For that the question of the parable is generall and so a generall answer was sufficient But the demaund of the Roman Catholikes is particular so in reason it requiers an answer in particular for example the question is if Purgatorie be an errour of the Romā Church who was the first authour of it In what age did he liue if not to communicate in both kindes be an errour of the Romā Church who was the first authour of it c. So that in the question of the Romanists there is no impertinencie in the sense in which they demaūd it but the knight's answer is both impertinent in it selfe and also falsely fathered vpon our Sauiour True it is that the Roman Catholiks as I haue said before doe not oblige the knight nor anie of his consorts to answer so metaphisically to their demaund as he erroneously persuadeth himselfe But they onely vrge the reformers to name the authours and time of such supposed errours in a morall manner that is who they were that haue beene in anie lawfull Councell condemned for either the broachers or publike defēdours of those he calles errours Which is a demaunde so farre from impertinencie that there hath neuer beene any notorious errour in the Church of God which hath not beene noted so by the writers of the seuerall ages wherein they liued or at the least by some others presentlie after their time And so hence it appeareth manifestlie that the Roman Catholikes being no wise guiltie of impertinencie in their demaund yet Sir Humfrey is most impertinent in his answer and not onelie an impertinent alledger of Scriptures but also a peruerse detorter of the same as interpreting them by the direction of his owne priuate spirit and fathering vpon Christ that which he neuer thought nor intended And this being the substance of his answer to the Catholikes which in trueth hath no substance in it yet he still prosecuteth the same making a greate flourish out of the circumstances of the same parable adding that the tares were sowen by the enemie when men where a fleepe and that by consequence they could not see him and much lesse produce him I confesse that there both haue bene and be yet in the world who by reason of the excessiue moisture of their braiue haue sleeped both verie soundlie and verie long I know the historie of the seauen sleepers who slept some hundreths of yeares But I neuer heard of anie kinde of Congregation of people that all and euerie one of them sleeped about a thousand yeares together and that so profundelie as that not one of them did euer so much as once dreame of the enimie who sowed tares in their field Is it possible that all the good men of the houses in all that space of tyme and in euerie place should haue bene so drowsie and so ouercome with sleepe as none of them could not one tyme or other awake catch the theefe before the daies of Luther Surelie there was neuer a Puritane in the world in all that long space of tyme for if there had bene anie some of them would infalliblie haue awaked their hott brauies and fierie spirits would neuer haue suffered them to lie so long in a lethargie but vp they would haue beene and layd about them most vallantlie with the whole bulke of the Bible and haue gone to cuffes with Pennance Purgatorie and prayer to Saints with pictures Pope and praier for the dead with merits masse and monasteries with confession tradition and transubstantiation with Indults fasts and satisfactions These I say and all other such like tares as the knight esteemes them had bene by those Zealous Paterfamillians rooted out as soone as euer they peeped out of the earth if God had not permitted them to take a greate quantitie of Diapodium or pouder dormant by force of which as I suppose they were all so lulled a sleepe as not one of them could once awake till the tyme of Doctour Luther who if he had chaunced to haue taken one onelie dramme of the same receipt it is more then probable that greate worke of his had laine vndone till this present day and perhaps for euer From this parable Sir Humfrey passeth to confirme his answer by reasons saying that the doctrine which they complaine of his a mysterie of iniquitie and mysteries are secret and worke not openlie and publikly but by degrees leasurelie cunninglie and warilie to auoyde discoueries Thus he in which wordes you see he cals errours a mysterie but describes them rather like a monster then a mysterie attributing such subtiltie vnto them as if they had the vse of reason whereas all errours which are such trulie are by nature voyd of reason and so no mysteries but rather monsters Hee saith they are secret and worke by decrees And it is true errours may be secret for a short tyme but long they cannot especiallie such as we heere speake of that is publiklie defended by a whole Church and all or most of them manie ages together Mentall and priuate errours may be so smothered as not onelie not by degrees but so as they neuer come to light and knowledge of the world at all but vocall errours proposed and published to the people cannot possible be long vnknowne or vndiscouered Witnes the errours of Luther and Caluin and of all other condemned heretikes all which doubtlesse for a tyme they were meerelie mentall yet euen before the death of their authours notice was taken of them perhaps also they were publikelie condemned And so we see by this reason Sir Humfrey proueth nothing to this purpose but tels vs of nothing but meere impossibillities contrarie both to reason and common sense Neither doth it auaile him for defence of his answer to saye that errours being at first oftentimes in one or few persons onelie they cannot easilie be espied for this is not that the Catholikes vrge him too we haue tould him alreadie that wee will not deale so rigorouslie with him we are content to graunt vnto him that errours onelie so farre published were not easilie especiallie by his drowsie consociates to be discouered neuerthelesse we see no reason at all why our supposed errours being so publiquelie taught penned and preached as they were long before either Luther or Wicklifs tyme should not haue bene knowen for errours if such they were long before either of their daies This is the point of the question this is the demaunde the Roman Catholikes vrge you Reformers are to answer as longe as you goe about the bush as you doe and answer not directlie neither your Euangelicall parable nor your cockatrice egge though you write it with a greate letter to make it seeme bigger will serue your turne they are but onelie similitudes or examples ill applied they prooue nothing but onelie serue you for a vaine flourish Exempla illustrant non probant especiallie if they be equiuocall as yours be And as for your distinction of publike heresie and
is no lesse then a plaine leasing Besides these vntrueths which I haue now rehearsed he hath diuerse very idle positions either false or friuolous as for example that the power of binding and loosing depends vpon Purgatory that by defect of the Priests intention the worshipper of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament may commit flat Idolatry and the like these because they are left by him vnproued I will also leaue them vnrefuted till such time as I shall see his proofes produced and in the meane time I condemne this whole section as containing matter both idle false calumnious and full of inuectiue bitternesse and puritannicall spleene against the Romanists accusing them that they turne the necks of Scriptures cleane about that it is a common practice of their Church of Rome to make greater price of victory then verity other such matter as is vnworthy to be published either by printe or pen. THE V. PERIOD THE knight in his sixt section promiseth to refute that which he tearmeth the Common practice of his aduersaries in their refusall of reformation because saith he we cannot assigne the precise time when errours came in This I confesse is a matter of importance and if Sir Humfrey can performe his promise he will in parte recouer the credit which he hath formerly lost if not his honour must still lye in the dust Now to performe his promise he must know that it is not sufficient for him his partners to assigne the time and persons when and by whom those points of doctrine which they hould to be erroneously maintained in the Roman Church were first broached but they must also by some meanes or other conuince them to be errours indeede And as long as Sr Humfrey failes in the demonstratiō of either of these it is manifest he doth not performe his worde He saith indeede very confidētly in the beginning of this section that they meaning as I suppose himselfe and his companions in sect are all eye-witnesses that the errours of the Romā Church are this daye so notorious that a very child may perceaue thē but what is this to the purpose this is but a friuolous repetition of their owne bare wordes this is no lawfull proofe among aduersaries this is no demonstration it is not this Romane Catholiks are bound to stand too this is no reasonable satisfaction for vs or any other be he neuer so indifferent We must be conuinced of errours by Scriptures by consent of auncient Fathers by plaine definitions of approoued Councels And till you Sir Humfrey or some of your consorts make this point cleare we acknowledge no errours in our Church and by consequence no necessity of reformation in that nature as your discourse in this section doth falsely suppose Moreouer touching the assignation of time persons when and by whom the pretended errours of the Roman Church had their beginning it is apparant the knight is in a great errour in that he persuadeth himselfe that the Romanists exact of the reformers to assigne the time and persons when and by whom such errours as they attribut to their Church were first broached For the Romanists do not stand precisely vpon assignation of the very first time and persons or the very first Authours of those supposed errours no they put no such rigorous taske vpon the reformers but onely oblige them to shewe when they were first so notorious and apparent in the world as both they their authours were condemned in any authenticall Councell or assembly and this is that onely which the Catholikes demaund of their aduersaries and not that which Sir Humfrey imagineth and therefore whatsoeuer he produceth in this section for the confirmation of his intent in that particular proceedeth vpon false supposition and consequently proueth nothing but his owne ignorance That which is a thing not onely proper to Sir Humfrey in diuerse places of his booke but also so generally incident to the rest of his conreformers as in reading their workes I haue often lamented their case to see them so labour in vaine like hounds spending vpon a false sent And surely nothing els but the foresaid false supposition was the cause why Sir Humfrey proceeded in this point in so farre a different manner as he doth from the rest of his fellowes He not taking vpon him as they ordinarily doe tho' without effect to assigne the time when those imagined errours first began and who were the first authours of the same but as it were supposing that to be impossible or els aduerticeing the ill successe which his fellow sectaries haue had in prosectuing their waye fell vpon a quite contrary course indeauouring to shewe a distinction and difference betwixt the heresies of the Arians Pelagians and Donatists and the errours which he supposeth to be in the Roman Church graunting that those heresies being such as did saith he indaunger the foundation and openly disturbed the Church might easely be discouered adding that their first authours de facto were obserued and the times knowne place pointed at But the chāge of the Romanists doctrine saith he was a secret Apostasie scarcely to be knowne or discouered condemning also that for an impertinent demaunde which the Catholikes vsually require of the reformers to wit that they shewe the first time and produce the first authours of the supposed Romish errours by this shewing himselfe very desirous to rid his handes of so hard a taske as he hath vndertaken as doth plainely appeare by those examples and similitudes which he vseth for that purpose tho' not very well applied And now this being the sense of the first parte of this section let vs briefely examine how soundly he proueth his intent Matth. 13.24 In the parable of the sower saith he Christ himselfe giues a full answer to those impertinent dedemaunds he telleth vs that after the good seede was sowen the enemy sowed tares when men were a sleepe Thus he answereth to the impertinent question of the Romaniste as he tearmeth it But good Sir Humfrey if the question be impertinent why doe you answer to it why doe not you rather passe it with silence then spend your breath about it but it seemes you will needes answer yea and father your answer vpon our Sauiour as if Christ himselfe had answered in the words cited to the same question which you say the Romanists demaund of you Fy what application of Scripture is this are you a master in Israell and yet ignorant that our Sauiour vsed that Parable to another purpose did not our Sauiour meane by the enemy the Deuill by the tares vices and by the field the soule of man is not this a common exposition of interpreters or if you will needes haue it vnderstood of errours in doctrine and of the sower of them in the field of the Church of which we know there are good store in your congregation yet can the parable of our Sauiour auayle your purpose nothing at all
string that the Roman Church houlds the scriptures to be imperfect but I knowe none that makes them so imperfect as the misreformed Churches by cutting of diuers partes of them and condemning them for Apochripha in their consistoriall sessions by corrupting the text by false translations erroneous interpretations as I haue aboue declared And touching the Roman Church I haue alreadie tould him that he belyeth her For neither she here selfe nor anie of her members euer defended that tenet absolutelie that the scriptures are imperfect But onelie some Romanists affirme the scriptures alone to be no perfect rule of faith yet they neuer say they are imperfect For one thing it is to be perfect in them selues an other thing to be perfect as they be a rule of faith The first is absolutelie true maintained by all Romanists the second is but true secundum quid with restriction as before hath ben declared or as it is but one parte yet the cheefest the farre more perfect noble Wherefore the Romanists as the reader may perceiue hould both the scriptures Fathers for perfect campleit absolutelie speaking wher as the reformers whatsoeuer they say in wordes yet indeeds they doe mangle martyrize them most cruellie as a booke published by a reformed minister called the censure of the Fathers doth giue ouer plaine testimonie Censura Patrum And thus handled by thim I graunt the reformers may chalenge them for theirs but taking them in their compleit perfect latitude puritie the Romanists my iustelie say all myne in which action notwithstanding there is no police vsed to deceiue the ignorant as the reformers vse to doe but plaine dealing for their true instruction And to say the Romanists silence scriptures it is so manifest an vntruth as it needs no other confutation But by the lye Neyther doe they otherwise purge either them or anie learned writers but onelie or at the least cheefelie from such darnell as you enimies to the Crop of Christ vse to sowe by night in the feild of faith According to the sentence of the authour of the Impect Commentarie of S. Mathewe hom 44. speaking of hereticall Preists whose wordes altho' the knight world faine applie them against the Romanists yet they can not possible be so trulie fitlie accommodated to anie as to his owne ministers Bishops whose common knowne practice is by seueritie of lawes all fortes of punishment not by their bookes writings to musle the Romanists mouthes because to vse the wordes of the foresaid author they knowe that if the truth be once layd opē their Church shall be forsaken they from their Pontificall dignitie shall be brought downe to the basenesse of the people And now we see by the examen of this whole sectiō howe false Sir Humfreyes cardes haue proued how plainelie he hath lost the game notwithstanding all his iudling tricks counterfeit shuffling of which sleights there are such great store in this section that there is no place for anie matter of substance but onelie verball florishes to giue colour countenance to his fained calumnious accusations THE XIV PERIOD SIR Humfrey tells vs that in this section following there are contained allegations collected out of Bellarmin for testification of the truth of the reformed doctrine in the cheefe points of controuersie I haue alreadie declared that the Romanists reiect not either true scriptures or Fathers nor yet anie other authours of the Roman Church but onelie as either corrupted by heretikes or els onelie where we finde them to haue some singular opinion or tenet against the vniforme doctrine of the rest in matters of faith manners or Ecclesiasticall practice or discipline or els in some particular points not then sufficientlie declared determined by the Church when they did so vtter their opinions of which sorte of writers neuerthelesse there neuer were anie such either in number or qualitie of doctrine as could either make or marre the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Church in that nature And as for Bellarmin whome Sir Humfrey citeth in this section we are so farre from taking exceptions at anie thing that he euer writ published that we all hould him for a most faithfull diligent defender not onelie of the principall points of our faith but also of euerie one of them in particular of the whole Roman doctrine in so much that I accounte it no lesse then plaine madnesse in that man whoe shall offer to make vse of his testimonie for the contrarie knowing for certaine that if he be sincerelie alledged rightlie vnderstāded nothing can be founde in him for the aduerse parte And to the end that this may more plainely appeare I will breeflie examen those particular places which Sir Humfrey produceth for the contrarie First therefore he citeth Bellarmin as confessing the vncertainty of all the Trēt Sacramēts as the knight termeth thē because forsooth in his third booke of Iustification the 8. chap. he graunteth that none can be certaine by the certaintie of faith that he receiueth a true Sacrament in regard in depends vpon the intention of the minister But this testimonie I haue alreadie shewed to be delusorie it is wholie impertinent to the purpose for that the question aboute the necessitie of the knowledge of the intention of the minister by faith is no principall controuersie betwixt vs but rather meerelie incident Neyther yet can the reformers finde the contrarie position in anie place of scripture by that meanes to make it a point of faith for themselues Secondlie he induceth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. touching the reformers denyall of transsubstantiation To which place I haue also ansered before it is not for this purpose in regarde there is no mention of anie denyall of the trueth of trassubstantiation or confession of the Reformers tenet in that point but onelie of an other incident question viz. whether transsubstantiation can be proued by expresse wordes of scripture And at least touching the maine point to omit the other as impertinent disagreable to the title of our aduersaries questiō which is of principal points of controuersie it is too cleare that Bellarmin defended the affirmatiue in terminis in plaine tearmes And so this is no such confession as Sir Humfrey seekes for in this place Besides that all Bellarmins confession is but one pore non est improbabile Thirdlie he citeth Bellarmins confession against priuate Masse lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. 10. But the latter place I haue examined before founde it corrupted by Sir Humfrey both in wordes sense neyther are the wordes sincerelie recited by omission of omnino sine declaratione Ecclesiae transposition of the text And here I further adde that neyther of the places is to this purpose because they proue no vnlawfulnesse or absolute imperfection in priuate Masses but onelie at the most their lesse lawfulnes their lesse