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
onely by an vnautheÌ„ticall history the allegation can be of no more authority theÌ„ is the relatour himselfe who was then a CaluiniaÌ„ sectary called Suauis who hath writ a very corrupted narration of that which passed in the CouÌ„cell as relating the coÌ„tentions or coÌ„trary opinioÌ„s which the Fathers Doctours held whiles matters were in debate vnconcluded as if they had continued after the definitions and decrees were made and so abusing both the Councell his reader egregiously And yet more then this suppose the relation were most true and authenticall yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent videlicet that the Pope denieth reformatlon of Corruptions in faith and manners for that in the wordes related out of the foresaid history there is no mention of any corruptions of that nature but onely of abuses in generall tearmes which Schomberg was of opinion that it had beene better to let them alone yet that was onely his particular dictamen and proposition to which neither the Pope nor the rest of the Councell agreed but resolued vpon a course of reformation as the decrees themselues doe testifie so that this passage of the related historie is impertinentlie alledged by the Knight Finally S. Humfrey doth equiuocate not onely in that which we haue said but alsoe in the very substance of this his whole section For his cheefe or rather whole scope being not onely to proue corruptions in doctrine and manners to be confessed by the Romanists to be in their Church but also that the Pope refuseth to take them away he by his allegations of the testimonies of some Romanists proueth in parte that there were corruptions in manners both before and when the Councell of Trent was assembled but he quite dissembleth the other parte to witte that they were reformed allso by the same Councell and yet not withstanding the very same places which he produceth out of the Romanists doe as plainely auerre the one as the other And so out of those proceedings of Sir Humfrey and the rest which hath bene said it may plainely appeere that he is so farre from recouery of that honour which he lost in the former sections that he hath now stained the same not a little more and so we may conclude this section and include it in the former censure THE III. PERIOD IN the fourth section the knight proceedeth to greater matters to matters I say of life and death for he affirmeth that manny learned Romanists conuicted by the euidence of truth either in parte or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death But let vs see how exactly and sollidly he proceedeth in so weightie a matter He citeth Medâ—cir â— celeberrimus professor D. Venerandus Gablerus tanti comitis exemplum secutus redijt ad Catholicismum Adfuerat is Petro Paulo vergerio è corpore migranti apud quem minor quae dam viderat quae illi animum videbantur perfregisse vt non modo Catholicus sed pientissimus quoque Catholicus fieret Sane aiunt viri graues hunc Apostatam Vergerium sub mortem teterrimos exhalasse faetores ac bouis instar horrendos edidisse boatus c. anno 1567. Surius Com. pag. 733. the Councell of Basill out of Genebrard Aeneas Syluius out of Platina Harding out of Iewell The Rhemish testament out of Causabon The lord Cooke B. Gard. out of Iohn Fox Bellarmins Controuersies And his last will or testament Albertus Pighins Paulus Vergerius and his brother Baptist These are all the authours hee citeth in this section For the proofe of his vast assertion which authours being but ten in number yet three of them are knowen to be no Romanists except he will haue L. Cooke and the two brother Bishops to be Romanists which neuerthelesse he confesseth to to haue protested against the Romish doctrine so that now according to his owne confession the whole number of Roman authours he citeth heere is reduced to seuen which small number I caÌ„not imagin according to what Arithmetick it can truly be accounted many especially if we compare them to the infinite number of the Romanists which haue bene yet are extant in the Christian world constant maintainers of Popery And this I say euen in case it were true that all those seuen had euer renounced the Romish faith either in part or totally as the knight affirmeth which neuerthelesse I will make apparent to be otherwise And first touching the Councell of Basil the very same wordes which Sir Humfrey citeth do conuince the same for saith hee the Councell did allow the cup to the Bohemians vpon this condition that they should not find fault with the contrary vse nor seuer themselues from the Catholike Church Now what is heere to be found in these wordes of the Councell which is any kinde of renuntiation of the Romish faith nay what is there which concerneth the Romish faith at all that which the Councell determineth being but onelie a graunt to one particular nation vpon particular reasons and that in a point of practice not of doctrine which also if our English protestants were as conformable to the Roman Church in all other points of faith and manners as the Bohemians then were might perhaps vpon the like iust reasons and vpon the same condition be graunted in the realme of England and that without any preiudice to either faith or manners But our English sectaries are so farre from conformitie to the Romanists not onely in diuerse other points but euen in this particular that they coÌ„tinually exclaime against them both in their bookes and sermons as violatours of Christs institution in that they do not allwayes and in euerie countrie communicate the people in both kindes Con. Basiliense initio legitimum postea Conciliabulum Scismaticum nullius authoritatis Con. lat sess 11. ex Bell. non refero verba accusing them also that they mangle the Sacrament and vniustlie depriue the laytie of one part there of iudging the same for a laufull cause at the least in parte of their separation from the Roman Church none of which particulars are proued by the testimonie of the Councell of Basil to haue concurred in the case of the Bohemians but rather the contrarie is most plainelie specified so that the knight hath laboured in vaine or rather against himselfe by producing the foresaid testimonie of the Councell of Basil in which noe renuntiation of Popery is to be founde nor anie agreement in doctrine or manners with the pretensiue reformed Churches From whence it is also consequentlie inferred that to be clearelie false which our aduersarie affirmes in the beginning of this section to wit that the reformed Churches haue done nothing in this otherwise then former Councels had anciently decreed He citeth in the second place Aeneas Syluius who was afterwardes Pope Pius the second as if he had renounced the Romish religion in that he saith that as marriage vpon weightie reasons was taken from the Priests so vpon weightie reasons it were wished
would easilie haue perceiued that they fauour his intent nothing at all as not cōteyning any kinde of renuntiation of the due estimation of merits in themselues but onelie signifie a certaine negatiue renuntiation of confidence in his owne particular deserts at the hands of God which is both most conformable to the same most learned and virtuous Cardinalls owne doctrine in his booke of Iustification before cited and also most pious in it selfe But it seemes our learned Knigth was either ignorantlie or malitiouslie deceiued in the true meaning of Bellarmines wordes imagining verie sillilie that because the Cardinall at his death prayed God to receiue him into glorie not as a valuer of merits he had held God for no valuer of merits at all whereas God knowes the pious Prelate had no such meaning neither doe his wordes rightlie cōstrued carrye anie such sense rather doe expresse the contrarie by tearming God a valuer of merits in generall although on the otherside considering his owne weakenes Non aestimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus Largitor admitto Can. Miss and the vncertainetie of his owne particular deseruinges out of an humble mynde he feared to put himselfe vpon God as vpon an esteemer of the same which in case he had had no merits at all might haue failed him but rather made choyse at the houre of his departure to cast himselfe vpon the mercie of God which hee assured himselfe could neuer be wanting to those who duelie relie vpon his goodnes and bountie And put the case a poore distressed creature should begge an almes of Sir Hūfrey intreating him to take pitty on him not as a learned man but as a liberall knight could he therefore iustelie say the beggar denied him to be a learned man no suerlie and why marie because the beggar although he knew him well enough to be a learned man yet he knew also it was not his learning that could releeue his necessity but his money After this māner it happeneth in the case we treate of for as such a begger could not trulie be said to haue renounced the knights learning in that case so neither could Cardinall Bell be iustlie supposed to renounce God as a valuer of merits in the state he was in by recurring vnto him onely as to a bestower of mercie And thus we see that Bell dyed as greate a Romane Catholike as he liued notwithstanding all Sir Humfrey can say against him he can no sooner make Bellarmin a Protestant thē he can make a Protestant of the Canon of the Masse it selfe which hath the verie same wordes which the Card. Piously vsed at the houre of his death Next after Bellarmine Sir Humfrey hath placed Albertus Phigius who if we will credit him telleth vs he became a Caluinist euen in this verie poynt by reading of Caluins institutions Thus he relateth this storie and will haue vs take it on the worde of a knight but he must pardon vs Romane Catholikes if we refuse to beleeue it vpon the bare relation of an aduersarie as houlding our selues to haue full as greate authoritie at the least to denie it as he hath to affirme it True it is he quoteth a place of the authour in the margin but citeth not a worde of his in the text as in the like occasion he vseth to doe which causeth me to persuade my selfe there is no such matter to be founde or at least some mistake in Sir Humfrey in the true meaning of his wordes as he mistooke in Bellarmine Especiallie considering that Pighius is notoriouslie knowen to haue bene a professed enemie both to Luther and Caluin as his workes doe testifie And that Pighius differeth both from the Lutherans Caluinists in the maine paint Of iustification it is most manifest by his whole discourse and particularlie in that he absolutelie affirmes in his 53. page of his Controuersie of iustification that faith alone though it be neuer so perfect is not sufficient to iustification saying Sed fidem hanc solam non sufficere nobis c. in which place although he doth not name or mention Caluin yet doth he expresselie and professedlie dispute against that doctrine of his and Luther which putteth iustification in faith onelie so that it hence plainelie appeareth that if Pighius did read Caluins Institutions as Sir Humfrey affirmeth it was not to follow them but to confute them He quoteth also Ruardus Tapperus to what purpose I know not except it be to fill his margent for ostentation and so I leaue it till he shall further please to declare his meaning touching that citation which may be he reserueth for a fourth edition in the interim that Taperus was a professed papist his bookes do witnes And now hauing made it plainelie appeere that not one of the Romanists which the knight citeth in this section euer renounced anie point of Poperie before his death or at the least that no one nor all the testimonies which he produceth out of Romanists doe proue anie such renunciation as he auerreth and also that some of those which he alledgeth for proofe of his assertion as true Romanists were not as much as in externall showe of the Catholike religion long before their death and some of them in no parte of their whole life as is manifest in Iewell Fox and Cooke and consequentlie could not in reason be produced by him as witnesses in fauour of his cause noe more then Martin Luther or Iohn Caluin this I say supposed it onelie now remayneth that for the conclusion of this Period we doe not onelie censure the Contents of this section for vnsounde doctrine but also the authour of it for an indirect and false dealer in the confirmation of the seame THE IV. PERIOD THE fift section of the booke is about the impediments of reformation of such thinges as the knight iudgeth inexcusable in themselues and for impediments of reformation he assigneth wordlie pollicie and profitte the thinges which he calleth inexcusable are the doctrine of Purgatorie Indulgences prayer for the dead the communion vnder one kinde worship of pictures and such other poynts of Catholike doctrine all which hee temerariouslie affirmeth to be inexcusable and that onelie by waye of an odious relation of then in particular but adduceth nothing whereby to proue anie one of them to be such indeede and so neither will I proue anie thing against him heere more then that he vttereth diuerse vntruthes in this one section First in that he affirmeth the faith of Purgatorie is confirmed by Councells meerelie for the benefit of the Pope and his Clergie which is nothing els but a manifest calumniation without all apparance of trueth it being a thing wholie improbable and contrarie to common sense either that so manie learned graue and pious men as vse to be assembled in Councells should determine anie thing as matter of faith meerelie for anie Temporall respect whatsoeuer or that the laitie of the Christian world especiallie Princes Kinges
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
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
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
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
quite depriued of iudgment doth not conceiue that if there are Romanists which doe not defēd the Popes authority to be infallible there most of necessity be also some yea the same Romanists that hold his iudgment not to be an infallible rule of faith from whence it doth further necessarily issue that the infallibitie of the Popes iudgment in determining Controuersies is no point of faith among Romanists how be it is commonly held for the most safe doctrine consequently as the proposition of the title of this sectiō is but a fallacious paradox of the knights owne inuenting so are all the authorities proofes which he produceth to shewe that there is vncertaintie among the Romanists of the Popes infallible iudgment in the rule of faith in vaine of no force as tending to demonstrate that which is not denied by all Catholike diuines And thus Sir Humfrey marcheth on in the by-way of his owne deuious francies euen to the end of his section neuer omitting to excercise himself by the way in some part of impiety against the Popes carping malitiously at the euill life of some of them in particular all which how true or false it is yet not doubting but that they haue binne much calumniated by emulators heretiques ill aduised persons as by the writers of their liues appeereth I cannot heere stand to examine by reason I study professe breuity but will onely answere generally with pious S. Augustine in the like case of obiectiō touching the Popes which liued before in his time that although some traytor had cript in to that order of Bishops which is deducted from Peter himself to Anastasius I say to vrbanius who doth now sit in the same chaire yet should he not preiudice the Church the innocent Christians to whome our poruident Lord sayd Doe what they say but doe not what they doe Sec. 22. In the 22. section the knight affirmes that the Church vppon which the learned Romanists grounde their faith is onely the Pope but the Church vppon which the vnlearned rely is no other then their parishe preistes It is iust so why because ipse dixit because Sir Humfrey sayd it But how doth he knowe it to be so by scripture or by tradition if by scripture let him turne his Bible produce the text if by tradition he is a traytor to his owne cause One said plesantly that the faith of a Puritan is resolued 1. in Biblia 2. in spiritum 3. in carnem firste into the Bible secondly into the spirit thirdly into the flesh heere rests the last resolution of their religion But now seriously to the matter but indeed there is little matter except by matter we vnderstand corruption of this I am certaine there is no want For to begin with the title of the sectiō it hath two partes they both false the one is that the learned Romanists ground their faith vppon no other then the Pope the other that the vnlearned rely vppon no other then their parish prestes neyther of which is absolutely true as experience doth teach And yet if it were true that the simple sort of people did rely wholy vppon their Parish preistes what then may not simple Romanists as safely rely vppon their Parish preistes as simple reformers vppon their Parish ministers who are sometimes euen as simple ignorant in diuinity as themselues setting aside that perhaps they are a little more expert in reading the text of the Bible in English or a misreformed homilie And touching the learned Romanists they doe not rely vpon the Pope onely but chiefly vpon the word of God as also the most simple Romanists doe thou ' not interpred according to ther owne priuate sense as the pretended reformers doe but expounded according to the consent commonly receiued sense of the vniuersall visible Church To this I adde a most odious slanderous lye of the knight where he saith of the beleife of the Romanists that if it be receiued with an affected ignorance a blind obedience Page 573. the partie shall be saued by the fire of Purgatory which is most palpably false neuer asserted by any Romanist but coyned by his owne froathie braine besides this the like dishonest dealing he abuseth Bellarmine in diuers places as lib. 1. de iustif cap. 7. in which place wheras Bellarmine produceth S. Bernards expositiō of those wordes of Iob the oxē did plowe labore the asses did feed by them to proue against sectaries that iustifieing faith consists not so much in knowledge as in assent sayeing docet Bernardus Bernard teacheth that by the oxen are vnderstood the learned doctors of the Church by the asses are meant the ignorant which by their simple beleife rest satisfied in the vnderstanding of their superiors nimble Sir Humfrey applyeing this thou ' very fondly preposterously to the disprofe of the ignorant peoples relyeing vppon their pastors in their faith by changing the word dicit he sayth meaning S. Bernard in to these wordes the Cardinall saith he makes his reader beleiue that the foresayd exposition is Bellarmines owne glosse wheras yet he doth but allege it out of S. Bernard onely to confirme his owne doctrine touching the nature of the forme of iustification Another place the knight corrupts in the same Bellarmine lib. 5. de Euchar. cap. 5. concerning the doctrine of Peter Lombard S. Thomas where the Cardinall affirming that they were not carefull of the question now in controuersie to wit whether that which the Preist celebrateth daily be properly a sacrifice but supposed the affirmatiue part as a thing knowne to all men the crafty Cauallier relates the wordes of Bellarmine so transuersly that the reader cannot but vnderstand by them that the Cardinall affirmes that those two most famous diuines cared not whether the Masse were a proper sacrifice or no but that they did onely content themselues to hold that it is a commemoratiue sacrifice onely as the reformers teach And now let these examples suffice to demonstrate the infidelity of our aduersarie in this section to omit much other impertinent false captious matter allegations diuers of which I haue ansered in my censure are heere superfluously repeated by the knight towards the building of this part of his crooked blinde by-way which as you see by the matterialls of it is so fowle rugged that it is not fit for any person of reputation to appeere in it Sec. 23. The next section is the 23. in number affirming that the visibilitie of the Church is no certaine note of the true Church but rather the contrarie thus Sir Humfrey but he that should duelie consider how farre euen by his owne confession he is ingaged to the Iesuit his aduersarie to proue his owne Church to haue binne visible in all former ages since the Apostles times till this day doubtlesse he would much wonder at this his title altho' if contrarilie
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
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
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
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
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
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
S. Cyrill with all his fellow Bishops assembled in Ephesus what Greece with them what Egipt and what S. Hierome him self whoe published the liues of the holye Fathers in latin And therfore not obstanding some erre in this by ignorance neuerthebesse as yet ther is none that openly contradictes that which the whole world doth beleeue confesse Thus Pascasius a learned and venerable and virtuous Abbat testifyeth the faith of the vniuersall Church in his dayes touching the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Whoe altho' he was not English nor liued iuste in the tyme of Alfric yet he liued within the compasse of the same age in which Alfric was Bishop of wilton and Archbishop of Canterburie that is the yeare 900. yea it may be Pascasius was yet aliue whē Alfric was Abbat and consequently when he is supposed by our aduersaries to haue writ those epistles which they produce in his name concerning this matter Soe that by this testimonie of Pascasius a forcible argument is made that the contrarie doctrine of the reall presence cauld not possible haue ben soe publick and common in anie parte of the Christian world in soe shorte a space of tyme as passed if anie passed betwixt Pascasius and the writing of the homilie and Epistles attributed to Alfric if he did euer write them And how beit is may appeare by the writings of Pascasius that ther were some in or aboute his tyme whoe argued writ in an vnacustomed and new manner touching the doctrine of the presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament as particularly Ioannes Scotus Bertrame and Frudegarde yet as much as I can perceiue by reading Pascasius Fulbertus Stephanus Eduēsis others whoe writ of this matter the broachers of this question did neuer absolutely auerre and maintaine anie assertion directly repugnant to the true and reall existence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely made a schoole question of it arguing the matter pro and contra and that not determinately of the reall presence but whether the same bodie bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie was crucifyed vpon the Crosse was contained vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament not rather some other kynd of Christs bodie and bloud yet truely his and truely present in the Eucharist thou in a figuratiue and tropicall manner And that neither the named authors nor anie other in or aboute Pascasius tyme did plainely or of set purpose impugne the reall presence it plainely appeares by his wordes aboue cited affirming that not obstanding some erred by ignorance yet that none did openly contradict that which the whole world did beleeue and confesse That which is yet further confirmed for we read not that either Scotus Frudegard or Bertrame were euer condemned by the Church in their persons in anie Councell or otherwise which is an euidēt signe they were not obstinate in defence of their opinions but onely deliuered their doubts by way of proposition as at the least in Frudegard in particular doth manifestly appeare by the responsion of Pascasius to his Epistle saying thus Quaeris enim de re ex qua multi dubitant You inquire of a thing of which manie doubt And for conclusion of his owne Epistle Pascasius saith to Frudegard Tu autem velim relegas libellum nostrum de hoc opere For I would haue you read my booke of this matter which you say you haue read in tymes past And if you reprehend or doubt of anie thing in it let it not be tedious vnto you to reuiewe it And finally towardes the end of his exposition of the wordes of the institution of the Eucharist he speaketh to Frudegard in this manner Quapropter charissime Wherfore most dearely beloued doe not doubt of this Mysterie which Christ the truth it self hath of him self bestowed vpon vs. For altho' he sits in heauen at the reight hand of his Father yet doth he not disdaine to be Sacrifyced dayly by the preist in the Sacrament as a true hoaste Now that the same Frudegardus doubt was onely whether the bodie of Christ contained in the Sacrament was the same bodie which he assumed of the Virgin Marie is plaine by Pascasius anser saying thus almost in the beginning of his Epistle Ergo cum ait Wherfore when he saith this is my bodie or my flesh or this is my bloud I think he intimated no other flesh then his owne propter bodie which was borne of the Virgin Marie and hanged en the Crosse Nor anie other bloud then that which was spilt vpon the Crosse and which then was in his bodie No man therfore which is soundly wise doth beleeue that Iesus had anie other flesh or bloud then that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and suffered vpon the Crosse And for conclusion of his foresaid exposition he saith thus to the same Frudegard Ad vltimum quaeso te Lastely I praye fallow not the fooleries of the tripartite or triple bodie of Christ. Doe not mingle salt nor hunnie in it as some would doe not adde nor substracte anie thing but beleeue and vnderstand it all as Christ instituted c. As for Scotus and Bertrame althou ' their bookes haue hen reproued yet it doth not fallow that their authors did directly and absolutely impugne the reall presence or transsubstantiation but they onely deliuered their myndes in a doubtfull obscure and ill sounding manner for which cause and for auoyding of danger they were iustely prohibited the onely the Councell of vercelles the other by the purgatorie Index Howbe it I find nothing in Bertram which with a pious interpretation might not passe among the learned sorte of people And thus much may suffice for proofe that in Pascasius tyme ther had ben no plaine denyall of the reall presence or transsubstantiation in the Christian world but onely some incident doubts made by some particular persons and that in a discussiue manner not as obstinate maintainers of such Doctrine And now by this same and the rest which I haue aboue produced out of the same Pascasius Lanfrāc and others the false Archbishop and Primate of Ireland is conuinced of an apparent falsitie for that in the 79. page of his anser to a Iesuits chalenge he had the face to affirme that til the dayes of Lanfranc this question of the reall presence continued still in debate and that it was as free for anie man to followe the Doctrine of Bertram he calles him Ratrannus or Ioannes Scotus as that of Pascasius This audatious affirmation of vsher I say is clearly condemned of falsitie by the same Pascasius whome he citeth and whoe as I haue alledged testifyes that the doctrine of the reall presence in his tyme was not as yet contradicted by anie except those whoe denye Christ but beleeued and professed by the whole world althou some saith he did erre in the same by ignorance And this onely
being one of the newe reformers as is the spirit of humilitie frome the spirit of pride and contempte which is the onely guide of all those whoe reiect and impugne the Roman doctrine in all points of controuersie Finally in those wordes cited by Sir HuÌ„frey out of Gersons Apolotgeticall dialog wheras the author speakes in the case of scisme when the true Pope was not certainely knowne and cheefely of one particular point to wit of the condemnation of that proposition a tyranne may be lawfully killed by priuate authoritie or by anie priuate man the deceitfull knight soe applyes the wordes as if Gerson had generally dispared of the reformation of the Church and the more easily to persuade his reader he omittes the wordes hac tempestate and those rebus vt sunt manentibus Gersons wordes truly rehearsed are these video quod in doctrinis quae religionem quae bonas salubres respiciunt mores vix inuenietur in hac tempestate rebus vt sunt manimentibus nec habito forti fauore potentiae saecularis terminatio debita vel expedita iustitia Which wordes if the reader compares them with the wordes cited in English by the knight he will easily spye more faultes then I haue noted And then from heÌ„ce and the rest which I haue produced touching the whole allegation of Gerson he will be able to iudge both of the false deiling of our aduersarie how smale reason he had to indeuore to make that famous and renowned Romanist one of the blind brothers of his inuisible Congregation But now for conclusioÌ„ plainer intellectioÌ„ or vnderstanding of that which I haue said touching this author the reader must take noticie that Gerson liued in a tyme of a great scisme rased by the erroneous election of diuers Popes by diuers partes of the faction by reason of which strife finding in his iudgement no other meanes to bring matters to a peaceable issue and attonemeÌ„t then by giuinge greater authoritie to a generall Councell then to the Pope he preferred the power of a Councel before the authoritie of the Pope which scisme alsoe was the true cause why he likewise seemed to dispare of the reformatioÌ„ of the Church and therfore he labored to haue a generall Councell vnder one Pope by occasion of which desire he writ his treatie intituled De CoÌ„cilio vnius obedieÌ„tiae to deliberate the coÌ„posing of the Ecclesiasticall debate a and Papal dissentioÌ„ all which is by himselfe clearely deliuered in seuerall places of his workes and particularly in his Apolageticall dialog fol. 75. saying hoc vnum scio quod zelus hahendae vnionis in scismate tam desperato tantique temporis fecit multa tolerari quae fuissent aliunde nec tolerabilia nec toleranda c. And now by this it is sufficiently cleare that Gerson is not for the new reformation of moderne sectaries in anie one pointe of doctrine or manners In his citation of Cusanus lib. 3. concod Cath. cap 16. the kinght hath in his owne page 378. 8. 9. of the by way notably corrupted him for he reheareses his wordes without anie order alsoe quite contrarie to his sense meaning as that authors owne wordes most euidently conuince in his 17. chapter following where he hath this plaine clause Ecce quod de pertinentibus ad religionem Imperator inter Episcopos iudicare non debet Et in his 18. chapter he saith thus Firmitas autem iudicij omnium quae ita aguntur in concilio per quoscunque ex consensu tantum synodica dependent authoritate Quare etsi aliquando sententiasse iudices tales leguntur ex cousensu synodica commissione vigor sententiae dependebat non ex imperiali coÌ„missione cuius authoritas synodum virilem non praecellit Thus much Cusanus touching iudicatiue authoritie in generall councels which as is plaine by these wordes doth not depend vpon the Emperor It is true Cusanus grauntes I knowne not how truely that he fyndes the Emperor did alwayes praesidere that is preced or take the first place in the councels but he doth not say as Sir Humfrey feysteth in primatum habuit he had the primacie But onely graunteth the Emperor his Iudges with the senate locall preheminence before the Pope or at the most depending on the Pope councell as his whole discourse in diuers chapters of the booke cited by the kingth manifestely declare And coÌ„cerning the coÌ„gregation or conuocation of generall Councels it is almost euident out of the precedent chapters of the same booke that this author grauÌ„tes no Primacie to the Emperor but cheefely to the Pope For altou ' in the begining of the 13. chapter he hath these expresse wordes ex superioribus habetur Imperatores sanctos congregationes synodales vniuersalis concilij totius Ecclesiae seÌ„per fecisse Yet preseÌ„tly after explicaing him selfe better he saith Breuiter dico quod ita se habet Imperator ad vniuersaleÌ„ Ecclesiae Catholicae synodum sicut Rex ad vniuersale Regni sui concilium non quad coactiue sed cohortatiue colligere debet And yet more plainely presently after Vigilare dehet Imperator fidei pacis custos Romani Pontificis primo synodi necessitatem insinuare eius consensum congregandi concilij in definito loco requirere By all which it doth manifestly appeare how shamelessely the kinght abuseth Cusanus how smale reason he had to produce his testimonie for the Popes vsurpation as he termeth it both in calling assuming preheminence of place dignitie in Councels supposing that author as being Cardinall of the Popes creation soe professedly maintaines his authoritie both in the resolutorie assembling coÌ„firming of generall synods And if the reader desire greater satisfactioÌ„ concerning the doctrine of this author aboute the Popes authoritie in Councels let him please to read his epistle to Roderic he will easily perceiue howe plainely he purgeth himself from all sinister imputation in that nature and that if perhaps in his immature age when he writ his Catholique concordance by reason of the great fame which he conceiued of the Councel of Basill he inconsiderately vttered anie thing which might seeme to diminish the power of rhe Bishop of Rome in respect of a generall Councell yet afterwardes perceiuing that those whoe preferred the authoritie of Councels before the authoritie of the cheefe Bishop pastor the Church proceeded soe farre as to attempt the election of the Antipope Foelix against the true Pope Eugenius then presently he repented him self that he had soe much extolled their schismatticall syond imitating in this both Cardinall Iulian Aeneas syluius whoe both of them in the begining defended the Councell of Basill against Eugenius the true Pope yet in the end retracting their action maintained most earnestly his authoritie against tâ—e same synod That which is sufficient to manifest the inconsideration ignorance insynceritie of Sir Humfrey in his production of this author whoe suppose he had deliuered