill the late schoolemen the vniuersal Church hath written Which neuerthelesse he ought to haue set immediatelie after those other which followe in the authors text to wit inuenirentur esse discordes they might be founde disagreable But because in deed I doe not perceiue it could much importe our aduersarie to proceed in this manner therefore I charitablie persuade my self it was not done of malice but rather of ill custome Lastelie Sir Humfrey produceth Bellarmin for the safety of his way in this same point But he that should haue read his fift booke of Iustification would iudge that man fitter for Bedlam or Bridwell then for the schoole of diuinie that would offer to cite Bellarmin against the doctrine of merits The wordes meaning of him I haue declared in an other place so hould it in diuers respects superfluous to repeate them He cites also S. Austin out of chemnitius as it seemes as saying I knowe not where for he quoteth not the place that he speakes more safelie to Iesus tutius iucundius loquor ad meum Iesum But what is this to the purpose of denying inuocation of Saints For besides that this comes onelie out of a iuglers bugget so may iustelie be supected for false wares yet admit S. Austin sayth so what Romanist is there who doth not say the same yea practise the same daylie in their prayers While they acknowledge with all submission humilitie that all their saftetie conforte of conscience proceedes from Iesus as the fountaine of their Saluation as the conclusion of all or most Catholike prayers demonstrate Yet not so but that they may crye also vnto his freindes seruants as being more neare allyed vnto him both in place fauour merits then we our selues that they interced mediate for vs for the obtaining of that which wee our selues are not worthy either to obtaine or craue at his hāds Which kinde of inuocation of Saints S. Austin himselfe doth approue in diuers places as tract 84. in Io. Ser. de verb. Apost de cura pro mart cap. 4. And so these being all the authors which Sir Humfrey hath produced in this section I will conclude the censure of it in this manner That whereas he promised in the begining to shewe the greater saftie of the Protestant faith then of the Roman by the confession of the Romanists themselues he hath shewed no saftie at all but onelie trifled in the wordes meaning of his aduersaries doctrine that onely in some fewe negatiue articles of his faith omitting all the rest so he hath performed iust nothing which may serue for the demonstration of anie way at all much lesse of a safe perfect way but onelie hath brought him selfe his reader further into the laberinth of his wandering wits THE XI PERIOD IN his 12. section Sir Humfrey tells his reader that the Church of Rome doth seeke to elude the recordes reall proofes in the Fathers other learned authours touching the cheefe points in controuersie betwixt vs. This accusation no doubt maketh a foule noise in a pulpit but let vs see how the knight will be able to iustifie it For his first witnesse he produceth S. Chrysostome Hom 49. operis imperf where it is sayd that the Church is knowne onelie by the scriptures But first the verie title of the treatise showeth this testimonie to be of smale authoritie as being opus imperfectum an vnperfect worke so it ought not in reason to be admitted for a sufficient proofe especiallie considering that Sir Humfrey alledgeth no other witnesse yet on the contrarie wee knowe that our Sauiour sayd In ore duorum aut trium testium stet omne verbum in
testifies in these wordes quoted in the margen In Thomae Caietani commentarijs in D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 122 art 4. omnino corrigantur errores qui fraude haereticorum irrepserunt vt notatur in expurg Index lib. prohib p. 89. Geneu impres The Epistle of Walricus is suppositious which is paoued to be so because it is superscribed to Pope Nicolas to whom according to the computation of times the first Pope Nicolas was before Walricus was borne and the second Nicolas was not borne till after he was dead Neither is it any way probable that such a holie Bishop as Walricus was should commend marriage in other Preists who liued and dyed in vnmarried chastity himselfe and so the foresayd Epistle being a false record as containing an improbable yea a morally impossible relation it was iustely condemned with a deleatur To omit that if this Epistle wer authenticall the reformers would gaine nothing by the bargen for that it teacheth expressely that the Roman Bishop is head of the Church and that Preists at the least after ordination cannot lawfully marrie Sixtly it is false that Bertram's whole booke is condemned as may appeare by the iudgement of the Vniuersitie of Doway approued by the Censurers of bookes inserted in the Index of Quiroya published by Ioannes Pappus a reformed deformed diuine with certaine odious prefaces of his owne coyning printed at Argentin 1609. In the 17. page of which Index it is manifest that the whole booke was not commaunded to be blotted out but onely some fewe things to be corrected or altered in the reading or to be expounded benigneously And as for the doctrine of transsubstantiation the foresaid Doctours of Doway expressely declare that Bertram often times in the first parte of his disputation teaches Catholike transsubstantiation plainely enuffe vsing the words conuertere mutare commutare permutare transponere creaturam in Christum in corpus Christi c. in so much that Illiricus compelled with the plainesse of those wordes confesseth there are in Bertram semina transsubstantiationis seeds of transubstantiation And also the same Dowacene Doctors conclude that those difficult places which are founde in him touching the reall presence which cheefely are two to wit that he seemeth to haue ben of opinion that Christs bodie is no more in the Eucharist then the bodie of the people and that that thing which is celebrated or done in the Church cānot be called God are either to be vnderstood of the externall formes of bread and wine or els that those sentences be inserted by heretiks who printed that booke first at Colen 1532. after at Basil 1550. 1555. so that this is no recorde of the reformers except it be vpon supposition of their owne corruptions or false glosses added vnto it but rather may serue for a pregnant testimonie against them and consequētly he that should haue blotted it out had done them no iniurie but a verie great fauor Seuenthlie I say to the sentence taken out of the booke of baptizme vnder the name of Anselme that manie passages be blotted out by the Censurers of bookes by reason they are such as may easilie be taken in an erroneous sense so scandalize or giue occasion of errour either to the simple or malicious reader which neuerthelesse in a sounde sense containe no false doctrine so might be lefte vncorrected if it were not for the corruption malignitie of the tyme. And of this nature be the wordes of the booke of the visitation of the sicke Baptisme if they be ritely recited by Sir Hum. Doest thou beleeue that the Lord Iesus Christ dyed for our saluation that there is no meanes to be saued by owne merits Which sentence in a true meaning is no recorde of the reformers in a false meaning it is better blotted out thē lefte in And such diligence argueth no ill conscience but a motherlie care of the Church towardes here children 8. We haue sayd sufficient alreadie touching the credit of Cassander whose doctrine the Romanists hould for false recordes either in parte or totalitie And he maketh such preposterous glosses vpon the Ecclesiasticall himnes as the Index noteth in one place that all his whole scholium is repugnant to the same like a commentarie contrarie to the text Yet to giue the reader a taste What truelie this man was who is so farre in Sir Humfreys bookes I say that altho' we hold not Cassander for a Romanist as being in the Index of prohibited bookes for diuers singular positions neuerthelesse the knight cannot iustelie brag of him in regarde it is manifest by his workes which I haue seene read in parte that he expresselie defendes the Roman doctrine in most points of Cōtrouersie betwixt vs the Reformers as also because in a greater parte euen of the same places which Sir Hum. cites in his fauour he is not a little abused either corrupted or detorted by him cōtrarie to his meaning Howbeit in respect he professeth the parte of a Pacifer mediator betwixt vs he could not but leane some thing to their side yet is it so little that I perceiue by one of his writings that he had smale thankes for his paines from some of the faction therefore was most sharpelie handled by them accusing him of dissimulation imposture interruption of the course of the Gospell the like An infortunate man who by his great labours earnest endeuours to content both parties contended neither a iuste punishment due vnto such as destitute of true knowledge in diuinitie which he himselfe in parte confesseth in his generall Preface presume to treat of those sublime subiects sans a guide The Basilean edition of Polidor virgill printed in the yeare 1544. compared with other former the most ancient editions is founde to haue ben corrupted by the sectaries so no true recordes can be taken out of it for Sir Humfrey his confraternitie And such is that passage which the Inquisitours commanded to be blotted out which is this All most all ancient Fathers condemned images for feare of idolatrie This sentence as false foysted into the foresayd Basilian edition is iustelie cast out as none of the authours doctrine or at the least vehementlie suspected for none of his And touching the doctrine of honour of images it selfe it is cleare that he can aforde no recorde at all for the reformed diuinitie for that he expresselie relateth the vse of images in Churches deduceing it historicallie from the most primatiue tymes Langius or Langus is of no authoritie among the Romanists so he yealdes no recordes of credit And at the best he is but a pedanticall Annotator as I take it a Lutheran that is neither of Sir Humfreys religion nor of ours As for Ferus certaine it is that some of his editions haue ben founde to be mightilie corrupted particularlie that of Mogunce Which the knight citeth so the recordes drawne out of him are of
of the lawe Exodus that that which in the first Commaundement is forbiden in the Exodus in the 26. of the Leuiticus the same is declared to be idolum sculptile that is an idol a grauen thing And thus wee see the reformers stand single in this matter that the Romanists in their diuision of the ten Commandements proceed vpon a most sound approued foundation it being both conformable to the doctrine of S. Augustin who they more willingly followe then anie other especially to the true sense of the scriptures them selues expounded aceording to the orthodoxe faith and tradition of all succeeding ages A POSTCRIPT OF ADVERTISSEMENTS FOR THE READER I Request the reader of my Censure so take notice of some particulars which occurred since the finishing of it And imprimis touching the homilie and epistles alledged by Sir Humfrey in the 9. section of his safe way against the reall presence and transsubstantion I ansered in the 8. Period of my Censure what I conceiued at that present to wit that ther was not anie doctrine publikly or cōmonly read or preched in England contrarie so the reall presence or transsubstantiation or in anie publik manner deliuered to the people either by Alfric or anie other Bishop or Bishops in anie synod or publik assembly in those dayes since which tyme of the dispatch of that worke some delaye hauing ben made in the cōmitting it to the presse hauing had greater opportunitie leasure to view the histories of our countrie which treate of the affayres of those ages in which Alfric liued which was in some parte of the 10. and leuenth Centuries by more exact examinatiō search in to the matter I finde my selfe assured of the trueth of that which I then deliuered And now for greater satisfaction of the reader and more cleare conuincement of the same I adde that touching Alfrics person and state of life he was first a monke by profession in the monasterie of Abington and as Malesburie relates lib. 1. de gest Pont. Aug. pag. 203. Abbat of the same then Bishop of wilton and after Archbishop of Canterburie Ther is diuersitie of opinions whether Siricius alias sigericus or Alfric did immediately succeed S. dunstan in that seat but that importeth little certaine it he was a Roman Catholique Vid. Harpsf saec 10. cap. 7. for that an ancient Chronicle writ by a monke of the same monasterie of Abington wher of as I alledged our of Malesburie Alfric was Abat conuinceth testifying that he went to Rome for his Episcopall pall as the custome was which iourney Alfric would neiuer haue made nor euer haue obtained his request if he had not ben of the same faith in euerie point which at that tyme the Pope him selfe professed That which also is most plainely demonstrated by an ample testimonie which the church of Canterburie gaue of the same Arcbishop Alfric and at their request sent to the monkes of his order and monasterie Abington for a perpetuall memorie of his faith and manners which for greater sattsfaction of the reader I will here rehearse at it as recorded by the foresaid religious man To the children of the holy church of Canterburie the clergie and the same church after their deuoute prayers It is knowne vnto you all how long since it is that by the successes of diuers and various euents the mother church of England hath ben depriued of her pastor and destitute of her rector which doth pertaine not onely to our losse but alsoe to the detriment of you and all this Iland since it is apparent that the sollicitude and care of the whole countrie is committed to the Metroplican For which cause we haue elected Alfric by name monke of the holy church of Abington most sufficiently knowne vnto vs noble in brith and maners indued with Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall discipline and in faith a Catholique by nature prudente docible patient temperate chaste sober humble affable mercifull learned instructed in the lawe of God cautelous in the senses of the scripture exercised in Ecclesiasticall decrees or determinations And according to the path of scripture orthodox traditions and Canons and constitutions of the Prelates of the Apostolicall seat vnderstanding teaching Praesulum Sedis Apostolica and obseruing the Ecclesiasticall rules in a sound sense and embracing that faithfull worde which is according to doctrine and reprehending with modestie those whoe resist it and hauing power to resiste and redargue them hospitable modest well ruling his house not a neophit hauing a good opinion or testimonie ministering in euerie degree or order according to Ecclesiasticall tradition Prepared for all good workes and to giue satisfaction to euerie one that shall demaunde it of the hope which is in him c. Thus proceedeth the testimonie of the electors of Alfric And to this I ioyne that S. Dunstan his immediate predecessor excepting Ethelgar or at the most according to the opiniō of some writers excepting Ethelgar and Siricius whoe both liued but fiue yeares or ther aboutes as our histories reporte at the tyme of his death spake much of the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist in a sermon he made the same day he dyed Svy S. Dunstan And in like manner of Elphegus Alfrics successor it is reported by our English historians he was such a mortifyed man by reason of his great abstinence and fasting that when according to the custome of the Romā church he eleuated the sacred hoaste in masse the reflected ayre appeared as it were in a glasse throu ' the iunctures of his fingers Now touching the twoe immediate predecessors of Alfric which I mentioned before to wit Ethelgar Sricius neither anie historiographer nor yet anie of our aduersaries themselues doe note them to haue diuulged or admitted in their tyme anie other doctrine concerning the Eucharist then that which was then professed in the Roman church By which it is manifest that both immediately before and immediately after Alfrics dayes the same doctrine of the reall presēce which at this tyme the Romā church maintaines was cōmonly tought practised in England and no other soe that morally speaking it is not apprehensible that in the tyme of Alfrics being Bishop of Canterburie which according to the computation of tymes was but ten yeares or littlemore Godwins Catalogue the contrarie doctrine and the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation could haue bin publikly professed and published by diuers Bishops in their synods as Sir Humfrey Line affirmes Besydes this Lanfranc whoe in the next age succeeded Alfric in the seat of canterburie habetur in vlt. edit Bibl. Patr. tom 11. in his booke against Berengarie of the sacrament of the Eucharist som'at after the midest he speakes thus against his aduersarie Propulsatis iam quantum satis visum est calumnijs c. hauing sufficiētly repelled the calumniations which with cantumely of Bishop Humbert the Roman Church thou hast temerariously vttered it remaines that we
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
his speech may giue occasion of error to ignorant or ill affected readers To this I ioyne my responsion to the other wordes cyted by our aduersarie in the same place out of the same booke of Agobardus as I suppose for he ioynes them to the rest of those which ther he had to wit these which followe Ther is nos example in all the scriptures or Fathers for adoration of images They ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight not to instruct the people To which I answer in primis touching the former parte of the sentence Agobardus hath no such expresse wordes as those he onely saying thus the ancients alsoe had the images of saint painted or graued but for rembrance not to worship them which wordes ar soma't different from those other rehearsed by sir Hum. neuerthelesse because they seeme to include a denyal of honor of images I responde secondly Agobard takes the wordes colere adorare which ther he vseth in the same sēse in which he vseth them in the rest of his booke that is for diuine honor as I haue aboue declared by seueral passages of the same According to which acception his wordes ar verie true nor anie way repugnant to the doctrine of the Roman Church either in those dayes or at this present tyme which as in all former ages soe in this in which we liue doth zealously detest and abhorre as plainely idolatrous all diuine adoration of creatures tho' neuer so eminent either in nature or grace Thirdly to the latter parte of the same sentence I say confidently I am sure ther ar no such wordes in Agobardes booke euen as it is published and printed at Paris by Papyrius Masson him selfe out of whose Bibliotheke be it good or bad sir Humfrey produceth it soe that I doe not vnderstand this iugling for other then plaine forgerie or falsification Fourthly those laste wordes They images ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight not to instruct the people ar iuste contrarie to the doctrine of S. Gregorie teaching expressely that pictures ar the bookes of the illiterate and simple people Which doctrine of S. Gregorie Agobarde was neither soe ignorant as not to knowe it nor yet soe impudent as to denye it Fiftly those same wordes manifestly disagree to the rest of Agobardes owne doctrine as his wordes by me related sufficiently declare partucularly those Habuerunt namque antequi magiues sanctorum ad recordandum c. Lastely Sir Humfrey must knowe that Papyrius Masson is registred by the authors of our expurgatore Index and consequently he is no current Romanist and much lesse is he anie of our best learned men as neither was Agobardus which ar yet those whome he professeth in the title of his booke to alledge against vs. And soe by this Agobarde is absolutely cleared from all imputation of iconomachie or error against images and the obiection of our aduersarie conuinced to be voyde of force Furthermore touching that which the knight alledgeth out of Hincmar cōcerning the decree of the coūcell of Frācfort a boute images he deliuered it onely as a relator being young in yeares vnexperienced he mistooke the definitiō of the foresaid synod for the schismaticall determination of a priuate Cōuenticle which hauing ben in the same place at the same tyme or presētly after the dissolution of the councell he might easily take the one for the other In which historicall passage as some authors opinate by the credit he gaue to the supposed Carolin bookes he both erred himselfe gaue occasiō of error to others whoe relying vpō his reporte haue put the same in their generall histories published since his tyme yet this being onely a priuate error of fact and that vncertaine it was without anie preiudice to the faith and practise of Catholique Church Besides it appeares euidently by an epistle of 55. chapters which the same Hincmare Archbishop of Rhemes writ to his aduersarie Hincmare Bishop of laon he was a verie pious Cotholique prelate an ackowledger of the Popes supremacie ouer the rest of the Christiā Churches Greek Latin for soe he speakes in Hic fift chapter of that worke qui in illius Sedis Apostolicae primata beatus Petrus cunctorū oucra portat cuius principatus authoritate mediator Dei hominum homo Christus Iesus sedem Romanam super omnes sedos sublimauit Alexandrinam decorauit Alexandrinam confirmauit c. wherfore it is improbable that Hnicmare who speaketh soe honorably of the Romā Church should at the same tyme haue vttered anie doctrine soe contrarie to the then receiued practise of the same as is contained in those wordes viz. Images ar to be taken for an ornament to please the sight not to instruct the people To this I adde for confirmation of my anser it is not credible to imagine that ther hauing passed diuers letters betwixt Pope Adrian in whose tyme due honor of images was defined against the opposers of it and other Popes of those tymes and this Hincmare for composing the controuersie betweene him and Bishop Hincmare of Laon as alsoe aboute other matters it is not credible I say those Popes should not once haue reprehended and condemned him for this position if truely he had ben a maintainer of it Besides the Ecclesiasticall histories doe testifye that aboute the same tyme this same Hincmar at the persuasion of Pope Nicolas confuted the criminations of the Grecians against the Roman Church of whome he would neuer haue made choise for such a busines if he had ben either knowne or suspected to haue defended anie doctrine repugnant to the vse and honor of images established in the 7. Synod and then commonly practised in the Christian world And thus we see that nothing produced by our aduersarie out of this author repugneth to the doctrine of that moderate honor of images which hath ben vniuersally professed in the Roman Church both in the tyme of Agobarde and in this present age My third aduertissement is that the knight in the 289. page of his safe way iniuriously accuseth Charon for a blasphemer of scriptures alledgeing him to affirme they ar imperfect obscure doubtfull ambiguous perplexed And yet I finde that this author in his thrid booke de tribus veritatibus which is the same our aduersarie cites althou ' not in the same language page 97. 98. and the rest imediately following in his french edition for I could not haue him in latin expressely cleares him selfe and Roman church of that foule and odious calumniation feigned by Plessis in their disgrace Charons wordes ar these Venons an particularitez qu'ils nous font dire encore qu'ils les proposent mal autrement que nous ne le disons pour nous rendre odieux premierement que nous le disons l'escriture este imperfecte an contraire nous la croyons confessons preschons perfecte pleine entiere tres-suffisante come estant oeuure de
alteration for that to omit other authorities of ancient Fathers of the same nature sainct Chrysostome who liued in the beginning of the fouerth age of Christian religion vseth the same manner of phrase if not playner Com. in c. 2. Epist 2. ad Thes sayeing that it doth appeere that the Apostles did not deliuer all by epistles but manie things without writing but as well these as those deserue the same faith The which is not onelie as much as can be expressed for the authoritie of traditions but also a more playne commendable testimonie then anie Romanist euer vttered concerning the same From whence the reader may deduce that the knight is heere also out of the right way of the primitiue Church in which he runneth forward till the verie end of his section like a man ouer heated breatheth out nothing but abuses of diuerse moderne diuines which he citeth in a cauilling captious sort peruerts their true sense meaning in all or most places by him alleaged Sec. 8. In the eight section he pretends to proue that the traditions of the Roman Church were vnknowne to the Greeke Church that they want vniuersalitie antiquitie succession but on the contrarie that faith which the reformed Churches maintaine at this day is the same in substance which the Apostles published in Greece therefore hath antiquitie vniuersalitie succession And this is the substance of his section if anie substance it hath But in truth he proueth his position with such mediums that I am scarce willing to relate them for losse of time the greatest part of his proofes being but eyther his owne bare false affirmations or onelie friuolous argumēts long since ansered destroyed by Bellarmin and other Romanists partlie also by my selfe in my Censure or else they are onelie authorities drawne from his owne brothers both in religion lyeing as from Illiricus whome Bellarmine doth cleerlie discouer to haue binne most expert in that black art or from other professed enimies of the Roman Church as Nylus other Grecian Scismatikes adding also the resistance or disclame of some Grecians in different occasions heere there a without doubt of his owne citing diuers authors vnfaithfullie for his owne aduantage contrarie to their meaning especiallie Bellarmine whome he abuseth in diuers places partelie by peruerting his sense partlie by mangling his sentences as lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 16. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 30. lib. 1. de Sanct. beatid cap. 19. mingling also some vntruthes as that most of the Greeke Latin Fathers did hould that the faithfull till the resurrection doe not attaine to the beatificall vision of God c. And now let the prudent reader iudge whether Sir Humfrey doth proceed sollidlie or rather not most absurdlie weaklie in that he goeth about to eleuate the antiquitie vniuersalitie succssion of the Roman faith eyther in generall or particular points by virtue of a scattered companie of moderne Grecians who in those matters they dissent from vs contrarie to the doctrine of their most ancient renowned auncestors haue no more authoritie then the pretended reformers themselues nay especiallie considering them to be of a religion which agrees neyther intirelie with ours yet much lesse with theirs what a madnesse is it in the knight to make vse of their authoritie eyther to infringe the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of the Roman doctrine or for confirmation of his owne Dicunt Armeni in Christo Domino vnam naturam esse vnam voluntatem vnamque operationē Aub. Mir. not Episc p. 43. Hodie Aethiopes baptisantur circumciduntur Idem p. 54. Neyther is Sir Humfrey thou ' most repugnant to the knowne truth content to say that the Greeke Church hath continued the truth of his doctrine in all ages but he also addeth further that if we looke beyond Luther we shall easilie discerne that the Muscouites Armenians Egiptians Ethiopians did teach their reformed doctrine euen from the Apostles time till now By which porticulars I doubt not but the reader may perceaue euen without a comentarie how ridiculous he makes himselfe his Religion to what streits this mā was put how impossible it is for him to auoyde the by way in the proofe of his antiquitie vniuersalitie succession who by his owne confession was forced to fetch his faith from such by places deuious regions where yet he hath not found it but remaineth still in his owne vnquoth English by way The nynth section pretendeth to proue that the scriptures are a certayne safe euident way to saluation traditions a by way In which section Sir Humfrey beginneth with a large homelie about the certaintie safetie of scriptures which two wordes because he peraduenture dreamed the night before he writ this that he had seene them in the scripture the one in the firste of S. Luke 4. the other Philip. 3.1 he assured himselfe he had thrust the Papists frō the wall at the first push But alas for pittie his dreame proued so false that when he awaked he found himselfe in the channell for in neyther of those places are those wordes found nay nor yet the sense which he intendeth heere which being no other then that onelie scriptures no tradition is to be followed in anie matter of faith or manners neyther those two places of scripture nor anie other testimonie that he bringeth eyther out of anie scripture or Fathers doth proue his peremptorie position but onelie shewe that all scriptures are profitable to instruct a man in all good workes to the end he may be perfect moreouer that the scriptures be as Bellarmine sayth a most certaine most safe rule of faith yet that they be the sole or onelie certaine safe rule neyther Bellarmine nor anie other Romanist nor yet anie proofe or testimonie which the knight produceth doth eyther teach or testifie It is true Sir Humfrey alleageth diuers authors but all according to his accustomed manner that is neyther much to the purpose nor yet verie faithfullie the testimonies of those eyther impertinētlie produced or alreadie cleared by Bellarmine other Controuertists to containe nothing contrarie to the Roman doctrine in this particular or else such obscure grolles as neyther his predecessors as I thinke did euer cite by reason of their smale authoritie nor are they of that moment that they deserue anie ansere at all as Waltram Fauorinus which at the leaste by reason of the ill vse he maketh of thē serue the knight for nothing more then to leade him out of the common path of the euerduring constant Church as a sure guide which according to the scriptures cannot faile euen by the power of hell into a dangerous diuerticle of scriptures expounded by deductions proceeding from the priuate spirit of particular men which is all he concludes in this his section Sec. 10. From hence
Angels and Algels pray for vs c. Loe heare the verie same forme of prayer to saints which the Romanist vse soe that the reader may easily iudge how preposteroussy Sir Humfrey hath proceeded in the citation of this auther And howsoeuer it is that the Grecians will not call this proper inuocation of saints yet that is but questio de nomine a question onely aboute the name or worde inuocation which little importes supposing that in reallitie and substance they disegree not from the Romanists but rather are most conformable vnto them euen in the manner of their interpellation And besydes this if wee note the Lutherans wordes to the Patriarke it will euen thēce manifestly appeare what the Grecians defēd touching his point For say the Doctors Non dubium est quin sit de sanctis reuerenter sentiendum loquendum c. non tamen sentimus eos esse inuocandos vt sint nostri mediatores atque iutercedant apud Deum pro nobis qui iam mortui sunt Which wordes of the Lutherans being those which they directly oppose against the doctrine of the Grecians in this particular it is clearer then the leight of the sunne that the Grecians agree with vs and be contrarie to the tenets of Sir Humfrey and other sectaries of our tymes And thus we see that altho' Sir Hūfrey both in this and diuers other places of his bookes doth much labore to persuade the reader that the Grecian Church agrees with the pretented reformers and differ from vs in doctrine of controuersie neuerthelesse his worke wil not fadge it being manifest to them whoe haue viewed the doctrine of their Patriarke in his foresaid anser to the lutherans that excepting the point of the Popes supremacie in which neuerthelesse the Grecians doe not in euerie respect agree with them they doe not fully ioyne with the nouellists of our age in anie one of the questions in controuersie betwixt vs and them And soe I may conclude that Sir Humfrey not obstanding all the fraudes and diuises he hath vsed in laboring to make the Grecians seeme to stand for his faction he doth but onely rase duste to molest and dasle his readers eyes More ouer the same Patriarke page 243. of his anser to the lutherans doth absolutely prnounce that saints are to be invocated for thus he saith Ad haec nos ope diuina respondemus inuocandos esse sauctos quod ipsi etiam auxiliari pessint And he addeth after warde Nec id faciunt solum viui sed etiam mortui And a little lower he subioyneth Inuocatione sanctorum daemones abiguntur morbi fugantur tentationes tolluntur c. Also page 244. honorandi igitur sunt sancti tanquam amici Dei In like maner touching the images of Saints he further addeth A nobis etiam imaginibus ipsorum reuerentium exhiberi aut adorari nemo reprehendit c. That is none of vs reprehendeth that reuerence or adoration be exhibited to their images Meaning of the Saincts And in the page following he saith in this manner At inquit aliquis Deus dixit Deum tuum adorabis illi soli seruies non facies vllam similitudinem He ansereth thus Est vero ita sunt hoec lege diuina sancita verumtamen qui hoc praecipit Deus idem docet nos in deuteronomio Non adorabis ipsa non seruies And page 254. Soe he speakes Vt igitur qui non honorat filium vt ait dominus non honorat patrem sic qui non honorat imaginem nec illum quem imago refert honorat And in the same page Qui non adorat Crucem eum nequidem Dominum crucifixum adorare iustum est Non quidem certe naturam ligni c. Sed memoriam picturam perpessorum c. Finally of merit he saith thus Haec similia sunt ob quae homo regno coelesti dignus habetur That is these the like ar these thing for which a man is held worthie of the celestiall kingdome thus much touching the abuse of the Grecian Patriarke by Sir Humfrey But one of the grossest errours that I finde committed by our aduersarie in the Doctrine of the latinists or Romanists is in his page 234. where he hath these wordes Others as namely Antisiodorensis Biel teache that neither the Saints pray for vs neither are we to praye to them Thus Sir Humfrey further adding that he may safely conclude these and the like reasons considered that inuocation of Sains wants antiquitie vniuersalitie succession And yet I hauing examined the matter taken a viewe of the 30. Lection of Gabriel Biel which is the place the knight cites for his hallucination I finde that author expressely teacheth the affirmatiues of both those negatiues which he falsely affirmes him and Antisiodore to maintaine Wherfore touching the first proposition Biel in the place cited hath these wordes for his conclusion Credendum est igitur nullatenus dubitandum sanctos in patria intercedere nobisque suffragari merito ac prece siue voto And for proofe of the same he addeth thus Quae veritas authoritate ostenditur ratione authoritate vtriusque testamenti veteris noui simul sanctorum Patrum And before his conclusion he saith fuit haeresis quorumdam nimia temeritate omnem sanctorū cultum penitus tollere volentium qui nullum sanctis honorem impendi debere mussitabant neque vllas ad eos preces dirigi nec eorum reliquias venerari Huius author haeresiarcha primus fuit Jouinianus c Which wordes altho they doe sufficiently declare what this author holdes of the second parte of this point yet doth he more expressely vtter the same towardes the end of this lection saying ex quibus patet preces nostras spemque consequendae beatitudinis per mediatores sanctos in Coelo inanes non esse sed ordine à Deo iustituto nos ad eorum auxilia confugere debere debita veneratione eos semper implorare By all which wordes Biels doctrine is foe plaine for the Romanists soe plaine against Sir Humfrey that I am verily persuaded he either neuer read this author touching this particular or if he read him he did not vnderstand him And the like I say of Antisiodore whoe being in the same place cited I fynd that he himselfe teacheth quite contrarie to that which the knight chargeth him with For wheras he is alledgeth by Sir Hūfrey in the 4. parte of his summe lib. 3. q. 6. to resolue that neither the saints doe praye for vs neither are wee to praye to them it is true Antisiodore relates the opinion of manie whoe say that neither are wee to praye to the saints nor they praye for vs but onely improperly to wit because we pray God that the merits of his saincts may helpe vs whēce it is consequent that their merits may helpe vs Neuerthelesse for his owne resolution of the question he puts the contrarie proposition saying
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
other Councell for it pag. 208. l. 20. to people adde as euer so to receiue it by Christs commaunde p. 265. for thrice reade once p. 240. lin 6. to Christ adde humane nature p. 239. for reconciliatiōs reade reconciliationis p. 287. for dignitie reade decorum p. 202. l. 7. omit other l. 27. to exhibited add by it selfe page 307. to not determined by the Church adde in euerie particular pag. 317. to illegitimate adde concerning the doctrine of images p. 371. to diuine worship add in spirit pa. 447. l. 16. for in reade since pa. 463. for thim reade him in the next l. 10. for may chalenge reade may in that respect chalenge p. 467. l. 17. adde in respecte of the people p. 433. lin 16. for able reade agreable omit su pag. 438. lin 13. for to whome reade yet p. 475. for conference reade cōfidence p. 485. l. 16. for heresie reade material heresie p. 480. for martyrs reade examples p. 493. l. 26. consequence adde to this purpose p. 566. l. 24. to soundes adde including the prayers p 546. l. 8. to glorious adde flashe l. 26. for gaspell reade Gospell p. 545. l. 2. reade Pamphleter p. 421. l. 18. omit in a visible maner In the introduction to the Appendix Page 73. line 10. adde defined l. 3. for false reade safe p. 19. l. 20. omit either in the next l. reade workes l. 24. to some of adde them Besides these neglects I aduertise the reader of an other faulte committed in the omission of titles for the distinct matters Neuerthelesse this defect is sufficiently supplied in regarde that in the commencement or entrance of euerie seuerall period the contents are breefely declared There be manie other errors of lesse importance committed by the printer as being a strāger as Nice with a great letter the like which the discretion and iudgement of the reader will easily correct In like manner he will perdone the rudnes of the style as penned by one whoe by reason of his absence daylie conuersation with strangers ignoreth the propertie of his natiue language As also he will conniue his tardance in the publication of the worke which if it had not incountered vnimagined impediments might haue appeared manie monethes paste THE FIRST PERIOD THIS Period shall containe the first and second sections of S. Humfreys way and I resolued to ioyne them together by reason I finde litle matter of doctrine in them as being rather in the nature of preamble or introduction and consequently of too small substance for a scholler to insist vpon In his first section he purposed to prooue and disprooue the bitternesse of the Church of Roome towards the reformed Churches but he bringeth verie little or nothing to that purpose onely citing for his demonstration of the same some vnchristian speeches as he tearmeth them vttered by father Campian in his first reason She tearmes vs saith S. Humfrey meaning the Roman Church Heretiques Hellhounds of Zwinglius Luthers whelpes Turkish Hugonotes damned persons and worse then Infidells which wordes if they weare truly related I must needes confesse include no small acrimony but I hauing diligently read ouer on purpose Campians first reason I finde not them all there nay nor yet the greater part of them nor any other equiualent vnto them I finde indeede he speaketh sharpely against Luther and Caluin and he tearmeth them and others whom he citeth Quid ille nunc diceret si viueret in terris Lutheros Caluinosque concerneret opifices Bibliorum qui sua lima politula elegantula vetus nouumque testamentum esse raserint Quid Lutheri Catulis vt Tobiam Ecclesiasticum Machabaeos horum odio complures alios ea calumnia comprehensos è syncero canone repente dispungerent c. Quae quidem Ecclesia custos huius depositi non magistra quod haeretici cauillnatur thesaurum hunc vuluersum quem Synodus Tridentina est amplexa vetustissimus olim concilij publicitus vendicauit c. Castatio mysticum illud Salomonis Canticum c. Nihilo pluris quam cantilenamed amicula cum pedissequis autor colloquium amatorium venereus furcifer aestimauit Camp rat 1. heretiques for their mangling the holy scriptures according to their owne priuate Spirits but he hath not one bitter worde against the persons of any sectaries of his owne Countrie but onely iustly reprehendeth the Nouelists in generall for rheir abuse of the worde of God But suppose Father Campian had vsed such speeches indeede what then do not the reformers themselues most frequently both in their writings and pulpits vse farre worse tearmes both against the Romanists and the Roman Church do not they accuse both her and her members of Idolatrie Superstition and Antichristianity exaggerating matters with all the satyricall phrases they can inuent as euen in this very place doth appeere where S. Humfrey himselfe rayling not onely against the particular members of the Roman Church but also against her sacred selfe charging her to haue lost her breasts or at least to giue her children little or no sincere milke out of her two breasts the two testaments and that she doth dayly practise spirituall fornication and that she hath plaid the Harlot with a greate H. and finally taxing her that she mainetayneth and practiseth manifest and manifould Idolatry and that her title is vsurpation her deuotion is superstition and she her selfe a professed enemy to the ghospell from whence you may inferre what a sencelesse blindenesse this was in the knight to dedicate the first chapter of his booke to the disproouing of the bitternes of the Roman Church he himselfe hauing spent a greate parte of it in rayling against her and also you may perceaue how importunely he accuseth her of malignitie and want of desire to quench the vnquenchable broyles of the Church as he tearmeth them whilest he himselfe through his exasperating speches asmuch as in him lyeth putteth no small impediment to the extinguishing of the same as the reader may plainely perceaue and notwithstanding he compareth the Roman Church and his owne to two sisters which comparison allthough it be very fond and absurd in it selfe for that the true Church being but one onely spouse of Christ she can admitte no sister nor Corriuall according to the meaning of the holy Spirit in the Canticles affirming his spouse to be one VNA ES SPONSA MEA neuertheles he must needes be conuinced to haue proceeded most preposterously in this matter and contrary to all reason in that hee intending or at least pretending to shew there ought to be loue vnion betwene them as betwene two sisters descending from one and the same catholique and vniuersall mother as he calleth her yet as it were with one the same breath he accuseth the same Roman Church to haue beene the onely cause of separation and carrieth the busines in such a rough and vncivill fashion towards her giuing her such greate occasions of new disgusts
that it plainely appeereth he doth rather demonstrate his owne bitternesse rancour towards her then with any probable argument shew any such disposition to remaine in her against any such vnion as hee pretendeth to desire Why then doth S. Humfrey complaine of that which is in a farre worse manner practised by himselfe and his owne brothers besides this I pray you doth the supposed bitternesse of F. Cāpian proue the bitternesse of the Roman Church could he alone bee the whole Roman Church who was but one onely member of it Or are his speeches or priuate positions to be attributed to the whole Church he being but one parte thereof and yet not the greatest what a false Metonymie is this if the head of the Church had vsed such speeches you would haue seemed to haue had some reason to haue attributed them to the whole because that which the head doth may induce a denomination vppon the rest of the body of which examples may be found euen in nature but whatsoeuer any other member doth it cannot rightly be attributed to the whole So that we now see that in this allegation S. Humfrey himselfe doth so carrie the matter and giueth the Church of Roome euen in this same section so much occasion of new disgusts as besides the rehearsed calumnies taxing her with creation of 12. new Articles and coyning of new expositions vpō the ould farre different from the doctrine of the Apostles and that she mayntaineth and practiseth manifest idolatry And the like most false and slanderous exprobrations that as I said before it plainely appeereth that he hath rather demonstrated his owne bitternes and rancour towards the Roman Church then shewed any such defect in her by any argument drowen from Father Campians wordes by him produced which wordes allthough by his quotation of Iewell in the margent he will seeme to haue taken them at secōd hand yet certainely it is a plaine imposture and so let them diuide it as they please betwixt themselues it being euer supposed that S. Humfrey and his Iewell are of equall authoritie with the Catholiks I meane of none at all Moreouer S. Humfteys whole drift in this section being to cleere his owne Church from the infamous brand of Apostacy he imposeth the whole cause of separation vpon the Roman Church and produceth Erasmus for a wittnes of the same who being demaunded for sooth of the duke of Saxonie what was Luthers capitall offence that stirred vp so many opposites against him made answer that Luther had committed two greate crimes for he had taken away the Crowne from the Pope and had taken downe the belly of the monkes To which saying of answer that Erasmus is no competent wittnes against the Roman Church especially in a case where his sole testimonie is interposed And if S. Humfrey had ben circumspect he would not haue cited Erasmus his answere for this purpose as containing one manifest lye if not twb. For neither did Luther euer take the Crowne from the Pope which as the world knowes he still enioyeth maugre him and all his adherents neither did Luther euer take downe the bellies of the monkes except it was by iniuste vsurpation and rapin to fill his owne and to leade his lyfe in luxurious concubinate with breach of his vowes to god and man Immediately before this momicall passage of Luther out of Erasmus which although S. Humfrey produced to colour the pretended Reformers diuisiō from the Church of Rome yet doth it farre more strongly argue a cause in the Pope iustely to reiect them then anie excuse of their preposterous separation before this I say he cited a place out of the Prophet Ose which because it makes nothing to this purpose Cap. 4.15.17 but onely vpon his owne false supposition that the Roman Church is wicked and idolatrous therefore vntill I see him prooue his supposition which yet I know he will neuer be able to performe I leaue it as impertinent as also I omit the examples he brings of Abrahams departure out of Caldea and of the Iewes out of Egypt which are as farre from the case we treate of as Egypt is from Europe or Christendome from Iewrye Therefore I will onely giue notice to the reader how grossely he abuseth certaine authours he cytes to testifye that by Babylon is meant the Christian Rome For ther is not one of those authours that affirmes that after it was conuerted to the Christian faith it was called Babylon according as the scripture vsually speakes of Babylon either properly or Metaphorically Neither is ther likewise anie of the same authours which teach that since the conuersion of that Citye to the faith of Christ Christians ought to departe from it as out of a spirituall and idolatrous Babylon which is that our aduersarie here intendes to proue or at the least ought to proue if anie thing he meanes to prooue against the Romanists And to speake first of the ancient authours here cyted by the kinght which are Tertulliā S. Hierome and S. Augustin it is directly impossible that they should meane by Babylon the Roman Church depraued by anie idolatrie of Christian people for that they were all departed out of the world before the supposed departure of the Roman Church from the true Religion is affirmed by our newe sectaries to haue begun which as they most commonly teach was not before the 600. yeare after the tyme of Christ our Sauiour Now as for the moderne authours to wit Orosius Viues Bellarmin and Baronius and Ribera they are all knowne Romanists yea and some of them cheefe defendours of the Roman Church and faith and so it is euident by this reason alone that they had not such a thought as to meane by Babylon the Roman Church Cap. 22. Viues vpon the 18. booke de cuit Dei explicates him selfe plainely saying Petrus Apostolus Roman Babylonem appellat vt etiam Hyeronymus in vita Marci interpretatur qui ad Marcellam scribens non aliam existimat describi à Ioanne in Apocalypsi Babylonem quam Vrbem Romam Bellarmin also speakes yet plainer in the verie place cited by S. Humfrey viz. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 2. for he saith Respondeo Babylonem vocari non Romanam Ecclesiam sed Romanā vrbem qualis erat Ioannis tempore Orosius I haue not But let Baronius speake for him selfe and others Baron Adam 45. Nec per somninm quidem quis vnquam inuenit Romanam Ecclesiam esse Babylonis nomine nuncupatam sed ipsā tantummodô ciuitatem ac id quidem non semper sed cum impietate referta aduersus ipsam Ecclesiam bellum gereret Ribera vnderstands by Babylon persecuting Rome not as it is nowe I need not cite his wordes in a case so cleare So that nowe I doe not see why S. Humfrey produced these authors except it were by corruption of them to make them precursors of his corrupted way And hence also the reader may gather how weakely the knight
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
to reade the same nay and that which is yet more maruelous he seemeth to glory not a little that this hath beene all effected by the importunity of his reformed brothers as if forsooth they had exercised an act of some heroycall virtue therein Whereas in truth importunity is so farre from desert of commendation as it may be much more iustly registred in the list of vices then of virtues and soe we see that in the Scripture it selfe the importunitie of a beggar is branded with the marke of improbity that which I maruell the knight being so greate a Biblist as he is did not reflect vpon it And admitte it were true that the Romanists moued by the importunity of the sectaries did translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue for the laitie to reade by what rule of Logike I pray you Sir Humfrey doth it follow that many Romanists haue renoūced Popery before their death proue but this one consequence and I yeeld you the victory And pray tell me what article of faith is that which teacheth the Romanists to beleeue that the Bible ought not to be read by the laytie in no case or vpon no reasons neuer so weighty or if you can finde no such article as I know you cannot then confesse you haue lost the victory in the point confesse you haue proceeded weakely confesse you haue by your first argument proued nothing and so I will take that for graunted and passe to the second which allthough it hath some more sense in it then the other yet it is senselesse enough as shall presently appeare For that being to proue your antecedent or first proposition you onelie produce L. Cookes report that most of the Romish proselytes did frequent your Church or seruice for the first eleuen yeares of Queene Elizabeth But you must knowe that this authour is no competent witnesse against the Romanists he is one of your owne crue we care not for his reportes we leaue them to the lawyers He indeed as you do now presumed to write matters of diuinity but in that he plaied the Sutor vltra crepidam as you doe and so laboured onely to make him selfe ridiculous as you doe But let vs admit that which he reporteth to be true and that fome frequented your Church and seruice in those times as I my selfe haue heard they did at the least in exteriour shewe yet priuately at home frequenting Masse also doth it thence follow that in their minds they renounced Popery no such matter No more then doe diuerse of his maiesties subiects who euen at this day goe to your Churches whom neuerthelesse you your selues hould for none of yours but therefore doe commonly terme them Church going Papists So that according to this and euen ad hominem that is vpon your owne Principles your sequel is to be condemned to be of noe force or at the most out of that fact of those Romanists which you speake of it can onely be inferred that they proceeded contrary to the profession of their faith but not that they renounced the same which two things if you could haue duely distinguished I verily persuade my selfe you would neuer haue discoursed so friuoluslie as you doe in this point But now I greeue I haue spent so much time in ventilating so largelie such chaffie stuffe After this wise discourse Sir Humfrey passeth to his owne persuasions for the proofe of his assertion I am verily persuaded saith he that many at this day in the Church of Rome doe assent to our doctrine that dare not communicate with vs openly in the Church adding an appeale to their consciences how many of the Romanists haue renounced Popery in those diuerse points in this place But to this I answer that if Romanists would haue bene persuaded by this wise knights motiues they had lōge ago all renounced Poperie and turned Puritans indeed but God be praised they neuer were nor I hope euer will be persuaded by him and his workes if they haue anie branies in their heads No suerlie And if they come but once to examine this his booke and get a view of the discouerie of his deceipts they will be so farre from being moued either by his reasons or by his authority to relinquish their owne faith that doubtlesse they will rather be quite out of loue both with him his religion And euen in this particular persuasion of his he sheweth himselfe so ridiculous as no man of iudgment if he marke his proceeding can euer esteeme him as a man worthy either to be heard or followed For what man in the world will be moued by him who in steede of proofes bringeth his owne persuasions onely of the testimonie of the conscience of those whom he houlds for aduersaries and whose consciences if he proceedes consequently he must either hould for bad or at the least for vnknowne to himselfe What is this but absurdum per absurdius and yet he is so confident in this his vaine persuasion that he cometh to specifie diuerse points of Popery which he affirmeth to haue beene renounced by many Romanists some of which pointes are no Poperie at all but either his owne lies or els his ignorant mistake of the true doctrine of Papists in those particulars For example in his page 32. he demaundeth of vs how many Romanists doe smile at fained miracles at diuine vertue ascribed to medals beades Agnus deis and the like which saying of his is meerely grounded vpon a false supposition or rather a slanderous falsitie of his owne coyning as if it were true that the Romanists in generall did both approue false miracles and hould diuine vertue to be in medals beades and Agnus deis neither of which is true or was euer defended by any Romanist in the world it being both true and manifestlie knowen that though all Romanists hould the foresaid things for holie and do assure themselues that God doth sometimes please to worke strange effects by them yet do not they beleeue that any diuine vertue doth reside in them no more then they hould to haue resided in the shadowe of S. Peter which neuerthelesse wrought strange and miraculous effects So that by this discourse Sir Humfrey doth onelie proue his owne ignorance and malice as also he doth most manifestlie in the next lines and that more subtillie then before where he demaundeth how many Romanists do preferre the lawfulnesse of Priests mariage before the keeping of a concubine although saith hee the contrarie be the common doctrine of the Church of Rome In which wordes he doth indeauour craftilie to insinuate to his reader that it is a poynt of Poperie and that the Roman Church doth approoue the keeping of a Concubine by a Priest rather then he should marrye whereas the Church doth not in anie case allowe eyther of the one or the other but onelie houldes that that Priest offendeth God more grieuouslie who marrieth to wit after his preisthood and vowe of chastitie Saecerdos si fornicetur
is no lesse then a plaine leasing Besides these vntrueths which I haue now rehearsed he hath diuerse very idle positions either false or friuolous as for example that the power of binding and loosing depends vpon Purgatory that by defect of the Priests intention the worshipper of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament may commit flat Idolatry and the like these because they are left by him vnproued I will also leaue them vnrefuted till such time as I shall see his proofes produced and in the meane time I condemne this whole section as containing matter both idle false calumnious and full of inuectiue bitternesse and puritannicall spleene against the Romanists accusing them that they turne the necks of Scriptures cleane about that it is a common practice of their Church of Rome to make greater price of victory then verity other such matter as is vnworthy to be published either by printe or pen. THE V. PERIOD THE knight in his sixt section promiseth to refute that which he tearmeth the Common practice of his aduersaries in their refusall of reformation because saith he we cannot assigne the precise time when errours came in This I confesse is a matter of importance and if Sir Humfrey can performe his promise he will in parte recouer the credit which he hath formerly lost if not his honour must still lye in the dust Now to performe his promise he must know that it is not sufficient for him his partners to assigne the time and persons when and by whom those points of doctrine which they hould to be erroneously maintained in the Roman Church were first broached but they must also by some meanes or other conuince them to be errours indeede And as long as Sr Humfrey failes in the demonstratiō of either of these it is manifest he doth not performe his worde He saith indeede very confidētly in the beginning of this section that they meaning as I suppose himselfe and his companions in sect are all eye-witnesses that the errours of the Romā Church are this daye so notorious that a very child may perceaue thē but what is this to the purpose this is but a friuolous repetition of their owne bare wordes this is no lawfull proofe among aduersaries this is no demonstration it is not this Romane Catholiks are bound to stand too this is no reasonable satisfaction for vs or any other be he neuer so indifferent We must be conuinced of errours by Scriptures by consent of auncient Fathers by plaine definitions of approoued Councels And till you Sir Humfrey or some of your consorts make this point cleare we acknowledge no errours in our Church and by consequence no necessity of reformation in that nature as your discourse in this section doth falsely suppose Moreouer touching the assignation of time persons when and by whom the pretended errours of the Roman Church had their beginning it is apparant the knight is in a great errour in that he persuadeth himselfe that the Romanists exact of the reformers to assigne the time and persons when and by whom such errours as they attribut to their Church were first broached For the Romanists do not stand precisely vpon assignation of the very first time and persons or the very first Authours of those supposed errours no they put no such rigorous taske vpon the reformers but onely oblige them to shewe when they were first so notorious and apparent in the world as both they their authours were condemned in any authenticall Councell or assembly and this is that onely which the Catholikes demaund of their aduersaries and not that which Sir Humfrey imagineth and therefore whatsoeuer he produceth in this section for the confirmation of his intent in that particular proceedeth vpon false supposition and consequently proueth nothing but his owne ignorance That which is a thing not onely proper to Sir Humfrey in diuerse places of his booke but also so generally incident to the rest of his conreformers as in reading their workes I haue often lamented their case to see them so labour in vaine like hounds spending vpon a false sent And surely nothing els but the foresaid false supposition was the cause why Sir Humfrey proceeded in this point in so farre a different manner as he doth from the rest of his fellowes He not taking vpon him as they ordinarily doe tho' without effect to assigne the time when those imagined errours first began and who were the first authours of the same but as it were supposing that to be impossible or els aduerticeing the ill successe which his fellow sectaries haue had in prosectuing their waye fell vpon a quite contrary course indeauouring to shewe a distinction and difference betwixt the heresies of the Arians Pelagians and Donatists and the errours which he supposeth to be in the Roman Church graunting that those heresies being such as did saith he indaunger the foundation and openly disturbed the Church might easely be discouered adding that their first authours de facto were obserued and the times knowne place pointed at But the chāge of the Romanists doctrine saith he was a secret Apostasie scarcely to be knowne or discouered condemning also that for an impertinent demaunde which the Catholikes vsually require of the reformers to wit that they shewe the first time and produce the first authours of the supposed Romish errours by this shewing himselfe very desirous to rid his handes of so hard a taske as he hath vndertaken as doth plainely appeare by those examples and similitudes which he vseth for that purpose tho' not very well applied And now this being the sense of the first parte of this section let vs briefely examine how soundly he proueth his intent Matth. 13.24 In the parable of the sower saith he Christ himselfe giues a full answer to those impertinent dedemaunds he telleth vs that after the good seede was sowen the enemy sowed tares when men were a sleepe Thus he answereth to the impertinent question of the Romaniste as he tearmeth it But good Sir Humfrey if the question be impertinent why doe you answer to it why doe not you rather passe it with silence then spend your breath about it but it seemes you will needes answer yea and father your answer vpon our Sauiour as if Christ himselfe had answered in the words cited to the same question which you say the Romanists demaund of you Fy what application of Scripture is this are you a master in Israell and yet ignorant that our Sauiour vsed that Parable to another purpose did not our Sauiour meane by the enemy the Deuill by the tares vices and by the field the soule of man is not this a common exposition of interpreters or if you will needes haue it vnderstood of errours in doctrine and of the sower of them in the field of the Church of which we know there are good store in your congregation yet can the parable of our Sauiour auayle your purpose nothing at all
text of the sixt of S. Iohn did according to the interpretation of S. Augustin but onely make question of the reall preseÌ„ce or possibility of Christs giuing his bodie to be eateÌ„ not otherwise theÌ„ in that grosse manner which they then conceiued in their mindes whereas yet the knight and the rest of his congregation directly absolutely affirme that Christs body and blood are as farre from being really contained in the Sacrament as heuen is from the altar or Communion table And thus it appeares that by indeauouring to make vs Capharnaites Sir Humfrey showes greater grossenesse of coÌ„ceipte them the grosse Capharnaites did by denying the reall presence vpon the same or like carnall imagination for for which he and his mates renounce it From this Sir Humfrey passes to another parte of his Pedegree wher he putteth in the Popes supremacie as if it were deriued fundamentally from the Gentils and to this purpose he applies the wordes of our Sauiour Lucae 22.25 so ridiculously that it makes me thinke he is will read in the booke of Quodlibets or quaeris he makes vse of Scripture so ingeniously The wordes of our Sauiour are these The King of the Gentils exercise Lordship ouer them and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactours Out of which place Sir Humfrey will needes inferre and prooue that the Gentiles haue giuen the Pope his supremacie and consequently that they are the benefactours and founders of the Roman faith in that particular Which passage of the Scripture how falsely and impertinently it is applied and how contrary to the true sense those words of our Sauiour are vsed and abused by the knight I will not spend time in examination of it but leaue to the iudicious reader to censure of it as he pleaseth onely I cannot omitte to take notice how he concludeth this his idle discourse with another place of Scripture out of the 20. of S. Math. where our Sauiour saith to his disciples whosoeuer will be greate amonght you let him be your minister whosoeuer will be chiefe among you let him be your seruant by which words it is most appareÌ„t agreed vpon by all interpreters except the nouellists that our Sauiour intended nothing els but to giue his disciples a lession of humility not so that they ought not in any case to haue superiority and dominion in that nature one ouer an other which were to destroy the Hierarchy gouernment of the Church which he himselfe ordained but that those who were to haue it should not abuse it by dominiering tiraÌ„nically ouer their subiects or subordinates And yet Sir HuÌ„frey I know not by what rule of Alchimie will needs extract out of this place that his and his fellowes doctrine touching the supremacy is receaued from Christ himselfe But in trueth with all my Logike I cannot vnderstand how he inferreth any thing hence for his purpose except he will deduce ex quolibet quodlibet and make a nose of way of the holy Scripture as indeed he doth very frequently framing such a sense to the wordes as maketh for his position and thence deduceing arguments for proofe of the same And if one were disposed to make vse of Scripture in that maÌ„ner he might-aswell inferre out of this place a kinde of supremacie for the ministrie especially if we write the word minister with a greate M. as Sir HuÌ„frey doth And indeede I must confesse that your ministers are greate among you in diuerse respects For some of theÌ„ haue greate Bishoprikes others greate benefices and allmost all greare wiues and greate store of children And if the King would be pleased to suffer them theÌ„ why might they not come to obtaine the supremacie euery one is his turne by succession in that case they might doubtlesse make farre better vse of the cited places of Scripture in fauour of themselues then they doe in applying them against the Romanists And according to his false dealing in applying the Scripture so doth he falsely affirme that the Popes supremacy was first graunted by Phocas falsely applying the testimony of Vrspergensis to that same fol. 149. for Valentinian the Emperour who liued aboue 100. yeares before Phocas in his epist to Theodosius which is extant in the preambles of the Councell of Calced sayth of the Bishop of Rome to whoÌ„ all antiquity gaue the principalitie of preisthood aboue all c. And as for Vispergensis altho' the authoritie of his booke may iustely be suspected as hauing ben published by the reformers or rather deformers of Basill yet doth he not say as Sir Humfrey affirmes that Phocas first granted the supremacie to the Bishop of Constantinople but rather the quite contrarie for thus he sayth Post Gregrorium Bonifacius sedit cuius rogatu Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum cum antea Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam omnium After Gregorie saith Vrspergensis Bonifacius did sit at vhose request Phocas constituted the seat of the Roman and Apostolicall Church head of all Churches for before the Church of Constantinople writ her selfe first of all Churches So that as the reader may plainely knowe Sir H. hath falsified Vrspergensis relating that to be said by him of the Church of Constantinople which he directly speakes of the Church of Rome which neuerthelesse is so little to his purpose that howsoeuer he takes it being not a gift of the Emperour as not being in his power since that nemo dat quod non habet but onely a declaratiue constitution I cannot conceiue why our aduersarie should haue corrupted this authour except it were to exercise his haÌ„d Especially supposing it is a thing vnpossible to appreheÌ„d how either Phocas or anie other maÌ„ or Angell could giue the Pope of Rome his supremacie which is that in this passage he intendeth to proue by coÌ„ferring the same according to our aduersaries relation vpon the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople And so I leaue this for one of S. HuÌ„freyes vnintelligible mysteries of his reformed faith For worship of Images S. HuÌ„frey deduceth the Pedegree of the Romanists froÌ„ the Basilidians and Carpocrationes But his deduction is false for it he falsely citeth S. Ireneus who saith indeede those fellowes were heretikes for worshipping of images but in another kinde farre differeÌ„t from the honour which the Romanists vse towards pictures Vtuntur auteÌ„ imaginibus incantarionibus reliqua vniuersa pererga Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 23. And he expressely condeÌ„neth Carpocrates as plainely appeareth by his wordes Imagines depictas quasdam de reliqua materia habent fabricaâ—as dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo in teÌ„porequo fuit Iesus cum hominibus has coronant ponunt eas cum imaginibus muÌ„di PhilosophoruÌ„ videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae Platonis Aristotelis reliquem reliquoruÌ„ obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt Iren. eod l. cap. 24. because he put the
Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers and because also he put a croune vpon it and worshipped it in an Ethnicall manner and not according to the custome of Christians but as S. Epihanius heres 27. explicateth those heretikes Gentilium ministeria perficiebant they sacrified vnto all those images to wit of Pithagoras Aristotle together with Christs image after the manner of the Gentiles and so this parte of the Pedegree containes an errour in in heraldry and proueth no true descent In the next passage which is aboute the CommunioÌ„ in both kinds Pope Leo tells vs saith the Knight that the Manicheis a sorte of heretikes in his time vsed the Sacrament in one kinde videlicet in bread onely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam Videlicet Manichei nostris audeaÌ„t inesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt tutius lateaÌ„t Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae omnino haurire declinant Leo ser 4. in quad It is true S. Leo saith so but he doth not condemne them for heretikes for that reason but be cause they abstained froÌ„ wine as from an vncleane creature and because they did not beleeue that Christ had bloud in in his body and so that which Pope Leo did when he gaue commaunde that those should be diligeÌ„tly obserued who vsually receiued but in one kind was done purposely for discouerie of the Manicheis who crastily to conceile their heresie touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholikes dissemblingly the Custome of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kinde and in both as now the Grecians practise and therefore that holy Pope did discretely commaunde those should be diligently obserued who in all occasions did vse to receiue vnder the forme of bread onely houlding that for an euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t of their aborring of the bloud of Christ By which it is euident that euen that same time the communioÌ„ was lawfully vsed by some in one kinde otherwise S. Leo needed not to haue vsed any great diligence for the dicouerie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had bene obledged to coÌ„municate in both the Manicheis who frequented the Communion would haue beene discouered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell toutouching a proofe of his taken from the example of the Nazarites as if he had deriued wholy or chiefly the communion of one species or kinde from the practise of their communion whereas he doth not so but hauing by other arguments of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons sufficieÌ„tly established the doctrine of the Church in that particular he bringeth that of the Nazarites onely as a confirmation of the same Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those wordes of S. Luke drinke you all of this whereby he would proue that the communion in both kindes came from Christ and so it did indeede but not by precept giuen to all in generall but onelie to those then present and to those whome they represented as to be their successours that is the Apostles and all Priests after them but not to anie Puritan or Puritannicall minister as not hauing from them anie true succession After these passages Sir Humfrey proceeds to inuocation of Saints and Aungels the founders of which he affirmeth to haue bene the heretikes called Angelici and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretikes not for the inuocation of Angells but either for that they held them to haue bene creatours of the world or in regard they vsed to boast of their owne Angelicall manner of life or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels Erant in Angelorum cultum inclinati quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur Aug. haeres 29. that they did vse to worship them with latria or diuine honour all which kinde of adoration the Romanists with the same Saint Augustin giue to one onelie God And so the knight doth peruert the trueth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. vpon the Genes explicating that passage of Apocalips 19. in which the Angell prohibited S. Iohn to adore him saith neither let it moue the that in a certaine place of scripture the Angell doth prohibite a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God for the Angell did so appeere that he might haue adored him for God and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin teacheth that the Angelici were heretikes because they were inclined to adore Angels he meanes because they adored them with diuine honour and not because they gaue that due inferiour worship vnto them which the Romanists vse For workes of merit and supererogation hee produceth for authours the heretikes named Cathari and Puritans but the heresies of these sectaries were farre different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points Nay they were neuer defenders of either merit or workes of supererogation that euer I read but that for which they were condemned by the Catholike Church was chiefelie for their defence of the errours of Nouatus and particularelie for denying remission of sinnes and the authoririe of the keyes in the Church and for that they affirmed their owne pretended puritie to be aboue the doctrine of the Apostles as not conteyned in it but farre exceeding it and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones Cathari qui seipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant Secundas nuptias non admittunt paenitentiam denegant NouatuÌ„ sectantes haereticum vnde etiam nouatiani appellantur S. Aug. haeres 38. And S. Isidor in the verie place cited by Sir Humfrey saith of them That they named them selfes Cathari for their puritie for glorying saith hee in their merits they denie pennance c. And so it appeares by this that the knight belyes Saint Isidor in two respects Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres Christian as if he did testifie that these heretikes were the first authours of doctrine of merit and workes of supererogation Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other Nor yet makes anie mention in that place of workes of superogation And so according to this lette our Puritans of England and Sir Humfrey him selfe as none of the least of them examen their consciences well and doubtles they will finde themselues to haue farre more affinitie with the foresaid fellowes then the Romanists who both graâ—nt remission of sinnes by vertue of the Ecclesiasticall keyes and allso denie and renounce all such puritie of Spirit as the Puritans pretended He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to haue bene the heresie of the Collyridians Quaedam mulieres currum quendam siue sellam quadratam
quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant To which might be added the Councels of Lateran sub Inno. 3. cap. firmiter the florent decreto de Purgatorio and the late Councell of Trent Which all teach the same doctrine of merits as our aduersaries cannot denie to which also might be ioyned all those are testimonies of aūcient Fathers who teach that faith onely doth not iustifie nor is sufficient to saluation by all which its manifestly conuinced that the doctrine of iustificatiō could not be openly protested against both before and after the Conquest by the Preists and professours of England except Sir Humfrey will persuade vs that the faith of England in those times was different from the faith of all the world beside and euen of those who directly sent preachers for the conuersion of it from gentilisme and superstition all which being wholely incredible so by necessary consequence is the whole discourse grounded thereupon Secondly I answer that its manifest out of the words cited by the knight out of the booke of the forme of administration of Sacraments vsed in those times supposing the booke is authenticall which neuerthelesse may be suspected as being being onely produced by Cassander a suspected authour there is not any word sentence or sillable which excludes from saluation those merits which the Roman Church defendeth but onely such merits as either exclude pressely exclude the merits of the passion of Christ and therefore the question which according to the order of that directory the Priest maketh to the sick person runneth in this tennour Doest thou belieue to come to glorie not by thine owne merits but by the virtue and merits of the Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ which interrogation as you see manifestly containeth an opposition betwene the merits of the infirme man and those of Christ and for that cause he calleth them his owne as being wholy wrought by his owne naturall power without the concourse of the merits of our Sauiour consequently in that sense of no force or vertue for the obtaining of saluation That which is yet more manifest by the like question insuing made also by the Preist to the same person in this manner Doest thou belieue that our Sauiour Iesus Christ did die for our saluation And that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his passion where you see the opposition still runneth and especially heare more clearely betwixt mans owne merits or other meanes which proceed not frō Christs Passion but from some other cause not including or depending vpon them as the principall agent of all meritorious operations And verily I am persuaded that the reason why in those daies in those occasions the formes and speach where somewhat different in the matter of merit from the formes vsed in our times is no thing els but the differences of errours reigning in the worlde in those times and those that are now at this present defended by the nouellists For the Pelagian heresie which did attribute ouer much virtue to the merits of man hauing once beene and perhaps some requikes of it yet remaining verie rife in Englād whē the foresaid directory was vsed if any such there were or at the least not lōge before it was necessary that in all occasions humane merits should be as much extenuated as could possible be without preiudice of faith in that point But contrarilie in these our daies since the publication of the errours of Luther and other sectaries in this matters it was conuenient if not necessary to extoll the same merits as much as could be without preiudice to the merits of Christ Now touching that which is added in the second parte of the knigts assertion videlicet that the Preists of former times preached saluation through Christ alone it is most plainely equiuocall and in one sense it is true and conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church in all ages but in another sense it is false and disagreable to the same it is true that Christ alone is the authour of saluation and that no other then he can saue vs according to that of the Apostle Sainct Peter Act. 4. non est in alio aliquo salus Nec enim aliud nomen est sub Caelo datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos saluos fieri Neither is there any other name vnder heauen giuen to men wherein we must be saued and in this sense and no otherwise the Preists of England in more auncient times preached saluation by Christ alone yet notwithstanding all this it is false that those Preists preached saluation with an exclusion or deniall of the merits of man wrought by the grace of Christ and by virtue of his death and Passion neither was such doctrine euer taught either in England or any other place before the time of Luther except it were by some more aūcient heretikes Moreouer that which the knight putteth in the second parte of his foresaid assertion to wit that the Preists of those times published and administred the same Sacraments in the same faith and trueth which they meaning the reformers teach administer this day this I say is partelie equiuocall in that he saith they publike professed administred the same Sacramēts For tho' it were true that two of the Sacraments which those Preists administred videlicet Baptisme the Eucharist be the same which there formers administer at this day yet it is false that the foresaid Priests did the vse in their time either to professe or administer two onelie as may appeare by the same rituall out of which S. Hūfrey draweth this testimonie in which all the seauen Sacraments are contained and appointed to be administred if the booke be perfectly published without corruption Partelie also that same parte of the assertion is false for that it is manifest the foresaid Preists did not receiue those two which the reformers hould for Sacraments in the same faith which they doe for as much as the Priests mentioned receiued those two in the faith of fiue other Sacramēts which also they beleiue to be such as well as the rest supposing that the number of all the seuen Sacraments were then in beleefe and practice as much as now they bee as both the rituall cited if it be not corrupted and also the histories of those times can testifie of which fiue Sacraments neuerthelesse the reformers haue no such faith as they thēselues cōfesse To say nothing of the faith of those same Preists in other points of religion which as it is certaine by the relation of historiographes was farre different from the faith of the reformers and practice of their Churches and consequentlie it cannot with truth be said to be the same And as for the rest of the words which the knight citeth out of the same rituall they proue nothing against merit it selfe but onelie against confidēce in proper merits as appeares by those wordes in particular place
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
Maldonate the Iesuit affirming that he confesseth Saint Augustin in the doctrine of transubstantiation to be wholie theirs citing the foresaid Maldonat's words vpon the 6. chapter of Saint Iohn the 5. verse For the same which although they be truelie rehearsed by the knight yet haue they no such sense or meaning as he doth either ignorantlie or malitiouslie suppose nor doth he treate in them either of the reall presence or transubstantiation but onelie of the exposition of the wordes of the foresaid verse Patres vestri manducauerunt Manna mortui sunt qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum Making a question whether in them there be made by Christ a comparison betweene the seuerall persons that did eate or betwene the seuerall kindes of breades which they did eate And whereas Maldonate citeth Saint Augustine and others to follow that opinion which houlds the comparison to be betwixt the eaters he with other authours who liued since the tyme of S. Augustin reiecting that as lesse probable more neere to the exposition of the Caluinists leaueth it so and imbraceth the contrarie and in this point onelie and in this manner doth Maldonate persuade himselfe that Saint Augustin as a most greate enimie to heretiks would haue bene of another mynde if he had liued in these our daies and seene his owne exposition of the foresaid wordes come so neere the glosse of the Caluinists And this being all yet our learned knight is so curious an Alchimist that he will needes drawe out of Maldonate by arte that he confesseth S. Augustin to haue bene wholie for the reformers in the doctrine of transubstantiation and also that which is further fetched that the Romanists haue neither antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine But alas his worke hath succeeded so vnfortunatelie that insteede of gould he hath extracted drosse I meane that in lieu of one single trueth he hath vttered a double lye falsifying most shamefullie Saint Augustine and maldonate both at once and with in the space of a verie few lines And the like Circulatorie and circumuenting tricks the knight also vseth in the citations of Alfonso de Castro Gregorius de Valentia and Cardinall Cusanus As if they did testifie that there is no antiquitie nor vniuersallitie in the Fathers touching the doctrine of transubstantiation where as in deede they haue no such matter as appeereth euen out of the verie same wordes which he citeth in this place Castro onelie affirming that there is seldome mention of the transubstantiation of the bread into the bodie of Christ in antiquis scriptoribus in the auncient writers not in the auncient Fathers as the knight doth falselie translate And that which is yet much falser he translates conuersion for transsubstantiation where it is also to be noted that Castro speakes there onelie of the worde transubstantiation not of the thing signified by the worde as is euident by his other wordes which presentlie fellowe saying thus Who but an heretike will dare to denie these things because they are not mentioned in auncient Fathers vnder such names So that both Castros wordes and sense are grosselie corrupted by Sir Humfrey Valentia onelie affirmeth that it is not to be marueled if one or two or some of the auncients not Fathers as our aduersarie yet somat more corruptedlie then before traduceth before the question of transubstantiotion was throulie debated in the Church haue tought lesse consideratelie and lesse weigtilie of this matter In which wordes the knight also translates palam throulie for openlie and leauing vnmentioned the other ansers which Valentia giues to the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret vpon whose occasion he speakes in that manner Haec ergo tam multa tantorum virorum testimonia satis esse debent vt ostē damus Luthero transsubtiationem non esse nouā nec trecentenariam vt ipse asserit sed multo vetustiorum nempe ab ipsis Ecclesiae primordijs proditam Castro li. 6. haer 5. f. 178. and yet further omitting the conclusion of the sentence to wit maximè cum non tractarent ex instituto questionem as also other wordes which follow to the same purpose Cusanus lastlie saith no more but that certaine of the auncient diuines if we may giue credit to the knight not heere citing his wordes are found to be of this minde that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantiated in nature but still remayneth and is clothed with another substāce more noble then it selfe In which wordes as you see whatsoeuer those innominated men and as it seemes vnknowne to Cusanus himselfe whatsoeuer I say they did hould touching the trueth of transubstantiation yet certaine it is that they were not Caluinists in the point of the reall presence as plainelie appeereth by that noble substance which they held to clothe the bread after consecration which doubtlesse could be nothing els but the most pretious and noble bodie of Christ which the reformers denie to be present in the Sacrament This therefore is all that the cited authours affirme And to omitte that none of them vseth the name of Fathers as the knight would haue them translating and transforming the wordes scriptotes veteres and antiqui Theologi or the like into Fathers or at the least citing the foresaid authours as if they spake planiely of the auncient fathers which neuerthelesse their wordes doe not showe I say to say nothing of this which though it is a trick to deceaue the reader yet it is so poore a one as it cannot much aduantage his cause And to admitte that by those formes of speech the foresaid moderne authours meane the auncient Fathers yet doth not this argue want of antiquity or vniuersallity of the Fathers in that pointe in regard it is not required to the argument of antiquitie that all auncient Fathers in all ages none excepted agree in the pointe for which that kinde of argument is vsed especiallie before the matter be sufficientlie declared determined by the Church in case of doubt or opposition of heretikes or otherwise but onely it is required and sufficient that the most parte of them doe consent therein the rest not obstinatelie contradicting the same or carrying themselues at least indifferent according to the aduise of Vincent lyr Contra prophanas haeres nouit saying that si in ipsa vetusttate discrepantes sentētias reperiamus sequamur sententiam plurium illustriorum Doctorum That is if in antiquitie it selfe we finde different opinions let vs followe the opinion of the more famous Doctours And this is therefore true because that if such methaphisicall antiquitie vniuersality were necessarie for all points of faith noe Church in the world could truely be said to haue antiquitie and vniuersalitie in all points of doctrine or to haue beene alwaies Catholikes it being a thing manifest that not any Church either is nor was nor euer will be so auncient and vniuersall as that ail and euery one of the auncient
Fathers agree euer actually with her in euery point as it is most cleare in the auncient Father Sainct Cyprian and yet more cleere in Tertullian and origen who by reason of some points of doctrine which either were not in their time sufficiently and expresselie determined by the Church or of which they had not occasion to treate may seeme in some sorte to dissent from the present Church euen in such doctrine as now is knowne and beleeued for matter of faith euen by the nouelists themselues as appeares in the point of rebaptization defended by S. Cyprian his adherēts in those times Which if it were not so its euident that the reformers were yet in farre worse case then either the Romanists should be vpon that supposition or then now they are if in worse they can be imagined to be whoe neither haue nor euer can haue any kinde of vniuersalitie or ātiquity of Fathers either metaphisicall or morall on their side And now this being all in substance are rather more then those three cited authours affirme it hence appeereth how smale reason Sir Hum. had to cite them in his fauour especiallie considering that one of them that is Alfonsus a Castro doth onely say that there is seldome mention made of transubstantiation in the Fathers not denying as it is manifest their agreement in that point but rather insinuating their consent therein tho' not so frequentlie expressed Furthermore the knigth addeth for the conclusion of this pointe that many writers and schoole men in their owne Church are so farre from graūt of antiquity vniuersalitie to this doctrine that they professe the tenet of transubstantiation was latelie receaued in the Church for a point of faith And for this he citeth Scotus as affirming that before the councell of Lateran transubstantiation was not beleeued as a point of faith and that the doctrine of it is not verie auncient in the Church Thus Sir Humfrey Tho which I answer that all tho' Bellarmin affirmes that Scotus sayde transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the councell of Lateran yet I finde he speakes not so absolutely but at the most he saith it was not solēnly declared as an article of faith before that Coūcell not denying but that it minght be also declared in other particular coūcels as in deed it was declared by the Roman coūcell vnder Nicolas the secōd aboue a hundreth fifty yeeres before and more expressely in another Roman councell vnder Gregorie the seuenth yea and maintained in the Church time out of minde Neuerthelesse by way of argument I am content to graūt to the aduersaries that which Bellarmin affirmes of Scotus Et tunc ad tertium vbi stat vis dicendum quod Ecclesia declarauit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo simbolo edito sub In. 3. in Consilio Later vbi ponitur veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quam habeantur in simboloo rum vel Atha vel Nyceni breuiter quicquid ibi dicitur esse credēdum tenendum est esse de Substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationē solemnem factam ab Ecclesia Paulo post Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectū à Deo traditum Ecclesia declarauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 in resp ad arg yet not withstanding this liberall graunt I doe affirme with all that our Church wanteth neither antiquitie nor vniuersality either in this or any other point of her doctrine and the reason is because allthough some points of her faith were not in all ages and times knowen expresselie for articles of faith yet were they in themselues such indeede and for such beleeued with an implicite faith at the least that is with such a faith as all conteined in the worde of God is belieued by all true Catholikes as an infalible trueth altho' no one particular were knowne vnto them For as it is most certaine that euery faithfull Christian which cannot reade beleeueth many things conteined in scrpture with be knoweth not in regard that altho' he is ignorant of them in particular yet in that he belieueth all that they include he allso belieueth truely euen those particular trueths which he knoweth not so allso it is certaine that euery faithfull Christian beleeuing vniuersally all that which the word of God conteines hath an vniuersall faith of whatsoeuer points of doctrine either was is or shall be declared for matters of faith by the most vniuersall Church in any difference of time and consequently he hath as ancient and vniuersall a faith of those particular points so declared as he hath of those which euen both in the Apostles time in all succeding ages were expressely knowne for articles of faith to all the Christian world And let this suffice to declare that noe point of doctrine definde by the most vniuersall Church as matter of faith conteined in the worde of God can truely be tearmed new but hath as much antiquity and vniuersality as the greatest mysterie of the Christiā faith also that if any noueltie it hath it is onely in the declaration of it quoad nos that is in respect of that new or expresse knowledge which we receiue of it by the proposition of the holy Church Which infalible manner of arriuing to a new knowledge of matters of faith because the sectaries neither haue it nor admitte it it necessarily followes that whatsoeuer doctrine they discouer in these later times must of necessity want both the foresaid properties of antiquitie and vniuersality as we haue declared in regarde they can not show as much as an implicite perpetuallie succeeding faith in the articles they haue newly broched Sir Hūfrey further more citeth allso Hostiensis and Gaufridus out of Durand in 4. d. 10. q. 1. n. 23. whoe as he affirmeth saith there were others in those daies whoe taught that the substance of bread remaines and that their opinion was not to be reiected so the knight relateth But how false and corrupted this relation is I know out of Durand himselfe for that I finde in his 10. d. of the 4. of sent q. 1. n. 15. that this passage cited by him is neither Durandes owne doctrine nor yet theirs whome he cites aboute it but onely related by them and taken out of them by Durand to frame his obiection in the begining of his question as he vseth to doe which he afterwardes solues in plaine termes saying in his 25. number Quod ante inducitur de Glossatoribus Gaufrido Hostiense super decreta dicendum quod licet recitent tres opiniones nullam tamen approbant vt veram nisi illam quod corpus Christi sit in altari per transsubstantiationem panis vim si expresse non dicunt aliquam aliam erroneam non propter hoc non est erronea non
enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius And thus the busines being well examined I say no more but that I ame sorie the worthy knight should be so vnfortunate as to stumble vpon the obiection in lue of the doctrine of the author himselfe How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion that I doe not much admire the case The same Durand is alsoe abused by the knight in regarde he produces him to proue that the Roman diuines are diuided in their opinions touching transsubstantiation which neuerthelesse I haue showed by his owne words how plainelie he maintaines it And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirme of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is hereticall touching the maine point of transsubstantiation but onely because by a singular opiniō he houldes that onely the forme of bread and wine and not the matter is conuerted in to the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which altho' it be false yet doth not the author therfore make anie doubt of transsubstantiation it selfe and so this is an other of Sir Hūfreyes trickes by which he cousens his reader and iniureth both these diuines at once But put the case Durand were truely cyted yet I say as I said before that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquitie or vniuersalitie either of the doctrine of transsubstantiation or any other point of faith And if the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humfrey will haue it it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their cappes at it for any such they should euer be able to finde in their reformed congregations it being now euident out of the examen and censure of the former sections that to speake within compasse they haue not I doe not say the tenth parte in number of the auncient Fathers for the proose of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of their whole Creede which the Romanists haue for theirs but not so much as one onely authour before Luther which truely cited and vnderstood doth defend their doctrine in all and euery particular pointe And according to this I answer also to the testimonie of B. Tunstall whom the kinght citeth as houlding the point of transubstantiation to haue bene a matter of indifferencie and not an article of faith within lesse then fiue hundreth yeeres To which I replye first that Sir Humfrey dealeth heere according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie first because he produceth this authours testimonie as if he had bene of opinion that perhaps it had bene better to haue left the doctrine of Transubstantiation vndetermined and free for euery one to vse his owne coniecture as in his Phansie it was before the Councell of Lateran which is most false for that the Bishop doth onely relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not his resolution being in that pointe farre differēt as his booke testifieth in that same place Secondly he dealeth insincerely in that he taketh hould of that onely which maketh for his purpose in some sort but leaueth out not onely that which maketh expressely against him and for the reall presence quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Ecclesiae fides which was the faith of the Church from the beginning but also he leaueth out the very resolution it selfe of the authour in this same pointe of transubstantiation where after the wordes by the knight cited he saith expressely he houldeth it iust for that the Church is a pillar of trueth that her iudgment is to be obserued as throughly firme Adding further that those who contend that that manner of transubstantiation ought to be reiected meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth because the worde is not found in scripture nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt Quasi vero saith hee Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset cuius omnipotentiae spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione videntur By which plaine wordes of this learned Bishop the reader may plainely see how deceiptfullie he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight Secondly I answer that how indifferent soeuer the doctrine of transubstantiation might seeme to our aduersarie to haue beene before the Councell of Latran neuertelesse both this authour and all others truely Catholikes both since and before that councell haold it not for a matter indifferent but for a certaine trueth and verity as appeareth planely by that which hath beene said allready in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which haue in this paragraffe beene produced for the contrary Lastly I answer that there was neuer such indifferēcy in the Romā Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatiō but that so manie authours in all ages folowed the affirmatiue that the reformed flock shall neuer be able to show anie for the negatiue no not one classicall authour He makes vse also of the testimonies of the other Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct Theol. Scholast cap. 11. alib who seeme to say that Christ did not consecrate with those wordes this is my bodie but by his benediction But to these authours I say first that whatsoeuer they held in this particular they all agree in that point which is here in controuersie betwixt Sir Humfrey and the Romanists that is they all accorde and teach the reall presence and transubstantiation and so they are all impertinentlie alledged Secondlie I say that these authours dispute in the places cited onelie by what wordes or action Christ himselfe did consecrate and not of the wordes of Consecration by which the Preists vse to consecrate And altho' they propose a question of this also yet they agree in that the Preists doe consecrate by no other wordes but those This is my bodie That which in durand at the least is most plainelie expressed when in his page 166. he saith Cum ad prolationem verborum istorum hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat d. 11. credibile iudicatur quod Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit By which wordes it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate wordes by which Preists doe consecrate nor yet was of opinion that Christ himselfe did vse anie other how be it he relates an opiniō of some others which thinke that Christ did not consecrate with those same wordes but he saith in the opinion rather of others then himselfe that virtute diuina nobis occulta confecit that he did it by diuine virtue or power himselfe and afterwardes expressed the forme sub
qua posteri benedicunt by which the succeeding Preists doe blesse or consecrate Now Sir Humfrey in his citation of this authour lefe out the latter parte of his text which doth plainelie declaire his minde to wit the wordes scilicet hoc est corpus meum which durand includes in the benediction or cōsecration of Christ chimericallie ioyning to some of the authours former wordes others which belonge to another opinion related by durand which houldes that Christ repeated the wordes twise first to giue them power and vertue of confection or consecration and afterwardes to teach the Apostles the forme of consecration by which the reader may easily perceiue that the knight insteed of making durand his owne he both lost him his owne reputation by either most ignorant or malitious peruerting of that Catholike authours wordes and sense The like to which proceeding he vseth also in the testimonie of Odo whome he cites to proue that Christs bodie is made in the Sacrament by his benediction and not by the wordes this is my bodie For he neither sincerelie relates nor trulie construes them And first whereas that authour by may of exposition of that worde benedixit saith benedixit corpus suum fecit meaning that Christ blessed the bread that is to say made it is bodie Sir Humfrey doth English the wordes both with a false interpretation of them and a false separation so Math. 26. and then made that his bodie adding the worde then of his owne stampe Secondlie he makes a false construction of Odos wordes in that whereas Odo vnderstands by benediction consecration as diuers other diuines doe and as it manifestlie appeares by his owne wordes vttered presentlie after to wit those which Sir Humfrey cytes saying virtute sermonis Christi factum est corpus sanguis Christi that is by virtue of Christs speech the bodie bloud of Christ are made the ignorant knight imagined that because he affirmed before that Christ by benediction made his bodie therefore he made it without those wordes this is my bodie which neuerthelesse are the verie wordes of benediction or consecration which Christ himselfe vsed True it is Odo speakes some thing intricatelie and obscurelie by reason of his breuitie yet those plaine wordes which followe in the same place and matter videlicet virtute sermonis Christi fiunt corpus sanguis Christi doe sufficientlie explaine the authours mynde and serue for a cleare exposition of the rest as the iudicious reader of his whole text will easilie perceiue Concerning the citation of Christopher De capite fontium I suspect there is some legerdemaine vsed in it because it seemes not to me a thing credible that anie man of learning and iudgement as he is held to be should be so farre out of temper as peremptorilic to conclude for an infallible truth to which scriptures Councels and all antiquitite yeald an vndeniable testimonie and consent that the wordes this is my bodie are not the wordes of consecration how be it the might say with the opinion of some others that those are not the wordes by which Christ himselfe consecrated which point as it is not yet declared by the Church as a matter of faith so neither is it pertinent to the matter we here treat if so it were as being no denyall of transubstantiation which onelie is here in question and not the wordes of consecration and consequentlie if that authour whome I could not haue whereby to examen the truth if I say he speakes in that sense onelie then his testimonie was cyted in vaine As also I may not rashelie auouch that especiallie if he meanes in the other sense and as according to their rehearsall of our aduersarie the wordes doe sounde That surelie he had tasted of a wrong fountaine when he spoake in such an exorbitant manner if so he euer spoake I haue exactelie examined Card. Aliaco and finde he speakes in those wordes cyted by Sir Hūfrey onely of the possibility of the coexistēce or presence of the substance of the bread the bodie of Christ vnder the same accidēts which possibilitie he affirmes neither to repugne to reason nor to the bible no more then that two quantities or qualities may possiblie stande together vnder one matter videlicet de potentia absoluta that is by the absolute power of God which is true in regarde that no text of scripture can be found to such contrarie possibility nor implicatiō of contradictiō in reason But all this how true soeuer it is yet is it out of the purpose and state of our question which is not about the possibilitie but aboute the fact of transsubstantiation in which point the resolution of this authour is plainelie for vs saying that altho' it doth not euidentlie followe of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth absolutelie cease to be nor yet as it seemes to me of the determination of the Church neuerthelesse because saith he it doth more fauore the determination of the Church and the common opinion of the holie Fathers and Doctours therefore I hould it And this same is that which the Councell of Trēt declares to which doctrine if Sir Hūfrey would consent as farre as Aliaco this disputation were at an end for that here is nothingels required either of him or any other of his profession but that they obey the authoritie of the Church in her definition Ses 15 c. 4 Secundum hanc viam dico quod panis transsubstātiatur in corpus Christi ad sensum expositum in descriptione transubstantiationis Alic in 4. q. 6. art 2. In his 111. page the knight proceedes most sophisticallie in this same matter where vpon a false if or conditionallie false supposition that neither according to the doctrine of S. Thomas the Roman Cathechisme and the Masse-Preists as he pleaseth to terme them the consecrated bread is transubstantiated by Christs benediction before those wordes this is my bodie be vttered nor by the same wordes vttered after benediction as saith he the Archbishop of Cefarea and others doe affirme he presentlie thence inferres that absolutelie there are no wordes at all in the scripture to proue transubstantiation for an article of faith which collection of his neuerthelesse is no other then to deduce for conclusion of his discourse an absolute proposition from a conditionall and this also grounded vpon a meere equiuocation for admit it is true that the foresaid authours doe not agree whether determinately transubstantiation be made by the benediction or by the wordes of consecration yet they all accorde most constantlie and conformablie in this that by one of the two to wit either by benediction or consecration or at the least by both the one and the other the transubstantiation is vndoubtedlie effected and consequentlie they agree vnanimouslie against the position of Sir Humfrey affirming that there be no words of scripture to proue the same And the trueth is that Sir Humfreys captious ratiocinatiō proues no more
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
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
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
properlie so called and to be beleeued of all for an article of faith as instituted by Christ The number of which authours being not onelie verie greate in itselfe but also farre greater and of farre more learned men then all those who in the reformed Churches hould the contrarie as I persuade my selfe Sir Humfrey cannot denie it is most euidēt that to saie nothing of those auncient writers which by their proofes of euerie particular Sacrament by Scriptures and Fathes doe plainelie wittnesse the same trueth he had no reason at all for this parte of his greate demaunded And now touching the rest of it I answer first that as it is certaine the reformers themselues if we should demaunde the like of them concerning the number of those Sacramēts which they defēd for truely properly such to be belieued as an article of faith and as instituted by Christ cannot prooue either by scripture or any one authour I doe not say for about a Thousand yeeres as they doe but for a Thousand and foure hundreth yeeres after Christ that they are precisely twoe and no more nor lesse so consequentie they ought not to require of vs that which they themselues are not able to performe in their owne cause and case Neuerthelesse that our aduersarie may plainely see we are not behinde with him but rather farre before him and the rest of his brothers in this particular I answer farther that all those Fathers who by expresse places of scripture proue euerie one of those Sacraments in particular and no other which the Roman Church houldeth for truely properlie such doe thereby also shew at the least tacitly that those and no more nor lesse are beleeued for such by faith For testimonie of which trueth because it would be too tedious in answere of one argument to produce so many of the Fathers as might be alledged I will onely alledge Cal. Instit S. Augustine who beinge euen according to our aduersaries oppinion of him a faithfull witnesse of antiquitie his testimonie may iustly serue for all the rest and because of the Sacramēts of Baptisme and Eucharist there is no controuersie I will onely produce those testimonies which conuince the other fiue Wherefore that confirmation is truely and properlie a Sacrament S. Augustine affirmeth lib. 2. contra lit Pet. cap. 104. where he saith thus The Sacrament of Chrisme in the nature of visible signes Sacrosanctum est is a sacred and holy Sacrament as Baptisme and he hath the like of order lib. 2. cont Epist Parm. cap. 13. sayinh They are both Sacraments and both by a certaine consecration are giuen to man that when he is baptzed this when he is ordered and in the same place he also saith that both of them be Sacraments which no man doubteth Of Pennance he saith lib. 1. de adult coniug cap. 26. 28. eadem est causa Baptismi reconciliations fine quibus Sacramentis homines credunt se mori non debere The same cause or reason is of Baptisme and Reconciliation with out which Sacraments men beleeue they ought not to dye Matrimonie he compareth with Baptisme lib. 1. de nuptijs concup cap. 10. where he saith that the matter of this Sacrament is that man and woman ioyned in mariage may inseperably perseuer together as long as they liue And the like saying he hath of the perpetuall effect of this Sacrament comparing it with the perpetuall effect of Baptisme And in the 14. chapter of his booke de bono coniugali he compareth matrimonie with the Sacrament of Order which order as we haue cited before he compared with Baptisme in another place Finally of Extreame vnction he maketh mention lib. 2. de visit infir cap. 4. and in his 215. Sermon of the saints Where although he doth not in expresse tearmes affirme extreame vnction to to be one of the Sacraments yet he expressely affirmeth there and serm de temp 115. that the ceremonie of vnction which S. Iames mentioneth and the promisse belong vnto the faithfull and are to be practized by the Priests as the Apostle commaundes all which proues plainily that S. Augustin held it for a Sacrament as well as the other six and altho' some doubt may be made whether the booke de visit infir be truelie S. Augustines worke yet certaine it is that the authour of it is both good and auncient And thus much out of S. Augustine for the proofe of euerie one of the seuen Sacraments in particular besides that which he speaketh in generall of them and of the benefit which the Church hath receaued from God by the institution of them in his first sermon vpon the 108. psalme where he saith thus What a greate gift is the office of the administration of the Sacraments in Baptisme Eucharist and in the rest of the holy Sacraments so that we see that S. Augustin stanneth plainely against the doctrine of Sir Humfrey And doth fully answer his question touching the number of the Sacraments defended by the Roman Church And supposing he makes soe speciall mention of these seuen as he doth more then of any other externall signe or ceremonie of the Church to some of which neuertheles he giueth also the name of Sacrament and supposing also he cōpareth or all most of them with those two which the reformers themselues hould for proper and true Sacraments in their effects and sanctitie as also amplifying the benefit which God hath conferred to the Church by the institution of them that which he doth not with the rest of the holie signes and ceremonies which the same Church also vseth supposing all these circumstances I saie it is more then certaine that he speaketh of them as of true and proper Sacramants which for such haue beene recreaued and belieued in the vniuersall Church euen euer since the time of Christ the institutour of them And so let this suffice for an answere of that vast demande of our Thrasoniā knight and to demōstrate that notwithstanding all his circumspection his owne conditionall curse is turned into an absolute and so is fallen vpon him with all it weight and forces as a iust punishment of the temeritie and excesse of that boldnes which he committeth in protesting against a truth confirmed with such authoritie and testimonie as may satisfie the most tender conscience and settle the most wauering minde in the world And yet for confirmation of the foresaid answere we may further adde that supposing the Master of Sentences so manie yeeres past defended the seauen Sacraments with the institution of them by Christ himselfe and their necessitie and profit in the Church of God and supposing the same authour writ nothing but what he found in the auncient Fathers from the collection of whose sentences he tooke his appellation supposing I say all this which his workes doe witnesse it is most apparent in the morall iudgment of anie indifferent man that the doctrine which he deliuered concerning the foresaid number of
the Romane Church now holdeth for true and proper Sacraments doe giue diuine grace to the receiuers as it is apparent out of those places which I cited before out of Saint Augustine for the proofe of euerie seuerall Sacrament and their seuerall effects and consequentlie they held implicitelie at the least and if either necessitie or iuste occasion had required they would haue concluded expresselie the septenarie number of Sacraments and that they were instituted by Christe for such truely and properly And now for the more moderne diuines who wrote since the time of P. Lumbard of which Sir Humfrey citeth to the number of twelue or thirteene there is not one of them who holdeth onely two proper Sacraments as the reformers doe nay there is not one of them that doth not expreslie defende the septenarie number of true and proper Sacraments excepting perhaps Alexander Hales and Durand may seeme to opinate otherwise to the incircūspect reader of which two authours neuerthelesse I say first that Hales doth not denie all those seauen nor anie one of them in particular which the Romane Church defendes to be trulie and properlie Sacraments but he onely is of opinion that onelie fower of them are to be called Sacraments of the new lawe for that as he imagined the other three to wit Pennance Order and Matrimonie had their beginning before True it is Hales cannot be excused from errour in that he affirmeth Confirmation to haue binne instituted by the Councell of Melda except he meaneth onelie that there it was declared to be properlie a Sacrament as I am persuaded he doth but neuerthelesse supposing this his singular opinion yet notwithstanding it being with all certayne that he holdeth the same Sacrament to be one of the seauen no lesse then he doth Pennance which yet he held as it seemeth to some later writers to haue binne instituted by the Apostles Iuxta numerum malorum spiritualiū debet sumi numerus Sacramētorum septem sunt differentiae morborū Hal. 4. part q. 8. mem 7. act 2. notwithstanding all this I say he is impertinentlie alleaged by the knight as an impugner of the Romane doctrine in the septenarie number of Sacraments which notwithstanding his other allucinations he as expresselie maintaines as other diuines doe as his owne wordes plainelie testifie saying thus in his 4. parte and eight question According to the number of spirituall diseases the number of Sacraments is to be taken there are seauen differences of diseases What therefore can be more manithē that this authour tought the compleat number of seuen Sacraments And as for Durand certaine it is that he doth not denie Matrimonie to be a Sacrament absolutelie as the reformers doe but he at the most onely affirmeth that it is not properly and vniuocallie a Sacrament conferring grace in the same manner the other six doe which opinion of his altho' as it sounds it can not stand firme with the doctrine of the Church yet this not our question and in case it were yet is there no reason why one mans priuate tenet nay nor the priuate tenet or errour of more then one or two should preiudicate the common doctrine of the Church both before and after him nor diminish her antiquitie and vniuersalitie in anie point of doctrine especiallie where there is no obstinacie in the authour as in these there was not neyther can the aduersaries drawe anie argument of force against the same in anie case out of one onelie authour or more if more there were contrarie to the torrent of all the rest To omit that as vasques noteth the same Durand in the same place expreslie affirmeth that it is an heresie to denie that Matrimonie is a Sacrament which doubtlesse is a cōcluding argumēt that when Durād affirmed Matrimonie not to be vniuocallie or iuste as the rest be a Sacramēt he did not absolutely deny it to be one of those seuē which the church did both then hold now houldeth to betrue Sacramēts but at the most he onely denied the truth propertie of it in that strict vniuocall manner of conferring iustificāt grace as he and other diuines affirme of the rest which being so then cannot the Reformers haue anie colour to alledge this testimonie either against the absolute truth of that Sacrament or against the Septenarie number of it with the other Nay more then this hauing now exactelie examined the matter I finde that Durand besides that he expresselie defendes the total number of seuen Sacraments disputing seuerallie of the nature of euerie one of them he doth in particular affirme of Matrimonie euen in his resolution or direct anser to the question absolutelie that it is a Sacrament and puts it in the last place for one of the seuen And these are his wordes in their seuerall places noted in the margent Tenendū est absolute quod matrimonium est Sacramētum Quia hoc determinauit Eccle. in 4. d. 26. q. 3. Et ita sunt invniuerso septē Sacramenta Idem d. 2. q. 2. n. 6. To which if we adde that which Capreolus doth testifie of the same durand all doubt of his true meaning in this point will quite vanish away Coactus fuit in vltimo opere cautius loqui vt scilicet confiteretur matrimonium esse vere proprie Sacramētum sed non vniuoce cum alijs nouae legis Sacramentis c. Capreolus in 4. sent d. 26. q. 1. §. For Capreolus saith that in his last worke or edition he was constrained to speake more cautelously soe that he confessed matoimonie to be truely and properly a Sacrament but not vniuocally By which and that also which I haue said before touching Alexander Hales the learned reader may perceiue that both the one and the other are against truth and reason alledged against the septenarie number of Sacraments and against the vniuersalitie of the doctrine of the Roman Church in that point supposing they differ not from the rest of the Romanists as their owne wordes witnesse Except it be in the manner of defending that same number yet both agreeing in the substance of the Controuersie here proposed by the knight our aduersarie Quantum ad tertium durandi and absolutelie affirming that there are truelie seuen Sacraments in the Catholike Church Moreouer in the citation of the other moderne diuines Sir Humfrey vseth much fraud and cosenage and remitting the rest till afterwardes which I will examen in their due places as they are quoted by the knight I will first produce those two whose bookes I had at the first and both of whome he egregiouslie abuseth Bellarmin is corrupted by him in three seuerall places cited in this one paragraph And first he is corrupted in his Second booke of the effect of Sacraments chap 24. where the Cardinall saying onelie that the aduersaries ought not to require of the Romanists that they shewe the name of the Septenarie number of the Sacraments either out of scripture or
alowe of yet doth he not affirme that ther are no more yea in other seuerall places he mentioneth three more Pennance Order matrimonie And of them all he treates onely occasionallie not professedlie as the reader may easilie perceiue and therfore doubtlesse there is no mention of Extreme vnction among the rest of which neuerthelesse he was not ignorāt how plainelie S. Iames describes it neither would haue omitted it if occasiō had serued to treate of it Of Pennance he treates lib. 8. orig page 83. lib. 2. de offi Eccles of Order in his 2. booke de offic Eccles page 597. and 598. and of matrimonie he hath expresse wordes in the same booke page 69. Touching S. Chrysostome Ambrose Cyrill and Theophilactus it is false that they maintained onely two Sacraments and as for Chrysostome and Theophilactus vpon the 6. of S. Paule to the Hebrewes they both make mention of Confirmation S. Ambrose lib. 1. de Penit makes a kynde of comparison betwixt Baptisme and Pennance saying vnum in vtroque ministerium est c. and S. Cyrill of Ierusalem lib. 12. in so cap. 56. doth alsoe compare these two Sacraments together and both of them mention the Sacrament of Chrisme the one Catech. 3. the other lib. 3. de Sacra cap. 2. de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur cap. 7. so that none of thes Fathers which Sir Humfrey produced for the number of 2. onely Sacraments doe agree with his doctrine and yet more not one of them treates in anie one place of their workes of the precise number of Sacraments but onely soe farre as their matter and drift required Pascasius also is falselie dealt with by Sir Humfrey both in his meaning and in the translation of his wordes for the doth not saye the Sacramets of Christ are Baptisme Chrisme and the bodie and bloude of our lord as Sir Humfrey doth put in English but. Sunt autem Sacramenta Christi in Ecclesia that is but Sacraments of Christ in the Church be Baptisme Chrysme c. Meaning onelie that Baptisme Chrysme and the Eucharist are such Sacraments as he treates of makeing mention of those onely not to showe the precise number but the nature of a Sacrament in generall especiallie touching the signification and effects of the same and therfore he doth exemplifie in those onely which are most notoriouslie knowne for such and their matter and formes most obuious omitting the rest as being lesse to the purpose he ther handleth And for Sir Humfrey to affirme that Chrisme is crept in to the text of the later editions that is but an idle imagination of his owne otherwise sure he would haue produced some other more auncient edition in which the worde Chrysme is not found And certainelie he that should compare the faithfulnes and sinceritie of the Romonists in that nature and the care they haue to publish authours purely with the insinceritie of the sectaries he would presentlie iudge that copie which wantes the worde Chrisme to be razed by them that haue of late yeares abolished the vse of it in their Church rather then haue the least suspiciō in the world that the same should be added by Romanists whose doctrine and practice in that particular is so frequent and auncient Especially considering that it makes no more to our purpose of maintaining the septenarie of Sacraments against the pretended reformers whether the worde Chrysme be in Pascasius or no then if it were vndoubtedlie true that he had made no mention of it Supposing it is sufficient for vs to knowe that this author in that place neither intended to proue the number of three Sacraments nor yet to exclude the number of seuen Howbeit I doe not denie but that the worde Chrysme being in the text it suffices to conuince that the Sacraments of Christ are more then two And in deed I maruell why the sectaries especiallie those of the English Church should labore so much to exclude Cōfirmation frō the number of the Sacramēts supposing they either doe practice if or at the least ought to practise it according to their owne ordināces altho' ther is nothing prescribed by them touching the vse of Chrysme but onely or cheefelie mētion is made of the blowe which the confirmer giues to the confirmed with a certaine phrase or forme of wordes Concerning which ceremonie I haue heard that vpon a time a certaine nominall Bishop of theirs at the time of administration was so extraordinarie well pleased with one of the cōpanie of the feminine gender that in steed of the ceremoniall stroake he gaue her a kisse of kindenesse by which the yonge maide assured her selfe she receiued more grace thē if she had receiued Confirmation it selfe accordnig to their ordinarie manner And now this may be sufficient for the true meaning of Pascasius Hugo a sancto Victore is most peruerselie dealt with when out of Perkins he is produced by Sir Humfrey against the Sacrament of Pennance For I haue read him lib. 1. de Sacramentis cap. 12. where he sayes thus in expresse termes Septem sunt principalia Sacramenta quae in Ecclesia ministrantur ther be seuen principall Sacraments which are ministred in the Church And he numbers them in particular and Pennance for one And in his summa sentent tract 6. cap. 10. he saith Sacramentum Paenitentiae redeuntibus ad Deum semper est necessarium Est enim secunda tabula post naufragium quia post baptismum si quis vestem innocentiae peccando amittit per paenitentiam recuperare poterit And by this you plainelie see this Romanist is groaslie abused both by Perkins and his imitatour as if he were a denier of the septenarie number of Sacraments who soe particularlie doth acknowledge them As in like manner the same authour is abused by the knight page 128. Touching the custome of the communion of the people at euerie Masse in the Primatiue Church by omission of his ensuing wordes which are these Sed propter peccatum circumstans nunc statutum est vt communicaremus solum semel in anno That is to saie But by reason of sinne which doth compase vs aboute it is now decreed that we communicate thrice a yeare Whereas likewise neither in the former wordes of this authour cited by Sir Hūfrey ther is a iot against priuate Masse as he would haue it but onelie a relation of diuers customes of the Church in that particular point of practice as I haue declared in the paragraph of that matter Bessariō in his wordes rehearsed by Sir Hūfrey doth not denie the septenarie nūber nor doth absolutely affirme that there are onelie two Sacramēts but onelie saith that we read of two onely manifestly deliuered in the Gospell which is not contrarie to the Tridentine Councell nor yet that which the knight intendes to proue to wit that the doctrine of seuen Sacraments is no article of faith And what if Bessarion should saie that some of the seuen Sacraments are found not
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
finde the truth they would not caste their eyes so farre but onelie layed handes vpon that which came nearest in their waye I meane vpon some of the congruences onelie and yet purposelie omitting the cheefe which that pious diuine makes vse of more for explication then for proofe of the doctrine And thus these ill occupied Pedants trifle with him who had more learning and grauitie without comparison then they and their whole Congregation nor yet had they both wit to cite the place they alledged trulie but quoted the second booke for the fourth Iuste according to this manner of proceeding the knight also dealeth with S. Thomas the Councell of Trent and Bellarmin and others as if they had beene so destitute of arguments of scripture and Fathers for their proofes of the seuen Sacraments that they were glad to refuge to figures and similitudes of seuen virtues seuen capitall vices seuen planets seuen defects proceeding from Originall sinne seuen dayes of vnleauened bread the offering of seuen Rams seuen lauers of naaman seuen candlestickes seuen seales seuen bookes and the like whereas in truth these mysticall numbers are applied to the seuen Sacraments by the foresaid authours whereby to confirme and declare the matter more plainelie ouer and aboue their other most pregnant and authenticall proofes of the same as in them all and particularlie in S. Thomas and bellarmin is too plainelie to be seene in their workes to be brought in question by anie one of reading and vnderstanding S. Thomas hauing seuen seuerallie distinct questions of the seuen Sacraments a parte besides that he hath of them in generall and the like I say of Bellarmin And as for the Councell of Trent it either produceth proofes of scripture and Fathers actuallie for euerie particular Sacrament or remittes the reader to other former Councells and decrees which haue them And so wee see by this that Sir Humfrey doth but cogge and trifle for wante of solid subiect Touching the citation of Caietan vpon the 5. cap. of S. Iames it is true I finde the same which Sir Humfrey relates at the least in sense and so I cannot accuse him in this place of the ordinarie imperfection which he vseth in citing authours Neuerthelesse he might easilie haue knowne that the same Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the 65. question of the 3. parte of S. Thomas art 1. doth agree with him in the septenarie number of Sacraments and therefore in his glosse vpon the second article of that same question he numbers Extreme Vnction for one of the seuen saying In titulo intellige per ordinem praedictum ordinem quo numerata sunt Sacramenta in praecedenti articulo videlieet Baptisma Confirmatio Eucharistia Paenitentia Extrema Vnctio Ordo Matrimonium By which it is manifest that Caietan defended with his master S. Thomas Extreme Vnction to be a Sacrament and consequentlie he is no fauourer of Sir Humfrey in this point of which now we treat And the same I saye of the same Caietan alledged by the knight as saying that the reader cannot inferre out of the wordes of S. Paule Sacramentum hoc magnum est that matrimonie is a Sacrament because sainct Paule saith not Sacramentum hoc magnum est sed mysterium hoc magnum est But what soeuer out of the predominating subtiltie of his wit Caietan held of the interpretation of this place of sainct Paule in which as also in the exposition of some other scriptures he is noted and notorious to haue beene more subtil then solid yet certaine it is that he absolutelie defended Matrimonie to be one of the seuen Sacraments of the Church as both his wordes aboue cited doe manifestlie conuince and also the great pūctuality with which he is knowne to haue obserued and followed his much respected and reuerenced Patron sainct Thomas in all points of doctrine swearing in a manner euerie where in the wordes of his master so that the knight cannot haue as much as anie conlorable reason to imagin that Caietan standes for him in this matter and against the Romanists As neither he hath to conceiue the like of Canus whome he in the same manner cites as if we were a denier of matrimonie to be a Sacrament or at the least a testifier that other diuines pronounce doubtfullie of the same whereas in reallitie Canus in defence of his owne priuate opinion that matrimonie is not a Sacrament nor conferreth grace except when it is administred by a Preist doth onelie name some diuines which varie in their opinions concerning the determinate matter forme of matrimonie and touching the māner how or whē it giues grace yet both he and the rest constantlie expressely teaching that absolutelie it hath both matter and forme and giues graces in one sorte or other and numbering it among the rest of the seuen Sacraments as their writings doe testifie So that it was great preposterousnesse in Sir Humfrey to vse the testimonie of Canus against the truth of the Sacrament of Matrimonie since neither he nor those other diuines which he names viz. Lombard Scotus sainct Thom. Ricard Palud Durand Vid. Magistrum in 4. vid. S. Th. in 3 part q. Except they be detorted from their true sense and meaning can possiblie be imagined to haue beene others then professed Patrons and assertours of the whole septenarie number of Sacraments as by all or most of their owne wordes cited by me in other places may euidentlie appeare to the reader And these being all the authors which the knigth cites is this paragraffe or at the least all that deserue anser we may plainelie see that not obstanding all the arte and skill which he hath vsed to make them seeme his owne yet the. Roman faith touching the seuen Sacraments of the Churche standes still firmelie auncient vniuersall and visible which is that he intended to destroy and I maintaine Whence we may inferre for the cōclusion censure thereof that all which our aduersarie bringeth in it to proue that there is neither antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in the Fathers nor consent in the schoolemen as he speaketh sufficient to shew the seuen Sacraments to be instituted by Christ is meare Sophistrie founded vpon his owne misinterpretations falsifications and corruptions of the authours he citeth and that consequentlie his owne conditionall curse is absolutelie fallen vpon him in which we must of necessitie leaue him till such time as by humble recantation of his errours he shall desire absolution And now hence I passe to the next Paragraffe which is of the Communion vnder one kinde In which the knight by a speciall parenthesis which he makes in his 172. page peruersely persuades his reader that the foresaid manner of Communion in one kinde was decreed as it were in dispite of God and man by the Coūcell of Constance that from the time of that Coūcell the Cōmunion vnder both kindes was adiudged heresie which is not so for the Roman Church doth not teach that the communion
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
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
Councell doe consequentlie affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the edification of the Church For it is manifest out of the verie same place cited by our aduersarie himselfe that the Councell of Trent doth command that the Pastours doe frequently expoūd some parte of those things which are read in the Masse not for that it hauing decreed the contrarie could possiblie hold it better to haue the Masse in a vulgar language then otherwise but because that supposing for other reasons it was better for the Church the Masse should not be in a vulgar tongue and that besides this it includeth matter of great instruction for the faithfull people therefore the Councell prudentlie decreed not for one onelie but for both these causes that it should oftentimes by the Pastours and Preists be declared to the common people for their greater edification and better vnderstanding of the doctrine contayned in it And this is all that in substance the Councell eyther sayth or from the wordes of the decree can be trulie inferred and so that from the Romanists owne confession it can be gathered that the seruice and prayer in the vulgar tongue was better for the edification of the Church is but such a dreame as Sir Humfrey vseth to haue the night before whensoeuer he citeth the Councell of Trent in fauour of the reformed doctrine After this the knight endeuoureth to proue that the Masse ought not to be celebrated in a silent and vnknowne voyce because sayth he the Apostles were cōmanded to showe forth the Lords death till his comming and to this end he citeth Haymo vpon the 14. chapter of the firste to the Corinth and Iustinian the Emperour in Nou. Const out of Cassander also the Greg. Decet Tit. 31. de Off. Iud. Ord. cap. 14. But to this I answere that both the knights reason and the testimonies of these authours are impertinent because the command layd vpon the Apostles was not that in this misterie they should shewe forth Christs death in words but principallie indeedes and therefore our Sauiour in the institution of the Eucharist did not bid his Apostles say it in remembrance of him but doe it in remembrance of him Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Otherwise the Sectaries themselues should be conuinced to violate Christes commaundement since that those who receiue their communion say not one worde In like manner let the reader veiw and vnderstand perfectlie the sense of the the wordes cited out of other authours and he will easilie perceaue there is not one sillable in them against Latine seruice or prayer as condemning it eyther for vnlawfull in itselfe or otherwise contrarie to the commandement of God Haymo doth onelie comment vpon that passage of sainct Paul 1. Cor 14. If I am ignorant of the virtue of the voyce I shall be to him to whome I speake barbarous onelie declaring in playner words that which the Apostle speaketh breiflie and obscurelie but sayth not a worde against the office of the Church in Latin Iustinian if anie such constitution he made of which it is much doubted by reason this clause is not founde in the auncient translation neither is it expounded by Cuiacio ordaineth onelie in generall that Bishops and Preists celebrate the oblation and minister the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist non tacito modo not secretlie but with a lowde voice but he speaketh not in particular of all partes of the Masse and at the least he speaketh not of the Canon except he meanes of the wordes of consecration which the Romanists doe not denie but the Grecians haue a custome of pronouncing them loude And as for other partes of the Masse the most of them are pronounced commonlie in the Romane Church so that the auditours may heere And according to this Iustinian peraduenture might aduise the Preistes of his time to doe when neuerthelesse it is certaine the Masse was in no vulgar language The decretalls speake not of anie vulgar tongue but onelie of Greeke and Latin as the decree of Innocent the third which may be seene in the ninth chap. of the Generall Councell of Lateran doth declare Neyther doth the Roman Church so strictlie command that the publike seruice be ministred in the Latine tongue that she doth condemne eyther the Greeke or Syrian Church for vsing the Grecian or Caldaian tongue in the diuine offices or publike seruice but onelie commandeth as more couenient that they be not performed in a vulgar language Lastly Sir Humfrey citeth some eight or nine Romanists who confesse sayth he that in the first ages publike prayers were vsed for the vnderstāding of the people But to omit that he vseth no great sinceritie in the citation and translatiō of the testimonies of some of the authours he citeth in this paragraph as may appeere particularlie in the quotation of Waldensis I say not to stand here vpon this which I shall more conuenientlie examen afterwardes I answere that those authours affirme that which we doe not denie to wit that perhaps which worde Sir Humfrey deceitfullie leaues out in his translation of S. Tho. testimonie cited out of his 3. lection vpon 1. Cor. 14. In 1. Cor. 14. lect 3. the case of the primitiue Church was different from the practise of the ptesent time in this matter yet withall the same authours doe affirme that the alteration was made vpon iust causes which causes are so sufficientlie deliuered by Bellarmine and others euen those whome the knight heere citeth that I need not rehearse their reasons they being so easilie to be found as they are to those that reade their bookes And altho ' sainct Thomas aduertiseth his reader that it might haue seemed madnesse in the primitiue Church to haue performed all the Ecclesiasticall offices in the Latine tongue for that they were rude ignorāt in the rites of the Church and ceromonies yet doth he adde that now all are so well instructed that tho' it be in Latine the people vnderstands what is donne in the Church whose saying is most true at least in generall yea and in particular so farre as is necessarie for euerie person state and vocation for that throu ' the diligence of their pastours and preachers and their owne industrie they may haue sufficient instruction Howbeit that if it were necessarie for euerie one that prayes or sings to vnderstand all they say the Puritans themselues might put vp their pipes it being most certainely true that there be manie things in the psalmes which they sing so merilie and in the scriptures which they read so readilie Conscquitur ergo Canonem clare aperte legendū vt ad gratiarum actionem Sacerdotis populus respōdeat Amen Cassander ex Gerardo Lorichio p. 65. which by reason of their great obscuritie they cannot possiblie vnderstand euen in their owne mother tongue And from hence I passe to a breefe Suruey of the rest of the authors cited
psalleret Nūc alia est ratio antiquato vulgari linguae Latinae vsu quam linguā propter intermissum communē vsum ex Ecclesia diuinisque osficijs minime conueniebat exturbari inque locū eius vulgares vernaculas substitui Multa etiam dicta Patrum c. Gretzerus defens lib. 2. c. 16. and how repugnant Gretzerus is to Sir Humfreys tenet in this particular as professedly he must of necessitie be as being a professed defender of Bellarmins doctrine in matters of Controuersie But now because I haue already treated in part of this before and breifly giuen sentence already of that which Sir Humfrey produceth for the defense of his doctrine I will include the contents of this whole paragraph in the same censure and so passe along to the next which is of the worship of images where we are to examine whether the knight bringeth any sounder matter then he hath donne heere where as I should haue noted before he falsely relateth a historie of certaine shepheardes out of his false frend Cassander which shepherds he affirmeth according to his emendicated relation to haue transubstantiated bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ by pronuntiation of the words of consecration which they had learned whereas indeed the authenticall historie of that strange accident written by Sophronius saith onely that the bread and wine were suddenly burnt by fire from heauen and the shepheards struken speachlesse for a time But this howsoeuer it happened being it can serue Sir Humfrey for no greater purpose then to replenish his pages I leaue it to the reader to consider of this his proceeding as he pleaseth Presently in the entrance of the 7. Paragraph Sir Hūfrey pronoūceth a very sharpe sentence against the Coūcell of Trent for decreeing that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to the images of Christ and his Saintes condemning it for a wicked and blasphemous opinion Loe heere the sentence of condemnation which is to be iudged so much the more rash and temerarious in respect the peremptorie Iudge leaueth out the greater part of the doctrine he censureth which if he had added at large as it standeth in the Councell it would sufficiently haue iustified it selfe and because Sir Humfrey for reasons of state would not take so much paines I will doe it for him The Councell therefore in the 25. Sess page 202. decreeth in this manner The images of Christ the Virgin the Mother of God and other Saintes are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and due honour and veneration is to be giuen vnto them not that it is beleiued there is in them any diuinity or virtue for which they are to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or that confidence is to be put in them as in times past the Gentiles did who put their trust in Idols but because the honour which is exhibited vnto images is referred vnto the Prototipes which they represent so that by the images which we salute and before which we vncouer our heads and kneele we adore Christ and reuerence the Sainctes whose similitude they haue that which by the decrees of councels especially of the second Nicene Synod hath binne established against the oppugners of images thus the decree of the Councell of Trent in which we finde not one word either wicked or blasphemous nay rather euery word soundeth nothing but piety and religion towards Christ and his Sainctes whom it will haue honoured not only in themselues but also in and by their images which manner of honour as it is declared by the Councell is not onely not contrary to scriptures as Sir Humfrey falsely affirmeth but also very conformable to them both in regard the scriptures make mention of honour due vnto materiall things for the relation of representation which they haue to God or other his holie creatures Psal 95. Matth 5. as also for that we vse no other reuerence to images thē the Church doth teach vs whose authority the same scripture commendeth and commandeth vs to follow and obey more then this the Coūcel is so farre frō attributing to images anie vnlawfull manner of honour that it doth not once vse either the worde worship or adore except where it speaketh of Christ himselfe which wordes neuerthelesse if they be taken in the sense in which diuines doe commonlie take them include no offence at all as signifying an exteriour action of honour indifferent euen according to the phrase of scripture both to God and creatures and being distinguished onelie according to the diuersitie of the internall affection and submission of the minde which submission and affection in the honouring of an inanimate creature as an image is is neuer by the worshipper exhibited to the image it selfe but onelie to the thing it representeth nay nor yet the exteriour signe of adoration as genuflectiō or inclination of the bodie is giuen to the image itselfe for itselfe and to remaine in it but rather by the image which we salute or before which wee prostrate our selues the same signe of honour is transferred ioyntelie with the affection of the mynde to the thing which is adored Which doctrine is both so cleare in itselfe and so plainelie declared by the Councell expreslie teaching that the honour exhibited vnto thē is referred to the Paterne Cōc Trid. Sess 25. decret de imag that a verie child may conceiue it to be free from all superstitious worship and adoration in so much that it is but grosse ignorance malice and madnesse in our aduersaries to exclaime against the Romanists as idolaters for the honour they giue to images And I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey or anie other of his reformed companions in what place of scripture this proposition The images of Christ and his saints are to be duelie honoured is condemned for wicked blasphemous and the same I say of the auncient Fathers And if they cannot produce as much as one onelie place either out of scripture or Fathers which doth truelie serue to that purpose I meane which doth truelie condemne the foresaid proposition in that manner as I knowe neither they nor the knight can performe let him confesse that is censure of the Romanists is temerarious and false and nothing els but a renouation of an old Iewish complainte against the Christians of more auncient ages It is true I knowe the reformers vse commonlie to alledge for their denyall of honor to images both scripture and Fathers as also Sir Humfrey doth in this paragraffe and particularlie they vse to produce the wordes of that which they call the second cammaundement to wit thou shall not make to thy selfe anie grauen image But touching this I haue showed aboue In the 4. Period that according to the doctrine of S. Augustin there is no such second commaundement those wordes being onelie a parte of the first Secondlie howsoeuer the matter stands certaine it is that except the sectaries
of the false gods being neither capable nor worthie of worship as being either wicked men or plaine deuills And moreouer the honour exhibited to the picture of Christ being not giuen to the picture for the picture or by the picture itselfe I meane nor without relation to the Prototipe nor yet in the picture permanentlie but rather to the Prototipe in and by meanes of the picture or by the picture transitorilie not much vnlike to an arowe or darte which altho' it passeth by the ayre and in the ayre yet doth it not stay there but in the marke onelie whereas one the contrarie the Gentils went grosselie to worke for the honour which they gaue to the statues and figures of their Gods the same they gaue to the images themselues by themselues and for them selues attributing diuinitie or at the least diuine operations vnto them and adoring them with actions of honour proper to the true God alone as sacrifices and the like all which is so farre different not onely from the practice but also from the cogitations of anie Christian man that it can be esteemed no lesse then most grosse ignorance in the reformers to bring it in question And altho' it is true that the leight of nature onely is not sufficient to establish the honour of images which the Councell of Trent decreed as the knight doth captiously inferre out of the wordes of a moderne diuine whom he citeth neuerthelesse the leight of nature doth sufficiently teach vs the difference betweene true and idolatrous worship of images and doth also plainely dictate vnto vs that those are both ignorantly blinde who are not able to conceiue it and temerarious and rash who not being able to conceiue it condemne it as contrary to the lawe of God our as sectarie commōly doe And thus much for the answere to the testimonie of Tertullian and to shewe that antiquity is neither for the reformers nor against the Romanists in this matter as the knight doeth vanely indeuour to prooue but expressely for them in regard that as I haue shewed out of the same authour euen in those most pure and primatiue times ther was vse of the picture of Christ yea and of a grauen image which is that the reformers most directly impugne and exclaime against and that euen in the chalices where of necessitie it must needs haue beene honoured the same authour further affirming that the foresaid image was much vsed in his time being the second hundreth yeare after Christ our Sauiour when idolatrie was not yet extinguished which is an argument cōuincing that it was not a thing then first inuented but long before established nor offensiue to the most sincere and intire Christians of those prime ages as nowe it is to the Nyce nouelists of our dayes many of which are so superstitiously precise that as an honest Protestant writer affirmeth Sir Th. Ouerb Caract of a Precis they had rather see Antichrist then the picture of Christ in the Church Windoe And now let this suffice for a breefe Scantlin of the antiquitie of the reuerent vse of images to omit others as S. Augustin who in his booke of the Trinity calleth images religious signes Lib. 3. cap. Greg. l. 7. epist 53. And S. Gregory who speaketh of prostration before thē which is one of the greatest actions of honour that the Romanists vse to exhibit towarde any image So that by this the reader may plainely see the Romanists want neither antiquity nor vniuersalitie for their doctrine in this point as contrariwise the misreformers want them both for their pure negation of the same And if they demaunde scriptures of vs besides that which I alledged before we may truely answere them as a graue diuine in the seuenth Synod answered the heretikes of that time If they aske vs saith he in what place of scripture we read that the picture of Christ is to be honoured we answere that there where we read that Christ himselfe is to be honoured And if nowe the reformers demaunde of vs what reason we haue for the honour of the images of Christ and his Saincts we may answer them that we haue the same reason that they haue to honore the image of their King or his dearest fauorits For as in ciuill honour to respect or honore the Kings picture doth not diminish the honour due vnto the King himselfe but increaseth it so it passeth in the worship of the image of Christ and if the Puritans deny this there we leaue them as guiltie of treason against God and man And now here before I conclude I must of necessitie aduertice the reader of such abuses as Sir Humfrey hath committed in his citations of some of the authours he produceth in this place Wherefore in the first place I put the two councells he alledgeth as being as I suppose of greatest authoritie in our aduersaries conceipte The one is the Councell of Francford which because it is corruptedlie rehearsed by Chemintius we may iustelie disclame from it if ther were no other reason Yet Sir Humfrey knowes besides this that the Romanists hould that councell for illegitimate As for the Councell of Eliberis it is not absolutelie reiected by Romanists yet they knowe it was but Prouinciall consisting of 19. Bishops which whatsoeuer they defined in this matter which as yet is vncertaine yet could it not be anie Generall doctrine or practise for the vniuersall Church but at the most for their owne whole Countrye as the circunstances of that time and place required But of what authoritie soeuer they were neither of those two councels condemned the adoration of images as it is vnderstanded and vsed in the Roman Church for vnlawfull and much lesse for wicked and blasphemous as the knight here contendes but if they truely condemned anie worship of images it was onelie diuine not honorarie worship they condemned and so they neither of them preiudicate the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the Roman doctrine in this point and much lesse doe they establish the antiquitie or vniuersalitie of the misreformed Churches which for the most parte will not suffer anie images either painted or vnpainted to appeare in their sinagoge either vpon walles or windowes And yet besides this it is well knowne the Councell of Nyce as consisting both of Latin and Grecian Fathers was much more generall then either the Francfordian or Eliberitan Sinod and in the Nycene it is certaine that the honor of Images was defended and established as our aduersarie not vnwillinglie confesse and the decrees of it plainelie testifie wher as in the other two it remaines doubtfull and ambiguous euen till this day what was truely deliuered in them touching this point ther being onelie some certaine fragments of them extant touching this matter out of all which incertaintie it is plaine that no assured antiquitie or vniuersalitie can be extracted for Sir Humfreys cause In the citation of Clemang is he takes onely that which seemed most for his
purpose and couninglie left out that which makes against him Postquam vero satis in fide Christiani imbuti satis cōfirmati fuerunt saluberrima rursus ratione visū est illud statutum debere aboleri per generalē decretū est Synodū imagines atque picturas in Ecclesijs fieri quae á laicis simplicibus pro libris haberētur Clemang de nouis celeber non inst for also that author affirmes that the vniuersall Church induced by iust occasion did decree in the Primatiue Church that no Images should be placed in Churches in regarde of those who were cōuerted from Gentilisme to Christian faith which how true or false it is importeth not much for the present dispute yet the same Clemangis presently after affirmes also that the same Church did alter that lawe and ordaine that Images should be vsed in Churches for the instruction of the vulgar sorte and for memorie of Christ and his saints and yet further adding that he brings this but for an example to showe that this being but an Ecclesiasticall lawe it may be chāged at the Churches pleasure so that if Sir Humfrey had cited this author home he could haue founde nothing to proue his position to wit that the doctrine of Image-honor is a blasphemous opinion but rather the contrarie is expressed sufficiently by Clemangis for that to set Images in a holie place that is in the temple of God as he expressely affirmes the same Church did for most holesome reasones is one of the greatest acts of honour that the Romanists exhibite vnto them And by this we se that our aduersarie hath neither dealt sincerelie in the alledging of this author nor in the rehearsall of his wordes in which he passeth in silence the cheefe parte of them viz those in which he shewes that prohibition of the primitiue Church which he mentiones touching the placing of pictures in Churches to haue beene onely an Ecclesiasticall precept and changeable yea and de facto changed by a generall Councell as his wordes related in the margen declare That which Cassander also doth plainely insinuate when in his consultation of the vse of images he saith tho falsely the Fathers in the beginning of the Church did abhorre all veneration of images yet afterwardes in the same treatise he graūtes conuenient and due honor vnto them as in another place I will shewe by relation of his owne formall wordes So now this being all which I need to speake of this matter seeing that by this I haue saide it will manifestly appeare that Sir Humfrey hath fayled both in the authenticall proofe of the antiquitie or vniuersalitie of his owne position touching the vse of images and in the disproofe of ours I passe to the next paragraph in the which doctrine of Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church is impugned by him most couragiously by virtue of an old chalenge made in Martin Luthers dayes but as yet neuer performed therefore let vs see howe our newe Champion Sir Humfrey vseth his armes First he relates the decree of the Tridentine Councell Sess 25. yet in a some thing different manner then it runneth there But the true tenour of it is this in substance that whereas by Christ the power of Indulgēces was graūted to the Church that shee hath vsed that power deliuered vnto her by diuine ordinance euen in the most auncient times the sacred Synod doth teach and commaunde that the vse of them as verie prositable to Christian people approued by the authoritie of sacred Councells ought to be retayned and doth condemne those with a curse who either affirme them to be vnlawfull or denie that there is in the Church authoritie to graunt them this is the true tenour of the decree which Sir Humfrey hath not so sincerelie rehearsed as he ought to haue done which whether he did it to aduantage his cause or onelie out of an ill custome he hath gotte by his frequent exercise of such trickes in diuers places of his booke I knowe not onelie of this I ame sure that he produceth nothing of anie force for the impugnation of it in all his paragraffe notwithstanding he bouldlie auerreth that it will be founde I knowe not where that neither Christ nor the primatiue Fathers euer knew much lesse euer exercised such pardons as are nowe daylie practized in the Church of Rome this he affirmeth most stronglie but proueth his affirmation so weakely that its hard to iudge whether his temeritie in affirming or his defectiuenesse in prouing that which he affirmeth be more excessiue how be it most certaine it is that neither the one nor the other can be iustified for that if he had vsed the least circumspection in the world he might haue founde not onelie in Bellarmin and other diuines but also in the Councell of Trent which he citeth mention both of scripture Fathers copiouslie cited quoted for the proofe both of the power and vse of Indulgences in the Church from time to time of which as it seemes he durst not take anie notice but passed it ouer in silence to the ende his greate wordes which he vttered in the beginning might carie a fairer colour of trueth which other wise would presentlie haue discouered themselues to be false True it is he describeth one kinde of mitigation or relaxation of punisshment imposed vpon offenders for denyall of their faith or sacrificing to idols which he graunteth to haue beene called by the name of pardon or Indulgence and to haue beene deriued from sainct Paule who released the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication all which tho' it be true in itselfe yet is it but an euasion which he vseth to the end he may with greater colour reiect those pardons which are truelie and properlie Indulgences that is a relaxation from a temporall punishment due vnto a penitent sinner according to Gods iustice for satisfaction of the paine of his offenses alreadie remitted touching the guilt and eternall punishment of the same by vertue of the keyes that is by the power of bynding and loosing sinnes which Christ gaue to his Church and in her particularlie to the cheefe visible pastour thereof Of the power and practize of which Kynde of pardon if Sir Humfrey had not beene disposed to cogge he might haue found good store of testimonies both out of scriptures Councells and Fathers alledged for the same by Roman diuines And as for scriptures there are two places especiallie which doe plainelie enuffe conuince the foresaid truth of Indulgences if they be reight vnderstanded according to the interpretation of the auncient Fathers The one is that generall sentence of our Sauiour Math. 18. in which he giueth an illimitated power to his Apostles and in them to their lawfull successours for binding and loosing without anie restriction either to this or that one matter or to this or that manner of remission and consequentlie in that most generall power is included the authoritie of remitting
cites yet hath he others in the same place which doe sufficientlie declare his meaning in that manner of speech for he presentlie addes that S. Gregorie is sayde to haue graunted Indulgences they saye saith he that there was some most auncient vse of them among the Romans which the stations of the Citie giue vs to vnderstand And hence it is that the same Bishop in the same place turning his speach to Luther his aduersarie sayth vnto him wherefore thou art a meere imposter or deceiuer of the people not the Popes to whome in this point of Indulgences both the Gospell fauoreth and a generall Councell subscribes also the vniuersal companie of moderne interpreters vpon those wordes of Christ math 16. whatsoeuer you shall bynde in earth shall be bounde in heauen whatsoeuer you shall loose in earth shall be loosed in heauē thus hee So that it is plaine that Bishop Fisher neuer duobted of the power of Indulgēces or that the vse of them is not lawfull or profitable as neither doth he bring in question whether the auncient Fathers diuines did denie or not acknowledge these particulars but as I saide before he onelie treates of the antiquitie of the vse of the same as manifestlie appeares euen by the same wordes which the knight cites where he sayth that Indulgences began not till a while after the sainte or tremble of Purgatotie By which also it doth further appeare that in his passage that renowned Prelate who not onelie with his pen but also with his sacred bloud defended the Roman faith as well in this as all other points is not sincerelie dealt with nor pertinentlie alledged to the true state of the question proposed by our aduersarie Now other authours which Sir Humfrey cities onely affirme that much can not be said of Indulgences of certaintie as vndoubtedly true seeing scriptures speake not of them expresselie as Durand affirmes to which purpose also Antoninus speakes yet neither of them say that nothing can be spoken with certainetie of them Which is not contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists who altho' they beleeue there is sufficient grounde of the power truth of them in the Bible yet they willingly graunte with all that diuers particulars concerning them are disputable among diuines And it is cleare that Durand S. Antoninus as they say onely that pauca fewe things can be sayde with certainetie of pardons or Indulgences that the scripture doth not speake expressely of them so by the same reason euident it is that the same authours graunte that both some things may be pronounced certainly of them also that at the least ther is implicit vnexpressed mention or containement of them in the scripture to wit of power of the Church to graunt vse them which a lone is sufficient to shewe that they consequētly maintaine the vniuersalite antiquitie of the Roman doctrine in this point impugne the contrarie position of the false reformers who absolutelie obstinatelie denie such power to reside in the Church of God And as for that which Durand affirmes that diuers of the auncient Fathers make no mention of Indulgences yet he doth not say that it doth thence followe that they did reiect the power or vse of them in the Church much lesse doth Durand affirme that other auncient Fathers did not mention them yea if he had affirmed this yet he him selfe kewe well enuffe that this being but a negatiue argument at the most it proueth nothing But that which followes of those auncient Fathers silēce in this matter is that they had not occasion to speake of them as others had or at the most that Indulgences were not much in vse in their tymes which doth not contradict the Romanists who doe not stand vpon defense of the frequent vse of them in the Primatiue Church but of the power which they maintaine to be as auncient as the spirituall power of binding loosing giuen by Christ him selfe to the Pastors of his Church in most generall and ample manner Mat. 16. And to this I adde that which Sir Humfrey for his owne aduantage omitted in the citation of both Durand Antoninus to wit that they both alledge the testimonie of S. Gregorie for the vse actuall graunte of Indulgēces Gregorius tamen loquitur qu◠etiam Indulgentias Rom◠iustituit instationibus vt dicitur Durand id 4. sent d. 20. q. 3. which Pope say they is reported to haue instituted the Roman stations which wordes of Durand the like of S. Antoninus if the knight had rehearsed as he ought to haue done according to the lawes of plaine dealing the vse of Indulgences would haue appeared not to be so newe as he indeuores to persuade his reader Touching the citation of Caietan Sir Humfrey proceedes no lesse insincerely for in the same place which is his 15. Opuscle Ex his hābetur textibus non solum quod Indulgentiarū gratia antiqua est in Christi Ecclesia non noua inuētio sed habentur clarè quatuor c. Caiet Opusc 15. c. 1. he addes that in the fourth of the sentences it is alledged by S. Thomas that S. Gregorie did institute the stations of Indulgences producing manie other testimonies out of the Ecclesiasticall decrees he concludes thus Out of those texts it is had that the graunte of Indulgences is not onely auncient but c. Where also the reader is to be aduertised that Caietan is corrupted by Sir Humfreys translation of the worde hunc or hanc them which the author referres to the begining or certaintie of their begining not to the Indulgences themselues or power to graunte them And doubtlesse siluester Prierias had the same meaning where he sayde if so he sayde that Pardōs are not knowne vnto vs by the authoritie of the scripture but by the authoritie of the Church of Roman for the sense is that they are not expressely declared deliuered vnto vs by the text of the scripture in plaine wordes but by the Church whose office it is to propose such doctrine in particular to the faithfull as she findes not so plainely deliuered in the scripture as they themselues can without her directions come to due knowledge of it And surely this athour is so farre frome denying the Antiquitie of the power vse of perdons that he professedly defended the same against his professed aduersarie Luther And the same I saye of Eckius Tecelius who as Sir Humfrey can not be ignorant were also Luthers Antagonists euē in this particular to omit that he cites those two authors onely vpō relation of the Councel of Trents historie in English to which as I haue alreader noted we giue no credit Nay since I writ this at first I finde that Prierias Eckius Tecelius are falsely charged by the same false historie of Trent to haue layde for their grounde of Indulgēces the Popes authoritie in their impugnation
conuincement of Luther Pag. 6. And the marginall note of that place is yet more false then the text saying that the aduersaries of Luther proued the doctrine of Indulgences by common reasons onely And as for Eckius I haue read his whole treatise of Indulgences so I ame sure he foundeth them not vpon the Popes autheritie either onelie or cheefelie but principallie vpon scripture for so he sayth page 313. Indulgentiarum figurae fuerunt Iubilei in veteri Testamento De his sumus contenti eo quod habeamus solidum S. Paulâ— fundamentum ne credamur diligentiores in lucrosa Porro c. 2. Cor. 2. And to the sense of these authors may be reduced that which Cunerus sayth of the doubtfull manner of writing of some Catholike authors of Indulgences if the place be sincerely related which a man may iustely suspect especially for that the knight hath it out of Chamier at second hand And in deed the truth is if that authors sentence had not ben violentlie abrupted before the end of the same period which he deliuered with one breath it would haue plainelie declared that there is nothing for Sir Humfreyes purpose of prouing that neither Christ nor the Primatiue Fathers as he speaketh euer knewe or exercised such pardons as are now dayly practised in the Church of Rome For the wordes omitted are those Cunerus declam Cum in clauibus Ecclesiae symbolo Apostolico clarissime fundatae deprehendantur That is since that Indulgences are most clearely discouered to be founded in the Apostolicall symbole or Creed in the power of the keyes of the Church c. And so now we see that those testimonies doe not proue want of antiquitie or consent in either scripture Fathers or schoolemen for the doctrine of Indulgences themselues but onelie at the most in some accessorie points of that Controuersie yet not one of them prouing anie such want in the maine of the question aboue declared no more then he should be thought to proue want of antiquitie vniuersallitie in the doctrine of three persons one God who should affirme the same not to be in expresse termes contayned in the scripture Fathers schoolemen iuste in that manner in which the Church beleeueth defendeth it And yet graunting neuerthelesse that it is truelie contained in the same scripture in an other equiualent manner or inexpresselie As also the same doth yet more plainelie appeare euen by those same wordes which Sir Humfrey cites here out of Alfonsus which altho' they be not sincerelie related by him as leauing out that which most conduceth to the explication of that authours true meaning to wit that who but an heretike can denie transubstantiation the procession of the holie Gost Purgatorie because they are not mentioned by auncient authors sub his nominibus by these names or wordes And after what maruell therefore is it if it happened in this sorte of Indulgence that saith Castro there be not mention made of them in the auncients By which wordes it is plaine this author speakes not absolutelie of the substance of Indulgences or of the authoritie to graunte them which indeede is the cheefe question of Controuersie in this place of which he makes no doubt but that it is sufficientlie contayned in scripture Fathers altho' as he saith minus expresse lesse expresselie But he onelie speakes of the name as his wordes now related doe testifie or at the most of the antiquitie of their coÌ„mon vse which not withstanding it is no matter of faith yet doth he shewe it not to be so new as the sectaries of our times will haue it therefore he addes by way of conclusion Quod non est tam recens Indulgentiarum vsus quantum isti haeretici meaning the Lutherans exprobrant nam apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur earum vsus vt ex stationibus Romaefrequentissimis colligi vtcumque potest Et de Beato Gregorio huius nominis primo fertur quod aliquas suotempore concesserit And in the same tenor of wordes he adioyneth that et si pro Indulgentiaram approbatione sacrae scripturae apertum testimonium desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam Ecclesiae Catholicae vsus à multis annorum saeculis receptus tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur c. By all which it is euident that nothing can be proued by the wordes of Alfonsus against the substance of Ecclesiasticall Indulgences nor contrarie to the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Roman doctrine in that point but rather Sir Humfrey his brothers are manifestlie conuicted of heresie for contemning the same Now Maior in 4. d. 2. q. 2. is impertinentlie alledged for he onelie affirmes that it 's harde to founde authenticallie in scripture iuste that manner of Indulgence which is vsed at this day in the Church that some of the auncient Fathers made no mention thereof which the Romanists doe not denie for they saye difficilia quae pulchra And so that which is hardelie founded is truelie founded Yet the power vse of Indulgences euen as they are now practised the same Maior defendes as well as other moderne diuines yea deduceth the vse of them from S. Gregorie the great thus this author is excused the citer reprooued Touching Siluester Prieras altho' I cannot haue that same worke of his which Sir Humfrey cites if anie such be extant now in the world yet I haue viewed the treatise of Indulgences which he hath in his summe there I finde that he doth not saie all that with which our aduersarie doth charge him nay nor scarce halfe so much for he neither excludes scripture from the grounde of Indulgences 2. Cor. 2. but expresselie cites the same place of S. Paule for them which others cite altho' it be with a licet at the and. And much lesse doth he affirme that the authority of the Church of Rome the Popes is greater then the authoritie of the scripture which proposition if he had vttered defended obstinatelie in my opinion he had deserued the fygot almost as well as his aduersarie Martin but I persuade my selfe the discretion of Prieras was greater then so And in the same manner I vehementlie suspect our aduersaries hath vsed some of his Gipsian sleights in the citation of the place he quoteth But yet is meaning is onely that Indulgences that is the present vse of them is not manifestlie declared vnto vs by scripture Fathers as his wordes cited here in the margen insinuate absolutelie graunting both the power practise of them IndulgeÌ„tia nobis per scripturaÌ„ minime innotuit licet inducatur illud 2. Cor. 2. Si quid donaui vobis sed nec per dicta antiquoruÌ„ doctorum sed modernorum Dicitur enim Gregorius indulgentiam septennem in stationibê° Rome posuisse Et quia Ecclesia hoc facit seruat credendum est ita
intention of the minister in administration of Sacraments they are so ignorant sotish as I ame ashamed to rehearse them for example when he sayth that if the Preist fayles in his intention at the tyme of solemnization of matrimonie the maried people liue all their dayes in adultrie or fornication which is a most grosse errour in the knight for that the Romanists the reformers agree in this that altho' Matrimonie were no Sacrament consequentlie that the maried people should not receiue it as a Sacrament yet were it sufficient to free them from adulterie in regarde they receiue it at the least as a ciuill contract whatsoeuer the Preists intention bee And if it were not so certainely all sectaries of this time particularilie Sir Humfrey himselfe for one should liue perpetuallie in that damnable state of adulterie which he mentioneth And yet this sequele I am sure it importes him to denie as earnestlie as he can if it be but onelie for the conseruation of his owne his wifes honour And the like foolish false inferences he makes aboute all the rest of the Sacraments as also aboute the succession of the Popes pastours of the Church as if by the confession of Romanists themselues there were no certaintie in anie of them whereas yet he himselfe citeth Bellarmin in this verie place as teaching that in all these things there is at least morall sufficient certaintie of their reall existaÌ„ce truth Certitudine autem moralem humanam quae sufficit vt homo quiescat ex SacrameÌ„tis habemus etiaÌ„si pendiaÌ„t ab intentione alterius Bel. de Sacr in genere li. 1 c. 28. So that all these deductions are voyde of all seÌ„se reason trueth meerlie framed by the knight out of the superfluitie of his braine obtruded vpon his reader as confessions of his aduersaries in a peremptorie odious manner in disgrace of that Church whose doctrine he is not able to impugne in anie more substanciall manner In a semblable fashion doth he also prosecute the like captious kinde of argument against diuers other points of the Roman doctrine as for Example because he findeth in Biel Peter Lombard that they speake not with anie certaintie of the manner how Saints doe vnderstand the prayers of their supplicaÌ„ts he inferreth that the Romanists are vncertaine touching the doctrine of inuocation of Saints it selfe which neuerthelesse is a most false illation for that although there be some vncertaintie in what manner or by what meanes the Saints doe come to knowe our prayers by reason of the diuers opinions of diuines in that particular yet as well those who Sir Humfrey citeth as also all the rest of the Romanists agree and hould for certaine that Saints are piouslie profitablie to be inuocated prayed vnto all without exception teaching inculcating the same expresselie in their bookes writings Gabriel Biel is so plaine for the doctrine of the Roman Church that if the knight had not corrupted him both in wordes sensc he could not haue alledged him with anie coulorable pretense For in the verie precedent lection to that which he cites against vs. Biel resolues the question in our fauor saying Whence it is apparent that our prayers hope of obtaining beatitude by the mediation of the Saints are not voyde in Heauen but by order constituted by God himselfe we ought to recurre to their helpe assistance perpetuallie implore them with due veneration that we may be saued by their merits In which wordes the rest following I am sure there is sufficient to make the author a plaine Papist yea much more then Sir Humfrey desires to heare in fauor of the Roman doctrine so it is cleare he hath corrupted his sense And nowe for his wordes he hath likewise corrupted them most peruerselie by displaceing tranferring them from one purpose to an other For these wordes non est certum per omnia By which Biel ansers onelie to that question whether it pertaines to the accidental Beatitude of the Saints to heare our prayers which question as you see is onelie aboute the manner or qualitie of the Saints vnderstanding our petitions not of the maine substance he respondes Non per omnia certum est It is not altogether certaine And yet Sir Humfrey applyes this as if Biel had said that it is not certaine that the Saints heare our prayers at all Yet further connecting vnto the same those other wordes vnde probabiliter dicitur Which he also soma't Insincerelie Englisheth it may seeme probable rehearsing them in one series or tenor whereas yet they are vttered by their author manie lynes after to an other purpose where ansering to the question before proposed he said thus Vnde probabiliter dicitur c. Whence it is probably said that altho' it doth not necessarilie followe the beatitude of the Saints that they heare our prayers by congruitie yet God almightie reuelles vnto them all that is offered vnto them by men All which particulars concerning the corruption of this place by the guilie knight may more plainelie be perceiued in the author himselfe then I can possible here expresse As for the Master of sentences Scotus in the 45. d. of the fourth booke altho' perchance they seeme to one that reades theÌ„ superficiallie not to speake with certainetie of the inuocation of Saints yet to the anttentiue reader it appeares clearely they both suppose for certaine of which they frame no disputation that the Angels Saints heare our prayers that we lawfullie profitablie praye vnto them of which points it is most vndoubtedlie to be supposed that those two authors could not be ignorant nor maintaine the negatiue parte in regarde the publike letanies in which the inuocation of Saints is expresselie included were vsed in the Church long before their dayes as histories so commonlie testifie that I need not produce them Besides that the writings of the ancient Fathers whose sentences Peter Lombard professedlie collected as much as was for his purpose of which Scotus could not be ignorant are full of the same doctrine as in our Catholike Controuertists may easily appeare to the reader And therefore whereas the Master vses the wordes non est incredibile scotus probabile est they speake not eyther of the absolute inuocation of Saints or of our prayers vnto them of which neyther of them proposes the question but they applye those wordes to the manner onely of their vnderstanding our intercession And therefore the Master puts the title of the question thus Quomodo Sancti glorificati audiunt preâ—es supplicantium Magister in â—it quaest â—… 45. in 4. â—…ent quomodo how or in what manner or by what meanes doe the Saints heare our prayers how they interced for vs vnto our Lord To which he ansers it is not incredible that the Saints which in the secret of the face of God inioye
the illumination of the true leight vnderstand in contemplation of him so much as appertaines eyther to their owne ioye or our assistanse For as to the Angels so to the Saints who assiste in the Seight of God our petitions are knowne in the eternall worde In abscondito facie Dei By which it is euident that Lombard speakes onelie of the meanes by which the Saints vnderstand the prayers of faithfull supplicants And there being two seuerall wayes cheefelie where by the Saints may vnderstand our prayers the one by vertue of their beatitude or beatificall vision by which they see the prayers directed vnto them by seeing God the other by special reuelation accidental to their blessednesse The Master is of opinion they see them in the worde by vertue of their vision of God as I conceiue But Scotus seemes to hould that the knowlege that Saints haue of our prayers doeth not necessarilie followe of their beatitude but is onelie accidental by congruitie therefore he sayes in his anser to the question Dico quod nrn est necesse ex ratione beatitudinis quod beatus videat orationes nostras Neque regulariter siue vniuersaliter in verbo quia non est necessaria fequela beatitudinis neque quod reuelentur neque talis reuelatio necessario sequitur beatitudintm Beatitudo enim in obiectis creatis non transcendit quiditates seu illa quorum essentia visa est necessaria ratio videndi tamen quia congruum est beatum esse coadiutorem Dei in procurando salutem electi eo modo quo hoc sibi potest competere ad istud requiritur sibi reuelari orationes nostras specialiter quae sibi offeruntur quia illa specialiter innituntur meritis eius tanquam mediatoris perducentis ad salutem quae petitur ideo probabile est quod Deus beatis reuelat de orationibus sibi vel Deo in nomine eius oblatis That is in English It is not necessarie by the nature or state of beatitude that the blessed see our prayers neyther regularlie or vniuersallie in the diuine worde because that is not anie thing which as is it were a necessary sequele of beatitude Nor that they ar reueiled because neither such a reuelation necessarilie followes bertitude for the beatitude of the vnderstanding in created obiects transcendes not the quidities or those things the sight of whose essense is the necessarie cause of seeing But because it is congruous or conuenient that the blessed man be Gods cooperator in procuring the Saluation of the elect in that manner in which it grees vnto him and that to this is required that our prayers be reueiled vnto him especiallie those which are represented vnto him for that they especiallie are founded in his merits as a mediator conducting to the saluation which is asked Therefore it is probable that God giues a reuelation to the blessed of the prayers offered to him or to God in his name Thus Scotus By which it is manifest he onelie here discusses the diuers wayes by which according to the diuersitie of opinions in diuinitie the blessed Saints in Heauen vnderstandes the prayers of vs that liue in this world houlding for probable that the knowlege which they haue of our supplications vnto them is not by any other meanes but by reuelation from God And in this sense he speakes when he saith probabile est it is probable not because he held the inuocation of Saints it in selfe as a matter onelie probable this being quite contrarie to his cited wordes as being aboute the manner of the saints vnderstanding our prayers which necessarily implyes that the prayers them selues directed vnto them are lawfully made And so now it clearelie appeares by all these wordes circumstances that these two famous diuine are as ranck Romanists as the rest in this particular in regarde they call not in question the lawfulnes of prayer to Saints in it selfe but onelie the condition or qualitie of it And this I haue added of the doctrine of Scotus not as vsed or abused by my aduersarie but onely the better to declare the true meaning of the Master of sentence And as for Caietan whome also Sir Humfrey produceth to the same purpose it is manifest euen out of the wordes cited by him that he onely speaketh of some want of certaintie in the miracles which the Church vseth as an argument in the Canonization of saints by reason that altho' as he confesseth expressely they be most authenticall yet are they not saith he omnino certa altogether certaine because the credit thereof depends vpon the reportes of men But for all this neither doth he affirme absolutelie that miracles are the grounde wherein the Church foundes the Canonization of the saints as Sir Humfrey affirmeth most corruptelie translatinng his wordes omitting those Quae maxime authentica sunt for ab Ecclesia suscipiuntur putting in Inglish wheron the Church grounteth the Canonization and detorting them to that sense as the reader may clearly perceiue by conferring the translation with the quotation in Latin nor yet doth the same Caietan either in this or anie other place of his wordes deny either the certaintie of the doctrine of the inuocation it selfe or yet the doctrine of the certaintie of the Canonization but he onely at the most sayth that the Church cannot receiue full but onely humane certainty from such miracles alone as she hath by relation of particular men not euidentlie operated in the eyes of the whole Church And according to this we may easily answere to the saying of S. Augustin that manie soules are tormented in hell whose bodies are honored in earth for this S. Augustin speakes onelie of certaine suppositious saints whome the cōmon people honored for true saints as it is manifest by the example which the same S. Aug. produceth out of Sulpitius who relateth how the vulgaritie did long celebrate one for a martyr who afterwardes appeared tould them he was damned And the like is related of a discouerie which S. Martin made of a false martyr which particular examples of errour in the common people ought not in common prudence to preiudicate the certaintie of the doctrine of honour due vnto such as the whole Church in all succeeding ages hath honored for true saints blessed freinds of God Neither doth S. Augustin in the cited place speake to anie such purpose of calling in question the generall doctrine practice of the Church in the points of honour or inuocation of Saints as may appeare by that in other places of his workes he expresselie auerreth the same as in his first sermon of S. Peter Paule in his 44. ep where he hath thes notable wordes In Petro quis honoratur nisi ille qui defunctus est pro nobis Who is honored in Peter but he that dyed for vs And in his 84. treatise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth At the table we doe not so remember martirs
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
is idolatry Sir Humfrey doth most shamefullie calumniate Gregorius de Valentia affirming him to maintaine that there is a kynde of lawfull idolatrie Whereas the foresaid learned diuine onelie sayth that a man might not obscurelie gather out of S. Peters wordes in his first epistle chapter 34. vers 3. that he insinuateth that some worship of images to wit of sacred images is lawfull reight by reason that sainct Peter speaking against idolatrie he calleth it not absolutelie worship of images but vnlawfull worship of images illicitos simulacrorum cultus Which discourse of Valentia how well grounded it may seeme I will not dispute But this I assure my selfe that defence of idolatrie was so farre from the toughts of that pious man as plainelie appeareth by the rest of his doctrine euen in the place cited that if Sir Humfrey either had not beene verie full of corrupted meaning or had not had great want of matter for the finishing of his false dealing in this section for his last plaudite there in hee would not haue had the face to abuse so much the innocencie of so sincere a writer Especiallie considering that altho' Valentia had committed such a grosse errour as to defende some kynde of Idolatrie to be lawfull yet had his errour ben wholelie impertinent to proue the vncertaintie of the Romish faith in the doctrine of honour of images which is the point here in controuersie of which Valentia being knowe not to haue euer doubted in anie parte of his workes whatsoeuer orher absurditie he might be supposed to haue taught in that matter it can not argue anie disagreement from the rest of the Romanists in this particular The knight also citeteth Bellarmin Canus But I haue before sufficientlie declared their meaning in an other occasion and as for Canus he by laboring to establish his owne singular opinion that matrimonie is no Sacrament but onelie a ciuill contract except it be celebrated by a Preist with sacred solemne wordes as he is an Ecclesiasticall minister onelie alledgeth the vncertaintie of the doctrine of diuines touching the determinate matter forme of that Sacrament and aboute the manner how it giueth grace or rather when it giueth grace when it doth not by reason he holds it vncertaine amōg diuines whether it be a sacramēt or not except in those cases in which it is celebrated by the Preist by cōsequence he holdes it vncertaine among diuines whether in those occasions it conferres grace to the receiuers which he will not haue for a matter of faith nor yet more then the more common opinion Si hoc matrimoniū inquā argumētētur Sacramentū Ecclesia non esse tūc Catholicus respōdeat fidenter animose defendat secure contra pugnet Canus l. 8. c. 5. therefore he saith Nego scholae certo constantique decreto definitum matrimonium sine Ecclesiae ministro contractum esse vere proprie Sacrnmeneum nego eam rem ad fidem religionem pertinere Yet notwithstāding all diuines agree Canus with them that matrimonie is truelie one of the seuen Sacraments consequentlie that which Canus sayth in the place cited is not for the knights purpose And so now I will end this section in which our aduersarie in steed of prouing the infallible certainetie of the reformed faith as he promised in the beginning by reason of his vnfaithfull proceeding he hath lost all certaintie of his owne humane faith for which he deserueth a most rigorous censure The X. PERIOD THIS Period shall conteine the eleuenth section of the knights booke in which He indeuoreth to proue by the testimonies of his aduersaries that there is greater benefit confort saftie of the soule in his faith then in the Romish And this his taske he beginneth with great grauitie saying that he proceeds from the certaine way to the safe way Against which position neuerthelesse if one were disposed to proceed according to rigour of Philosophie he might easilie demonstrate a plaine impossibilitie in it by an argument ad hominem For if as Sir Humfrey houldes there is no certaintie in the Romish faith way that all the certaintie is in his owne as he hitherto hath labored to shewe then can he not truelie say that his way is the safer way for that the worde safer inuolueth a comparison betweene two which are both safe because a comparison as Philosophie teacheth cannot be but betwixt things of the same common nature comparatio non est nisi inter resciusdem generis Wherefore since that according to the tenet of Sir Humfrey there is neyther certaintie nor safetie in the Romish faith yet that as he supposeth they are both in his owne it is consequent that altho' it were a safe way yet vpon his supposition it cannot possible be truelie called either a safer way or of more confort benefit then the Romish way To say nothing of our knights presumption folly in offering to call that a more safe more confortable more profitable way to the soule which as yet he hath not shewed with anie probabilitie either before or now in this section to haue anie one of those attributes in it but hath beene rather by mee alreadie conuinced to be voyde of them all Ad altho' this generall ansere might serue for all Sir Humfrey bringeth in this place as being in substance but a newe repetition of the same points of doctrine of which he treated in seuerall places before yet to giue him fuller satisfaction and because tho' the doctrine be the same yet the application is different I will descend to particular examen of it He begins with Bellarmin whom he citeth as a confesser of the all sufficientie of scripture as he tearmeth it but it is as cleare as day that Bellarmin made not anie such confession ther being not anie such worde or sense to be foūde in his workes but rather the quite contrarie is founde euen in the same booke which Sir Humfrey here citeth in which he expresselie confesseth professeth traditions to be necessarie besides the scriptures yea in the very-next wordes to those which the knight citeth he addeth that all other things meanig besydes those which the Apostles publikelie commonlie preached to all men are not written His wordes are these in Latin Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicauurunt alia autem non omnia scripta esse I say that all those things are written by the Apostles which are necessarie to all men which they openlie preached to all vulgarlie or commonlie but all other things are not written Which last wordes not with standing they are a parte of the same positiō or sentence conteine the very point of difficultie in this controuersie yet by a notorious imposture Sir Humfrey left them out so at one stroake quite corrupteth both Bellarmins sense sentence
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
the mouth of two or three witnesses euerie worde may stand And so suppose it were true that S. Chrysostome sayd iust that which Sir Humfrey would haue him yet is not one testimony enuffe to conuince an aduersary thus much I say for as much as concerneth the point of controuersie it selfe of the all sufficiencie of scripture But because the knight may say this is not that which he intendeth directlie in this place but onelie to conuince that Bellarmin hath eluded the foresayd testimonie therefore I answere secondlie that Sir Humfrey needed not to haue gone to Bellarmin's Chronologie for the censure of the foresaid worke for he might haue founde it more plainelie censured before in his controuersies as appeareth lib. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto the 11. chapter Where the Cardinall hath these wordes But this testimonie is not of Chrysostome but of the author of the imperfect who was either an Arian or certainlie his booke was corrupted by the Arians in manie places Thus Bellarmin Shewing the corruptions by two seuerall instances taken out of the worke it selfe where he speaketh against the Homousians that is against the Christians of the Catholike Church to which he giueth that name because they defended beleeued the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his Father yet it s well knowne that sainct Chrysostome neuer eyther writ or spoake against the Homousians as being one of them himselfe a professed enimie to their aduersaries the Arians And hence it is plaine that Bellarmin had reason to censure that worke not to acknowledge it for S. Chrysostomes as Sir Humfrey would haue it except he would haue condemned that glorious Doctour of the Church for an Arian heretike as the reformed brothers must of necessarie consequence doe if they will haue him to be the authour of that vnperfect treatise Neyther did yet Bellarmin taxe it for that sentence which the knight alledgeth out of it as hee craftilie falselie insinuates but for other erroneous doctrine which it containeth which is no more contrarie to anie article of the Roman faith if it be trulie vnderstood then it is to the faith of the reformers except perhaps they be nearer in some points of their doctrine to the Arians then the Romanists bee whoe quite deteste abhorre the same Which I leaue to their owne consciences to determin For altho' the Romanists denie that the sole scripture pure text of the bible is sufficient to determin all controuersies doubts in doctrine or māners yet they doe not denie but that the sole scripture doth sufficientlie declare the most greatest parte of the doctrine necessarie to saluation particularlie they graunt that the true Church may be sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture truelie expounded which is the verie same that the authour of the imperfect affirmeth in the foresayd wordes Neyther is it all one to affirme that the Church is knowne onelie by scriptures to affirme that the scripture onelie hath all sufficiencie as Sir Humfrey doth falselie suppose when he vseth the first proposition taken out of the author of the Imperfect as a medium to proue the second which is his owne position because to know the Church onelie is not all the doctrine which the scripture containeth as necessarie to saluation but onelie a parte of the same so it is cleare that how true soeuer it be that the church is knowne by scripture onelie yet cā it not be thēce inferred that all the doctrine of the Church necessarie to saluation is sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture except out of the pregnance of his wit extrauagant skill in logique the knight can inferre an vniuersall proposition out of a particular which I know he can no more performe then he can extract by arte two oysters out of one apple And thus we see that Sir Humfrey hath not proued by the exception of Bellarmin against the foresaid treatise that either the Roman Church or Romanists haue eluded their recordes or reall proofes of Fathers touching the question of all sufficiencie of scripture for that the sentence thence produced proueth no such thing And consequentlie there was no necessitie that Bellarmin should indeuour to infringe the authoritie of the whole worke for such a testimonie drawne out of it as is not contrarie to the Roman faith neither can it with anie coulour be imagined that the Cardinall would euer haue layde his censure vpon the same if it had not ben faultie in greater matters Secondlie Sir Humfrey produceth saint Augustin touching the deniall of honour of Saints where he sayth that manie are tormented with the diuell who are worshipped by men on earth And whereas Bellarmins answere according to Sir Humfreys relation is that peraduenture it is none of Augustins that sentence the honest knight as if Bellarmin were all the Romanists that euer writ or spoake maketh a generall interrogatorie saying what say the Romanists to this As if that which one onelie priuate man speaketh in a priuate matter were to be accounted the voyce of all men of his profession And yet Bellarmin doth not onelie adde more in his ansere yea much more to the purpose which not withstanding our braue Sir Sycophant very slylie omittes viz. that he could not finde those wordes in S. Augustin but also addeth three other principall anseres to the same obiection And so it appeareth that insteed of proofe that Bellarmin eludeth the recordes of S. Augustin the elusorie knight eludes both Bellarmin his reader egregiouslie by deceitfullie omitting that which both iustified the Cardinalls proceeding also declared the true meaning of the place cited in sainct Augustins name Thirdly he taxeth Bellarmin stapleton for saying that S. Augustin was deceiued or committed a humane errour in his interpretation of those wordes super hanc Petram caused by the diuersitie of the Hebrewe Grek Latin tongue which either he was ignorant of or marked not But I ansere first that what soeuer error S. Augustin might commit in this matter certaine it is that it was onelie aboute the interpretation of those wordes Math. 16. thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church For touching Sainct Peters supreme authoritie in it selfe which is that our irreligious aduersarie intendes cheefelie to diminish in this occasion it is most apparent that S. Augustin stronglie maintaines it in his second of Baptisme cap. 1. saying Quis nesciat illum Apostolatus Petri principatum cuilibet Episcopatui esse praeferendum That is who can be ignorāt that Principalitie or soueraintie of Peters Apostolate is to be preferred before anie Episcopate or Bishoprike And in his 15. sermon of the saints he speakes yet more plaine to this purpose affirming that our sauiour did nominate S. Peter for the foundation of the Church ideo digne fundamentum hoc Ecclesia colit supra quod Ecclesiastici officij altitudo consurgit And therefore saith S. Augustin the Church deseruedlie honoreth this
foundation vpon which the altitude of the Ecclesiastici structure ariseth And by this S. Augustins faith of S. Peters soueranitie in the gouerment of the Church most clearilie appeares so that no other peculiar opinion of his cōcerning the sense of those wordes super hanc Petram could possible preiudicate his owne constant doctrine in the substance of this matter in it selfe as neither could stapleton or anie other Catholike diuine by their taxation of him And yet neither did S. Augustin in deed reproue the common opinion of diuines in expounding that place of S. Mathewe of the person of S. Peter but expresselie remittes the choyse of the one or the other to the iudgement or affection of the reader as is manifest by his owne wordes vpon this same subiect in his retractions concluding his discourse aboute the two seuerall opinions in this manner Lib. 1. retract c. 21. Harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector Of these two opinions let the reader make choise of which is more probable And so this allegation is nothing to the purpose of Sir Humfreys malitious indeuors in prouing the euident testimonies of ancient Fathers to be eluded by Romanists as being neither anie euident testimonie in it selfe as I haue declared nor yet within the sphere of faith or including the point of controuersie in the matter proposed by our aduersarie in this passage as he falselie supposeth out of which compasse euerie one may lawfullie abounde in his owne sense as well the Fathers in the deliuerie of their priuate opinions as also the moderne diuines in passing their censures of the same as occasion serues So it be performed with discretion modestie as here it was by learned Stapleton as his wordes doe shewe And besides this altho' we should admitte the foresayd wordes of the Euangelist may diuerselie be expounded either of our Sauiour or of sainct Peter or both neuerthelesse the Popes supremacie cannot suffer therby anie preiudice as being sufficientlie established both by other wordes of the same passage by other places of scripture particularlie by that of S. Iohn 21. pasce oues meas c. Feede my sheepe Which wordes are so forcible for the proofe of saint Peters supreme authoritie ouer all Christs flocke that they alone with the circumstances of the text were sufficient to conuicte anie reasonable persons iudgement Thirdlie concerning the communion of the Cup he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying in his answere to the wordes of S. Ignatius one cup is distributed to all that in the latin bookes is not founde distributed to all but for all But first I say that why should Bellarmin be produced for an eluder of the Fathers recordes for telling the trueth or for reporting that which he did see with his eyes perhaps without spectacles And if it be founde by eye witnesses to be otherwise in the Latin copies then in the Greeke as truelie it is as also it is founde that the Greeke copies are not sound in diuers other particulars in which they are discouered not to agree with the citations of S. Athanasius Theodoret What sinne did Bellarmin commit in vttering the same But howsoeuer it bee good Sir Humfrey doth Bellarmin relie onelie vpon that anser nay doth he not giue two other more cheefe ansers then that both which you dissemble And yet more then this you haue shamefullie corrupted that one ansere which you cite For Bellarmin sayth not that S. Ignatius hath the wordes distributed for all but one chalis of the whole Church vnus calix totius Ecclesiae meaning that there is one common chalice because it is offered to God for all Nay besides this Bellarmin yet further addeth that the Magdeburgers read those wordes of S. Ignatius as the Romanists doe of which also craftie Sir Humfrey taketh no notice so that the reader may see that Bellarmin is here diuerslie abused by the false knight yet is he no more guiltie of eluding of the Fathers recordes in this particular then the foresayd Lutherans them selues that is nothing at all Fourthlie he taxeth Sixtus Senensis for saying he suspecteth Origen to haue ben corrupted by the heretikes where he sayth Thus much be spoken of the typicall symbolicall bodie But what if Senensis vtter his opinion in that manner of that place of Origen For doth not eyther he or at the least a number of other diuines giue other solid ansers to the same as may be seene in Bellarmin others As that it is not certaine that workes is trulie Origens that those wordes are not spoaken of the Eucharist but of the bread of the Cathecumes which we commonlie call holie bread that Origen tearmes the bodie of Christ Sybolical Typical because it is present in the Sacrament as a type or signe of the same bodie of Christ as it is vnited to the diuine worde in the mysterie of the Incarnation in a visible māner For in that place Origen compares the bodie of Christ as it is in the Sacrament with the same as it is in it proper existence And so in like manner sanders and Baronius for diuers reasons hould the wordes cited by Caluin out of the epistle of Epiphanius to Iohn of Hierusalem touching the cutting of a vayle with an image of Christ or some other man which he founde at the entrance of a Church for suppositious as being added after the whole epistle was ended And yet notobstanding they relie not intirelie vpon this answere but yeald others also which supposing the foresayd addition were truelie the wordes of that holie Father yet those same authors abundantly cleare the difficultie declare the trueth of his meaning in the controuersie of honour of images As also doth Valentia aboute the wordes of Theodoret touching transsubstantiation who sayth that the substance of bread wine ceased not in the Sacrament To which both Valentia other diuines notobstanding they kewe by that which passed in the Councell of Ephesus Theodoretus authoritie not to be great or at the least not to be so great as that hee alone could or ought to preponderate the rest of the Fathers Vid. Greg. de Val. l. 2. de transub c. 7. Suarez de Eucha D. 46. sec 4. I haue giuen other solide answeres to his wordes besides this which is related by the knight as that he calleth the accidents of the Eucharist by the name of the substāce of bread wine attributing to the naturall properties of nature or substance the name of nature or substance it selfe as both the scriptures other Fathers in the like occasions vse to doe Gelas ep particularlie Gelasius whome the reformers vse to cite against the trueth of transsubstantiation he onelie taking the worde substance which is ambiguous signifieth both the interior substance itselfe the externall signes of the same for the second not for the first all which may be easilie perceiued by him who shall read
saying that he seeth not how the foresaid authours can be excused from errour in that particular for that the Cardinall onelie condemneth them in that which the reformers themselues according to reason sounde doctrine ought to condemne also that in no question of Controuersie betweene vs them nor which can iustelie preiudice the foresayd Fathers authoritie in other matters especially in which they all agree Lastelie sayth Sir Humfrey we produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin To which Salmeron the Iesuit quoth hee ansereth that weake is the place which is drawne from authoritie But first I aske of Sir Humfrey what he his consorts haue to doe with the immaculate Conception For that is no Controuersie of faith betwixt the Romanists them it is a question among some Romanists them selues lawfull for either side to make the best vse they can of the testimonies of Fathers either by imbrasing them or expounding thē in that particular point as they finde them most aduantageous for the defence of their seuerall opiniōs so farre as the Church permits thē that without any disparishmēt to their authority in regarde their wordes are not so plaine but that they may seeme to admit diuers expositions in that particular And as for Salmerō he neither speaketh of the Fathers in generall when all or most of them consent in a matter of fayth nor yet when they plainelie agree in anie other point of doctrine but onely when they speake doubtfullie or obscurelie this I say vpon supposition the place of the foresaid authour is truelie cited which in regarde I haue taken the knight so often tardie in that Kynde of proceeding I may vnrashlie suspected And the truth is that hauing now viewed the place in the booke which is in the 51. Disputation of Salmeron vpon the 5. to the Romās I finde that he speakes not of the vniforme consent of Fathers or Doctors but onelie of a certaine great number of thē to which he opposeth an other as great as he supposeth yea greater therefore he addes Quare si authorum numero decertare velint meaning the opposers of the immaculate conception of the Virgen procul dubio absorbebuntur So that this author is abused iust as I did coniecture before I sa his booke And altho' I can not much commend Salmeron for anie great ingeniousnesse in his application of the shepards sentence yet sure I ame that if he applied it not verie aptelie you Sir Humfrey applie it much worse more absurdelie And thus hauing nowe examined all the particulars of this section hauing founde nothing which proueth the authours intent I will end my period yet noting by the way how vanelie Sir Humfrey concludeth his discourse affirming his reader to haue heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the behalfe of the Protestant doctrine made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues which notobstanding is all false meere delusion for that I haue made it clearelie appeare that neyther anie Romanist by him cited hath graunted that anie one of the Fathers doth teach anie point of Protestant doctrine nor yet that they speake in those places here cited of the cheefe points of doctrine in Controuersie but contrarilie it appeareth that they speake onelie either of other matters which little concerne the Catholike faith or at the least they speake in an other sense then the reformers pretend yea that which is more remarkable not with vniforme consent but rather fewe or at the most two or three in one matter in which manner of proceeding what argument soeuer may be deduced from them it is no more trulie to be iudged called the testimonie of the Fathers absolutelie then that may be called absolutely the testimony of the reformers in which neuerthelesse onelie some fewe of them yeald their testimonies yet that but in some particulars those no principall points of faith And as for this complaint which Sir Humfrey maketh so formallie of the elusion of the proofes recordes of the Fathers as also touching that which he in like manner frameth against the Roman Church for her prohibition or censure of bookes I wonder with what face he can reprehend that which he knoweth to be so much practized in his owne Church in which there cannot the least pamphlet or smalest volume come forth which if it doth but seeme to cōtradict anie parte or point of the English faith or anie other point of Puritanimse is not presentlie ceased vpon by a pack of Pursuiuants put to the tortor of the Consistoriall assemblie there to receiue sentence of condemnation by virtue of which it seldome scapeth the flames of Vulcan Of which in parte is witnesse Doctour Mountagues latelie published booke which by reason it sauored a little of some points of Romanisme by an expresse Apeale euen to Cesar himselfe could not be saued from the seuere censure of the Puritan sinagoge And particularlie touching the authoritie of ancient Fathers if it were a faulte in the Romanists to call in questiō some passages or sentences of some of their writings where they iustelie suspect them to haue ben corrupted by heretikes Surelie the sectaries of these tymes are much deeper plunged in this nature thē they are in regarde that vnder the breight colour of reformation they doe not onelie vse to reprehend particular passages but reiect whole bookes that not onelie of the most ancient Fathers as appeareth in the Hierarchie of sainct Denis but also whole bookes of the scriptures themselues as is manifest in the bookes of the Machabies others which they vtterlie renounce condemne for Apochripha not sparing the booke of wisdome it selfe such cruell patrons they are of ignorance and of want of diuine knowledge Nay now of late they are be come so precise in this their spirituall tyranie that in their last editions as I ame informed they haue quite banished the foresaid bookes of Machabies Tobie Iudith wisdome Ecclesiasticus out of their bible To omit other bookes of lesse moment which they haue eyther mangled or left quite out of their editions as in the Inquisitors Index may be seene So that nowe the reader may plainelie perceiue that Sir Humfrey his pure simmists are so farre from excuse for their importune complaint of the Romanists in this particular that we may iustelie compare them to those Phariseis who could sooner see a mote in their fellowes eye then a beame in their owne And so here I leaue them all to be censured for hypocrites by Christ himselfe passe to the next section THE XII PERIOD THIS Period shall containe an other accusation of the knight in which he chargeth the Romanists with the crime of razing the recordes of the reformers clipping their owne authours tongues by which sayth he they are conuinced of an ill cause cōscience But how falselie the Romanists be accused by Sir
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
that text which hath ben at the least since the tyme of S. Augustin commonlie vsed in the Church as appeareth by the Rhemes Testamēt which because it is founde to haue ben rightlie translated is not arraigned by the Pope but exposed to be read euen by the laitie at the least by licence aduise of their Confessors Further more in regarde of the foresayd corruptions manie other which for breuitie I omitted made by heretikes in the holie scriptures those moderne authours which Sir Humfrey citeth if they be trulie cited haue ben induced to vtter some such speeches concerning the same as if they be not trulie piouslie interpreted may giue occasion of offence to the reader for example when they affirme as he sayth the scriptures to be dead caracters a dead killing letter c. such phrases neuerthelesse as it manifestlie appeareth by the rest of their doctrine discourse in those places are not vsed by those authours with an intent in anie sorte to disgrace or diminish the dignitie of the true worde of God but onelie by those comparatiue speaches to declare how subiect the scriptures are to be corrupted detorted to the defence of heresies errours if they be considered preciselie as they are the externall written letter interpreted otherwise then by the authoritie of the visible Church in all ages the ancient Councells Fathers they haue ben vhderstood Wherefore those Romanists which the knight citeth as if they had spoken irreuerentlie blasphemonlie of the holie scriptures doe no more iniurie vnto them then S. Paule did when 2. Cor. 3. he sayth of them litera occidit the letter killeth Lib. de Synodis or then did S. Hilarie when he teacheth that manie heresies haue their origin from scriptures ill vnderstood or then Martin Luther who called the Bible liber haereticorum the booke of heretikes None of which speeches as I suppose Sir Humfrey will dare to condemne either of blasphemie or irreuerence nay if he haue his senses aboute him he will easilie perceiue that those other such like phrases are not meant actiuelie of the worde of God but onelie passiuelie that is that throu ' the malice of the false interpreter it is so irreuerentlie detorted abused as if indeed it were as flexible as a nose of waxe And according to this we see that none of that which our aduersarie produceth here out of the Romanists is anie argument of irreuerence against the trueth inuiolabilitie of Gods worde but a calumnious accusatiō quite contrarie to the sense meaning of the foresaid authours who had not anie intention to taxe the scriptures but the corrupters false interpreters of them such as you pseudoreformers are your selues And now altho' by this which I haue sayd in generall touching this point of blasphemie against scripture supposed to be perpetrated by the Romanists the authors by the knight cyted remaine sufficientlie cleared from the imputation which he layes vpon them in that nature neuerthelesse because by the particular examen of the places cyted I haue discouered that either all or most of their wordes be either corruptedlie rehearsed or their sense detorted abused therefore I will seuerallie repeate their passages declare in what respects our aduersarie hath deceitfullie traduced them And to begin with Lindanus his stromata in deed I could not haue but I haue read the place cited out of his Panoplia where I finde that when he names the scripture a dead killing letter he onelie alludes to the wordes of S. Paule 2. Cor 3. for the letter killeth but the spirit giue liues Sicut illud eiusdē authoris dogma in mortuas imo ceidentes adeo literas relatum Panop lib. 1. c. 44. Neither speaking nor meaning worse of the same scripture then the Apostle himselfe affirming at the most that the bare letter of the worde of God ill interpreted doth kill the soule but reight expounded according to the tradition of the Church it doth reuiue nourish it brings it to eternall lyfe yea hauing better pondered his wordes in the end of the chapter quoted by Sir Humfrey I perceiue the doth not absolutelie call the scriptures a dead killing letter but onelie that the doctrine of that author meaning the holie Ghost as I conceiue is put in to dead killing letters As his wordes quoted in Latin in the margen declare And in this same sense I may iustelie truelie suppose the same authour speakes in the place quoted out of his other worke if any such saying he hath in regarde that a graue learned man as he is knowne to haue ben is euer iudged to be sutable to himselfe in all times places Which learned diuine is yet further cōuinced neuer to haue spoakē otherwise then reuerentlie of the scriptures in that in euerie seueral place cited by our aduersarie he stileth them sacrae litterae sacred letters And in like manner I conceiue of Charon who as being of the same faith religion he neither did nor dared to speake otherwise then with the same due respect which the Romā Church commaundes the Romanists to vse towardes the holie written worde of God Canus in his 3. chapter of his second booke is abused by the knight Nec esse eas volunt cereum quendā nasum in sensum omnem flexibiles sed potius esse per se expositas in promptu cuique sine magistro docente patere Canus lib. 3. ca. 7. f. 176 edit Louan by his imposing vpon the Romanists that which Canus speakes of the Lutherans saying that they will not haue the scriptures to be like a nose of waxe subiect to diuers senses but rather plaine for euerie one to vnderstand without a master or teacher thus the preposterous kniht doth positiuelie affirmatiuelie impute that to the Romanists which Canus onely relates to be negatiuely asserted of the scriptures by the Lutherans Turrianus agregiously abused in that he is accused to call the scriptures a Delphick sword the riddles of Sphinx and the like for he doth not absolutely say they are such but onely saith that if Christ had left in his Church that rule onely which the pretended reformers receiued from Luther to wit that scriptures are easie to be interpreted and vnderstanded and according as they haue hitherto expounded them in their owne sense then saith Turrian what els should we haue of them then a Delphick sworde In which wordes you see he doth not affirme absolutely that the scriptures are such a sworde but onely that according as the sectories handle them in their false manner of expounding they may be so compared and for this cause he puts for his marginall note how to interpret scriptures according to ones owne proper sense is as to haue a Delphick sworde so by this the authors wordes which I quote in the margen in Latin his meaning is sufficiently declared together with
string that the Roman Church houlds the scriptures to be imperfect but I knowe none that makes them so imperfect as the misreformed Churches by cutting of diuers partes of them and condemning them for Apochripha in their consistoriall sessions by corrupting the text by false translations erroneous interpretations as I haue aboue declared And touching the Roman Church I haue alreadie tould him that he belyeth her For neither she here selfe nor anie of her members euer defended that tenet absolutelie that the scriptures are imperfect But onelie some Romanists affirme the scriptures alone to be no perfect rule of faith yet they neuer say they are imperfect For one thing it is to be perfect in them selues an other thing to be perfect as they be a rule of faith The first is absolutelie true maintained by all Romanists the second is but true secundum quid with restriction as before hath ben declared or as it is but one parte yet the cheefest the farre more perfect noble Wherefore the Romanists as the reader may perceiue hould both the scriptures Fathers for perfect campleit absolutelie speaking wher as the reformers whatsoeuer they say in wordes yet indeeds they doe mangle martyrize them most cruellie as a booke published by a reformed minister called the censure of the Fathers doth giue ouer plaine testimonie Censura Patrum And thus handled by thim I graunt the reformers may chalenge them for theirs but taking them in their compleit perfect latitude puritie the Romanists my iustelie say all myne in which action notwithstanding there is no police vsed to deceiue the ignorant as the reformers vse to doe but plaine dealing for their true instruction And to say the Romanists silence scriptures it is so manifest an vntruth as it needs no other confutation But by the lye Neyther doe they otherwise purge either them or anie learned writers but onelie or at the least cheefelie from such darnell as you enimies to the Crop of Christ vse to sowe by night in the feild of faith According to the sentence of the authour of the Impect Commentarie of S. Mathewe hom 44. speaking of hereticall Preists whose wordes altho' the knight world faine applie them against the Romanists yet they can not possible be so trulie fitlie accommodated to anie as to his owne ministers Bishops whose common knowne practice is by seueritie of lawes all fortes of punishment not by their bookes writings to musle the Romanists mouthes because to vse the wordes of the foresaid author they knowe that if the truth be once layd opē their Church shall be forsaken they from their Pontificall dignitie shall be brought downe to the basenesse of the people And now we see by the examen of this whole sectiō howe false Sir Humfreyes cardes haue proued how plainelie he hath lost the game notwithstanding all his iudling tricks counterfeit shuffling of which sleights there are such great store in this section that there is no place for anie matter of substance but onelie verball florishes to giue colour countenance to his fained calumnious accusations THE XIV PERIOD SIR Humfrey tells vs that in this section following there are contained allegations collected out of Bellarmin for testification of the truth of the reformed doctrine in the cheefe points of controuersie I haue alreadie declared that the Romanists reiect not either true scriptures or Fathers nor yet anie other authours of the Roman Church but onelie as either corrupted by heretikes or els onelie where we finde them to haue some singular opinion or tenet against the vniforme doctrine of the rest in matters of faith manners or Ecclesiasticall practice or discipline or els in some particular points not then sufficientlie declared determined by the Church when they did so vtter their opinions of which sorte of writers neuerthelesse there neuer were anie such either in number or qualitie of doctrine as could either make or marre the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Church in that nature And as for Bellarmin whome Sir Humfrey citeth in this section we are so farre from taking exceptions at anie thing that he euer writ published that we all hould him for a most faithfull diligent defender not onelie of the principall points of our faith but also of euerie one of them in particular of the whole Roman doctrine in so much that I accounte it no lesse then plaine madnesse in that man whoe shall offer to make vse of his testimonie for the contrarie knowing for certaine that if he be sincerelie alledged rightlie vnderstāded nothing can be founde in him for the aduerse parte And to the end that this may more plainely appeare I will breeflie examen those particular places which Sir Humfrey produceth for the contrarie First therefore he citeth Bellarmin as confessing the vncertainty of all the Trēt Sacramēts as the knight termeth thē because forsooth in his third booke of Iustification the 8. chap. he graunteth that none can be certaine by the certaintie of faith that he receiueth a true Sacrament in regard in depends vpon the intention of the minister But this testimonie I haue alreadie shewed to be delusorie it is wholie impertinent to the purpose for that the question aboute the necessitie of the knowledge of the intention of the minister by faith is no principall controuersie betwixt vs but rather meerelie incident Neyther yet can the reformers finde the contrarie position in anie place of scripture by that meanes to make it a point of faith for themselues Secondlie he induceth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. touching the reformers denyall of transsubstantiation To which place I haue also ansered before it is not for this purpose in regarde there is no mention of anie denyall of the trueth of trassubstantiation or confession of the Reformers tenet in that point but onelie of an other incident question viz. whether transsubstantiation can be proued by expresse wordes of scripture And at least touching the maine point to omit the other as impertinent disagreable to the title of our aduersaries questiō which is of principal points of controuersie it is too cleare that Bellarmin defended the affirmatiue in terminis in plaine tearmes And so this is no such confession as Sir Humfrey seekes for in this place Besides that all Bellarmins confession is but one pore non est improbabile Thirdlie he citeth Bellarmins confession against priuate Masse lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. 10. But the latter place I haue examined before founde it corrupted by Sir Humfrey both in wordes sense neyther are the wordes sincerelie recited by omission of omnino sine declaratione Ecclesiae transposition of the text And here I further adde that neyther of the places is to this purpose because they proue no vnlawfulnesse or absolute imperfection in priuate Masses but onelie at the most their lesse lawfulnes their lesse
perfection or their want of frequentation in the primatiue ages which is no principall point of controuersie betweene the Reformers Romanists nay none at all And touching Bellarmins confession contained in the first place viz. That we read not expressely but gather by coniectures that the ancients did sacrifice without communion of some person or persons I say it is impertinent in regarde it inuolues no disproofe of priuate Masses as our aduersarie counningly indeuores to persuade his vnaduised reader It being sufficient for the instification of the practise of them that besides the authoritie of the present Church which approues them not anie worde either of scripture or ancient Fathers can be produced in which they ar condemned for vnlawful or repugnant to Christs institution or commaunde And if more then this were required for matters of practise in this nature certaine it is the pretensiue reformers of the Church would neuer be able to iustifie their owne order and prescription of cōmunicating at Easter or some twise or thrise more in the yeare or their newe prohibition of not receiuing their communion euen at the point of death without a competent number of neyther of which they haue not as much as one pore instance or example in the primatiue Church By which it appeares that Bellarmins confession is in this passage preposterously alledged by the knight both in respect of the Roman Doctrine against which it concludeth nothing as alsoe in respect of the inconuenience which by sequele and illation it induceth to his owne whoe yet offers the Cardinal some further abuse by omission of the worde facile in the recytal of his text Tamen id possumus ex cōiecturis facile colligere Bellar. supra Where the reader may yet once more reflect that altho' Bellarmin in his modestie tearmed the examples of antiquitie which he produceth for the practise of priuate Masses at the least in some particular cases no more then coniectures yet if some of them be duely pondered vrged with their circumstances they may iustely passe for solid reasons as that S. Chrysostome diuers tymes reprehending the people most sharpely vehemently for making the Masses priuate by their not communicating in them yet doth he not once either condemne such Masses in them selues or he him selfe euer ceased to celebrate them dayly euen then when he most preached against the negligence of those whoe were present in them without receiuing the sacrament with the preist Which doubtlesse is a morally concluding argument that Masses without communion of the people were vsed and esteemed lawful euen in those more primatiue ancient ages To which may not vnaptely be added for confirmation of the same discourse by way of aduertisment that S. Chrysostome neuer affirmed in these occasions of complainte of the people that Masses in which communicants ar wanting be euill or contrarie to Christs ordinance or precept but the most he said was that the oblation is frustrate when ther be none to participate which wordes of his ar soe farre from reprouing the practise vse of Masses without comunion of the people that they necessarily implye that the sacrifice was in realitie cebebrated notobstanding the people did frustrate the intention of the preist in that by their want of deuotion they receiued not the Communion which he had prepared for them supposing it is absolutely inpossible to conceiue that the Masse or oblation could be frustrated for wante of partakers except it were in it selfe a Masse or oblation truely really performed by the sacrificer Fourthlie it is true that Bellarmin confesseth that in the primatiue Church because the Christians were but fewe they did all sing ansere in the diuine offices But he affirmeth not that either it then was or now is vnlawfull to haue the publike or priuate prayer in an vnknowne tongue which is the onelie point in controuersie the reformers defending touth naile the affirmatiue the Romanists the negatiue Nay Bellarmin is soe farre from confessing the reformers doctrine in this particular that he expresselie affirmeth in the same place that the diuine offices in those primatiue times were celebrated in Greeke which all the people did not vnderstand yet cleareth this whole question so farre that if Sir Humfrey had vsed anie sparke of sinceritie in citing Bellarmins wordes home truelie they would haue taken away all doubt concerning his meaning Whereas by leauing out deceitfullie the latter parte of his clause he caused in his reader a preuidicate opiniō of the true sense touching which and the faithlesse proceeding of our aduersarie about the same the Cardinals owne wordes intirely recited will tell the truth for thus he speakes At obijcies sicut Apostolus c. But saith Bellarmin you will obiect As the Apostle would that the people might subioine Amen so also he was to ordaine that the diuine offices should be celebrated in the vulgar tongue that the people might answer Amen Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 16. I anser by denying the consequence because the diuine offices were performed in the Greeke tongue which manie of the people did vnderstand tho' not all this was sufficient for the Apostles will was not that all should anser Besides this because then the Christians were fewe they all sung together in the Church ansered in the diuine offices but afterwardes the multitude increasing the offices were more diuided it was left to the sole cleargie to acomplish the common prayers Laudes in the Church Thus plainely doth the Cardinall declare himselfe for a ptofessed aduersarie of Sir Humfrey his comperes in this particular euen so farre as to solue their greatest obiection which they vse to frame against the practise of the Roman Church Firstlie touching the allegation of Bellarmins confession of the reformers tenet aboute the Communion in both kyndes it is most false that Bellarmin confesseth it in the point in controuersie Bellarmin l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 16. I meane it is false that he confesseth either Christ to haue commaunded the communion in both Kyndes or that the ancient Church practized the same onelie in both kyndes both which points Bellarmin so expresselie declareth that Sir Humfrey could not possible haue found anie colour to haue alledged his confession for the contrarie if he had not mangled his wordes as he did in truth most shamefullie as may appeare most plainelie to him that will take paines to examen them as they are by him deliuered towardes the end of the chapter cited by the knight where it is euident that the Cardinall proceedeth diametrally contrarie to the reformers doctrine in the principall point of this question according to his owne expresse wordes quoted in this my margen Idcirco quaerendū superest vtrum saltē diuino praecepto positiuo eiusmodi obligatio communicandi sub vtraque specie in Ecclesia sit nos enim negamus illi sectarij asserunt Bellar. lib. 4. de
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
translation of Lyra's wordes both the worde aliquando in the begining also the end of his sentence to wit Lyra in c. 14. Dan. talia exstirpanda sunt à bonis prelatis sicut ista extirpata sunt à Daniele De ciuit l. 2. c. 8. And we yet further affirme with S. Augustin that he that seeketh to be confirmed by miracles nowe is to be wondered at most of all himselfe in refusing to beleeue what all the world beleeueth besides himselfe But in those wordes S. Augustin doth not deny but that true miracles may be in the Church nor yet that they were not in his time Lib. 22. c. 8. for in his bookes de Ciuit. he affirmeth expressely that Christian doctrine not onely in the begining but also in the progresse of the Church was confirmed by miracles as besides other places the very title of that same chapter rehearsed in my margen makes appeare to which these his wordes in the discourse following plainely agree De miraculis quae vt mundus in Christo crederet facta sunt ficri mundo credente nō desinunt Tit. c. 8 li. 22. For saith S. Augustin euen at this present time miracles are operated or done in his name in the name of Christ either by the Sacraments or by the prayers memories of his saints And the same S. Aug. in the same place further relates one famous miracle in particular done at the bodie of S. Geruase Protase in Milā where he himselfe remained at that present time And by this it is euident that S. Aug. in the other place produced by Sir Humfrey onely condemneth him whoe for want of miracles should refuse to beleeue to which we Romanists most willingly agree And by this it appeareth that S. Augustin is here impertinently alledged by the knight But the trueth is that because these companions haue no miracles in their owne Church they striue by all meanes possible to obscure the miracles of the Church of Rome crye out like Bedlames ther is no need of miracles And now to come to a conclusion of this section the censure of it I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey what is all this discourse of miracles to the purpose of testifying his doctrine by the confession of Bellarmin surely nothing at all I persuade my selfe the knight was mightly distracted when he penned it and so I leaue him till he returnes to his more perfect senses THE XV. PERIOD SIR Humfrey playeth the parte of a Charlatan so farre that he is not content by his prestigious trickes sleights to laie clame to ancient Fathers moderne Romanists for confessors of his owne faith but also out of the groasenes of his education in this section he presumeth to laie his greasie handes vpon those holie primatiue martyres champions of Iesus Christ ingrossing conueying those sacred wares into his owne stincking store-house which neuerthelesse all ages all Christian people all nations haue till the dayes of Luther proclamed testified to pertaine to the renowne glorie of the Roman Church And altho' he would seeme to proue that the foresaid prime martyrs doe not belong to the Church of Rome yet his cheefe proofe is but prating an idle application of his owne tenets alreadie examined confuted in their seuerall places where they haue ben all founde either plainelie false or at the least equiuocall founded vpon false suppositions vpon which no true argument can be framed which being so I may iustelie saue labour to descend to particulars yet one onelie wil I specifie which is so shamefullie impertinent that it is sufficient alone to shame the rest He sayth therefore that Father Garnet being demaunded whether if he were to consecrate the Sacrament that morning he should suffer death he durst after consecration affirme vpon his Saluation that the wine in the cup consecrated was the verie blood of Christ which flowed from his side he made ansere it might iustelie be doubted This is the wise storie which Sir Humfrey telleth vs out of Bishop Andrewes which altho' wee are not bounde to beleeue as being iustified onelie by our aduersaries yet suppose it is as true as their Gospell it maketh not anie thing for this purpose for that Sir Humfreys taske in this place was not to medle with martyrs of these later ages but to demonstrate that those ancient martyrs of former ages did not die for that fayth which the present Roman Church professeth so what soeuer he or his Prelate can faigne of Father Garnet is but a fooles boult which flying at randome cometh not neare the marke Father Garnet sayth hee durst not pronounce openlie ouer the cup after he had consecrated it this is the bloud of Christ ergo neuer anie martyr did take it vpon his death that the consecrated bread is the corporall reall flesh of Christ Behould I praye this most subtill Logike of a knight admire it Or if you list rather laffe at it as I did when I founde it out so I lefte it without anie further confutation imagining that perhaps Sir Humfrey lōg before he was borne did miraculouslie speake with some of those ancient souldiers of Christ so came to knowe that none of them euer gaue their liues for the reall presence Which in deed is the point in question not whether a man can lawfullie pronounce vpon his Saluation whether this or that hoste in particular after consecration containeth the bodie of Christ as the knight captiouslie supposeth But yet shewing vs some more graines of his follie he sayth further that it is vndoubtedlie true that the ancient martyrs could not dye in that fayth nor for that religion which was altogether vnknowne to their church O ingenious gētilman but yet I pray tell me if the fore sayd martyrs dyed not for the Romanists religion because as you faigne they dyed not for the profession of the reall presence For what religion did they dye Suerlie not for yours because if our religiō was vnknowne vnto them much more was yours vnknowne to their ages which was not in the world before the daies of Luther except perhaps your 39. articles were knowne vnto them by extraordinarie reuelation before they were coyned It is true here we haue Sir Humfreys ipse dixit for confirmation of his tenet so it must needs be doubtlesse his authority is so excessiuely great Sir Tho. Ouerb in his caract of a Puritā or Precisian And so I graunt the hypotheticall to be most true And me thinkes it is not much vnlike to an other such like position of the Puritans who vse to say it is vnpossible for a man to be damned in their religion so a facetious Protestant confesses for certaine as long as heliues in it but if he dyes in it ther 's the question Wherefore since all is but trifles that Sir Humfrey bringeth I wish the reader of his booke to consider with himselfe
how smale probabilitie there is to imagin that those glorious champions of Christ who so valerouslie suffered torments died for him in the Roman Church manie of them at Rome it selfe could possiblie belong to anie other Church in the world then to that Church which as in that tyme it had the name of Roman Church so doth it still remaine with the same appellation not otherwise then by a continuall succession of the Popes of Rome three thirtie of which as eloquent Campian trulie obserueth were put to death for their faith which their faith as it is manifest partlie by their owne workes partelie by the authenticall histories of their martyrdomes was the verie same according to the manner I haue before declared which nowe is tought in the present Church of Rome And if this be not so if those glorious martyrs were not defenders of that Roman faith which by succession of pastours is deriued arriued to this our time I demaund of our aduersaries of what other faith they were for of the reformed faith they could not possible bee in regarde that none of them either tought in their life or died for the defence of Iustification by faith onelie or for the deniall of the reall presence of the bodie blood of Christ in the Eucharist nor for denying that there is anie other worde of God but onelie scripture Nor for affirming that the images of Christ his Saints are Idols or that they who honore them adore idols or stickes stones or that the Pope was Antichrist nor doe wee finde in anie historie either anie of this nor yet that the foresayd martyrs suffered for these or anie other point of the reformers doctrine which is contrarie to the faith of the present Roman Church Wherefore the sayd reformers must necessarilie confesse that the ancient martyrs died either for ours or for no other Christian doctrine consequentlie that they are eyther ours or no martyrs at all And if they were Popes of Rome as you Puritās your selues cānot denie how could they possible be yours who beleeue the Pope is Antichrist are so farre from that kynde of gouernemēt that you doe not willingly admit eyther Pope Prince or Prelate but onelie a consistoriall Anarchie without head or feet And he that shall duelie ponder these particulars doubtlesse his conscience will tell him howe vniustelie Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to wreist from the Roman Church those rich prises And let this suffice for the censure of this section to shewe that the Romanists by their claime to the martyrs of the primatiue Church pretend nothing but their due THE XVI PERIOD THE 17. section containeth an ansere to an obiection of the Romanists drawne from the opinion of Protestants touching the Saluation of professed Romanists where Sir Humfrey telleth vs he is come to the greatest wonder And I confesse the wonder which the knight proposeth is great but it being of his owne making it is not hee that ought to wonder at it but rather in my opiniō he should leaue that to others And truelie it is most wonderfull to mee to heare that the Romanists themselues should confesse their owne doctrine to be different from the ancient Church in manie principall points of faith but this hauing alreadie ben demonstrated to be false feigned by Sir Humfrey the greatest wonder of all wonders is that he should haue the face to make a wonder of his owne so often repeated vntruthes It is true the Romanists constantlie hould that neyther Lutheran nor Caluinist nor anie other heretike or Scismatike dying in his heresie obstinatelie can be saued for so they say with him that could commit no rashe iudgement he that doth not beleeue is alreadie iudged Qui autem non credit iam iudicatus est Ioan. 3.18 Neuerthelesse wee Romanists doe not denie but that probably some simple people may liue in heresie yet not be damned at the least for heresie yet be saued by ignorance if with all they be free from other mortall sinnes eyther because they neuer lost their baptismall grace or if they lost it by contrition they recouer it againe which altho' it be not impossible yet is it verie full of dangerous difficultie morallie speaking almost a Metaphisicall case for such I leaue it Sir Humfrey proceedeth on babling aboute a Citie seated vpon seuen mountaines which he fondelie houldeth for a marke of the false Church applyeth it to the Roman Church But if Rome were the seate of the false Church because it is planted vpon seuen mountaines then how scaped it from that staine all those fiue hundreth yeares in which the reformers themselues graunt it was the mother Church Iacobus Rex epist monit Neyther hath the Roman Church anie such marke of assuming supreme authoritie ouer Kings Princes as the knight doth odiouslie affirme but onelie with due respect humility vseth that authoritie ouer them which Christ himselfe did conferre vpon her in such manner as is most conducing to the Saluation of their owne soules their vassals according to the rules of Christian prudence the precept of charitie Yet not to dominier ouer them or their subiects in anie sorte much lesse to approue or allowe of their oppression either by Massacre or anie other vnlawfull meanes as the sectaries especiallie the Puritans doe vse calumniouslie to obiect notobstanding that none in the world are more guiltie then them selues in those practices of which we haue too manie examples in Scotland France other places euen against Kings Princes which doubtlesse caused King Iames of great Britanie to speake so plaine as he did both in his bookes ordinarie discourses of that particular Nihil nisi calumniam seditionem spirātes Basilic dor After this Sir Humfrey descends to diuers particulars demaūdeth whether he his fellowes be accursed for maintaining them or no and whether the Romanists be blessed for such such points which they defende against the sectaries And thus he runneth a long betweene blessing cursing till he concludes casting the curses vpon the Romanists the blessings vpon his owne Congregation But because ther is little or nothing but such false stuffe as I haue alreadie examined cēsured because I haue quite surfeited with so frequēt repetitiō of the same subiect I onely saye in generall as he is blessed whoe heareth or obeyeth the Church in all things in regarde that by obeying the Church he obeyeth Christ whoe blesseth them that obey him So contrarily he that disobeyeth the Church in one onely thing he is accursed according to the wordes of Christ him helfe if he will not heare the Church let him be vnto to the like an Ethnike or Publican Mat. 18. And so Sir Humfrey had no reason to maruell if the Romanists accounte him his fellowes accursed because they refuse to imbrace obey anie point of that doctrine which the most
vniuersall Church of the worlde proposeth vnto them as doctrine to be receiued beleeued or practized by all faithfull Christians And as S. Augustin in the 41. of his fiftie homilies saith Whosoeuer is separated frome the Catholique Church that is to say that Church which spred in ouer the whole worlde as he specifieth in the precedent wordes how laudably soeuer he thinkes he liueth for that onely sinne that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ he shall not obteine life eternall but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him In which wordes as the reader may see according to the sentence of S. Augustin separation from the obedience of the vniuersall Church is sufficient to bring the curse vpon anie man notobstanding in other respects he liueth neuer so virtuously And according to this the Romanists may bouldly say they are accursed whoe deny all merit in workes proceeding from the grace of God Scr. 68. in Cant. they blessed with Sainct Bernard whom Caluin himselfe calleth a holye pious man that affirme with him that it is a pernicious prouertie to want merits yet especially at the houre of their death for humilitie with the same S. Bernard put all their confidence in the mercy of God that which the Romanists doe much more then the reformers notobstanding their defence of meritorious workes They are accursed whoe otherwise then Christ tought or affirmed teach affirme it vnlawfull for the laitye to communicate in one kynde And they blessed whoe with Christ his Church take it for a thing indifferent of it selfe to receiue in one or both kyndes stand to the ordināce of the most vniuersall Church without contention according to the difference of times places persons They are accursed whoe being vnlearned read scriptures interpret them falsely for the maintenance of their errours according to that of S. Peter saying Epist 2. c. 3. ther are certaine places in S. Paules Epistles which the vnlearned depraue to their owne perdition but blessed are they whoe read them as the Eunuch did that is with a S. Philipe I meane with one to shewe them the true sense as S. Basil his brother Nazianzene did Lib. 11. cap. 9. whoe according to Rufinus read the scriptures following the sense of them not according to their owne presumption but according to the writinges of their predecessours notwithstanding they were both verie famous renowned in learning They are accursed whoe either prohibit mariage or meates as ill in them selues as some ancient heretikes did or absteine not frome them both at such times in such cases as God his Church ordaineth them to absteine And they are blessed whoe according to the order of the Church directed by the spirit of God remaine with S. Paule vnmaried refaine from eating flesh at such times as the same Church appointeth Those are accursed for contemning of Christ in his Church whoe contrary to her appointmēt doe schismatically administer the publike seruice Sacraments in the vulgar tongue erroneously defending the same to be commaunded by the scriptures blessed are those whoe for reuerence to the holy scriptures conseruation of the dignity of the diuine offices other iust reasons hould it fitting to administer publike seruice Sacraments in a language most common to all nations to wit in the Latin tongue They are accursed whoe loue Christ his Saints so little as they accounte it idolatrie contrary to the scriptures to honore their images notobstāding ther is no place of scripture truly interpreted to be founde against them those are blessed according to the same scriptures whoe to shewe their exterordinarie affection to Christ duely reuerence both the images of him his blessed seruants They are accursed that refuse either to adore Christs bodie whersoeuer he affirmeth it to bee or account it idolatrie or superstition to honore the Saints who he him selfe saith he honoreth with a crowne of glorie blessed are they that performe his pleasure in both by adoring his pretious bodie blood in the sacrament by honoring his Saints in Heauen where he doth honour them as his seruants freinds Si quis mihi ministrauerit honorificabit eum Pater meus c. They are accursed who contrary to scripture reiect such ancient traditions as the most vniuersall Church approueth blessed are those who with due obedience obserue the same Accursed are they who reiect charitie frome the formall cause of iustification Maior autem horum est charitas 1. Cor. 13. which notobstanding according to the Apostle is greater then either hope or faith blessed are they who admit it in iustification as well as faith preferre it before faith with the same Apostle Accursed are they that by denying with the Iewes the bookes of the Machabies to be Canonicall scriptures denie Purgatory prayer for the soules departed blessed are they who with the Church S. Augustin hould the foresayd bookes for canonicall scripture say with him it is an vndoubted thing that prayer doth profit the dead Non dubiū est oration prodesse defunctis Aug. de cura pro mort c. 1. And in this māner if need were I could passe throu ' all the rest of the points of controuerted doctrine easily showe the curse to fall vpon the misreformed brothers for their obstinacie disobedience to God his Church Sir Humfrey would faine seeme to beare a charitable minde towardes the Romanists in regarde he saith he dares not pronounce damnation vpon their persons and yet he proclaimeth confidently opēly to the whole world that their doctrine is damnable to which it is necessarily consequent that all such as die obstinately in it are directly damned so if Sir Hūfrey proceeds cōsequenter to this his tenet he must necessity iudge the same of at the least in generall of those which dye in the foresaid obstinate manner with out inuincible ignorance end their liues in it But if this be that which he calls greater charitie them Romanists haue all the fauour he doth vs we thanke him not for it such charitie he may better reserue to himselfe his brothers who in my opiniō haue no more thē they can spare And if this be all the difference which can be foūde betwixt the proceeding of the Romanists the reformers in this particular then I say that notwithstanding Sir Humfrey much laboureth to make his reader beleeue that he his reformed brothers are more charitable thē the Romanists in iudging of the state of the soules of such as departe in each religion neuerthelesse it is manifest he quite faileth of his intent supposing that the Romanists doe not vse to iudge but rather suspend their iudgment of particular persons except they haue some speciall reasons prudently morally to persuade themselues that this or that partie died in actuall obstinacie defence of his erroneous faith otherwise
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
consecrationem fieri arbitrantur Ego vero consecrationem horum verborum operatione hoc facite in meam commemorationem fieri existimo Christus enim c. There be verie manie saith this author who think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these wordes this my bodie materially pronounced Whence it is that I haue seene some whoe comeing to consecrate doe in a strange manner cast their breath with the foresaid wordes vpon the breade and wine as if in as much onely as they be naked wordes not considering anie thing else in them they did hould consecration to be performed by them But I think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these wordes doe this in rembrance of mee For Ghrist c. By which wordes it clearely appeareth that Christophorus did not absolutely denye that preists doe consecrate by these wordes this is my bodie but he onely affirmeth that they haue not their consecratiue virtue or force included in their owne materiall sounde but receiue it from the precept of Christ contained in those other wordes of his Doe this in remembrance of mee That which I yet further conuince by o other wordes of the same author in this same Action wher thus he discourseth in confirmation of his position Nemo proinde existimet haec verba hoc est corpus meum technice materialiter prolata consecrationem efficere sed ipsius Sacerdotis orationem in qua haec ipsa recitantur mandati huius hoc facite virtute atque operatione irrogatam ac spirituali virtute roboratam Let noe man therfore think saith hee that these wordes this is my bodie artificially and materially pronounced doe make the consecration but the prayers of the preist in which these same wordes alsoe are recited proceeding from the virtute and operation of this precept doe this and strenthened by virtue of the same Thus Christophorus By which it is manifest he had noe intention to denye these wordes this is my bodie to be them by which preists doe consecrate since he expressely affirmes that they are included and rehearsed among those prayers benedictions and gratiarum actions by which according to his tenet they dayly consecrate But he onely in his owne priuate opinion houldes that as well those wordes this is my bodie as the rest of the prayers which the preists vse haue their virtue and efficient force of consecration not from their owne materiall sounde but from the precept of Christ doe this in remembrance of mee Which altho' as it hypothetically or totally soundes it is an extrauagant and singular placet or dictamen of his yet is it not repugnant to the Catholique Roman faith either in the point of the reall presence or transsubstantiation as may plainely appeare to anie iudicious reader But onely hath some affinitie with the tenet of the moderne Grecians in this particular whoe not obstanding constantly defende both the one and the other as I haue shewed in an other place by the doctrine of their late Patriarch in his responsion to the lutherans And now I hence inferre as a thing more directly for my purpose that the wordes which Sir Humfrey produceth against transsubstantiation out of a certaine treatise intuled de Correctione Theologiae Scholasticae are not truely the wordes of this author But that Treatise is falsely ascribed vnto him and forged in his name how soeuer our aduersaries make great estimation and vse of it That which I clearely demonstrate because it containeth doctrine repugnant to that which he him selfe teacheth in his owne vndoubded worke against the Sacramentaries For wheras according to the citation of the knight in his 108. page of his safe way in his Treatise inscribed de correct Theol. Schol. Christophorus hath these wordes Therfore it most certaine that Christ did not consecrate by those wordes this is my bodie neither ar they anie parte of consecratiō And yet in his Treatise against the Sacramentaries he directly affirmeth the contrarie saying thus Christus enim horum verborum hoc est corpus meum vi operatione consecrationem confecit panis natura in verum ipsius corpus sese mutante c. Which is in English Christ did consecrate by virtue and operation of the wordes this is my bodie the nature of the bread being changed or changeing it selfe in to his bodie c. Now it is plane that these wordes plainely contradict the other rehearsed by our aduersarie these directly and expressely affirming that Christ did consecrate by these wordes this is my bodie the other directely and expressely denying the same In soe much either we must of necessitie grante that the Archbishop plainely contradicted him selfe which is not to be admitted especially in a graue learned diuine as he was or else that the Treatise in which is soe expressely contained a denyall of that same which the same author affirmeth in his owne knowne acknowledged worke is not truely his but falsifyed and falsely published in his name and consequently what soeuer our aduersarie produceth out of it proueth nothing but is to be registred in the list of such other cōterfeit wares as he selleth to his reader for currēt in the rest of his worke And touching his Treatise against the sacramētaries some other of his workes althou ' they cōtaine some extrauagant positions and therfore were iustely condemned to be expurged by the authors of the Index yet because particularly in his booke against the denyers of the reall presence the author exprssely submitteth his doctrine to the censure of the Roman Church purposely placeing in the frontispice of his booke omnia sanctae Eccesiae Catholicae ac sanctae sedi Apostolicae Romanae iudicio submissa sancto therfore his authoritie can not anie way preiudice the Roman faith And now let this suffice to shewe the falsitie of this citation onely the reader must further suppose that if I had seene the Treatise it selfe I could haue cleared the matter more exactely But our aduersaries take an order for that keeping closse all such obscure workes and reseruing them for their owne pallates as great nouelties and most daintie dishes Some fewe more authors remaine vnexamined by reason I could not haue them as Cardinal Carapha Ioānes Marius twoe or three others But I assure the reader the allegations drawne out of them by my aduersarie containe no matter of importance which is not sufficiently cleared without anie further searche of the places as they stand in the bookes Onely this inconuenience ther is in this matter viz. That if I had obtained a sight of the authors thē selues I should probably haue discouered some more of the alledgers ill proceding In respect of which and my other more triuial defectiuenes I will vse the same excuse which S. Augustin hath for a certaine worke of his concluding thus Si quid ab eis dici solet quod forte disputando non attigi tale esse arbitratus sum cui mea responsio necessaria non
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
partiallity of the rule of faith where yet nothing is to be found in that sense which the knight fraudulently framed to his owne purpose And now from hence I passe to the Epistle dedicatory on which I had scarce cast myne eyes when presently I discouered two or three slanderous lyes vttered by the author the firste is that the pretended Catholike Church as he phraseth her is made the whole rule of faith by the Romanists the second that the Romane Catholikes are tought to eate their God kill their King the third that the Pope at this day alloweth of the Iewes Talmud inhibiteth the bookes of Protestants And those vntruthes I haue noted onely not for that I could not haue marked out others but because they seemed the most obuious grosse palpable I omit also to specify diuers places of Bellarmine cited by Sir Humfrey both heere in many other partes of his worke which well examined can serue him for no other purpose thē to coulore his cousinage And as for the rest of his preface I can assure the reader it is little more then an idle tedious repetition of the same matters which he handled in his firste booke and whosoeuer will take the paines to read both his pamphlets will find so frequent rehersall of the same things that his eares will tingle to heere them nay some whole chapters of this booke there bee which excepting the title haue little other matter then the same which is found in the other as will appeere in particular to him who shall conferre the two last sections of it with the tenth eleuenth sections of the safe way In so much that I thinke I may not vnfitly say of the workes of Sir Humfrey that which a certaine pleasant wit sayd once of the writings of Luther Tolle contradictiones calumnias mendacia dicteria ac schommata scurillia in Catholicos Romanos inanes digressiones ambages atque inutiles verborum multiplicationes duo eius volumina in vnum haud magnum libellulum redigi posse non dubito that is take way Sir Humfreys contradictions calumniations lyes take away his scoffes ieastes against the Romane Catholikes his idle vaine digressions multiplication of wordes or repetition of matter with his friuolous circumlocutions I doe not doubt but both his volumes may be easily reduced to the bulke of one small pāphlet And thus much concerning the Preface the booke in generall from whence I passe to particulars THE DISCVSSION OF THE SEVERAL sections in their order Sec. 1. In his first section I thinke I may trulie say Sir Humfrey telleth but one vntruth but it is so lardge a lye that it reaches from end to end I meane but one totall lye for partiall lyes there are diuers This totall vntruth is in that he affirmeth in his second page that the difference betwixt vs them is such as was betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists which is manifestly conuinced to be false euen by those same words which he himself cites out of that holy doctor Aug. de vnit Eccl. cap. 2. who directly sayth that the question betweene him them was vbi sit Ecclesia where the Church is And yet the question is not betwixt the Romanists the Reformers where the true Church is but which is the true Church that is whether the Romane church all the rest of the particular Churches in the world adhering to obeying that Church as the cheife mother Church be that true Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed commended in the scriptures or the reformed Church or Churches wheresoeuer they be which the reader may plainly perceaue to be a farre different question from that of which S. Augustine speaketh in the place cited by the kinght Secondly the whole discourse of this section runneth vpon a false supposition to witt that the Romanists refuse to proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onelie as S. Augustine did saith the kinght against the donatists but this is not true for the Romanists are so farre for reprouing that course in this point that they scarce vse any other proofes then those same scriptures which the same S. Augustin ordinarily vseth for that purpose as may be seene in the workes of both ancient moderne diuines Thirdly neuertheles when the Romanists say they proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onely they doe not therfore meane so that they exclude the interpretation of them according to the ancient tradition of the same Catholike Church for so neither S. Augustine eyther against the Donatists or any other hereticks in the like case alleaged the scriptures but as the same Saint Augustine saith thou ' partly in different wordes to another purpose De vnit Eccles c. 19. vt non nisi verum sensum Catholicum teneamus not so but that we doe followe the true Catholike sense of the same scriptures And in fewe wordes that which the Romanists meane is that they doe not vse the scriptures for proofe of their Church in the sense of the pretensiue reformed Churches but ouerly in that sense which anciently hath binne imbraced by the most vniuersally floryshing Church in all or most ages according to the diuersity of tymes And thus we see cleerlie that Sir Humfrey in diuerse respects hath grosselie ignorantlie mistaken the state of the question both betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists also betwixt himselfe the Romanists And consequentlie those authorities which he produdeth eyther out of S. Augustine or other ancient Fathers are impertinent of no force against the faith of the Romane Church but on the contrarie by his false dealing he hath fallen into that by path which in his erroneous imagination he hath prepared for his aduersaries in which neuerthelesse he himselfe if he proceed in this manner is like to walke euen to the end of his iorney I meane throu ' all the sections of his booke Sec. 2. In his second section he pretends to ansere to the pretences as he termeth them taken by the Romanists from the obscuritie of scripture from the inconueniences which he saith his aduersaries alleage for the restraint of the lay peoples reading them yet he is so farre from performing his taske in this behalfe that he doth not so much as relate completelie those reasons which moue the Romā Church to ordayne the said restraint but onelie catching at one or two of the lesse important causes alleaged by Bellarmin to that purpose giuing a verie sleight superficiall ansere vnto them he spends a great part of his time in forging a new cause which he falselie conceiueth to haue binne the onelie or cheife motiue which the Roman Church had to prohibite the reading of the Bible to wit for feare as he sayth their Trent doctrine new articles should be discouered And also in breathing out an odious relation of the speaches of some particular
difficult questions nor yet could you haue so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirme in one place that the text of scripture is the sole Iudge expounder of itselfe indefinitlie without liâ—itation yet on the contrarie in another place that you doe not denie the authoritie of the Fathers iointlie agreing in the exposition of them in matters of faith yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them as if the holie Ghost were bound to appeere visiblie to deliuer the true sense of them as often as anie controuersie of faith occurreth All which the like disparates the vertiginous knight vttereth within the compasse of this one section also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselues Iudges plaintiffes in their owne cause wheras indeed the Romanists neyther make themselues but the euer visible continueing Church Iudge of their cause nor doe they hould theÌ„selues for plaintiffes but for defendants faithfull possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they receiued from their auncestors And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his owne receiued Principle touching the interpretation sense of scriptures of which he his brothers make euerie priuate person man or woman Iudge vmpier yet condemnes for vnreasonable that the Roman Church should vse the like authoritie euen when it is publikelie assembled in a generall Councell So that these all those a foresaid particulars deliuered by our aduersarie touching this point are but onelie his owne fancyes of which he makes vse for want of better materialls to patch vp this part of his by path in which as you see he continueth his peripateticall exercise euen to the next section Sec. 4. In which it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise yet they make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of scripture thus the knight fableth of whom I tknowe I may iustlie say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur And in reallitie of whome I pray can this be so trulie verified as of those who notobstanding that vnder a false colour that euen in cases of doubt controuersie they ingenuouslie professe that scriptures must be interpreted by themselues onelie Vid. ChaÌ„ Panstrat I. de inten scrip yet neuerthelesse doe most pertinaciouslie maintaine that the exposition of them belongs to euerie member of their Church in particular that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another for what is this but to make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of the scripture not the scripture itselfe as they deceitfullie pretend Let the indifferent reader be Iudge of this It is true the Councell of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers yea Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities places of care of soules take an oath of the same but as they take the oath so doe they performe also the obligation of it And I demand of Sir Humfrey who hath such a great talent in reprehending whether he thinkes not in his conscience that those who vnder the strict boÌ„d of oath are obliged to anie matter are not more like to performe it then those who haue no such obligation whereby to restraine their actions surelie there is a great difference in the circumstances consequentlie a great reason to iudge that those Romanists who haue such an oath obliging them to followe the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture will be farre more carefull to performe the same then the reformed Doctours who haue no such bridle to refraine the inclination to noueltie of their itching witts Now wheras Sir Humfrey after his ordinary cauilling manner doth say that if the Romane Church can make good the vniforme consent of Fathers for their twelue new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation preferre it before any priuate or later exposition this I say is a meere sophisme in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes that he who interpreteth scriptures must haue positiuely the vniforme consent of Fathers for his expositions but onely that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers the which because the kinght did not rightly vnderstand as it seemes when he read the Concell the Bull of Pius he abuseth Caietane Canus Andradius Bellarmine Baronius other moderne Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree wheras yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established the rest being knowne for notorius defenders of it so running vppon false grownes the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts building his By-way to omitt others of lesse moment diuerse scurrilous scoffes touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it s well knowne he his companions are much more guilty in that kinde with two notorious vntruthes affirming that all the pristes Iesuites are sworne not to receaue interpret scriptures but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers that it is an article of the Roman faith so to doe all which needes no further examen in regard that to any iuditious reader these two particulars onely will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the authors iugling trickes which he vseth in this part of his by-way which being voyde of substantiall matter it suteth best to him that made it but agreeth nothing to the Catholike RomaÌ„ faith â—ect 5. In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures which he promiseth to proue by pregnant testimonies of all ages that it is the same which learned Doctors professors intirely preserued in the besome of the Roman Church in all ages I haue treated of this in parte in my former Censure to which I adde returning that Sir Humfrey saith of Campion vppon himself which is that if this Nouellist had binne as reall in his proofes as he is prodigall in his promisses he had gome beyond all the reformed proselites sinces the daies of Luther for neuer man made greater florishes with proorer proofes all that he bringeth being founded vppon the same equiuocation which he vsed in his safe way consisting of this proposition the Fathers of euery age haue acknowledged the 22. bookes of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonicall to be the true Canon no other For it is true the Fathers of all ages receiued from Christe his Apostles those same bookes acknowledging them for Canonicall but it is false that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonicall of which truth particular instance
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
is but onelie one in which it can be sayd with anie coulourable probabilitie that sainct Gregorie in anie of the places heere cited doth contradict the doctrine of the Roman Church that is the point of the Canon of the scriptures in which patricular althou ' he refused to giue the bookes of Machabees the title of Canonicall scripture as yet S. Augustine others did before him the rest of the writers for the most parte euer since haue donne whether it were because he ment onelie they were not contained in the Canon of the Iewes or for that the whole Church had not then declared them for Canonicall vnder that name Neuerthelesse he is not to be iudged more repugnant to the doctrine of the present Roman Church in that point then those who notobstanding that in the primitiue Church certaine bookes of the new Testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes others were doubted of yet now with infallible certaintie faith receaue them for diuine sacred scripture althou ' they were not accounted beleiued for such by all the orthodoxall Fathers of the Church in all former ages since the time of the Apostles who firste published them to the world Especiallie considering that the same sainct Gregorie neuer denyed neyther in the place cited nor in anie other of his workes but that as the declaration of the Church was sufficient to assure all faithfull people that those bookes of which before his dayes there had binne doubt were then trulie Canonicall scripture thou ' not knowne for such in euerie age before him so might the same succeeding Church in later times determine the like of those bookes which in his time so generallie vndoubtedlie were not as yet held for such Neyther according to the rules of diuinitie can that man be reputed not to be of the same religion of which another is because he now beleaueth some thing more in the materiall obiect of faith then the other did in that time in which he liued but at the most it can onelie be truelie verified that he hath the same habit of faith thou ' some what more extended in the obiect as neyther the Apostles were of a diuerse faith when they were firste instructed by Christe before his passion from that they had after his resurrection when yet doubtlesse they receaued more expresse extensiue knowledge in matters of faith then before they had receiued And sure I am S. Gregorie without exception cites both the booke of Tobie Ecclesiasticus sapience most frequentlie none of which bookes neuerthelesse the misreformers admit for the worde of God And till Sir Humfrey or some of his associates can produce out of S. Augustin S. Gregorie as plaine pregnant places either for his owne tenets or against the Roman doctrine as the Romanists haue long since produced for theirs as their workes vpon euerie seuerall controuersie make apparent let them for shame neuer claime them for theirs in anie one point of controuersie for notobstanding they make a plausible vse of some fewe patches of their more ambiguous ill construed ill related sentences yet turne but the iudicious vnpartiall reader to the bookes them selues he will ingenuouslie confesse absolutelie crye a loud all is ours And if it would please his maiestie of his royall clemencie to suffer vs freelie to make tryall of our cause by scripture Fathers I knowe which side would be founde minus habens manie graines to light But it is our great miserie yet in one sense our great happines to be so crossed curbed with seueritie of tēporal lawes that we cannot be safe in the most priuate corners much lesse can we appeare in any publike assemblie for defense of our Religion Vid. Bell. in quatuor Cōtr. tom valēt Anales fid But yet supposing that S. Gregorie had binne contrarie in that particular of the bookes of Machabies for touching the rest mentioned by the knight he is sufficientlie cleered from that imputation by Bellarmine other Romanists yet could it not possiblie proue that monstrous great proposition of our aduersarie to wit that S. Gregorie in his vndoubted writings directlie opposeth the Romish faith in the maine pointes thereof consequentlie from hence it manifestlie appeereth how farre Sir Humfrey hath walked by the way when in the end of his eleauenth section he auouched his reader should plainlie discerne how the later Popes Bishops doe differ from the former how these two Fathers of the Church meaning sainct Augustine sainct Gregorie concurre expresselie with the doctrine professed in the reformed Churches different from the Roman it being most apparent by the premisses that by anie thing which he hath heere produced out of the foresayd Fathers he hath neyther proued anie one point of his owne religiō nor disproued ours but hath onelie prestigiouslie deluded the eyes of the reader with a coulorable florish yet in realitie remaineth still in the same byway in which he hath hitherto walked separate from the royall street of the ancient Doctors of the primitiue Church Sec. 14. The next section being the fourteenth is that the ingenuous Romanists confesse that the Councells which they oppose against the Reformers were neyther called by lawfull authoritie nor to the right ends Heere I finde that to be most true which a pleasant Protestant pronounceth of the Puritans sayeing their religion willinglie admitts no founder but Bragger they flourished much about a time And in sober sadnes the best Sir Humfrey can make of his aduersaries confession throu ' out his whole worke in fauour of his doctrine doth nothing more then plainlie conuince him to be of no other progenie Neyther doe their confessions fit his purpose anie better then if he should put his shooes vpon his handes or his hose vpon his head A patterne of this you may see in this verie section in which how soeuer he vaunteth of the confession of his aduersaries that by two principall conditions as he sayth ancientlie in vse for the authoritie of Councells are both acknowledged to be abrogated by later Councells to wit because quoth the knight now a dayes the Pope calls Councells without right he his assemble them in their owne name for their owne ends for proofe of which calumnious position he cites but onely two authors those scarce held for sound mettle among the Romanists neyther yet doth eyther of them plainlie auerre his position as it is vttered by him but they onelie speake by way of reprehension of such abuses as might be practised in that nature by the malice of men without taxing the Pope or anie other in particular as the knight would maliciouslie inferre out of their wordes for the confirmation of the sinister opinion he hath of the Church of Rome her head in earth The rest which he hath in this section is but eyther his owne bare assertions those not true as that from
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
Vide relat Synod Dordrecht Dort in which the reformed Prelates carryed themselues so zealouslie that as it is crediblie reported they spent 2000. pounds in Renish wine to heat their spirits before euer they had decreed anie one point of their controuersies Sec. 17. In his seauenteenth section Sir Humfrey doth nothing but foyst babble abuse Bellarmine other Romanists about the Church as if they extolled her aboue the scriptures accusing here to haue spoyled herself of them as if it were vncertaine among them whether the Roman Church is the true Church because they teach it hath diuers acceptions which is all false friuolous matter for that altho' the Church according to the heterogeniall partes diuers functions of the persons of which it consists may admit seuerall denominations as are the essentiall representatiue or virtuall Church in which point also peraduenture there may be found some difference among the Romanists in their manner of speech speculations yet in substance they all agree that the visible Church to which the faithfull must seeke in their doubtes is the visiblie perpetuallie succeeding Church from the time of Christe till this day which is the plaine way in which etiam stulti ambulant euen the most simple sort of people may easilie finde walke in all other Churches especiallie the inuisible Congregation of Sir Humfrey his fellowes is but a blinde diuerticle by-way fitter for wanderers vagabonds then for the true honest people of God to walke in Sec. 18. In the title of the 18. section the knight pretendeth to proue that the Plea which the Romanists drawe from the infallible authoritie title of the Catholike Church is false vaine friuolous Althou ' the name authoritie of the Catholike Church hath euer binne so odious to all sortes of sectaries that they made it a cheife parte of their labours to impugne the same of which seuerall instances might easilie be produced yet this practise of theirs hath neuer bin so much vsed or so earnestly pursued as in these present tymes For as it is well knowne that their Captaine Antesignane Luther strucke his firste stroake at the Pope Churches power to graunt indulgences so is it also apparent by experience that all his followers continue the same battle with all their strenght stratagems For proofe of which wee need goe no further then to this our aduersarie Who throu ' his whole workes laboureth nothing more then to diminish the lustre power of the Catholike Roman Church in so much that in this verie section he maketh choise rather to lay violent hands vpon the sacred Bible shamefullie to corrupt three seuerall places of the diuine scripture then faile of his purpose or want colour for his peruerse intent which to the end the reader may more plainelie vnderstand I will particularlie reherse The firste place therefore consists in diuers passages of the epistle to the Romans especially in the firste chapter where that which the Apostle by way of admonition speaketh onely to those particular Christians members of the Church which were then at Rome exhorting them to be constant in their faith humble themselues least God cut them of for their sinnes as he did the Iewes the knight doth violentlie drawe it to the whoâ—… Roman Church as if S. Paul did intimate tâ—…â—t had a possibilitie of falling consequentlie was but a particular Church feygning also that sainct Paul did therefore pray for the continuance stabilitie of the Roman faith as if saith Sir Humfrey he had for seene by the spirit of prophesie they would glorie in their owne merites all which is quite repugnant to the meaning of the text as the reader may easilie perceaue And the like abuse of the knight the reader may see in other places which he cites to the same purpose viz. to proue that the Romane Church is faileable as 1. Thessal 8.2 Thessal 3.1 Tim. 3.15 Ephes 3.14 In all which places he vseth much of his accustomed craft peruerting the sense most sacrilegiouslie in all those sacred texts in the firste to the Corinthians he falsifieth the wordes putting thou for vs the particulars of which I am sorie I cannot stande to examine to the end his grosse cousenage might more cleerlie appeare and how vnder coulour of scriptures the sacred word of God truth is adulterated euen by him who so much braggeth glorieth in it After this same fashion he eludeth two pregnant places of Fathers for the authoritie of the Church the one is of Sainct Cypr. lib. 1. epist 3. the other is of sainct Augustine contra epist fund cap. 5. to coulore his euasion about the wordes of sainct Augustine which are these Praterea Ecclesia quae nunc est in fide errare non potest ergo si credidarit aliquem librum esse canonicum ex eius testimonio â— loneum firmum quo sumetur à Theologis argumentur Canon lib. 2. c. 7. Euangelio non crederem nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoueret authoritas he citeth Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. as if this author did fauore his false interpretation of sainct Augustines meaning who neuerthelesse besides that his wordes are not cited home by Sir Humfrey he onelie affirmes that sainct Augustine did not intend in that place to make rhe Church the formall reason why an infidell or one lately conuerted beleiues the Ghospell but onelie the necessarie condition of his beleife of the Canonicall scriptures which doctrine of Canus makes nothing at all for our aduersaries intent in this place which is to disproue the infallible authoritie of the Catholike Church which Canus doth not denie Lib. 7. de Canon c. 10. but professedlie maintayneth particularlie in the verie precedent chapter in other places in a most Catholike manner To this purpose the knight also cites Durand Driedo Gerson but rehearseth not their wordes which notobstaÌ„ding I haue seene cited by Chamier but if they be truly sincerelie vnderstood they conuince nothing against the infallible authoritie of the Church as neyther the wordes of sainct Thomas who onelie affirmeth that sainct Augustine speakes of the Church as an oueruling cause but not as the foundation of faith which no Romanists denies but all vniformely teach that their faith is founded vpon the word of God whose onelie authoritie is the supreme rule of the same but the Church the proponent onelie In the rest of his section Sir Humfrey makes a diuersion to the vniuersalitie of the Church for which he onely produceth some impertinent reasons of no force with the authorities of the Councells of Ferrara Basill waldensis others none of which proues any thing appertayning to the matter in treaty but onely serue to patch vp this part of his bypath in which I leaue him Sec. 19. The 19. section following affirmeth that the Church is finally resolued into the Pope whome saith the kinght the
Romanists make the husband the spouse the head the bodie of the Church This man is so full of falsity vntruth that it seemes his whole liuing is by lyeing I am perswaded he hath had his breeding in brasen faced College where impudency vntruth are the cheefe lessons in the schooles And heere the kinght hath in a manner gone beyonde if not beside himself in that faculty For I finde no lesse then there lyes euen with in the narrow limits of the title of his section nay there is not any one part or parcell of it true by which alone althou ' the reader might make a strong coniecture of the rest yet will I giue him an instance or two in particular which doubtlesse will quite conuince his iudgment of the authors knauish dealing In his 502. page now at last saith he they haue made him meaning the Pope the whole Church in so much that some are not ashamed to professe that the Pope may dispense against the Apostles yea against the new testament vppon good cause also against all the precepts of the old This lye is so exorbitant monstrous that it seemes he who made it doubted it would not be taken vppon his owne bare word wherfore he fled to the authority of his frend Iewell whome he quotes in the margent to make it more authenticall as if that famous Father of false dealing could sufficiently supply all that which in that nature is wanting in himself But I hope the iudicious reader will register them both in one predicament giue no more credit to the one then the other but send them togeather to the whetstone Another instance I giue the reader out of the 504. page where the knight chargeth Bellarmine to teach that if the Pope should so much erre as to command vices forbid virtues the Church were bound to beleiue that vices are good virtues euill vnlesses she will sinne against her conscience It is true the Cardinall hath the same wordes which Sir Humfrey cites hitherto but yet he vseth most dishonest double dealing in regare that if he had either rehearsed the whole place intirely as it lieth in Bellarmine or else had veiwed his recognition he might easily haue found the authors true meaning to be not that in generall euery matter all occasions but onely that in doubtful cases in things not necessarily good or ill of themselues in matters indifferent such obedience is to be giuen to the Pope least otherwise men should proceed against their consciences therfore saith he Si Papa If the Pope should command that which is cleerly knowne to be a vice or should prohibite that which is cleerly knowne to be a virtue then we ought rather to obey God then men And so we see that taking away the imposture cousinage of the kinght there is nothing in Bellarmines doctrine that may either iustly offend the reader or that makes for the purpose heere intended of prouing that the Pope ought to be obeyed whether his doctrine be true or false as our aduersary doth falsely calumniously affirme All the rest which the knight hath in this section is onely sophisticall fopperies crackes of his crazed braine abusing the doctrine of diuers Romanists framing such sense to their words as cōmeth neerste to his owne purpose is farthest from theirs so falsely fathering it vppon them confounding the faith of the whole Church with matters disputable in opinion he concludes discourse of all which let the reader consider whether the Romanists or he himself rather be not in the by-way he hath fallaciously framed for his aduersaries Sec. 20. In the section followeing which is the 20. in order he affirmes that the Church which he saith is resolued finally into the Pope hath neither personall nor doctrinall succession neyther in matter of faith nor fact It appeeres by the knights proceedings in this whole section that he hath met with his greatest enimie against whome he vseth all his art cunning hoping to haue the mastrie by striking most stronglie at the head that is the Pope whome to make his bloue the fuller he feignes to be the whole bodie like a venemous spider gathering poyson from the fragāt flowers of the Roman doctrine spits the verie quitessence of it against his sacred person Yet a great part of his matter is but loathsome inculcations of that which he hath a hundred times repeated which haue binne as often anseared by my selfe others But because his importunitie is so great I will giue the reader a taste thou ' I confesse it is most tedious vnto me to eate so often of the same Crambe The knights cheife plot in this place is by confronting the doctrine of the ancient Popes not onelie in matters of fact but of faith also with the moderne doctrine of the Roman Churches Popes he beginnes with priuate Masse sayeing that Pope Anacletus did decree that after consecration all present should communicate according as the Apostles set downe the Roman Church then obserued Now this Sir Humfrey compareth with the doctrine of the late Councell of Trent which determines vnder paine of excommunication that Masses in which the Preists alone communicates are not vnlawfull or to be abrogated as if this decree were contrarie to the other which directlie it is not for that althou ' the wordes of Anaclet doe shewe the common custome of his time yea of the Church of his time notwithstanding they also insinuate that the contrarie had binne practised at the least in some places to haue binne that all present at Masse did de facto communicate yea that those that did not should be put out Yet in regard the Councell of Trent doth neyther denie nor dissallowe of that custome nay rather expreslie desires the continuation of it but onelie defineth that such Masses as are celebrated without more communicants besides the Preist are not to be condemned abollishhed as the clamorous sectaries of our daies doe contend it is more then euident that there is no contrarietie to be founde betweene the one the other nor more then if the same Councell had defined that those Communions are not vnlawfull or not to be condemned in which infants are not admitted to receaue the Sacrament notobstanding the custome was in the primitiue Church to admitte them To omitte that Sir Humfrey is verie ignorant in the doctrine of the Roman Church if he knoweth not that althou ' in matters of faith there can be no chaunge yet in matters of manners alteration may be made so that according to diuersitie of times places persons that which once hath binne practised yea commanded by one Pope Councell at one time may be otherwise practised in another that without anie preiudice but rather with great profit in some cases to the vniuersal Church which doctrine because the knight wanteth eyther witt or will
he ponder how slowe the same Sir Humfrey hath binne in the performance of his anser to that challenge then he would instantlie cease to maruell perswading himselfe that the knight hauing better considered of the matter he is resolued vpon a contrarie course as it may now more then probably appeere by the contents of this present section in which he professeth to impugne that same visibilitie which so manie daies monethes yeeres agoe he solemlie auouched to make good viz. the succession of his owne Church I for my part am verie sorrie that the knight hath so altered his designe in regard I haue long since had a vehement desire to haue a sight thou ' it were onelie tanquam per speculum in anigmate as in a perspectiue or astronomicall glasse of those faire faces which haue lien in lauender so manie hundreth yeeres together yet now I perceiue there is no remedie but patience so I will leaue those inordinate desires examine how soundlie the author proceedes in the impugnation of that which according to his promise he ought rather to defend then confute Wherefore to the intent he may seeme to haue sayd some thing to the purpose he stateth the question in another sense thē that in which it is disputed betwixt the Romanists the reformers he putteth the case in a conspicuous eminent visibilitie of the Church in all ages perpetuallie And this visibilitie I graunt diuers of the testimonies which he produceth doe proue not to be necessarie to the true Church Neyther doe I denie that the proofes our aduersarie bringeth if is suppositiō of such a glorious visibilitie were true but this is out of the quire for the question is onelie whither such visibilitie is a certaine note of the true Church as that in all times some at the least true professors of it may be assigned named this kinde of visibilitie of the true Church is not disproued by all or anie one of the testimonies which are heere alleaged by the knight but all of them are in vaine produced But now as he himself doth name Adam Abel Enoch Noe Abraham Lot Tobias Ieremy Simeon Anna Ioseph Marie Elizabeth to which diuers others might be added in euerie seuerall age I say as he could did name these visible professors of the old lawe so doe we demaund of him to shewe name vs in like manner some professors in euery seuerall age before the daies of Luther who haue professed the same religion in all pointes which is now professed in the pretensiuely reformed Churches For this is the true state of the question betwixt ys this is that which we hold for a necessarie note of the true Church as we are readie at all times to performe this yea some of vs haue alreadie performed it long since in proofe of the visibilitie of the Roman Church so doe we expect the like from the defenders of the reformed Church in proofe of the visibilitie of the same And to deale plainlie till Sir Humfrey or some bodie for him performes this taske in this sense what soeuer he or his companions eyther doe or can produce to impugne the visibilitie of our Church we hold it for a meere by-way inuented onelie to auoide that difficultie which absolutelie in their vnderstanding they iudge insuperable impossible to be cleared Sec. 24. In the next section which is the 24. the knight prosecuteth the same matter that is the visibilitie of the Church in the new testament but he walkes quite out of the true way from the beginning to the ending He pretends to shewe that the Church hath not binne conspicuouslie visible but latent obscure in all ages yet to demonstrate this he produceth nothing but such testimonies as proue there haue binne euer manie heresies scismes persecutions people of ill life which haue so much darkened the splēdor of the true Church that it was sometimes vnder cloudes mistes prouing with a multitude of testimonies with great ostentation that which we Romanists doe not denie nay we all ingenuouslie confesse that the true Church must not of necessitie be alwayes eminentlie flowrishinglie visible yet neuer so obscure couered which cloudes but that the professors of it may be found named euen in the middest of her greatest mists for we say with sainct Ambrose Li. 4. Hex cap. 2. videtur sicut luna deficere sed non deficit She seemes to faile like the moone but she doth not faile obumbrari potest perire non potest she may be obscured but she cannot perish so that in this section Sir Humfrey in steed of an egge giues vs a Scorpion in lieu of prouing the Church to haue binne so obscure latent that none of her members can be found named he onelie or cheeflie produceth the errors heresies of those who did most impugne obscure her In so much as both those who were called those who where chosen by Christ did erre grieuously both in manners doctrine c. By-way page 611. nay it seemes his passion did so much transport him that rather then faile of his purpose of impugning the absolute visibilitie of the Church in all ages he layeth violent hands euen vpon the holie Apostles accusing then that they erred both in doctrine manners as in his 611. page the reader may see in plaine termes to omit that all or most of the authors which he cites are eyther of his owne profession obtruded in among the Romanists as for example Morney Erasmus Cassander other suppositious writers or else such pious Catholikes as out of their zeale haue iustlie reprehended the priuate errors abuses of particular persons thou ' in generall termes as the custome is which haue in seuerall ages like darnell among corne sprung vp in the feild of the visible Church this being the substance of the contents of this section I remitte it to the reader to iudge whether the knight hath not runne an extrauagant by course for the building of this parcell of his by way Sect. 25. In the 25. section vpon a supposition of the declination of faith manners in the Roman Church which he falsely supposeth as proued in his former section our aduersarie proceedes to an application of certaine places of scripture to the same supposed declination of the Pope Church but so ridiculously corruptedly that on the one side a man of iudgment that reades it will hardly absteine from laughter But on the contrarie he will be sorie to see the diuine word of God so profaned abused especiallie by those who so much bragg of the scriptures that they will scarce voutsafe to read anie other booke but pure Bible And to the end the knights counterfeit proceeding in this particular may appeere I will reherse one instance or two that by them the reader may consider of the rest Page 670. how comes it
to passe saith he that the number of the faithfull are so few that at all times they cannot easily be discerned His ansere is because it was foretold in the 18. of sainct Luke that when the sonne of man commeth he shall not finde faith vpon the earth marke the wisdome of this great Salomon admire it S. Luke as his wordes doe plainelie testifie speakes prophesies of the time of the comming of our Sauiour to iudge the world at the day of the generall iudgment yet Sir Humfrey most absurdlie abusedlie falselie applyes them to that vast Caos or large space of time which hath passed since the time of the Apostles to the dayes of Luther yea as it seemes by his discourse euen to the time of Christs comming to iudgment in the end of the world as if according to his reformed Logike this were a good consequence when the sonne of man commeth he shall not finde faith vpon the earth therefore the number of the faithfull is so smale that at all times they cannot easily be discerned ô acute subtile Logician in my opiniō much fitter for the carte thē the schoole of Dialect Another example I giue the reader in two places cited by the knight the one out of the 2. of Peter 2. chap. the other out of the 18. of the Reuel 3. verse which he applyeth to Indulgences pardons saying in his page 671. how comes it to passe that Indulgences pardons are graunted for monie made the treasure of their Church Because sayth he it was foretold there shall be false teachers among you by whome the way of truth shall be ill spoken of throu ' couetousnes shall with fayned wordes make marchandise of you Now it is true the place out of sainct Peter thou ' falselie fondlie applyed might farre more fitly be accommodated to the pretensiue reformed Puritanicall Nouellists whose greatest part of schollership si to rayle at the Pope Roman Church yet it is not vntrulie rehearsed but in the place quoted out of the Apocalips there is not one title to this purpose excepting that the Apostle once nameth the word merchants which neuerthelesse according to the true sense of the text maketh no more to the matter in hand then if he had named the word minister The rest of the places of scripture which he cites according to the common current exposition of the Roman Church euen at this present are vnderstood partly of the precursors of Antichrist which are the heretikes persecutors in generall of all ages partly of that great Antichriste properly so called whose comming all true Catholikes haue euer expected onely about the end or consummation of the world howbeit if a man were delighted in trifles trickes he might much more commodiously applie those same places to Luther his sequaces as hauing their pedigree discent from seuerall heretikes of former times then eyther to the Pope or Church of Rome as may also plainly appeere by the 39. articles of the new Creed of England of which excepting those fewe that agree with the doctrine of the Catholike Church there is scarce any that haue not binne defended by other heretikes ef more ancient standing as diuers learned Romanists haue demonstrated in their seuerall treatises By all which it doth appeere that althou ' Sir Humfrey hath vsed no other proofes in this section then the pure text of scripture yet hath he made so bad vse of it that all the world may cleerly perceiue that he is entred much further into his by-way then he was before Sec. 26. The 26. followeing is the conclusion of the treatise in which the author laboreth to showe the safety certainty of his owne way the vncertainty of the Romish way This is the whole drift scope not of this section onely but of the whole worke as being a breife summe of the same I confesse that if the Romanists were bound to giue credit to Sir Humfrey linds bare word in matters of faith maners then they ought of necessity to yeald him the safe way content themselues with the by but they are otherwise taught instructed they knowe that for the space of aboue 14. hundred yeeres togeather they had vnquestionable possession of the safe way to saluation may iustly say with ancient Tertullian Nos prius possedimus we had firste possession why then should we yeald vnto you take the by-way which you haue framed inuented of later yeeres nay why should we not rather with the same Tertullian boldly demaund of you who are according to the sayeing of another ancient father prodigiously borne of your selues Quiestis vos vnde quando venistis vbi tamdiu latuistis who are you from whence when did you come where haue you layne hid so long time with S. Hierome Quisquis es assector nouorum dogmatum queso vt parcas Romanis auribus parcas fidei quae apostolico ore laudata est who soeuer thou art that art a defender of new doctrine I beseech the spare the Roman eares spare that faith which is commended by the Apostles owne mouth in another place Cur post 400. annos docere nos niteris quod ante nesciuimus why after 400. yeeres I may say after 1400. yeeres doe you goe about to teach vs that which before we knew not with optatus vestrae Cathedrae originem ostendite qui vobis vultis sanctam Ecclesiam vendicare Shew the origen of your chaire you that callenge to your selues the holie Church wherfore if you vnder pretence of a reformation will enter into possessiō of the safe way if you will claime the truth leaue falsehood for vs it is not sufficient for you with a plausible flourish of speech as you vse heere Sir Humfrey to say so it is but you most firste proue your claime conuince your title that not by accusation of vs that which you haue onely performed through both your bookes for si accusasse sufficiat quis erit innocens if to accuse be sufficient who will be innocent but by positiue proofes of your owne which as yet neyther you nor any of your copemates haue euer performed You pretend sole scripture for your euidence but in place of Gods word you obtrude vnto vs your owne glosses captious illations sophiticall inferences or deductions you for your part Sir Humfrey you knowe you are ingaged by promise to ansere the Iesuites challenge which is not as you affirme hoping so to scape the brunt of the battell to proue out of some good authors that the Protestant Church so you please to call it for matter of state althou ' yours as I suppose is not truly the Protestant but the Puritan Church was all waies visible which althou ' I knowe I haue made manifest that as yet you haue not performed that taske neyther I am confident euer will be able to performe
operation effect of the Sacraments depend cheiflie principallie vpon the institution of Christe yet they say withall that both for the securitie of the consciences comfort of the receauers c. The Preist must haue a sincere intention to minister the Sacrament not in ieast as Luther some other sectaries doe teach this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the Reformers teach that onelie the instistitution of Christe is sufficient the Preists sincere intention not required this is an vncertaine by-way Nintly the Romanists teach that Christe is our onelie mediatour of redemption who onelie of himself by his owne power knoweth the secrets of our hartes yet withall they say that his Saintes in heauen who in by him doe assuredlie knowe the secrets of our hartes in such things especiallie as cōcerne the good of our soules are our mediatours of intercession by offering our vnworthie prayers to God this is a certaintie safe way to saluation But the reformers calle vpon Christe onelie exclude neglect his saintes seruants whome neuerthelesse he himselfe doth promise to honore in heauen condemning also for impious sacrilegions the saintes intercession for sinners which notwithstanding he doth not condemne for such in anie parte of holie scripture this is an vncertaine by-way Tenthly the Romanists teach we ought to adore Christes bodie present in heauen where he sits on the right hand of his diuine Father yet withall they say it is lawfull yea we ought to adore him whersoeuer he is particularlie in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach that the bodie of Christe ought not to be adored in the Eucharist but onelie in heauen this is an vncertaine by-way Eleauenthly the Romanists as the word of God instructs them confesse themselues to be vnprofitable seruants in regarde neyther they nor their actions bring anie profitte to God who hath no need of anie thing yet they say withall that no man liuing can be iustified by his owne merits that is such merites as proceed purelie from his owne naturall forces actions more then this that all those who expect saluation must beleiue in Christe with a liuelie faith wholely relie vpon his meritts satisfaction as vpon the proper principall cause of their saluation yet they say besides this that altho' they may not relie vpon their owne merits or the satisfactions of the saintes alone neuerthelesse they may vse both the satisfaction of saintes their owne merits as a meanes to saluation by virtue application of the merits satisfaction of Christes passion also that they can by the grace assistance of God obserue his commandements yea by virtue of the same diuine grace performe some workes of supererogation or not commanded by precept of God but counselled by his aduise this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach they are vnprofitable seruants which I confesse that in deed they are both to God his Church as euer were anie in the world that no mans good workes altho' they proceed from the speciall grace of God can in anie sort iustifie him before God that euerie Christian must so wholie relie vpon the merites of Christe that he beleiue also that no man can haue anie of his owne euen by the power grace of God that he is bound to expect hope for saluation without anie such workes or merites meerlie by a sole bare faith that his sinnes are remitted in Iesus Christe this is an vncertaine by-way Heere you see a plaine confrontment of diuers particular pointes of controuersie betwixt the Romanists the reformers by way of affirmation negation because I knowe that my aduersarie I are not agreed of a Iudge of our cause I for for my part remit my selfe to the indifferent reader as our onelie vmpiere to determine of the matter not onelie for as much as concernes the contents of this particular section but also of the whole worke who if he consider with due ponderation the proceedings of both parties compare the sincere plaine dealing which I haue vsed with the insincere and double dealing of my aduersarie who hath so perseuered in his indirect courses that euen in the end conclusion of his worke he hath practised no smale partiallitie and fraude in the rehearsall of the doctrine of the Roman Church as particularlie where he affirmes that the Romanists teach that diuers traditions of faith and manners whereof there is no ground nor euidence in the scripture are to be reeeaued with equall reuerence and respect with the scriptures themselues and that they relie partelie vpon their owne merites and satisfaction of Saintes for their saluation and the like I say if the iudicious and vnpartiall reader duelie ponder all the particulars I doubt not but he will easilie discerne the house of truth and safe way to saluation to be where he findes honestie and plainenes and in the contrarie the house of falsitie the by-way where he findes tricks cousinage And therfore the more to facilitate rectifie his iudgment in the businesse I will reduce the whole argument of the knightes booke to a forme of sylogisme in this manner That Religion is a by-way leading the weake vnstable into dangerous pathes of error which is founded vppon coulourable showes of Apochriphall scriptures vnwriten traditious doubt full Fathers ambiguous Councells and pretended Catholique Church But the religion of the Church of Rome is founded vppon colourable showes of apochriphal scriptures vnwritten traditions doubtful fathers ambiguous Councels pretended Catholique Church Therfore the relgiō of the Romā Church is a by-way leading the weake vnstable in to the dangerous pathes of error Now the minor of this sylogisme in which the whole force of the conclusion and by consequence the whole scope and authoritie of the worke depēdes not onely hauing binne in the discourse of my anseere to euerie seuerall section disproued for false counterfeit but alsoe more appeare to be such ex ipsis terminis euen of it selfe by the termes propositions of which it consists to all such as shall consider it with due attention I persuade my selfe the iuditious reader will presently perceaue determine with him selfe that the author of the worke hath quite fayled of his proiect that by composing a by path with a sinister intention to father it Falsely vppon his aduersaryes he hath in stead of that onely framed an ingen for his owne torment And thus hauing attayned not onely to an accomplishment of myne owne desires in finishing my labours but also in some sorte to a satisfaction of the request of my aduersary in regard that at the least in showe as I perceaue by the conclusion of his preface he desireth nothing more then
by our aduersarie the knight both before and after these which clearely declare his mynde touthing the reall presence The precedent wordes are these Dominus enim illa nocte accepit panem gratias egit fregit dixit accipite comedite non dixit hoc est azinum aut typus corporis sed hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus that is our lord that night tooke bread gaue thankes brake it and said take and eate He said not this is vnleauined bread or this is the figure of my bodie but this is my bodie this is my bloud And then immediately ensue the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey after which alsoe immediately followes Sed tunc nunc inuocatione gratia omnipotentis illius sacrorum rituum Antistitis Spiritus sancti sacrarum precationum diuinorum oraculoruÌ„ interuentum panis quidem in ipsum Domini corpus vinum vero in ipsum Domini sanguinem conuertitur transmutatur But both then and now by inuocation and grace of that omnipotent Prelate of sacred rities the holie Gost by interuention of sacred prayers and diuine oracles the bread truely is counuerted and changed into Christs bodie it selfe but the wine into to his bloud In which wordes the learned and prudent reader can not but see both the reall presence and the conuersion or change of the elements of bread and wine which is nothing els but transsubstantiation into the bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ most plainely specifyed Which may abundantly serue to demonstrate the truth of the Patriarkes meaning and that no man liuing excepting such a lad of mettall as the coragious knight would haue had the face to make vse or rather abuse of such a testimonie as this soe quyte opposite to his purpose multa enim de illâ Caena audiuÌ„tur apud vas quae nobis displicent Ierem. Patriarchâ—… especially the second place being taken out of that chapter in which the author him selfe in the begining of the same doth expressely affirme that ther are manie things maintained by the lutherans in the supper of our lord which displease the Grecians one of which doubtlesse and not the least is the point of transsubstantiation which the Lutherans reiected in their remonstrance to the Greeke Church and Ierimie the Patriarcke maintaines in his anser to the same To all which may be added yet more expresse wordes of the same Patriarke saying thus Statuit igitur Catholica Ecclesia mutari conseeratione facta panem quidem in ipsum corpus Christi vinum vero in ipsum sanguinem eius per spiritum sanctum c. The Catholique Church therfore saith he defins that the consecration being made the bread is changed into the bodie of Christ but the wine into his bloud by the holie Gost c. And it is to be noted that he vseth the worde Metauallomena in these places in which he speakes of the conuersion or transmutation of the bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ which doth manifestly de monstrate the Grecian Patriarch to maintaine that same change of the bread and wine in the consecration of the Eucharist which the Romanists in Latin call transsubstaÌ„tiation which is sufficient to coÌ„uince the preposterousnes of the iniudicious knight in makeing vse of this great Prelate for his owne contrarie position Touching inuocation of saincts and their worship Sir Humfrey in the 232. page of his deuious way alledges against the Romanists the confessioÌ„ of the Greeke Church quoting in the margen the same Patriarch of Constantinople and relating his wordes in his anser to the German Doctors cap. 1. Wher according to his relation the Patriarch sayth in the name of him selfe and fellowes that they doe not properly inuocate saints but God fot neither Peter nor Paule heare anie of those that inuocate them but the gift and grace that they haue according to the promisse I am with you till the consummation of the world Thus the knight rehearses that authors wordes but yet corruptedly for first the Patriarch hath not those negatiue wordes We doe not properly inuocate saints but this affirmatiue inuocation doth proporly agree to God onely and it doth agree to him primarily and most immediately which wordes Sir Humfrey leaueth out but inuocation made to saints is not properly inuocation but accidentally and as if we should say by grace or fauor which latter words alsoe the knight partely mangled and partely omitted Secondly the Patriarch dot not saye Peter and Paule doe not heare their inuocators but he sayth they doe not exaudire that is they doe not heare and graunt by their owne power the petitions of those that inuocate them And ther is soe much betwixt audire exaudire that his hearing and graunting that which is heard that althou ' the one vndoubledly agree to the saints both in the doctrine of the Grecian Church and the Roman yet of the exaudition or hearing with a graunt doubt may be made euen according to the doctrine of the Roman Church whether it is proper to saints or noe in regarde it may be coÌ„ceiued that altho' the saints be truely intercessors betweene vs and God yet haue they not power to graunt out requests but onely to mediate for vs by way of impetration And therfore the same author saith that Peter and Paule doe not exaudire that is not soe heare vs as they them selues graunt our petition which they heare but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according or by the fauor they haue by virtue of the promisse of our Sauior I will be with you till the end of the world as the Grecian Patriarch doth sufficiently declare And that the Grecians doe in generall termes graunt inuocation of saints which is that which both agrees with the Roman doctrine and differs from the doctrine of the pretented reformers it is manifest not onely out of this place but alsoe out of other places of the Patriarkes anser as particularly in the 13. chapter pag 102. wher it is said by him that in the sacrifice or masse mentionem beatissimae Virginis facimus laudes eius praedicantes intercessione sanctorum omnium petentes misericordiam Dei implorantes pro viuis mortuisque supplicantes c. And yet more plainely in the verie 21. chapter cited by our aduersarie where the Patriarke hath these wordes Haec meditatio nunc in Ecclesia fit depraedicatur ad sanctos exclamamus ad dominam nostram ad sanctos Angelos ad dominam quidem nostram tersancta domina Deipara pro nobis intercede peccatoribus ad sanctos autem Angelos omnes caelestes potestates sanctorum Angelorum Archangelorum orate pro nobis c. This meditation is now made preached in the Church we both crye aloud to the saints and to our ladie and to the Angels and to our ladie truly thrise holie ladie mother of God intercede for vs sinners But to the holie Angeles all you Celestial Powers of holie
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
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
which I haue made the reader may plainely viewe the great difference ther is betweene the desired reformation of Gerson and that of the pretended Innouators of our tymes the one being almost quite opposite to the other the one intending onely to redresse the Church in some particular accessorie defects the other indeuoring violētly to destroye the whole frame and foundatiō of the visible Church and to build a newe one and finaly the one being a reformation either wholely or cheefly in the life and maners of some corrupted persons the other cheefly in faith doctrine and not regarding reformation of life but rather giuing more scope and libertie to licentiousnesse then euer was heard of in the Christian world And altho' Gerson doth insinuate the necessitie of reformation euen in matters of faith and religion yet doth he not meane of the faith and teligion maintained approued and practized by the Roman Church but he speaketh onely of the errours of heretikes some abuses of other particular persons cropen into the exercise of the true religiō in which he desired reformation to the end the state of the Church may remaine and cōtinue firme in her former puritie without staine of erroneous doctrine or corrupted manners In all which he wished the slownesse of the prelates might be hastened by the power of the secular authoritie of kings and Princes rather then lye vnamended with danger of the Roman faith and preiudice to the saluation of soules Which pious zeale of that renowned chanceler was highly to be commended as farre different from the proceedings of the authors of our newe pretended reformation who to acquire them selues a name of famous men vnder the colour of reforming the Church made a preye of the same with infinit losse of Christian soules and generall domage to virtue and religious life More ouer I am to aduertice the reader that in the citation of this author Sir Humfrey hath cōmirted twoe notable fraudes The first is in that he reherses a great parte of his wordes as if he had founde them allogether in one continuated order or text wheras the author hath them in diuers places to diuers purposes For example Sir Humfrey ioyneth that which Gerson saith of remission of sinnes by so mainie Pater nosters which he hath in his treatie of Indulgences with that other passage of preferring the particular obseruations of some countries before the lawe of God which he hath not in the same place but in an other treatise intituled de directione cordis Secondly I finde those wordes of Gerson which all or most of them being spoaken by him onely of correction of manners the kinght applyeth thē to matters of faith to persuade his reader that ther were corruptions in the Church euen in matters of faith and that the chancelor procured reformation of them An exemple of this fraude you haue in the 650. page of the deuia where the knight sayth Gersō wished at the least a restoring of the ancient faith of the Fathers tyme citing for this his treatice intituled de Coucilio Generali vnius obedientiae and quoting these wordes in the margin Ecclesia sinon ad statum Christi Apostolorum Saltem ad statum Syluestri restituenda Which wordes neuerthelesse Gerson speaketh not of matters of faith but onely of the prouision and collation of benefices as both his whole discourse and especially his precedent wordes doe most clearely demonstrate Which are these Sed longe aliter imprimatiua dolatione donatione distribuebantur bona talia quam postmodum tempore praelatorum qui caeperunt paulatim refrigescere a sanctitate priorum tandem abusi sunt collationibus bene ficiorum ciusmodi administratione quod Papae ad se paulatim multa reuocauerunt vsque adeo quod finaliter datis occasionibus acceptis quas non est hic opus recitare quasi tota iurisdictio collatio talis paenes Papam eius curiam remanebant And after theses wordes Gerson vttered those other at which Sir Humfrey catched yet according to his inueterated custome related not syncerily which if otherwise he had truely reheharsed they would haue presently discouered the truth and of what matter they were deliuered for Gerson saith vel redeundum esset ad statum Ecclesiae tempore syluestri Gregorij quando quilibet Praelatus dimittebatur in sua iurisdictione sollidudinis parte nowe let the reader confer all these wordes of Gerson with the citation of Sir humfrey in the page aboue noted he will presently perceiue howe he hath corrupted thē both in tenor and sense and how he hath foysted in the worde Ecclesia wher it is not to be founde in the text of the author As alsoe in the place taken out of Gersons in his consolatorie tract of rectifyind the hart he transposeth and mangleth his wordes leauing out the worde particular and for the wordes in aliquibus religionibus translating in manie conuents puting manie in steede of some And where the same Gerson in an other place complaining of the imperfections and vices of the regular and secular Cleargie doth explicate him selfe not to meane of all but of some particular persons Sir Humfrey guilefully omits his wordes which are these Sed nunquid hodie omnes Domini Paelati in intedictis post dicendis culpabiles sunt malis absit reliquit enim Dominus sibi in Israell septem millia virorum quorum genua non sunt curuata ante Baal and where the author speaking of disorders of the monasteries of nunnes and fryres vseth the worde quasi to giue the reader aduertisement that he speaketh not absolutely but onely by way of comparison In cōsolat the malitious knight leaues it out as if it were not to the purpose as he omits alsoe the worde nōnunqnam when the author speakes of the dāger which some tymes happeneth among the simple sorte by reason of the multiplicitie of such things as he ther mentioneth In like manner in an other tract in wheras the Chancelor at the first making some doubt of the obtaining of a certaine Indulgence by saying soe manie Pater nosters before an image of the Crucifix yet afterwardes doth moderate his owne speeches soe that it plainely apppeares he doth not condemne the same the fraudulent knight soe relateth the passage as if Gerson had not onely taxed that forme of indulgēce in particular but alsoe had absolutely renoūced the Romā doctrine touching the lawfullnes of Indulgēces in generall his wordes are these Circa haec itaque similia multum caute procedendum est prouidendum ne opponatur firma vel pertinax credulitas propter erroris periculum neque etiam oportet eiusmodi omnino pertinaciter dissentire nec etiam penitus contemnere improbare est igitur ambulandum in his via media c. by which and other the like submissiue temperate wordes which he hath afterwardes in the same place the reader may see Gerson was as farre from
his mynde lesse clearcly in one place occasion yet did he amēd the same in another more exact worke of his owne hand industrie of his owne accorde how be it althou ' our aduersarie takes him at the greatest aduantage he can yet reightly vnlierstanded alledged he doth not a iot aduantage his cause In his citation of the Rhemes Testament in the annotation vpon the 6. of the Epistle the Hebrewes v. 16. the knight relateth wordes in which the author of the notes affirmes that God should be iniust if he rēdered not heauen for meritorious workes But to make the matter more odious he craftely omittes the wordes of S. Hierome there cited for proofe of the same lib. 2. contra Iouinianum cap. 2. saying that in deed great were Gods iniustice if he would onely punish sinnes and would not receiue good workes And if that cōditionall of the Rhemists be not iustifyable then may our aduersarie more iustely taxe S. Augustin who lib. de nat and Grat cap. 2. And lib. 4. contra Iulianum cap. 3. gaue then examples of that forme of speech Saying in the first place non est iniustus Deus qui instos fraudet mercede iustitiae and in the second per quod vera iustitia per hoc regnum Dei Deus namque ipse quod absit erit iniustus si ad eius regnum non admittitur iustus Wherfore except Sir Humfrey will ioyne in his accusation those two renound ancient Fathers he can not in reason accuse those learned doctors Althou I conceiue it may seeme vnseasonable to my present purpose distinctly to treate of anie matter of doctrine in this place and occasion yet in regarde I haue lately reflected that Sir Humfrey professes him selfe an enimie to implicit or vnexpressed faith therfore I esteemed conuenient for the accomplishing of my worke to insert a compendious discourse touching that point And to come to the purpose I can not conceiue or inuente anie other motiue in our aduersaries for their soe obstinate denyall of vnexpressed faith except it is because euerie one of them confidently presumes to knowe the expresse contents of Scriptures as well as him who made them yet on the contrarie I am assuredly persuaded that in reallitie a verie great parte if not all their congregatiō inioyes not this great extrauagant priuilege what soeuer they imagin or conceiue of them selues For altho' it is true that the illuminate brothers generally vse to brag they are docibiles Dei and admit noe other schoolemaster in this matter then God almightie him selfe yet is it certainely knowne that some of them be soe ignorant that they knowe not as much as their Abcedarie or Christ crosse rowe And now of these whoe can not read the Bible I question our aduersaries thus either these ignorants beleeue althings cōtained in the whole scripture or no If they doe not then they ar heretikes for refusing to beleeue the whole worde of God If they doe beleeue all and euerie particular contained in the Scripture then necessarily they must haue an implicit faith in regarde manie particular truethes be there included which they can not possibly knowe by reason they can neither haue them selues nor receiue a perfect knowlege from anie other of euerie seuerall trueth therin contained and consequently if anie faith they haue of those particular verities contained in the Scripture which they knowe not it is onely an implicit vnexpressed or implied faith supposing this consists in nothing esse but a generall faith euen of those particulars of which the beleeuers haue no expresse knowledge except onely in a certaine cōfuse or generall manner or as they ar contained in other generall propositions or matters which expressely and seuelally they know to be reueiled in the worde of God and of which they haue an explicit expresse or disinuolued faith For as he who eypressely graunteth or assents to anie general Principle or proposition for example that all Angels ar incorporall or without bodies or that all men ar reasonable creatures doth by necessarie consequens assent implicitly to all the particulars there included viz that S. Michael S. Gabriel and euerie other particular Angel is incorporal and that S. Peter and Paule and euerie other particular man is a reasonable creature altho' he neuer had anie particular knowledge of them Soe in the verie same manner those whoe with an expresse act of faith beleeue al the Church proposeth vnto them in that kynde or all the scripture conteines doe likewise necessarily beleeue with an implicit or tacit faith euerie seuerall matter included in those general tearmes And this kynde of implicit faith our aduersaries must either graunt or else necessarily confesse that euerie Mecanike hath as much knowlege in the Scripture as the most learned Minister and euerie sheep as much as his pastor which neuerthelesse euerie rude rustick is able to iudge for most absurde and voyde of trueth Soe thus we see that of the denyal of an implicit faith eyther the ignorant and vnlearned sorte of people in the pretensiue reformed Churches knowe as much in the Scripture as their greatest doctors or that they ar plaine heretikes because they beleeue no more in the Bible but that onely which they expressely knowe And the same I say with proportion euen of the learned sorte them selues in regade they seldome or neuer ar soe conuersant in Scriptures that they explessely knowe euerie seueral proposition or particular truth conteined in the text and consequētly euen they who ar the greatest Rabbies in their reformed flock haue no explicit or expresse faith consisting in an assent to all they expressely knowe in the text of scripture but they must as well as theire brothers be content with an implicit faith of those particulars they expressely knowe not or else they ar to be accounted heretikes for not beleeuing them as I said before of the ruder sorte In respect of both which sortes of people I meane both the learned and vnlearned beleeuers in the pretensiue reformed Churches this same argumēt may yet farther be vrged euen according to their owne receiued doctrine by which they cōfesse they haue not all their faith expressely in the scriptures but parte of it drawne by their owne consequences or deductions from the text of scripture of all which illations or inferences of theirs it is manifest they could not possible haue anie other faith of them then implicit or vnexpressed before they made them in regare that those supposed verities or truethes which they soe deduce were not otherwise contained in the text or deliuered to the Church then in that inclusiue or hidden manner as it most apparent in regarde that if otherwise they had ben contained in the scripture that is clearely or expressely then no illation or deduction had ben necessarie for beleeuers for the bnowledge and establishing of their faith in those particulars as both natural reason and euen common sense conuince and consequently either the pretensiue reformers
appeared to him in his agonie Peter denyed Christ and other such like truthes Yet this how true soeuer it bee it is nothing to the purpose which here we treate nor afordeth anie grounde or foundation for the prenominated distinction of our aduersaries in regarde that althou ' ther be neuer soe great difference among those and other points of Religion in the dignitie of the material obiects by reason of which in some sorte the one may be named fundamental the other not fundamental neuerthelesse because the faith of the one is no lesse necessarie to saluatiō then the faith of the other thēce it is that absolutely the one is as much fundamental as the other and consequently ther ar no not fundamentals in matters of faith as the distinction of out aduersaries doth falsely suppose And hence in like manner it farther insueth that if the Church should erre but onely in the definitiō or proposition euen of those matters of lesse qualitie the error would be directly against diuine faith and consequently the Church in this case should truely be said to haue erred eued in fundamental points of faith and in matters necessarie to saluation fundamental points as I haue declared and often repeated being no other then all those reuailed truethes the faith of which is necessarie in the members of the Church for the obtaining of eternal life not obstanding anie difference which otherwise may apppeare in the nature of the seueral obiects or matters supposing no one parte but the whole intyre faith of Christ and euerie parte and partiall of those verities which he hath reuailed to his Church is the foundation of true Christian and Catholique Religion it being as necessarie to saluation for euerie true Christian to beleeue truely and syncerely if it be proposed vnto him by the Church that the cocke crowed at the tyme of S Peters denyal of Christ or that a souldier lanced our sauiors side with a speare as that he dyed vpon the Crosse for our redemption and risse againe for our iustification But Finally If peraduēture our aduersaries should say that within the compasse of true faith some things be necessarie to saluation and others not necessarie and that consequently some things be fundamental but others not To this instance I replye it is founded in a manifest equiuocation For althou ' it is true that their be some things within the compasse of saith which ar not necessarie for euerie member of the Church to knowe them expressely yet is it necessarie to saluation for euerie faithfull Christian thou ' neuer soe simple or ignorant to beleeue euerie parte and partiall of those obiects or matters which God hath reuailed if for such by the Church they be proposed vnto him otherwise he should incurre the censure of that strict and fearefull sentence of the most iuste and equal iudge Christ our Sauior qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur and soe the faith euen of all those things which euerie one by reason of his state or condition of life or for want of vnderstanding is not obledged to knowe is necessarie to saluation and consequently all kinde of faith of what matter soeuer it be that God hath reuailed is as much fūdamētall as is faith of the greatest matter or mysterie of the whole Christiā beleefe whēce it is that as S. Gregorie Nazianzen treating of the vnitie and integritie of faith in his 39. oratiō aboute the ende declareth by example or similitude that faith is like vnto a goulden chaine connected and compounded of diuers linkes from which if you take anie one away you loose your saluation as S. Ambrose in the ende of hir sixt kooke vpon the Euangell of S. Luke declares By which it is manifeste that faith of euerie point or matter within the compasse of faith is necessarie to saluation and therfore fundamental absolutely whether the obiect be great or little and no faith not fundamētal as the new distinction of the Nouellists most falsely affirmes which ther distinction doubtnesse was inuented by them to the ende they might haue a more plausible coulor to accuse the Roman Church of errors comitted in faith as alsoe for excuse of ther owne their malice and irreligion being so great that like vnconscionable taylers they chose rather to cutte out a Church for Christ of such corrupted stuffe as this then to liue or dye vnreuenged of the Catholique Roman Church And for conclusion I adde that since I haue made manifest by these my reasons that the faith euen of those points of Religion which our aduersaries terme not fundamental is absolutely required to the saluation of euerie Christian soule if euen in rhese particulars onely the Church could erre none could assuredly be persuaded that by makeing them selues members of it they ar in the certaine infallible way to the obteining of eternal blessednes but still should remaine in the like dangerous desperate state they did before they were in the Church of Christ cōsequently by reason of this vncertaintie perill a generall neglect of procuring to enter in to the true Church of Christ would be caused in the mindes of men which inconuenience in regarde it proceedes by inauoiable cōsequence from this distinction broached vsed by our aduersaries it plainely appeeres the doctrine of it is in diuers respect most pernicious damnable as not tending in anie sorte to the reformatiō of the Church as is by them pretended but directely to the ruine destruction of it Deuia sec 3. pag. 45. S. Augustin in the 23. chap. of the 13. booke of his cōfessions affirming that spiritual men must not iudge of the scripture is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey for he meaneth not that spiritual men must not in anie case iudge of the true sense of scripture for that were both false yea repugnant to the doctrine practise euen of the pretensiue reformers them selues who as they can not denye whether they be spiritual or not spirituall vse to read interpret scriptures much more comonly then the Romanists doe yea giue libertie therin euen to those of the feminine sexe or gender But the true obuious sense of that diuine doctor in the cited place onely is that spiritual men must not iudge anie thing contained in the scripture as presently he subioines non rite veraciterque dictum esse that is not to be ritely truelly spoken but submit their vnderstanding etiamsi quid ibi non lucet altou ' some thing be not cleare or perspicuous in it This is the pure syncere sense of S. Augustin as his verie wordes declare And nowe let the impartial reader decide whether it doth not rather militate or warre against the manner of dealing with scriptures which the Nouelists practise then againsts the Romanists how be it I syncerely confesse it directly makes neither against the one nor the other but precisely against such as iudge those passages of scripture to be false or not ritely deliuered
Sacraments was no other then the faith of the vniuersall Church also the verie same which by the generall consent of schoole diuines in later ages hath binne taught preached euen by those of the Grecian Church as by the testimonie of Hieremie the late Patriarch of Constantinople in his answer to the Augustan Confession doth plainelie appeere where the septenarie number of Sacraments is expresselie maintained against the Lutherans as his wordes here quoted in the margent clearelie testifie with shame enuffe to the reformed brothers for thus he saith Sacramēta verò ritusque in hac ipsa Catholica recte sententium Christianorum Ecclesia sunt septem Baptisma Chrysma sancti vnguenti diuina communio manusimpositio matrimonium Paenitentia sacrum Oleum Et statim Quod vero haec sola sint nec plura numero etiā diuisione clarum fit c. Patriarcha Constantinop Res ad Doctores Wittemb fol. 11. Truelie the Sacraments rites in this same Catholike Church of right vnderstanding Christians are seuen Baptisme chrisme of holie oyntment the diuine communion imposition of handes Matrimonie Pennance and sacred oyle c. But the knight goeing yet further in the proofe of his duall number telleth his reader that the two Sacraments which his Church defends are properlie Sacraments because they haue element and institution but the other fine are not such because they want eyther of these But to this I answere that the fiue Sacraments which the reformers reiect haue not onelie this which Sir Humfrey requires to his two defaced Sacraments but also besides this they haue promise of iustificant grace which according to the description he maketh heere his two doe want and so I retort his prrofe vpon him For if our fiue be not properlie Sacraments because in his conceipt they want institution and element surelie neither are his two properlie Sacraments because they want grace as being but signes or elements instituted by God not giuing grace both according to his former declaration Caluin Instit lib. 4. cap. 14. 15. and also in the common doctrine of the reformers And so we see that the knightes discourse touching the propertie of his two ministeriall elements is but a gracelesse peice of doctrine especiallie considering that if he had binne but halfe so conuersant in our diuines as he will needes seeme to be he might most easilie haue found both institution element and grace annexed to all those fiue Sacraments which he renounceth which Catholike diuines altho' they doe not all agree in the assignation of the seuerall matters and formers of the same yet doe they neuerthelesse with great conformitie consent in the number generall definition of them to wit that they are all externall and sensible signes which by diuine institution haue the promise of iustifying grace annexed And least the knight take exceptions and complaine that I doe not satisfiie his argument my selfe but remit him to others for an answere I will breiflie shewe out of scripture both the institution and element of euerie one of the foresaid fiue Sacraments in particular Confirmation therefore was instituted by Christ in those places of scripture where he promiseth to his Apostles the Holie Ghost after his ascension as S. Iohn the 16.5 Luke the 24.48 which collation of the holie Ghost was exercised by the Apostles Act. 10. 19. by imposition of hands after they had receaued the same holie Ghost by that extraordinarie manner which is described Act. 2. which impositiō togither with the words vsed Act. 8. whē they prayed for thē on whom they put their hands are the matter and forme of this Sacrament And now heere we see both the institution and the element in this Sacrament which is all Sir Humfrey requireth of vs and so I will say vnto him that which S. Hierome said to his aduersaries the Luciferians the 4. chap. Si quaeris quare in Ecclesia baptizatus non nisi per manus Episcopi accipit Spiritum Sanctum disce hanc obseruationem exea authoritate descendere quod post ascensionem Domini Spiritus ad Apostolos descendit That is to say If thow doest aske me why he that is baptized doth not receaue the holie Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop learne that this obseruation descended from that authoritie that after the ascension of our Lord the Spirit descended vpon the Apostles Secondlie the Sacrament of Penance hath both element and institution the element is the acts of the penitent declared by sensible words or signes the institution is the collation of power conferred by Christ to remitte sinnes to his Apostles and in them to all true Preistes according to that of the 20. of Saint Iohn Receaue yee the holie Ghost whole sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen and whose sinnes you shall retaine they are retayued In which words both the institution and the element be sufficientlie declared especiallie if we ioyne the declaration of the Church without which euen those two which the reformers hould for Sacramēts cānot be conuinced to be truly and properlie such if one were obstinately disposed Thirdlie in the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction both the element and institution are plainelie enough found in the 5. chap. of S. Iames where the Apostle sayth If anie man be sick among you let him bring in the Priestes of the Church and let them pray ouer him annointing him with oyle in the name of our Lord and the prayer of faith shall saue the sick and our Lord shall lift him vp and if he be in sinnes they shalbbe remitted him In which place to the externall signes of prayer and oyle remission of finnes is annexed as the reader may plainelie perceiue which effect euen according to the doctrine of the reformers themselues as I suppose cannot be found but onelie in such ceremonies as properlie are instituted by Christ himselfe for Sacraments Fourthlie the like I say of Order the substance of which is so plainelie conteyned in the scriptures Vid. Cal. l. 3. Inst c. 4. §. 20. c. 19. §. 31. that some of the greatest reformers haue not had the face to exclude it out of the number of the Sacraments of the new lawe and the places of Scripture which conuince the truth of it are 1. Timo. 4. and 2. Thimothie 1. where both the sensible element which is the imposition of hands and the effect of grace annexed are cleerlie described which effect I thinke our aduersaries confesse cannot be possiblie conferred but onelie by Gods authoritie and institution The wordes of the Apostle are these in the first place Doe not neglect the grace which is in the which was giuen the by prophesie with the imposition of the hands of preisthood In the second place the wordes are these For which cause I admonish the to resuscitate the grace of God which is in the by the imposition of my handes Now lastlie concerning Matrimonie a mā might iustlie maruell that our new Euāgelistes should
the authours them selues with attention care And as for Theodoretus Iames Gordon in his fourth Controuersie of transsubstantiation noteth that if he be trulie translated according to the force of the Greeke wordes all difficultie touching his true meaning doth presentlie cease And thus much for Theodoretus who is no way eluded by Valentia but truelie sincerelie expounded As for Bellarmin whome when he answereth to the testimonie of S. Cyprian aboute traditiōs the knight seemeth to taxe for attributing error vnto him It is not true that Bellar. sayth that he doth not maruell that S. Cypriā erred in reasoning as Sir Humfrey affirmeth but the Cardinall onlie sayth of S. Cyprian ideo non mirum si more errantium ratiocinaretur therefore it was no maruell if he should argue after the manner of those that erre because he writ that passage to which Bellarmin doth ansere in the place cited by the knight when he defended his errour aboute rebaptization against S. Augustin But withall Bellarmin addeth that S. Cyprian reiected not all traditions as the reformers commonlie doe at the least in faith manners but onelie he disalowed that tradition in particular which S. Augustin alledged against his error onelie for that reason because he conceiued it to be cotrarie to scriptures which yet afterwardes appeared not to be so by the definition of the Church not to be So that Bellarmin is both here falselie accused to haue absolutelie affirmed S. Cyprian to haue erred in reasoning also it is false that his testimonie touching traditiōs in generall is by him eluded which is that Sir Humfrey ought to proue if he speakes according to his owne purpose in this place And not much vnlike to this is the same Bellarmin falselie accused by the knight to haue affirmed that S. Chrisostome exceeded the trueth when he sayd It is better not to be present at the sacrifice then to be present not comunicate for Bellarmin sayd not that sainct Chrysostome exceeded the truth but onelie that he spoake by excesse per excessum ita esse locutum or amplificandi gratia as he sayth afterwardes which is not to exceede the truth but to vse a tropicall speech by which the trueth is as farre extended as may be possible within her boundes but no further And more ouer Bellarmin addeth so much besides to this ansere to Saint Chrysostomes wordes Vide Bell. l. 2. de Missa cap. 10. § Porro Chrysost as takes all difficultie quite away touching his meaning in the point of Priuate Masse Neyther is Sir Hūfreys complainte against Bellarmin lesse vniuste where he sayth yet not specifiing aboute what matter that the Cardinall affirmes Prudentius to playe the poet for why should anie man be reprehended for attributing to a Poet that which is proper to all those of his profession that is to speake by way of fiction or to vse poeticall licence The trueth is I can finde no such wordes of Bellarmin as Sir Humfrey citeth but suppose he speaketh in that manner of Prudentius yet I hould it to be no greater an extenuation of his authoritie then it were an extenuation of Sir Humfreys honour to say he vseth his weapons dexterouslie or plaieth the Champion couragiouslie But yet worse then this doth Sir Humfrey deale with Bellarmin aboute his ansere to a certaine testimonie of Tertullian For whereas he onelie sayth that Tertullians authoritie is of no great accounte when he contradicts other Fathers when as S. Hierome speaketh he was no man of the Church the knight to saue labor but not to saue his honestie leaueth out that speeche of S. Hierome putteth the whole censure of Tertullian vpon Bellarmin onelie notobstanding it appeares plainelie that the greater parte of it is taken out of S. Hierome so consequentlie if anie proofe or recorde were eluded in Tertullian Sir Humfrey might more iustelie haue accused him then the Cardinall But it seemes the knight proceeded in this as those that in cases of reuenge either for want of wit or valour still strike their next fellowe whether he be in faulte or no. In conclusion Sir Humfrey had no reason to stand vpon Bellarmin's ansere to those two authours I meane Prudentius Tertullian for that neither of them in the places cited speaketh of anie point of doctrine defined by the Church but of other matters in which as it was free for them to speake what they pleased so was it also free for Bellarmin to ansere what he pleased especiallie supposing that Tertullian speakes but doubfullie in the matter for which he is taxed by the Cardinall that is in the manner of Christs penetration of his mothers wombe if he held he was borne according to the course of nature he contradicteth the rest of the Fathers in which case no one Father hath the credit of an absolute testimonie amongest the Romanists neyther can he or anie for him iustelie complaine if he be disesteemed in such a case Now for the censure which Riuera giueth of Origen to wit that he was full of errours which the Church hath alwayes detested it is so manifestlie true that no man that will not dogmatize with him can denie the same And the truth is that the reformers make as little yea much lesse account either of him or anie other ancient writers then the Romanists doe as the world knoweth especially when they finde them contrarie to their positions And not of one two or three dissenting from the rest but euen of the torrent of their consent of which ouer plaine testimonie is extant in Luther Caluin Kemnitius Chamier Vid. Luth. de capt Babyl c. 1. Calu. 4. Instit c. 18 Kem. pag. 798. Cham. de descens Chr. ad Inf. And yet for all this the knight could produce nothing in particular in which he could accuse the Romanists to haue reiected the recordes of the foresaid authours at the least in matter of faith As for S. Hierome whome Canus affirmeth to be no rule of faith I would knowe what reformer will maintaine the contrarie And if they hould him to be a rule of faith then a dieu their all-sufficiencie of scripture Besides Canus yealdes a pregnant reason why S. Hierome was not to be followed in that particular of which he speakes in that place to wit in the assignation of the Canon of the old testament because sayth Canus he followed Ioseph the Iewe but S. Austin followed the Christians in that point of doctrine which reason of Canus Sir Humfrey ought not to haue omitted if he had dealt sincerelie As impertinent as this also is the taxation of Bellarmins answere to Iustin Ireneus Epiphanius Oecumenius who seeme to haue held that the diuells are not to be tormēted with the paines of hell before the day of Iudgement For this is so absurde a position that I thinke fewe or none of the misreformed Churches defend it so I see not why Bellarmin can iustelie be reprehended for