had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
it is euer essentially one the same in it selfe cleare from distinction cleare from error the coÌ„trarie to which neuerthelesse should necessarily be true if ei-ei-faith were diuided in to fundamental not fundamental faith the Church could erre in her propositioÌ„ of the one not of the other And to this I adde that one propertie of the true Church is holines but now what sanctitie integritie or holines can possible be in the Church if it be infected with errors in faith of what nature soe euer they bee For as the scripture affiirmes sine fide that is true pure intyre faith impossibile est placere Deo True faith is the forme fashioÌ„ beautie of the Church which is the immaculate sponse of Christ ' not hauing spot or wrincle In soe much that if she be defaced thus with errors she can not possible be the sponse of Christ as in the cided place like wise in the Canticles she is described all faire or comely but rather she would be like a leaper or most deformed creature Thirdly I confesse for my parte I could neuer perfectly vnderstand what the Nouellists truely meane by fundamental not fundamental points by reason I finde the matter in none of their workes sufficiently explicated I veriely coÌ„ceiue they purposely anoyde the declaration of it to the ende the absurditie may lesse appeare Neuerthelesse it seemes in probabilitie that by fundamentals they meane all those points which according to their owne exposition ar contained in scriptures the three creedes And by not fundamentals the points of controuersie betwixt vs theÌ„ as is the number of Canonical bookes the infallible rule of interpretation of scriptures the real presence transsubstantiation iustification ' c. This beiÌ„g supposed I argue thus Either those points which our aduersaries call not fundamentals ar matters of faith ' to be beleeued by all sortes of Christians according to the diuersitie of their tenets vnder paine of damnation or not to be beleeued If they ar thus necessarily to be beleeued by faith then doubtelesse they ar included in those truthes touching which as I haue declared coÌ„firmed before by both scriptures Fathers Christ promised to his Church the assistance of the diuine Sprit to remaine with it eternally that is till the consummation of the worlde and consequently the Church can not committe anie error in proposing them to the people as being no lesse fundamental in that respect then anie of the rest of the articles of faith But if our aduersaries on the contrarie denye them to be necessarily beleeued vnder paine of losse of SaluatioÌ„ hould theÌ„ onely as matters of indifferencie such as may either be beleeued or not be beleeued without preiudice of faith or maÌ„ners vpon this supposition I graunte the Church may erre in proposing theÌ„ to her flock but yet in this case that parte of our aduersaries distinctioÌ„ affirming that the Church can erre in not fuÌ„dameÌ„tal matters of faith is still false and impertineÌ„t in regarde those particulars aboue telated in which they teache the Church can erre ar soe farre from being either fundamentals or not fundamentals in matter of faith that according to the former supposition they ar not either one way or other with in the circuit of faith and consequently that parte or member of our aduersaries dinstinction viz that the Church can erre in not fundamentals is both false nugatorie and impertinent in which sense soeuer they intend to maintaine it Fourtly I proue directly that the affirmatiues euen of those particulars controuerted betwixt vs and the professors of the English Religion ar fundamental points of faith and by consequence that if the Church can erre in them that parte of their new distinction is false according to which they auerre the Church can not erre in fundamental points of Religion which I conuince in this forme of argument That distinction is false and absurde according to which it necessarily followes that the Church can erre in matters the true faith of which is necessarie to saluation But according to the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith it necessarily followes the Church can erre in matters necessarie to saluation Ergo The distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith is a false and absurde distinction The minor in which the total difficultie consists I proue because according to this distinction the Church may erre in these propositions The Church hath the true complete Canon of scripture The Church hath the true interpretation and sense of scripture Christs bodie and bloud ar truely really substantially and not by onely faith contained in the sacred Eucharist c. And yet the faith of these either affirmatiuely or negatiuely is necessarie to saluatioÌ„ as the aduersaries theÌ„ selues if they will not be occounted obstinate in a matter soe cleare and manifest can not denye Therfore it is hence concluded by forcible sequele that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals in matters of faith is false and absurde Fiftely I reason in this manner against the same distinction If the infallibilitie of the Churches authoritie consistes in fundamental points of Religion onely and not in all that the true Church shal at anie tyme declare vnto her members concerning their faith and Religion then were not tâ—e prouidence of Christ perfect towardes his sponse but more defectiue then God was towardes the synagog of the Iewes neither were this anie other then to imagine that Christ in deede did laye a sounde foundation for his Church but lefte walles and roofe exposed to be deiected or caste to grounde with euerie puffe of winde which how repugnant to reason his owne inuiolable promisse this is the reader may easily consider and censure Sixtly I argue yet more positiuely against the distinction related because our aduersaries frame it either in respect of the greater or lesser dignitie of the obiects of fundamental and not fundameÌ„tal points of faith in them selues or in respect of the greater or lesse necessitie of them to saluation by reason of the necessitie of faith which the members of the true Church haue of them all and euerie one in particular Now if we respect onely the material obiects in them selues and the necessitie of them to saluation precisely soe I confesse ther ar some particular matters of faith which much surpasse orhers and in that respect alsoe the one may not vnaptely be termed fundamental in comparision of the rest which haue not that preheminencie For example that ther is a God and that God is a rewarder of workes quod Deus est remunerator sit That he is one in three persons that the second person in Trinitie became incarnate or tooke humaine nature vpon him was borne of the Virgin Marie suffered death for our dedemption c. are matters both more noble and dignifiable in them selues then those Christ fasted fortie dayes and fortie nights an Angel
to be restored But what is this to the purpose is a wish of an alteration in one particular point that not in faith but manners or rather in practice of the Church a renuntiation of religion either in parte or in whole or is the prohibition of marriage or the celibate or single life of priests anie of the twelue articles which the knight is pleased to tearme the new creede of the Roman Church no suerlie How then is it a matter of faith or the renunciation of it the renuntiation of Poperie and not rather a renuntiation onelie of a precept of the Church in case it were truelie renounced by anie Romanist whatsoeuer he is Which renuntiation neuerthelesse was neuer made by the authour cited as his wordes rehearsed out of Platina by Sir Humfrey himselfe doe make manifest to anie syncere and vnpartiall reader In which not by way of wish or as giuing his reall assent with the reformers as Sir Humfrey doth corruptedly relate but onelie by a doutfull deliuerie of his owne priuate dictamen that present tyme occurring vnto him Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias maiori restituendas videri Plat. in pio 2. And yet more then that after he was Pope and making reflection vpon his former writings published in his greener yeares to the imitation of S. Augustin and others he framed are tractation of diuers particulars passages of his owne workes among which this is one as appeares by the tenor of the same which in his later editions in force of a breefe or Bull is vsually prefixed to his bookes To omitte that if the foresaid Syluius had bene a renouncer of anie point of Poperie it were too ridiculous to imagin that euer he would haue bene elected Pope as neuerthelesse the knight confesseth him to haue bene afterwardes And thus the reader may plainelie see that this allegation is of no more force then the former towards the proofe of Sir Humfreys intent In the next place is master Harding brought in for a renoncer of Popery For that as Iewell reporteth he saith that godly and faithfull people haue since the time of the Primitiue Church much complained of Priuate Masse But suppose it were true what is this to the purpose of renouncing of Popery For what zealous and religious Papist is there in the world who doth not iustly complaine of want of deuotiō in the laity for that they haue not that feruour in frequenting the communion which those of the Primitiue Church had and if this could be remedied what Romanist would not much desire it yea and by all meanes possible procure it but is this to condemne as vnlawfull or contrary to Christs institution as you sectaries doe all Masses as be celebrated without Cōmunicants no such matter No more nay much lesse then if for complaining that Sir Humfrey Linde doth not deale so sincerely in the citations of his aduersaries as becometh the reputatiō of a knight a man should therefore presently be thought to haue quite condemned him of dishonest proceeding in that nature euen in the highest degree of false dealing and corruption Which collection if he please to graunt I know not who will be so vnciuill as to contradict him Especiallie considering that euen in this verie citation he hath corrupted doctour Harding most vnconscionablie by applying against priuate masse that which he speakes onelie against the negligence of the laye people for that they so commonlie omit to communicate at masse as if that authour disalowed of the priuate masse it selfe whose wordes neuerthelesse truelie cited as he hath them in the beginning of the ninth leafe of his answer to Iewels chalēge will cleare the busines and manifestlie discouer where the fault lyeth that others do commonlie forbeare saith hee to communicate with the preist it is through their owne faulte and negligence not regarding their owne saluation whereof the godly and carefull rulers of faithfull people haue since the tyme of the primitiue Church allwayes much complained And thus you see how nimblie the subtil knight hath abused both that worthy doctour his owne reader Wherefore it being by this which we haue said apparent that M. Harding was no condemner of priuate masse as either vnlawfull or against the institution of Christ it also is thence manifestlie consequent that he was no renouncer of Poperie euen in that particular point and so the proofe which the knight would draw from him is of no force nor auaileable to his cause nay it is in trueth so disagreeable to the state of the question that it is no small wonder how either mallice or ignorance could so much blinde him as to make vse of it in this matter The fourth restimonie is out of the Rhemes Testament the authours of which as hee affirmeth out of Causabon auouch the scriptures to haue bene translated into English by the importunitie of the heretiks And he addeth that the Romanists haue of late graunted a dispensation to some men and woemen also to reade scriptures and this also was done saith hee by the importunitie of the heretiks Moreouer as it were in confirmation of the same he addeth that most of the Romish proselites as he tearmeth them did frequent their Church and seruice for the first eleuen yeeres of Queene Elizabeth neither saith he was it forbidden by any lawfull councell Thus he discourseth touching this point Heere is much a doe and little to the purpose And indeede after a greate deale of studie a man shall hardlie collect anie thing out of the whole discourse which may seeme to haue anie shewe of proofe for the knights assertion videlicet That many Romanists haue renounced Popery before their death Yet it seemes to me his whole drift may be reduced to these two arguments The first thus The Romanists haue translated the bible by the importunitie of the reformers giue dispensations to some men and woemen to reade it therefore many Romanists haue renounced Popery The second thus most of the Romanists did frequent the reformed Church and seruice for the first 11. yeeres of Queene Elizabeths reigne neither was their communication with them prohibited by anie lawfull Councell therefore manie Romanists renounced Popery before their death Loe heere two learned Enthymems they march like two march hares and runne starke wilde I wonder what nimble vniuersity man hath taught the knight to choppe Logike so minshingly or what polipracticall Alchymist hath instructed him in the art of extraction so exactly that out of the importunity of his reformed consorts he is able to drawe the translation of the Rhemish Testament and that with a dispensation for some men and woemen to reade it So skilfull he is in extracting oyle out of stones and milke out of mountaines Neither doth his exquisite knowledge stay heere but he will needes persuade his reader he can extract also out of the same that many Romanists haue renounced their Popery by translating the Bible into English and by giuing a dispensation
aut domi concubinam foueat tammetsi graui sacrilegio sese obstingat grauiùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimonium c. Costerus Enchir. cap. 17. de caelib prop. 9. then he who keepeth a concubine at home as Costerus though incompletlie cited and vniustlie taxed by the knigth doth most truelie affirme And this is a certaine knowen trueth among diuines consequent to the prohibition of Priests marriage which prohibition once supposed he that should marrie should not onelie committe a scandalous sinne of the flesh as that Priest doth who should be a Concubinarie but also he should in that case comit a Speciall irreuerence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of it selfe a more grieuous sinne then is the keepinge of a concubine as all men Aug. de bono vide cap. 11. except the reformed brothers doe easilie apprehend conformable to which S. Aug. saith that mariage after a vowe of continencie is worse then adulterie Planè non dubitauerim dicere lapsus ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae nouetur Deo adulterijs esse peâ—ores ibidem To omit that for a Preist to marrie in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it includes also the scandall of Concubinate it selfe But now Sir Humfrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the poynt of merits Lastly saith hee how many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainetie of their owne workes doe relie wholie vpon the merits of Christ Iesus shewe me that learned man that liueth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sounde Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith Thus the knigth who as you may easilie perceiue by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to perswade his reader that all the learned Romanists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man iustified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdome of heauen by the good workes he doth by vertue of the grace of God and merits of Iesus Christ because forsooth many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainelie of their owne workes at their death doe relie wholie on the merits of their Sauiour whereas indeede these are two farre different poynts of doctrine the first that is the trueth of mans merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church the second which is the confidence in merits being none the one being about the substance of merits the other onelie about the qualitie the one about the absolute acknowledgment of merits the other onely about the ouergreate confidence or presumption in them And so he that renounceth the first renounceth Poperie indeede but he that renounceth the second doth not neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would haue him to be for the onelie deniall of confidence in merits as in it selfe it is most manifest By all which because Sir HuÌ„frey with all his diuinitie had not iudgement to distinguish he proueth nothing but doth onelie hallucinate betweene trueth and falsehood Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he alledgeth anie whit auaile his cause for suppose that be true which he affirmeth of him to wit that in his sicknes he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt Gods Iudgment his owne sinnes yet caÌ„not he thence inferre that therefore the Bishop renounced the trueth of the doctrine of merits in generall nay nor his owne merits in particular but onelie the presumption of them or the confidence in them by reason of the vncertainetie of them as I haue alreadie declared Besides that this which he is affirmed to say of himselfe being but onelie a relation of Fox we may iustlie doubt of the trueth of it For he hath bene long since hunted to his hole by a learned Catholike and his vnright Reuerence manifestlie conuinced to be a Father of lyes Wherefore he is of no credit with vs neither can his testimonie preuaile against vs. We care not for him his acts and monuments are of no moment among vs his testimonie is not the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of a Romanist which is that our aduersary promised in the title of his booke and we expect he should performe and to omit the smale credit which I and all Catholikes giue to the relations of Master Fox yet I fynde that he who hath dealt so falsely with others hath now founde one of his owne profession who dealt not verie sincerelie with him in recounting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardiner at his death for whereas Sir Humfrey will needs proue by the testimonie of Fox that this Bishop renounced Poperie at his death in the pointe of merits yet Fox in his 2622. page onelie saith thus That according to the reporte of one whome he will not name perhaps he could not when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to conforte him great comfort I warant you with wordes of Gods promisse and free iustification in the blood of Christ our Sauiour repeating the scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my lord quoth he will you open that gap now then farewell altogether to mee and such other in my case you may speake it but if you open this window vnto the people then farewell all And now according to this speech of B. Gardiner let the iudicious reader imagin if he can how Sir Humfrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrarie to wit that altho ' dayes wordes might be vttered to him others of learning and vnderstanding without danger of peruersion but not perhaps to the coÌ„mon people who by their ignorance and frayletie might easilie misinterpret them as he did that vttered them and so easilie receiue harme by them not withstaÌ„ding that they of themselues in a founde fense include nothing but truth The knight also citeth to the same purpose yet to no purpose Bellarmine in his sixte booke of Iustif 7. chap. and his testament or last will Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholy on the merits of Christ Iesus But this according to that which hath bene already said of this matter is at the most but onelie a renuntiation of presumption or ouermuch confidence in our owne vncertaine merits as is most apparent out of Bellarmines owne doctrine euen in the verie same chapter where the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey are found thoug much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwardes I will declare Now in the second place the wordes are these I beseech him that is God saith Bellar that he would admitte me into the companie of his Saints and elect not as a valluer of merits but as a giuer of mercie which wordes if the knigth had not bene ouermuch distracted he
secret Apostacie it is much more friuolous then all the rest you haue brought for the proofe of your purpose in this section And although perhaps you shewed no small subtiltie in it as you thought yet is it in it selfe a most ignorant piece of doctrine for that not onelie the common and vsuall sense of the worde Apostasie but the verie etimologie of the same worde which signifieth a defection or discession doth demonstrate that the thing signified by it must be a much more externall and publike action in it selfe then heresie vsed to be and so that which is ordinarilie and vulgarilie called Apostasie must be publike and not secret and therefore when anie errour comes to that degree of malice as it may truely be called Apostasie in this sense it must of necessitie be knowne and consequentlie it is such as cannot be kept secret but may be most easilie discerned yea much more easilie then anie heresie how publike soeuer it bee as being an aggrauating circunstance of the same And thus we see that for the knight to yeeld a reason why the errours of the Roman Church could not easilie be discouered because they were secret Apostasie is both most absurd in itselfe and also inuolueth a contradiction in regard it includeth that a thing may be Apostasie that is a thing of it owne selfe publike and yet remaine so secret that it cannot be discouered Neither is that which Sir Humfrey farther addeth in the same place lesse absurde to witt that secret Apostasie worketh warelie and closelie in the tyme of Darkenes when the seruants of the husbandman are asleepe for if all Apostasie as it is commonlie taken must be publike as I haue showed how can it then truelie be said to worke in darkenes or by night or how can the seede of it be scattered at vnawares to the seruants of the husbandman certainlie except the seruants be so sluggish that they sleepe both nights and dayes moneths and yeeres yea and manie hundreth of yeeres together naye and all the daies of their life they cannot but discouer the tares of Apostasie which is not euer in seede as the knight falselie supposeth but is the increase or rather full growth it selfe or yet rather the ouergrouth of the crop of heresie which is truelie the seede of it From hence the knight proceedeth to the second parte of his section in which he endeauoureth to shewe vs an vndeniable trueth as he termeth it that some opinions were condemned in the Primatiue Church for eroneous and superstitious vhich now are established for articles os faith in the Roman Church And for this his position he produceth an instance out of S. Augustin lib. de moribus Eccles Cath. cap. 34. in which place he complaines that in his tyme the ruder sort of people were intangled with superstition euen in the true Church I my selfe saith he know manie that are worshipers of Images and sepulchers whom the Church condemneth and seeketh euerie daie by correction to amend them as vngratious children Thus farre Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustin To which I answer that this place of S. Augustin hath bene so often obiected by the moderne sectaries that it is worne quite thred bare with handling and I persuade my selfe that all the Catholike authours that euer writt of controuersies haue sufficientlie answered it if it came in their way Neuerthelesse least Sir Humfrey should thinke himselfe neglected by me Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti vt obliti sint quicquid promiserint Deo Aug. supra I answer first that S. Augustin complaineth in this place of certaine gentillicall errours and abuses in the adoration of images and sepulchers then practised in the true Church by some priuate ignorant and vitious persons who without distinction either of the one or the other did worship the tombes and pictures of all sortes of people Secondlie I answer that S. Augustin in the place cited speaketh not of anie generall doctrine taught in his tyme touching the adoration of pictures but onelie of some superstitious abuses in the practise of the same and so also in this respect the obiection is impertinent I answer thirdlie that suppose there were some particular persons in the tyme of S. Augustine guiltye either in the manner of their worship of pictures or in their doctrine cōcerning the lawfullnes of the same doth it thence therefore follow that Catholikes are guiltie also of the same crime or is it consequent that that honour which Catholikes graunte to the pictures of Christ and his Saincts is iust the same with that which Saint Augustine mentioneth No suerlie For as there may be abuse committed in the due honouring of pictures so there may be also lawfull vse in the due adoreing of them and so it is cleere that it is no true manner of argument or true consequence to collect so Those people whom S. Augustin reprehended for adoring of pictures in his tyme did worship images reprehensiblie But the Romanists doe also worship images therefore the Romanists doe worship images reprehensiblie This I say were it in anie figure yet is it a captious forme of argument containing a manifest fallacie or equiuocation in the minor by reason of which the Sylogisme concludeth nothing Now vpon the foresaid wordes of Saint Augustin Sir Humfrey addeth a descant of his owne in which he comits diuerse faults First in that he saith that although S. Aug. did note some people of his time for superstitious worshippers of images yet did hee neither name the authours of that errour nor sheweth the tyme when it began tacitlie intending hence to inferre that neither are the reformers bounde to assigne the names of the authours of those errours which they attribute to the Roman Church nor yet the tyme of their defence of them But this inference of the knight is no conclusion at all for that the case of S. Augustines tyme which is the antecedent of the foresaid illation of the knights is farre different from the case of the reformers as well for that S. Augustine speaketh of an errour which happened in his owne daies as Sir Humfrey confesseth and perhappes by such persons as he could not name without preiudice of their fame as being such as practised those superstitions so priuatelie that they were not knowen to more or at the least not to manie more then himselfe after which manner preachers do vse to reprehend vices of persons knowen vnto them and yet name them not as also and chiefelie because S. Augustine was neuer demaunded of them in particular or anie other waye vrged to declare their names None of all which circumstances occurre in the case betwixt the Reformers and the Romanists and so out of the wordes of S. Augustine which be the Antecedent of the knights argument no true consequence can be deduced against the Romanists In has autem sanct as ac
salubres obseruationes si qui abusus irrepserint eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus cupit ita vt nullae falsi dogmatis imagines rudibus periculosae errorem praebentes statuantur c. Con. Trid. sess â—5 init Another fault sir Humfrey committeth also in that he affirmeth that this corruption which S. Augustin and the Church of his time condemned for superstition was confirmed 400. yeeres after by the second Councell of Nice for Catholike doctrine and is now decreed by the Councell of Trent for an article of faith Thus the knight But this is all false and grounded onelie vpon an erroneous persuasion of his owne videlicet that the worship which those people of which S. Augustin speaketh gaue to pictures is the same which the Roman Church practizeth at this daye according to the definition of those two Councells that which he neither proueth heere nor can euer proue in anie other place as being manifest by the doctrine of those same Councells in this point that they both condemned this superstitious practice of those people reprehended by S. Augustin the Church of his age eueÌ„ as much as he did in those former tymes And so neither this instance framed by Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustins wordes nor the whole argument it selfe concludes any part of his intent in this section but rather conuinceth by the fact of the same S. Augustin that no errour can possible so secretlie steale into the Church but it is either presently or within a small tyme espied and noted for such by one authenticall authour or other which is quite contrary to the position which the knight indeauoureth heere to establish and whoely conformable to the tenet of the Roman Church in this matter After this Sir Hum. maketh a large repetition of diuerse points of doctrine defended by the Church of Rome as if they were farre different from the intention of those who first taught or ordeined them but for this his conceipt he bringeth no proofe at all and so I leaue it as a voluntary tenet founded vpon his owne small authority True it is he produceth diuerse authours for the confirmation of the same alledging them all for Romanists and yet some of them are not so esteemed to be as is manifest in Cassander and Agrippa which the Roman Church houlds not for her true children but rather for illegitimate Be citeth also Ioannes Ferus who altho' he was at the lest once a Romanist whatsoeuer he was afterwardes yet there haue beene noted in his workes diuerse ill sounding propositions whether it be for that his bookes haue beene corrupted by the sectaries of these times as by some editions of his workes may be iustly suspected or whether it be that the man was something more rash in his assertions then he ought to haue beene But howsoeuer it falleth out with him in that nature yet the place cited out of him by Sir Humfrey if it be rightly vnderstood it proueth no more but that by the priuate abuses and superstitioÌ„s of some particular men many things ordeined by holy men with a good intention haue receiued some accidentall chaunge And although Ferus exemplifieth in the feasts of the Church Ceremonies images Masses monasteries yet certaine it is his meaning was not that all these are either vnlawfull or superstitious or that they are new articles of faith or not to be vsed in the Church of God as the knight and his coÌ„panions would haue theÌ„ to be but onely out of a pious zeale he wished that such abuses might be corrected as he perceiued in his daies to haue crept into the practice and vse of the same which is a thing so farre from Sir Humfreys purpose of prouing an alteration in the Doctrine of auncient tymes as it is both very conformable to reason and allso to the decree of reformation made in the Councell of Trent aboue cited He citeth allso Marius de schis Concil Et Polidore de inuent rerum as speaking of the vncertainty of the entrance into the Church of Priests mariage But this is nothing to the purpose the knight heere treateth For how I pray you doth this proue that there are errours of faith in the RomaÌ„ Church whereas the restraint of mariage of Priests it selfe is no article of faith as Sir Humfrey ignorantly supposeth but onely a precept of the Church and a matter of manners and yet in case it were so in it selfe neuerthelesse certaine it is that the question or difficultie about the first begining of the restraint of such onelie the cited authours speake is no matter of faith and consequentlie can be no errour euen in Sir Humfreyes owne false supposition of errours in the Roman Church To omitte that suppose the first begining of the restrainte of marriage in Priests were truelie an article of faith in the Roman Church yet this being but one particular instance or example drawne out of two Romanists onelie it cannot sufficientlie proue that generall position of Sir Humfrey to witte that there was a knowne tyme when those tenets meaning the points of doctrine which the Councell of Trent defined were not certainelie knowne or generallie receiued by the Roman Church since that according to the rules of Logike no generall proposition can be inferred out of a particular and that touching the rest of the articles of the Roman doctrine the reformers are so farre from the assignation of the time of their beginning that Sir Humfrey him selfe euen in this verie place is forced to hould this precise tyme of the beginning of the same to be vnnecessarie to be assigned And altho' by reason that both those authours are ceÌ„sured in the expurgatorie Index we are not bouÌ„de to giue credit vnto them yet this I saye that supposing they are both here produced to testifie that the beginning of the and prohibition of Preists mariage can not be assigned it is rather a great argument that it was appointed by the primatiue Church itselfe then introduced of later yeares Besides this Sir Humfrey doth falsifie Polydor in the place he citeth for he doth not affirme that mariage of Preists was not altogether prohibited til the tyme of Gregorie the 7. but that it could not be taken away till that tyme. Alijs snper alijs promulgatis legibus non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. coniugium adimi occidentalibus sacerdotibus potuit Pol. lib. 5. cap. 4. edit Antuerp 1554. Cassander altho' Romanists esteeme not of his authoritie either pro or contra yet here he is corrupted by Sir Humfrey for companie lest he should laff at his followes where for those wordes non temerè reperies thou shalt not easilie finde he translates was not expresselie defined speaking of the number of the 7. SacrameÌ„ts of which Cassander saith that a man shall not easilie finde anie who haue constituted anie certaine determinate number of Sacraments before Peter Lombard non temerè quenquaÌ„ reperies ante Petrum LombarduÌ„ qui certuÌ„ aliquem
definitum numerum sacramentoū statuerunt Cass p. 951. To the like purpose or rather to no purpose he citeth also Gregory de Valentia saying that it doth not appeere when the communion in one kinde beganne which saying of Valentia is most true his meaning is that the custome of communicating so is so auncient that it hath no knowne beginning and consequentlie it hath bene euer in the Church of God since the time of Christ and his Apostles and by them practized And therefore Valentia addeth prefentlie after to that purpose that euer from the beginning of the Church ther hath beene some vse of the Eucharist vnder one kinde as he hath showed before Which wordes as makeing plainelie against him he was content to omit So that this testimonie either proueth nothing to the knights purpose or els more then he desires as also want of honest dealing in the citation of it To omitte that when that manner of communion first began in the Church is no article of the Roman faith The same authour is also once againe cited by Sir Humfrey for that in the same place he affirmeth the foresaid manner of communion not to haue bene generallie receiued but a little before the councell of Constance which is no more to the purpose then the other allegation or scarse so much For this and some other testimonies which he citeth page 60. at the most doe but onelie proue that some of the points of doctrine or rather of practice onelie of the Roman Church were not declaredlie knowen and definede successiuelie in all differences of times since the establishment of the Gospell which the Romanists do not denie though they knowe it is a point impertinent to the matter heere in question which is not whether the Reformers can showe a time when the tenets at he termes them of the Roman Church were not certainelie knowne or generallie receiued but also cheefely whether they were erroneous and then if such they were when they were first publikelie knowen and by what authenticall Councell they were condemned Which points because Sir Humfrey hath proued neither of them neither by the testimonies of the authours he cites nor by any other forceable proofe he hath failed of his purpose and promise and no way recouered the reputation in this section which he lost in the former but rather hath much increased his discredit and consequentlie the censure falleth more heauilie vpon him then it hath done before To the testimonie of Scotus aboute transub I will answer in an other place THE VI. PERIOD HEere Sir Hūfrey from a diuine is turned Herold and promiseth the Romanists he will shew them their Pedegree in faith drawne downe from the auncient heretikes and contrarilie the pedegree of his owne faith drawne from Christ and his Apostles So that heere you see the knight hath vndertaken a large peece of worke and how he will be able to performe it I know not It is a double taske and therefore I doubt he will not go through with it without double dealing And I suspect this the more for that he saith he will proceede ordine retro grado that is as I conceaue he will imitate the Crabbe in going backward and therefore I can expect no better of him then a crabbed piece of busines He saith he will performe his worke by ascending vpward but indeed his proceeding is so preposterous that a man can find neither ascent nor descent it it For he begins which lattine seruice as he calleth it and prayer in a straunge tongue the beginning of which he attributeth to Pope Vitalian about the yeere 666. And ends with the restraint of mariage of Priests which he affirmed in the 60. page in his former section not to haue bene altogether established till the time of Gregory the seuenth and so according to this he doth not ascend but descend and yet more then this in the middle of his section he treateth of transubstantiation as first decreed in the Councell of Lateran about foure hundreth yeeres agoe and thus you see one cannot conceiue that he eyther ascendeth or descendeth directlie but rather that he skippeth vp and downe like a mad man without anie order at all but now I will cease to seeke order were none is to be sound and come to the examine of the particular passages of his pedegree He endeauoureth to proue the Roman faith to descend from auncient heretikes first because they teach prayer in an vnknowne language not to be vnlawfull as saith hee Epiphanius affirmeth of the heretikes Osseni in the first age But to this I answer that S. Epiphanius is heere abused by the Knight for he censureth not those people of heresie because they held prayer not to be vnlawfull in an vnknowen language as Sir Humfrey falselie and ignorantlie affirmeth but for other errours of theirs which the same Epipha relates and confutes in his 19. heresie Neither doth he onelie affirme the Osseni to teach there was no need to make prayer in a knowne tongue as Sir Humfrey imposeth vpon him to the end their errour might some to agrree with the doctrine of the Roman Church in this particular Quibus porro vorbis inanibus vocibus postea in ipso libro decipit cum cum dicit nemo quaerat interpretationem sed solum in oratione hoc dicati hac ipsa nimirum ex Habraica lingua transtulis velut ex parte deprehendimus cum nihil sint ea quae imaginatur iubet enim dicere Abar Anid Moib Nochile c. but he further chargeth Elxai the cheefe prophet of that sect that he deceiued men with idle friuolous and strange wordes containing nothing of that which he imagined and commaunding his followers to praye in this manner Abar Anid Moib Nochile c. adding that they should not seek for anie interpretation of them which forme of prayer neuerthelesse holie Epiphanius doth not so much condemne for the strangenesse of the wordes as for the obscuritie and deformitie of the sense as appeareth by his wordes here quoted in Latin All which is farre different from the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point which neither in sense nor wordes vseth anie other prayers then such as are conformable to that originall prayer which Christ him selfe appointed his disciples to vse Neither can Epiphanius with anie showe of probabillitie be thought to haue condemned them for heretikes for that which he knew neither to be contrarie to Gods worde nor anie definition of the auncient Church either before or in his time And as for that which the Reformers commonlie allege out of the fourth to the Corinthians and first epistle I say that if the same Epiphanius had vnderstood it as written against such like prayers infalliblie he would haue alledged the place against those heretikes But he well knew that the Apostles meaning was not to condemne prayer in what language soeuer it were but onelie to preferre prophesie before straunge
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
Fathers agree euer actually with her in euery point as it is most cleare in the auncient Father Sainct Cyprian and yet more cleere in Tertullian and origen who by reason of some points of doctrine which either were not in their time sufficiently and expresselie determined by the Church or of which they had not occasion to treate may seeme in some sorte to dissent from the present Church euen in such doctrine as now is knowne and beleeued for matter of faith euen by the nouelists themselues as appeares in the point of rebaptization defended by S. Cyprian his adherēts in those times Which if it were not so its euident that the reformers were yet in farre worse case then either the Romanists should be vpon that supposition or then now they are if in worse they can be imagined to be whoe neither haue nor euer can haue any kinde of vniuersalitie or ātiquity of Fathers either metaphisicall or morall on their side And now this being all in substance are rather more then those three cited authours affirme it hence appeereth how smale reason Sir Hum. had to cite them in his fauour especiallie considering that one of them that is Alfonsus a Castro doth onely say that there is seldome mention made of transubstantiation in the Fathers not denying as it is manifest their agreement in that point but rather insinuating their consent therein tho' not so frequentlie expressed Furthermore the knigth addeth for the conclusion of this pointe that many writers and schoole men in their owne Church are so farre from graūt of antiquity vniuersalitie to this doctrine that they professe the tenet of transubstantiation was latelie receaued in the Church for a point of faith And for this he citeth Scotus as affirming that before the councell of Lateran transubstantiation was not beleeued as a point of faith and that the doctrine of it is not verie auncient in the Church Thus Sir Humfrey Tho which I answer that all tho' Bellarmin affirmes that Scotus sayde transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the councell of Lateran yet I finde he speakes not so absolutely but at the most he saith it was not solēnly declared as an article of faith before that Coūcell not denying but that it minght be also declared in other particular coūcels as in deed it was declared by the Roman coūcell vnder Nicolas the secōd aboue a hundreth fifty yeeres before and more expressely in another Roman councell vnder Gregorie the seuenth yea and maintained in the Church time out of minde Neuerthelesse by way of argument I am content to graūt to the aduersaries that which Bellarmin affirmes of Scotus Et tunc ad tertium vbi stat vis dicendum quod Ecclesia declarauit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo simbolo edito sub In. 3. in Consilio Later vbi ponitur veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quam habeantur in simboloo rum vel Atha vel Nyceni breuiter quicquid ibi dicitur esse credēdum tenendum est esse de Substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationē solemnem factam ab Ecclesia Paulo post Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectū à Deo traditum Ecclesia declarauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 in resp ad arg yet not withstanding this liberall graunt I doe affirme with all that our Church wanteth neither antiquitie nor vniuersality either in this or any other point of her doctrine and the reason is because allthough some points of her faith were not in all ages and times knowen expresselie for articles of faith yet were they in themselues such indeede and for such beleeued with an implicite faith at the least that is with such a faith as all conteined in the worde of God is belieued by all true Catholikes as an infalible trueth altho' no one particular were knowne vnto them For as it is most certaine that euery faithfull Christian which cannot reade beleeueth many things conteined in scrpture with be knoweth not in regard that altho' he is ignorant of them in particular yet in that he belieueth all that they include he allso belieueth truely euen those particular trueths which he knoweth not so allso it is certaine that euery faithfull Christian beleeuing vniuersally all that which the word of God conteines hath an vniuersall faith of whatsoeuer points of doctrine either was is or shall be declared for matters of faith by the most vniuersall Church in any difference of time and consequently he hath as ancient and vniuersall a faith of those particular points so declared as he hath of those which euen both in the Apostles time in all succeding ages were expressely knowne for articles of faith to all the Christian world And let this suffice to declare that noe point of doctrine definde by the most vniuersall Church as matter of faith conteined in the worde of God can truely be tearmed new but hath as much antiquity and vniuersality as the greatest mysterie of the Christiā faith also that if any noueltie it hath it is onely in the declaration of it quoad nos that is in respect of that new or expresse knowledge which we receiue of it by the proposition of the holy Church Which infalible manner of arriuing to a new knowledge of matters of faith because the sectaries neither haue it nor admitte it it necessarily followes that whatsoeuer doctrine they discouer in these later times must of necessity want both the foresaid properties of antiquitie and vniuersality as we haue declared in regarde they can not show as much as an implicite perpetuallie succeeding faith in the articles they haue newly broched Sir Hūfrey further more citeth allso Hostiensis and Gaufridus out of Durand in 4. d. 10. q. 1. n. 23. whoe as he affirmeth saith there were others in those daies whoe taught that the substance of bread remaines and that their opinion was not to be reiected so the knight relateth But how false and corrupted this relation is I know out of Durand himselfe for that I finde in his 10. d. of the 4. of sent q. 1. n. 15. that this passage cited by him is neither Durandes owne doctrine nor yet theirs whome he cites aboute it but onely related by them and taken out of them by Durand to frame his obiection in the begining of his question as he vseth to doe which he afterwardes solues in plaine termes saying in his 25. number Quod ante inducitur de Glossatoribus Gaufrido Hostiense super decreta dicendum quod licet recitent tres opiniones nullam tamen approbant vt veram nisi illam quod corpus Christi sit in altari per transsubstantiationem panis vim si expresse non dicunt aliquam aliam erroneam non propter hoc non est erronea non
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
that nature And now of this and the rest of the testimonies which haue beene discussed in this paragraffe which if it had not beene for the satisfaction of the common people which may easily be deluded by them I would neuer haue prosecuted so largely as containinge noething worthie of a scholers labour it may I say be easily collected and perceiued how fondly he concludeth his whole discourse as if he had made it appeare that the reformed faith touching the spirituall and sacramentall participation of Christs bodie had beene generally beleeued and taugh both in the former and later ages and as if the doctrine of transsubstantiation had noe vnity among the Romish authours nor vniuersalitie among the auncient Fathers nor certainety in the scriptures This I say is a most impudent vaunt of the bragadocho knight for that it hath beene already made manifest by the same testimonies which he produceth against the Roman doctrine that not onely the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the same in those two points stands firme and sound but that there is no antiquitie or vniuersalitie at all to be found in the doctrine of the reformed Churhes in those particulars to say nothing of other points of theit deformed faith and so this shall suffice for the censure of this paragraffe which as it is larger in wordes then the former so deserueth it a larger sentence of condemnation as conteining noething more but a greater multitude of diuerse sorts of ill proceeding The third paragraffe is of priuate Masse in which for the honour as I suppose which he beareth towards the mother Church he placeth her definition in the first ranke and then afterwardes the article of his owne Church The decree of the councell of Trent ses 22. can 8. is this If ame shall say that Masses in which the Priest alone doth communicate are vnlawfull and therefore ought to be abrogared let him be accursed but the article of the reformed Church will not haue it so but protesteth that priuate Masses that is the receauing of the Eucharist by the Priest alone with out a competent number of communicants is contrarie to te institution of Christ and the practise of the primatiue Church Thus the knight setteth downe the matter of disputatiō thus he placeth the two armies in battle aray with their contrarie collours one confronting the other And this speciall difference I note in them that the one armie consists of milites veterani that is of ould Roman souldiers gathered out of the whole Roman Empire and Christian world the other of fresh men fetched from a corner of the world that is from Ireland Loe heere the armies set in order now let vs see who carries away the victorie You may perceiue by Sir Humfreys relation that the Councell speaketh with authoritie it intimateth those aged Synods of the primatiue Church it doth so fulminate that it maketh the reformed brothers tremble to heere it Naye it seemes it so daunteth the valiant knight that he found no other refuge then to flie to Irelād for an article of his faith A man would rather haue expected that to confront the Councell of Trent and it definition Sir Humfrey would haue had recourse to the Councell of Gapp or of Dort or to some consistorie assemblie of Geneua or to an Acte of an English Parleament But alas the poore Caualier found so small hope of assistance in these that he was constrained to saile to Ireland for an Irish article as he himselfe doth tearme it True it is the Irish article directlie opposeth the definition of the Councell but by what authority I know not yet certaine it is that in the Coūcell of Trent there were assembled by themselues or their legates or at the least conuented all the Princes both of the ould and newe Religion and Prelates of the Christian world as the Bull of indiction and the oration had in the last session most plainelie testifie And so the authoritie of this Synod euen in common sense must needes be verie great but the authoritie of the articles which our knight opposeth to the Councell what authoritie they had is yet vnknowne neither could they possible haue anie authoritie of greate moment for that they were gathered onelie out of a verie small corner of the Christian world and farre inferiour in vertue learning and other naturall parts to the most greate graue and venerable number of the members of the foresaid Synod Wherefore let the indifferēt reader iudge whether of these two armies is to be followed The authours of the article protest that priuate Masse is contrarie to the institution of Christ and the practice of the Church and hence the knight inferreth that it is vnlawfull and therefore to be abrogated and farther that the Councell of Trent by cursing those who hould that masses in which the Priest alone doth comunicate are vnlawfull and ought to be abrogated doth cursse Christ that ordeined it and God that commaunded vs to obserue it Heere you see the knight talketh with as greate authoritie as if he were the greatest graduate either in Oxford or Cambridge neuerthelesse he must giue him leaue who is no graduate to let him knowe that he fayleth mightilie in his colection yet not so much in the gradation it selfe as in the premises which being either false or at the least aequiuocall the conclusion must of necessitie be faultie That which deceiued him is his Irish article of faith in that it affirmeth the receiuing of the Eucharist without a competent number of comunicants is contrarie to the institution of Christ For though it is true that when Christ instituted the Sacrament he did actuallie comunicate those that were present yet it is not true that he included in the institution of it that iust so in all occasions it should be practized neither gaue he anie negatiue precept therein in that respect but onelie an affirmatiue which according to it nature not allwayes but onelie according to time place and persons obledgeth So that the distribution is neither anie essentiall parte of the Sacrament nor yet anie necessarie propertie of it to be in all occasions exercised but rather appertaineth onelie to the due administration of it according to the foresaid circumstances and heerein consists the aequiuocation of the first article Now touching the second part which affirmeth that the receiuing of the Priests alone is cōtrarie to the practice of the primatiue church is also equiuocall for if it meanes that the primatiue Church did in all circumstāces of time place and persons practice the same either by virtue of Christs institution or commaund so it is false as we haue alreadie showed but if it meanes onely that indeede so it was practized in the primatiue Church either alwaies or for the moste parte yet not as a thing alsolutely necessarie either by virtue of Christs institution or precept so we cannot deny but that it is true which the second parte of the article affirmeth but then this
Ecclesiasticall custome or lawe onelie or that there is anie such matter as oblation in the celebration of diuine seruice for that they themselues haue it not in their newe Raphsodie For Cassanders authoritie we do not care And yet I can not finde in Mycrologus those wordes which Cassander and Sir Humfrey alledge out of him to wit it can not properlie be called a communion except some besides the Preist doe communicate How be it the same Cassander in the same place doth not condemne priuate Masses for a Sacrilegious action or to be prohibited as Sir Humfrey and the rest of the Nouellists commonlie maintaine But onelie playing the parte of a Pacifyer which he professeth persuades that the auncient custome may be restored Nay and he addes further and that truelie that the Preists say when they celebrate priuatelie they doe not participate of the Sacrament in their owne priuate name but in the name of the Church and people which doubtlesse in reason is sufficient to make it a true communion if otherwise it were not And as for Mycrologus certaine it is that he is no condemner of priuate Masse how soeuer he might esteeme that communion lesse proper according to the Etymon of the worde Vid. Cassander pag. 998. in which more then one doe not actuallie receiue which is all he intendes if anie such saying he hath which notwithstanding is not contrarie to the doctrine or practise of the Romanists Innocentius tertius onelie explicates the ancient custome of the Church touching the communion of the people at euetie Masse and the change of it at seuarall times and by degrees And surelie if we consider that the Nouelists hould this Pope for one of their greatest opposites in doctrine it were madnesses to imagin that he should in anie sorte fauoure their tenets And because I reflected that Innocentius as being a Pope had no reason to finde anie greater fauour at Sir Humfreys hands then other Romanists haue founde vpon vewe of the place I discouered that he had falselie translated some parte of Innocentius wordes which make against him to wit for these wordes quia nec hoc digne potuit obseruari he translates by reason this custome was neglected whereas he should haue put in English Because neither this could be dignely or with due reuerence obserued By which false translation he inuertes the true cause of the altetation of the foresaid custome Hoffmeisterus onelie declares the publicitie of the auncient custome with a desire that endeauours may be vsed for the restitution of it with whome we Romanists all ioyne to our power so this is out of the compasse of our question The allegation of Doctour Harding who speakes much to the same purpose I haue ansered in an other place and showed the deceite of the relatour altho' in this place I finde he rehearses his wordes truelie by reason it had auailed him nothing to haue here abused him Iustinian makes no mention of either priuate or publike Masses but onelie of the participation of one consecrated bread or loafe to signifie more expresselie the vnion of charitie which is not to this purpose as neither is the place of Bellarmin following lib. 2. de missa cap. 9. as afterwardes I will declare But to returne to Doctour Harding it is true I find Sir Humfrey cytes him towardes the end of the same paragraffe out of Iewell which altho' he makes nothing for the proofe of his intent in this place but is onelie brought in vpon the by to enlarge and fournish his discourse as I suppose yet doth he abuse that learned diuine in that he leaueth out one speciall reason which he alledges why the primatiue Catholikes vsed to communicate euerie day with the Preist because sayth he they looking hourelie to be catched put to death by the Panimes I relate the sense not the formall wordes should not departe without the viaticum Which wordes being the verie harte of the authours sentence Sir Humfrey verie slylie omits it as if it were not to the purpose and by that meanes he most deformedlie couples the head and the heeles together which corruption altho' it doth not much auaile him yet it seemes he makes a recreation of that arte and so he will rather playe smale game then sit out Lastelie the wordes of Iustinian taken out of his Commentarie vpon 1. Cor 10. are impertinent for he does not affirme that the Communion directlie was giuen to all that were present as his wordes cited by the knight doe testifie which authour being the laste which he cites and no more to his purpose then the rest let this suffice for the censure of the contents of this whole paragraffe and particularlie for the confutation of that aspersion of Noueltie and corruption with the knight doth indeuore calumniouslie to cast vpon the Roman Creede it nowe being plainelie cleered and iustified by that which hath beene said and he himselfe conuinced of false dealing and forgerie The paragraffe insueing is of the seuen Sacramēts And to be plaine with Sir Humfrey I say that in the verie entrance of his treatie he telleth a plaine lie to his reader affirming the Romanists to relie wholie vpon the Councell of Trent in this pointe For this Councell expresselie hath in the margent of the decree of the septenarie number of Sacraments the Councell of Florence and in the decrees of euerie seuerall Sacrament there is reference to scriptures Councels and Fathers as the margines doe testifie Wherefore thus the knight beginneth and how he will proceed I know not but yet for the most parte an ill beginning makes an ill ending First he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying that the authoritie of the Councell of Trent if there were no other ought to suffice for proofe of the septinarie number of the Sacraments But he might with farre greater reason haue reprehend both his owne temeritie and the presumption of the reformed Churches Which without anie such authoritie as the Councell of Trent hath doe denie the foresaid number of Sacraments Besides that Bellarmins meaning is not that the Coūcell of Trent hath sufficient authoritie to define the same without foundation of the worde of God or without scripture as it seemes Sir Humfrey falselie supposeth but that supposing such a foundation it hath infallible power to declare the same as conformeable to trueth to the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church in former ages and consequentlie as a matter of faith And certainelie that Church which hath not this authoritie is no true Church nor such an one as is described in the scriptures but a meere conuenticle or Scismaticall cōgregation vnsuteable to the worde of God And whereas it seemes straunge to Sir Humfrey that according to Bellarmine one testimonie of a late Councell might suffice for the establishing of an article of faith for that by his owne tenet such an article requires both antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent let him but truelie and sincerelie consider what Bellarmines
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
their pure madnesse doe vsually exclaime against the supposed superstitions of the Roman Church but the Romanists may farre more iustly complaine of them in the same kinde in regarde that superstition is noething els addording to the etimologie of the worde but superfluous religion and to tie the worde of God to the precise written caracter alone in my conceipt is the highest degree of superstition that can be imagined because these precisians by that meanes doe so excessiuelie and superfluously extoll the writen worde that by their exclusiue hiperbole of the sufficiencie of it alone they renounce all other sortes of worde of God either preached or otherwise deliuered to the Church either in plaine tearmes or at the least by necessarie sequelle which is noething els but out of a superfluous precisenes to assigne limits to that which is illimitable and boundes to that which is infinite and consequently out of a superstitious zeale of religion to destroyall true religion and the true worde of God it selfe Furthermore for the sufficiencie of the written worde preciselie the knight citeth the Apostle S. Paule act 20. vers 27. were he saith so I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the councell of God but this is so impertinentlie alledged that it needes no answer it being manifest that the Apostle neither speaketh of scripture alone nor intendeth to exclude other partes of the worde of God nor yet so to limit that which he himselfe writ or spoake as if he had deliuered in writing all the doctrine with out exception which is any waie necessarie to the saluation of euerie mans soule both in generall and in particular Otherwise it would follow that all which the rest of the sacred writers haue published in the scriptures were superfluous and no way necessarie to haue beene penned Besides that S. Paule in the place cited saith not that he hath written but onely that he hath declared vnto them all the councell of God and so he neither in wordes nor sēse fauoureth the reformers tenet of the all sufciencie of the writtē worde but rather Sir Hūfrey is here to be noted for a corruptor of the text And no lesse idlely doth the knight cite for the same purpose the testimonie of Bellarm. his meaning being so farre from this matter as that if hee were not his aeuersarie as he is most plainelie euen in this point yet had it beene meere madnesse to haue as much as named him in this darticular and so perhaps for this reason onely he was ashamed to quote the place yet as comonly he doth in other occasions Finally for conclusion of his disproofe of the authoritie of the present Roman Church Sir Humfrey demaundeth of vs how the faith of Christians can depend vpon a Church which is fallen from the faith or generall beliefe of Christianitie can rely safely vpon a coūcell that is disclaimed by the greatest parte of the world By England by France by Germany But to this I answere that in this double question he telleth his reader at the least a double lye both which we must take vpon his owne credit for he alledgeth nothing but his owne worthie word which of how little worth it is we haue sufficientlie tryed allreadie Wherefore we must with his leaue tell him that neither it is true that the Roman Church is fallen from the faith except he meanes from the faith of Luther and Caluin or from his owne English faith from which neuerthelesse the Roman Church cannot truelie be affirmed to haue fallen but it from her she hauing beene in the world manie hundrethes of yeares before the authours of the new Religion were created nor is it true that the Tridentine Councell is disclaimed by the greater parte of France and Germanie at this present time in matters of faith To saie nothing of Italie Spaine Poland Hungarie and those most vast and spatious Indian Regions of later yeeres reduced to the Roman faith all with nations doe conteine a farre greater number of such as imbrace the foresaid Councell then there are reformers in the world who reiect the same Especiallie considering that euen amongst the reformed Churches themselues notwithstanding the most rigorous lawes proceedings which they vse against the Roman Catholikes where they haue the superioritie of power yet is there no smale number to be founde of those who willinglie receiue all the doctrine of faith conteyned in the Tridentine Sinod and consequentlie it appeeres by this that Sir Humfrey hath failed mightilie in his Cosmographie and calculation when he affirmeth that the foresaid Councell is disclaimed by the greatest parte of the world except in his greatest parte he includes Iewes Turkes and Gentiles or at the least count for his owne all those which are not Romanists of what sect or faction soeuer they be as some of his reformed brothers vse to doe not excluding the most vnchristian heretikes the Arians out of the number of the members of their Congregation to make it showe more ample and glorious After this the knight out of the vehemencie of his zealous Spirit falls into a fearefull execration taking vpon him the Anathema if anie man aliue shall proue that the seuen Trent Sacraments were instituted by Christ or that all the Fathers or anie one Father in the Primatiue Church or anie knowne authour for aboute a thousand yeeres after Christ did teach that there were neither more nor lesse then seuen Sacraments truelie and properlie so called and to be beleeued of all for an article of faith Thus hee with so manie turnings and windinges as you see and so manie limitations of his speech that a man would thinke it vnpossible but that he might escape the snare of his owne conditional cursse which yet he doth not but rather falleth flatte into it as I will presentlie shewe And first I say that if Sir Humfrey would content himselfe with the authoritie or testimonie of dead men I could remitte him not to one but to one hundreth authours who yet aliue in their workes doe testifie the foresaid institution in plaine tearmes to witt all those diuines who liued and writ euer since the time of Petrus Lombardus of whom as from their common master they receaued the doctrine of the seuen Sacraments as successiuelie deduced from the institution of God and deliuered it to their successours with greate vniformitie and consent as appeereth by their bookes And altho' this might be sufficient to satisfie anie reasonable person in the world neuerthelesse because Sir Humfreys importunitie is so greate that he will needes haue the testimonies of liue authours I remitte him to all those who either in the publike vniuersities or pulpits of all Catholike countries doe teach and preach the same at this daie to witt that not onelie a thousand yeeres after Christ but euen from the time of Christ himselfe or at the least from the time of his Apostles preaching and writing there were neither more nor lesse then seuen Sacraments truelie and
in both kindes is hereticall but onely that it is heresie to condemne the communion in one kinde for vnlawfull or repugnant to Christs institution and so his position is both false and calumnious as appeares not onely by the decree of the same councell but also by the tenour of the decree of the Councell of Trent neither of which councels defined communion in both kindes either conformable or disconformable to anie precept of either God or man in the nature of faith but they onely declare the practise of the communion in one kinde as a thing not vnlawfull or cōtrarie to Christs institution or precept but otherwise conueniēt for the present state of the Church in respect of the reuerence due to the Sacrament Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christi fideles vtrāque speciē sāctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit Cōc Trid. de cōmun sub vtraq specie can 1. vid. can 2. and for other iuste causes also condemning them that shall affirme that all and euerie faithfull person is bound to receiue both kindes either by the commaundement of God or as necessarie to saluation by vertue of Christs institution or that the communion in one kinde is vnlawfully appointed by the Church or that the Church did erre therein Which doctrine is so plainely declared by the two foresaid Councels and especially by the Councell of Trent and so often repeated and inculcated by moderne diuines to say nothing of the more auncient that if our aduersaries were not ouer much disposed to cauill they would neuer haue the face to calumniate the same by their misconstructions as Sir Humfrey doth in this place The knight cites some ten or eleuen Roman diuines and among them to increase the number he foysteth in Cassander whom yet he either knowes or ought to know he is none of ours but the matter is not great because neither he nor the rest teach any thing here cōtrarie to the doctrine of the Romā Church in this point but they onely relate the custome of the Primatiue Church to haue beene that the lay people commonly receiued in both kindes yet not denying but that the same succeeding Church hath vpon iuste reasons altered that manner of communion Yea and the same authours here cited defending the lawfullnes thereof either in the verie same or in other places of their workes nay and Cassander consult de vtraque specie some of them if not all teaching with all that some times the communion in one kinde was practized in auncient ages so that it was great madnesse in Sir Humfrey to produce then either as confessers of want of antiquitie and vniuersalitie in the Roman Church or for the proofe of them in the doctrine of the pretensiue reformed Churches since that out of their testimonies as shall be declared neither the one nor the other can with anie colorable probabilitie possible be collected and for this reason and because I haue in an other place ansered what our aduersarie can say in this matter I knowe I haue no need to proceed to particulars but onelie pronounce my sentence of this whole Paragraph in generall termes yet because I finde all or manie of the authours cited to haue their sentences and meaning mangled and peruerted therefore I deemed it conuenient to giue the reader notice in particular of the authours ill proceeding And first altho' Vasquez with some others is of a contrarie opinion to Taper manie other diuines to wit houlding as more probable that those who receiue the Sacrament in both kindes doe receiue some more spirituall frute then the receiuers of one alone yet neither doth he condemne the contrarie opinion and practice not yet doth he conclude that it is absolutelie better or safer for the laytie to receiue both formes then one onelie but rather defendes the quite contrarie expresselie in his 216. disputation and last chapter where not obstanding his owne opinion defended in one of his former questions yet he solues the sectaries argument in this latter place and so cleareth the difficultie of their obiection that it is impossible for Sir Humfrey or anie of his confederates to gather anie thing in fauour of their position out of that authour as his owne wordes doe make apparent to the reader of them as here I place them in the margen Licet secundum aliquorū opinionē quam praecedenti disput defendi laici aliquo fructu priuētur dum ipsis calix denegatur tamen cū sumentes tantum vnam speciem nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem careāt vt notauit Conciliū omissis alijs causis postulantibus recte potuit Ecclesia laicis alterā speciem denegare Vasq to 3. in 3. p. disput 216. cap. vlt. Salmeron is abused by Sir Humfrey in regarde he takes onelie some certaine wordes of his which seeme to make for his purpose and omits others which make against him which follow in the verie next leafe and doe so temper the sense of the former that taking them together neither the one nor the other fauoure the reformed doctrine For thus he saith Nos enim c. For we quoth hee doe so confesse the custome to haue beene of communicating the laye people vnder both kindes that yet allwayes in some cases the vse of one kinde hath beene practized Which wordes quite dashe Sir Humfreys designe of prouing that the Church of Rome in this particular hath created a newe article of faith manifestlie repugnant to Christs worde institution practice of the primatiue Churh except hee will be so audacious as to condemne here also of sacriledge for her practice in those cases as he doth our present Church In which passage I much wonder at the slownes of him that otherwise vseth to be so nimble and actiue as that in this place he tooke not paines to turne one leafe further for the discouerie of the truth And the same I say of Valentia who speakes iuste to the same sense and purpose de legit vsu Eucharistiae cap. 10. as also did Father Fisher and Castro in the places cited by our aduersarie And as for sainct Thomas vpon the 6. of sainct Iohn And lyra in 1. Cor. 11. they neither of them disproue communion in one kinde as Sir Humfrey doth alledge but expresselie defendit Vide S. Thom. in 3. part S. Thomas relates that the custome of the auncint Church was to communicate in both formes which custome he saith was obserued euen till his dayes in some Churches where also quoth hee the ministers of the altar doe continuallie communicate the bodie bloud But for danger of effusiō saith he in some Churches it is obserued that the Preist onelie receiue the bloud and the rest the bodie Neither is this saith he contrarie to the sentence of our Lord because he that communicates the bodie communicates also the bloud since that Christ is whole in both the
their censure is onely conditionall or a generall abstractiue manner It is trrue he graunteth that some of his doctours affirme that a Papist may be saued but he deliuereth his owne glosse vpon it saying it is ment onelie by inuincible ignorance so by his owne commētarie he corrupted the whole text And if this be the best construction his charitie can afford wee will thanke him for it as much is it deserueth Neuerthelesse it is no matter what either Sir Hūfrey or his fellowes say in this point wee esteeme not so much of there iudgements as to frame out of them anie rule for the safe way of saluation for this rule wee had long before their Church was built wee had it frome the way maker him selfe And I tell you by the way Sir Humfrey that if any of your Church be saued in the manner I haue declared in the begining of this Period they are absolutely said to be saued in our Church not in yours thoguh exteriorlie they liue dye in yours And so to conclud if you will not permit the Romanists to drawe an argument from the confession of some of your authours but will needs affirme with your greatest doctour Arch Puritan whitaker that vpon his worde ther is not one Papist to be founde in Heauen I for my parte vpon condition you brag not of a victorie as you vse to doe I will not contend with you but as in a matter neither of faith nor yet of anie great consequence supposing your owne peruerse glosses I leaue you to your owne sense as also I doe those Romanists whoe vsed that argument against some of their aduersaries THE XVII PERIOD SIr Humfrey hath played the Iacke so long that in this his last section he playeth Iacke on both sides telling vs in the title that he intendeth to showe that the Protestant religion is safer by the confession of both parties that is both of Romanists Reformers But I knowe not to what end he made this section except is was onely to make the number of his sections euē for I finde nothing in it but a new repetitiō of old matters so oftē alredy inculcated that my eares are wearie to heare them And if Sir Humfrey was disposed to playe in the number he ought rather to haue made choise of the od nūber thē of the euen as being in the Poets opiniō more pleasing to God Deus numero inpare gaudet But let this passe for how soeuer hee doth I for my parte desire not to stand vpon numbers but vpon substance If he had brought either newe matter or at the least some new proofe of the old it might perhaps haue ben worth the labour to examen it but I finde onely old matter newe equiuocations sleights falsities these onely I will breefely discusse But the whole drift of the knight in this his last sectiō is as he saith him selfe to make good the title of his booke which is that therfore hee his fellowes are in the safer way because quotteth he the Romanists agree with vs in the principall points of doctrine because that is the safer way wherin differing partes ioyne both in one this I hould to be the substance of his whole discourse if anie ther were to be founde in it First therefore he telleth vs great newes to wit that there is a Heauen a hell in the beleefe of which sayth hee wee both agree thence he concludeth that this is the safer way because both sides ioine in it But this if you marke it is meere Sophistrie for in stead of a whole way both in this particular and in the rest of the points of controuersie he passeth throu ' in this section he sheweth but a peece of a way The whole way which he ought to shewe in this one point is the reformers beleefe of heauen hell their denyall of Purgatory limbus Now Sir Humfrey putteth in truly the first parte of his way to wit the reformers beleefe of heauen hell how true this is I knowe not but he leaueth out deceitfullie the second parte of the way viz. the Reformers beleefe in the denyall of Purgatorie Limbus so as I sayd before in stead of the whole way he sheweth but a peece which peece altho' it be supposed to be neuer so safe yet it will not serue the turne to bring a man to his iourneys end nor yealdeth him anie more certaintie or saftie in his way then he that should tell one who is vpō his iourney to yorke that his safest way is to goe from London to Islinton there should leaue him to shifte for himselfe for his directions in the rest of the way in which case certaine it is the traueller should be little or nothing obledged to him who shewes him that parte of the way onelie which all the world knoweth And the trueth is that Sir Humfrey argueth in this whole matter as if he should say of himselfe his fellow reformers we the Turkes agree in the creed of one God differ in the beleefe of Christ the Messias therefore it is the safer way to beleeue onelie in one God in which wee all agree then to beleeue in God Christ too in which wee stand single Euen so concludeth the knight of the faith of Purgatorie Limbus the rest of the points in controuersy which he particularizeth in the discourse of this section arguing no otherwise then in this absurde manner Neyther is it ô Sir Humfrey our standing single by our selues or double with you that eyther maketh or marreth either the faith of Purgatorie or anie other article of the Roman doctrine as you falselie fallaciouslie suppose in your argument But scriptures generall Councells Fathers the authoritie of the most vniuersall Church are the pilars vpon which the house of our faith is built And as for your ioyning with vs in anie one article or els in the generall assertion of some of your authours that wee may be saued in our Church how soeuer it may seeme to some to be a confirmation of our faith yet it is not anie parte of the foundation of our faith but onelie a kynde of morall argument or motiue that we are in the safer way because euen some of our aduersaries themselues hould we may be saued in it But yet as this alone if otherwise we did faile in the true grounds of our faith themselues can not be a sufficient proofe that we are in the safer way then you so ought it not to be a sufficient proofe that you are in the safer way because we agree with you in some parte of your doctrine Especiallie considering you faile in the cheefe grounds of your faith as hath ben shewed partelie in my this cēsure partelie by other Catholike diuines in their seuerall workes And if anie argument for the greater safetie of your way could be drawne from our agreement with
as a false erroneous path by all those that tender the safetie of their soules eternall Saluation And thus hauing now resolued the man into his principles or prime matter I meane into the dust ashes which he casteth in his reader eyes hauing passed throu ' all the passages of his imaginarie safe way I haue founde it shewed it to be no way at all but an intricate diuerticle or obscure path leading pore distressed trauellers quite out of the true royall street with an impossibilite euer to come to the end of their iourney that is to the true ancient Catholike faith which faith altho' the knight both in the title of his booke in diuers other places of it hath seriouslie promised to shew it to be the same which is now professed in England euen by the confession of the Romanists yet haue I made it manifest that no true Romanist that is no authour which is acknowledged by the Roman Church for a member of the same did either in generall or in particular euer confesse the foresaid faith of England to be the ancient Catholike faith or that did euer absolutelie in the same sense in which the reformed Churches doe defende anie one article of the pretensiue reformed doctrine in matter of faith or generallie defined manners In regard of which because my cheefe intent was when I first resolued to vndertake this busines out of a tender compassion to free the readers from the great generall delusion which I vnderstood this pamphlet of Sir Humfreys had caused or might hereafter cause in the myndes of manie especiallie the more vnlearned sorte of people altho' in verie truth in itselfe it containeth nothing worth the labour of a scholler I doe now aduertice them as they esteeme the saftie of their soules to beware of it as of a shop of most deceitelie poysonous drugges of which they cā not safety taste without an antidote I meane the illiterate or vnexperienced persons in this kynde of studie can not securelie reade the the booke except with all they view the aduerse parte so by detection of the authours fraudes couning deceipts they behould the truth discouered which otherwise as being most subtillie inuolued mixed by him with abundance of plausible vntruthes equiuocations false suppositions Sophismes can hardlie be founde out euen by those of greater learning capacitie then ordinarilie the laytie vse to be And as for Sir Humfrey him selfe altho' I haue smale hope of his reclamation in regard of the great arrogācy which I perceiue in him as being mightily blinded with the vanity of his owne conceite If truly the worke is this yet will I not omit to crie a loude vnto him with the sacred psalmist vtinam saperet intelligeret ac nouissima prouideret would to God he would seriously consider that there will come a time when his booke shall passe a farre more strict examen sentence of condemnation then here it hath passed or can possible passe in this mortall life And yet if perhaps he findes in the answere of it any more sharpe or vnpleasing speaches then he would willingly heare I earnestly intreate him to account them not as spoken against his person but precisely as he is infected with the spirituall plague of schisme heresie and as whose conuersion to the most vniuersally florishing Church an faith notobstanding whatsoeuer wordes haue passed in heate of disputation I earnestely desire praye for And with this desire affection I commend him to the infinit goodnesse mercy of allmightie God THE ROMANISTS AGREE WITH S. AVgustin in the diuision of the Commaundements In his 71. question vpon the booke of Exodus and in his 119. epistle to Ianuarius he diuideth them in this manner 1. THou shalt haue no other Gods but me 2 Thou shalt not take the name of God in vaine 3. Thou shalt sanctifie the sabboth 4. Honor thy Father thy mother 5. Thou shalt not kill 6. Thou shalt not commit adulterie 7. Thou shalt not steale 8. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse against thy neighbour 9. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbours wife 10. Thou shalt not desire any of thy neighbours goods The Romanists in their briefe Catechismes for children commonly rehearse them thus 1. THou shalt haue no other Gods but me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of God in vaine 3. Remember to sanctifie the Sabbaoth day 4. Honore thy ffather thy mother 5. Thou shalt not kill 6. Thou shalt not commit adulterie 7. Thou shalt not steale 8. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse against thy neighbour 9. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbours wife 10. shalt not desire thy neighbours goods The misreformers diuision of the Commaundements is this THou shalt haue no other Gods but me Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image c. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine c. Remember that thou keepe holy the Sabbath day c. Honor thy father thy mother c. Thou shalt doe no murther Thou shalt not commit adultery thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not beare false witnesse Against thy neighbour Thou shalt shalt not couet thy neighbours house thou shalt nor couet thy neghbours wife nor his seruant nor his made nor his oxe nor his asse nor any thing that is his In this diuision they dissent both frome S. Augustin the scriptures as appeareth by their Catechismes publissed euer since the change of Religion in England From S. Augustin in that they put for the second Commaundement thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image where as hee on the contrary in his epistle to Ianuarius expressely putteth not for the second but for the first Commaundement these wordes Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any idol They dissent alsoe from the scripture both in that those wordes which they put for the second Commaundement the scripture setteth them downe in the very same tenor continuation of style with those which according to both parties is the first Commaundement to wit Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me adding alsoe one the same punishment after that which the Reformers will needs haue to be an other Commaundement which yet if they were distinct commandemēts they should rather haue had distinct punishments assigned them seuerally As also secondly because in the text of Exodus out of which the reformers rehearse their Commaundements the words are not as they corruptedly translate relate them Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image but thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing Which is yet more plainely explicated in the fourth of the Deut. to be vnderstood not so that there ought not any grauen similitude to be made but that ther ought not anie to be made of those things which God prohibited especially supposing that the Deuteronomie as the word it selfe doth signifie is an exacte explication
difficult questions nor yet could you haue so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirme in one place that the text of scripture is the sole Iudge expounder of itselfe indefinitlie without liâ—itation yet on the contrarie in another place that you doe not denie the authoritie of the Fathers iointlie agreing in the exposition of them in matters of faith yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them as if the holie Ghost were bound to appeere visiblie to deliuer the true sense of them as often as anie controuersie of faith occurreth All which the like disparates the vertiginous knight vttereth within the compasse of this one section also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselues Iudges plaintiffes in their owne cause wheras indeed the Romanists neyther make themselues but the euer visible continueing Church Iudge of their cause nor doe they hould theÌ„selues for plaintiffes but for defendants faithfull possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they receiued from their auncestors And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his owne receiued Principle touching the interpretation sense of scriptures of which he his brothers make euerie priuate person man or woman Iudge vmpier yet condemnes for vnreasonable that the Roman Church should vse the like authoritie euen when it is publikelie assembled in a generall Councell So that these all those a foresaid particulars deliuered by our aduersarie touching this point are but onelie his owne fancyes of which he makes vse for want of better materialls to patch vp this part of his by path in which as you see he continueth his peripateticall exercise euen to the next section Sec. 4. In which it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise yet they make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of scripture thus the knight fableth of whom I tknowe I may iustlie say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur And in reallitie of whome I pray can this be so trulie verified as of those who notobstanding that vnder a false colour that euen in cases of doubt controuersie they ingenuouslie professe that scriptures must be interpreted by themselues onelie Vid. ChaÌ„ Panstrat I. de inten scrip yet neuerthelesse doe most pertinaciouslie maintaine that the exposition of them belongs to euerie member of their Church in particular that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another for what is this but to make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of the scripture not the scripture itselfe as they deceitfullie pretend Let the indifferent reader be Iudge of this It is true the Councell of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers yea Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities places of care of soules take an oath of the same but as they take the oath so doe they performe also the obligation of it And I demand of Sir Humfrey who hath such a great talent in reprehending whether he thinkes not in his conscience that those who vnder the strict boÌ„d of oath are obliged to anie matter are not more like to performe it then those who haue no such obligation whereby to restraine their actions surelie there is a great difference in the circumstances consequentlie a great reason to iudge that those Romanists who haue such an oath obliging them to followe the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture will be farre more carefull to performe the same then the reformed Doctours who haue no such bridle to refraine the inclination to noueltie of their itching witts Now wheras Sir Humfrey after his ordinary cauilling manner doth say that if the Romane Church can make good the vniforme consent of Fathers for their twelue new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation preferre it before any priuate or later exposition this I say is a meere sophisme in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes that he who interpreteth scriptures must haue positiuely the vniforme consent of Fathers for his expositions but onely that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers the which because the kinght did not rightly vnderstand as it seemes when he read the Concell the Bull of Pius he abuseth Caietane Canus Andradius Bellarmine Baronius other moderne Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree wheras yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established the rest being knowne for notorius defenders of it so running vppon false grownes the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts building his By-way to omitt others of lesse moment diuerse scurrilous scoffes touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it s well knowne he his companions are much more guilty in that kinde with two notorious vntruthes affirming that all the pristes Iesuites are sworne not to receaue interpret scriptures but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers that it is an article of the Roman faith so to doe all which needes no further examen in regard that to any iuditious reader these two particulars onely will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the authors iugling trickes which he vseth in this part of his by-way which being voyde of substantiall matter it suteth best to him that made it but agreeth nothing to the Catholike RomaÌ„ faith â—ect 5. In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures which he promiseth to proue by pregnant testimonies of all ages that it is the same which learned Doctors professors intirely preserued in the besome of the Roman Church in all ages I haue treated of this in parte in my former Censure to which I adde returning that Sir Humfrey saith of Campion vppon himself which is that if this Nouellist had binne as reall in his proofes as he is prodigall in his promisses he had gome beyond all the reformed proselites sinces the daies of Luther for neuer man made greater florishes with proorer proofes all that he bringeth being founded vppon the same equiuocation which he vsed in his safe way consisting of this proposition the Fathers of euery age haue acknowledged the 22. bookes of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonicall to be the true Canon no other For it is true the Fathers of all ages receiued from Christe his Apostles those same bookes acknowledging them for Canonicall but it is false that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonicall of which truth particular instance
appeared to him in his agonie Peter denyed Christ and other such like truthes Yet this how true soeuer it bee it is nothing to the purpose which here we treate nor afordeth anie grounde or foundation for the prenominated distinction of our aduersaries in regarde that althou ' ther be neuer soe great difference among those and other points of Religion in the dignitie of the material obiects by reason of which in some sorte the one may be named fundamental the other not fundamental neuerthelesse because the faith of the one is no lesse necessarie to saluatiō then the faith of the other thēce it is that absolutely the one is as much fundamental as the other and consequently ther ar no not fundamentals in matters of faith as the distinction of out aduersaries doth falsely suppose And hence in like manner it farther insueth that if the Church should erre but onely in the definitiō or proposition euen of those matters of lesse qualitie the error would be directly against diuine faith and consequently the Church in this case should truely be said to haue erred eued in fundamental points of faith and in matters necessarie to saluation fundamental points as I haue declared and often repeated being no other then all those reuailed truethes the faith of which is necessarie in the members of the Church for the obtaining of eternal life not obstanding anie difference which otherwise may apppeare in the nature of the seueral obiects or matters supposing no one parte but the whole intyre faith of Christ and euerie parte and partiall of those verities which he hath reuailed to his Church is the foundation of true Christian and Catholique Religion it being as necessarie to saluation for euerie true Christian to beleeue truely and syncerely if it be proposed vnto him by the Church that the cocke crowed at the tyme of S Peters denyal of Christ or that a souldier lanced our sauiors side with a speare as that he dyed vpon the Crosse for our redemption and risse againe for our iustification But Finally If peraduēture our aduersaries should say that within the compasse of true faith some things be necessarie to saluation and others not necessarie and that consequently some things be fundamental but others not To this instance I replye it is founded in a manifest equiuocation For althou ' it is true that their be some things within the compasse of saith which ar not necessarie for euerie member of the Church to knowe them expressely yet is it necessarie to saluation for euerie faithfull Christian thou ' neuer soe simple or ignorant to beleeue euerie parte and partiall of those obiects or matters which God hath reuailed if for such by the Church they be proposed vnto him otherwise he should incurre the censure of that strict and fearefull sentence of the most iuste and equal iudge Christ our Sauior qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur and soe the faith euen of all those things which euerie one by reason of his state or condition of life or for want of vnderstanding is not obledged to knowe is necessarie to saluation and consequently all kinde of faith of what matter soeuer it be that God hath reuailed is as much fūdamētall as is faith of the greatest matter or mysterie of the whole Christiā beleefe whēce it is that as S. Gregorie Nazianzen treating of the vnitie and integritie of faith in his 39. oratiō aboute the ende declareth by example or similitude that faith is like vnto a goulden chaine connected and compounded of diuers linkes from which if you take anie one away you loose your saluation as S. Ambrose in the ende of hir sixt kooke vpon the Euangell of S. Luke declares By which it is manifeste that faith of euerie point or matter within the compasse of faith is necessarie to saluation and therfore fundamental absolutely whether the obiect be great or little and no faith not fundamētal as the new distinction of the Nouellists most falsely affirmes which ther distinction doubtnesse was inuented by them to the ende they might haue a more plausible coulor to accuse the Roman Church of errors comitted in faith as alsoe for excuse of ther owne their malice and irreligion being so great that like vnconscionable taylers they chose rather to cutte out a Church for Christ of such corrupted stuffe as this then to liue or dye vnreuenged of the Catholique Roman Church And for conclusion I adde that since I haue made manifest by these my reasons that the faith euen of those points of Religion which our aduersaries terme not fundamental is absolutely required to the saluation of euerie Christian soule if euen in rhese particulars onely the Church could erre none could assuredly be persuaded that by makeing them selues members of it they ar in the certaine infallible way to the obteining of eternal blessednes but still should remaine in the like dangerous desperate state they did before they were in the Church of Christ cōsequently by reason of this vncertaintie perill a generall neglect of procuring to enter in to the true Church of Christ would be caused in the mindes of men which inconuenience in regarde it proceedes by inauoiable cōsequence from this distinction broached vsed by our aduersaries it plainely appeeres the doctrine of it is in diuers respect most pernicious damnable as not tending in anie sorte to the reformatiō of the Church as is by them pretended but directely to the ruine destruction of it Deuia sec 3. pag. 45. S. Augustin in the 23. chap. of the 13. booke of his cōfessions affirming that spiritual men must not iudge of the scripture is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey for he meaneth not that spiritual men must not in anie case iudge of the true sense of scripture for that were both false yea repugnant to the doctrine practise euen of the pretensiue reformers them selues who as they can not denye whether they be spiritual or not spirituall vse to read interpret scriptures much more comonly then the Romanists doe yea giue libertie therin euen to those of the feminine sexe or gender But the true obuious sense of that diuine doctor in the cited place onely is that spiritual men must not iudge anie thing contained in the scripture as presently he subioines non rite veraciterque dictum esse that is not to be ritely truelly spoken but submit their vnderstanding etiamsi quid ibi non lucet altou ' some thing be not cleare or perspicuous in it This is the pure syncere sense of S. Augustin as his verie wordes declare And nowe let the impartial reader decide whether it doth not rather militate or warre against the manner of dealing with scriptures which the Nouelists practise then againsts the Romanists how be it I syncerely confesse it directly makes neither against the one nor the other but precisely against such as iudge those passages of scripture to be false or not ritely deliuered
to reade the same nay and that which is yet more maruelous he seemeth to glory not a little that this hath beene all effected by the importunity of his reformed brothers as if forsooth they had exercised an act of some heroycall virtue therein Whereas in truth importunity is so farre from desert of commendation as it may be much more iustly registred in the list of vices then of virtues and soe we see that in the Scripture it selfe the importunitie of a beggar is branded with the marke of improbity that which I maruell the knight being so greate a Biblist as he is did not reflect vpon it And admitte it were true that the Romanists moued by the importunity of the sectaries did translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue for the laitie to reade by what rule of Logike I pray you Sir Humfrey doth it follow that many Romanists haue renoūced Popery before their death proue but this one consequence and I yeeld you the victory And pray tell me what article of faith is that which teacheth the Romanists to beleeue that the Bible ought not to be read by the laytie in no case or vpon no reasons neuer so weighty or if you can finde no such article as I know you cannot then confesse you haue lost the victory in the point confesse you haue proceeded weakely confesse you haue by your first argument proued nothing and so I will take that for graunted and passe to the second which allthough it hath some more sense in it then the other yet it is senselesse enough as shall presently appeare For that being to proue your antecedent or first proposition you onelie produce L. Cookes report that most of the Romish proselytes did frequent your Church or seruice for the first eleuen yeares of Queene Elizabeth But you must knowe that this authour is no competent witnesse against the Romanists he is one of your owne crue we care not for his reportes we leaue them to the lawyers He indeed as you do now presumed to write matters of diuinity but in that he plaied the Sutor vltra crepidam as you doe and so laboured onely to make him selfe ridiculous as you doe But let vs admit that which he reporteth to be true and that fome frequented your Church and seruice in those times as I my selfe haue heard they did at the least in exteriour shewe yet priuately at home frequenting Masse also doth it thence follow that in their minds they renounced Popery no such matter No more then doe diuerse of his maiesties subiects who euen at this day goe to your Churches whom neuerthelesse you your selues hould for none of yours but therefore doe commonly terme them Church going Papists So that according to this and euen ad hominem that is vpon your owne Principles your sequel is to be condemned to be of noe force or at the most out of that fact of those Romanists which you speake of it can onely be inferred that they proceeded contrary to the profession of their faith but not that they renounced the same which two things if you could haue duely distinguished I verily persuade my selfe you would neuer haue discoursed so friuoluslie as you doe in this point But now I greeue I haue spent so much time in ventilating so largelie such chaffie stuffe After this wise discourse Sir Humfrey passeth to his owne persuasions for the proofe of his assertion I am verily persuaded saith he that many at this day in the Church of Rome doe assent to our doctrine that dare not communicate with vs openly in the Church adding an appeale to their consciences how many of the Romanists haue renounced Popery in those diuerse points in this place But to this I answer that if Romanists would haue bene persuaded by this wise knights motiues they had lōge ago all renounced Poperie and turned Puritans indeed but God be praised they neuer were nor I hope euer will be persuaded by him and his workes if they haue anie branies in their heads No suerlie And if they come but once to examine this his booke and get a view of the discouerie of his deceipts they will be so farre from being moued either by his reasons or by his authority to relinquish their owne faith that doubtlesse they will rather be quite out of loue both with him his religion And euen in this particular persuasion of his he sheweth himselfe so ridiculous as no man of iudgment if he marke his proceeding can euer esteeme him as a man worthy either to be heard or followed For what man in the world will be moued by him who in steede of proofes bringeth his owne persuasions onely of the testimonie of the conscience of those whom he houlds for aduersaries and whose consciences if he proceedes consequently he must either hould for bad or at the least for vnknowne to himselfe What is this but absurdum per absurdius and yet he is so confident in this his vaine persuasion that he cometh to specifie diuerse points of Popery which he affirmeth to haue beene renounced by many Romanists some of which pointes are no Poperie at all but either his owne lies or els his ignorant mistake of the true doctrine of Papists in those particulars For example in his page 32. he demaundeth of vs how many Romanists doe smile at fained miracles at diuine vertue ascribed to medals beades Agnus deis and the like which saying of his is meerely grounded vpon a false supposition or rather a slanderous falsitie of his owne coyning as if it were true that the Romanists in generall did both approue false miracles and hould diuine vertue to be in medals beades and Agnus deis neither of which is true or was euer defended by any Romanist in the world it being both true and manifestlie knowen that though all Romanists hould the foresaid things for holie and do assure themselues that God doth sometimes please to worke strange effects by them yet do not they beleeue that any diuine vertue doth reside in them no more then they hould to haue resided in the shadowe of S. Peter which neuerthelesse wrought strange and miraculous effects So that by this discourse Sir Humfrey doth onelie proue his owne ignorance and malice as also he doth most manifestlie in the next lines and that more subtillie then before where he demaundeth how many Romanists do preferre the lawfulnesse of Priests mariage before the keeping of a concubine although saith hee the contrarie be the common doctrine of the Church of Rome In which wordes he doth indeauour craftilie to insinuate to his reader that it is a poynt of Poperie and that the Roman Church doth approoue the keeping of a Concubine by a Priest rather then he should marrye whereas the Church doth not in anie case allowe eyther of the one or the other but onelie houldes that that Priest offendeth God more grieuouslie who marrieth to wit after his preisthood and vowe of chastitie Saecerdos si fornicetur
Sacraments yet doth she not confesse that there are onely two Sacraments instituted by Christ as the reformers professe but houldeth and beleeueth fiue more as well as those two to haue beene instituted by Christ which fiue being denyed or at the least three or foure of them both by Luther and the rest of the pretended reformers and on the contrary hauing beene receiued for Sacramēts in aūcient times as afterwards shall be declared the deniers of thē whosoeuer they be cannot rightly claime either antiquity of vniuersality of doctrine in that particular And the same may be said for the same reason of the 22. bookes of Scripture and the seuen first generall Councells in the which he faith of the reformers is neither aunciēt nor vniuersall first for that they hould those twenty two bookes for canonicall Scripture exclude all the rest out of the canō which neuerthelesse as appeareth by the testimony of S. Augustin herecited in the margē Totus autem canon Scripturarum in quo istam considerationē versandam dicimus his libris continetur Quinque Moyses c. Tobias Hester Iudith Machabeorū libri duo Esdrae duo Et postea Nam illi duo libri vnus qui sapientiae alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur nam Iesus filius Sciach eos scripsisse constātisse perhibetur qui tamē quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerūt inter propheticos numerādi sunt Aug. l. 2. de docti Christiana c. 8. were also canonicall in the auncient Church And secondly because they receiue but onely foure of those seuen generall Councels which neuerthelesse Sir Hūfrey himselfe here confesseth to haue beene genenerall by giuing them all that title as well as the four first To omit other generall Councels which he his brothers violently reiect And now touching Apostolicall traditions Sir Humfrey doth no lesse plainely Sophisticate then in the former points for that it is well knowne that the reformers either hould no traditions at all to be beleeued but rely wholy vpon pure or sole Scripture as the totall rule of their faith or if they hould any traditiōs to be necessary yet do not they hould all those which the auncient now the moderne Roman Church doth hould and consequently their manner of houlding Apostolicall traditions is in words onely and hath no true discent from the Apostles nor any vniuersality or antiquity at all as neither hath their booke of common prayer manner of ordination and vocation of Ministers or Pastours and so altho' they haue some parte both of the auncient liturgie and also of the Apostolicall māner of ordination yet because they doe not wholy agree with them no not in the substance and essentiall parts of the action that is to say not in the consecration of the Eucharist nor in the essentiall forme and matter of order which are the wordes and imposition of hands they are defectiue in the antiquity and vniuersality of the same in regard that the manner and forme of prayer and administrations of Sacraments which the reformed Churches vse at this present is different from that of the auncient Church neuer knowne nor heard of in former ages but broach by Luther and his sectatours quite contrary to that which the knight affirmeth and indeauoureth to prooue as by comparing their Church seruice their booke of common prayer and of ordination of Ministers with the auncient liturgies as that of Sainct Iames Sainct Basil Sainct Chrisostome and others doth clearely appeare as also by confronting the same with the writings of the auncient Fathers and their formes of administration of Sacraments by which we shall finde a maine difference betwixt the one and the other in regard that in those auncient monuments of antiquitie be founde sacrifice oblation altar incense hoste chalis holy oyle Chrysme and the like But in the forme of seruice and administration of Sacraments vsed now in the pretensiue reformed Churches ther is none of this to be found or hearde By which it may farther appeare that it is no silly or senseles question as our aduersarie would haue it to demaunde of the reformers where their Church was before Luther Because it hath nowe beene made manifest that allthough some parte of their doctrine that I meane in which they and the Romanists agree hath both vniuersality and antiquity if it be considered in it selfe yet diuerse other points of it hath neither the one nor the other That which cannot be found in the doctrine of the Romā Church for that allthough it is true that some parte thereof was not expressely definde as matter of faith before the tyme of the later Councells and sectaries who by their defection from the euer succeeding Roman Church and their new errours gaue occasion of new declarations of some particular points yet were those neither new in them selues nor first broached taught by the foresaid councells but onely they by their authority determined established for certaine doctrine that which diuerse nouellists presumptuously brought in question the same neuerthelesse in all the ages before Luther hauing bene both aunciently and vniuersally tought or at the least by many doctours of the Church with out contradiction of the rest or perhaps if anie were of a different opinion it was because matters were not then so plainely declared by the Church and vnder her correction And so the question proposed by the Romanists to the reformers can neither be rightly detorted vpon them as the knight vainely auerreth nor yet can the reformers euer be able to answer it as plainely appeareth both by that with hath beene allready said as allso by the doctrine of their 39. articles diuerse of which are not onely new in themselues and neuer heard of in auncient tymes but allso expressely broached by Luther himselfe and that not only in negatiue but allso in some positiue doctrine as is euident particularly in the point of iustisicatiō by faith alone And hence allso it is manifestly inferred how vntruely the knight affirmeth in his 77. page that noe Romanist can deny but that the doctrine of the reformers lay inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church as corne couered with chaffe or gould with drosse for neither is it true that either all the doctrine of the reformers hath beene in the Church before Luther as I haue showed nor yet that any Romanist euer affirmed the same so S. Hūfrey deliuereth two falsities vnder one forme of speech continuing the same for the space of a whole leafe grounding his discourse vpō false suppositions equiuocatiōs promising to produce testimonies of his aduersarie the Romanists for the antiquity and vniuersalitie of the protestāt faith he meanes the Puritan faith in generall yet produceth not one for the same excepting Pope Adrian the 6. and Costerus and D. Harding in Iewell none of which three authours proue S. Humfrey intent Costerus and Harding onely speaking of one or two
enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius And thus the busines being well examined I say no more but that I ame sorie the worthy knight should be so vnfortunate as to stumble vpon the obiection in lue of the doctrine of the author himselfe How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion that I doe not much admire the case The same Durand is alsoe abused by the knight in regarde he produces him to proue that the Roman diuines are diuided in their opinions touching transsubstantiation which neuerthelesse I haue showed by his owne words how plainelie he maintaines it And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirme of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is hereticall touching the maine point of transsubstantiation but onely because by a singular opiniō he houldes that onely the forme of bread and wine and not the matter is conuerted in to the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which altho' it be false yet doth not the author therfore make anie doubt of transsubstantiation it selfe and so this is an other of Sir Hūfreyes trickes by which he cousens his reader and iniureth both these diuines at once But put the case Durand were truely cyted yet I say as I said before that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquitie or vniuersalitie either of the doctrine of transsubstantiation or any other point of faith And if the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humfrey will haue it it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their cappes at it for any such they should euer be able to finde in their reformed congregations it being now euident out of the examen and censure of the former sections that to speake within compasse they haue not I doe not say the tenth parte in number of the auncient Fathers for the proose of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of their whole Creede which the Romanists haue for theirs but not so much as one onely authour before Luther which truely cited and vnderstood doth defend their doctrine in all and euery particular pointe And according to this I answer also to the testimonie of B. Tunstall whom the kinght citeth as houlding the point of transubstantiation to haue bene a matter of indifferencie and not an article of faith within lesse then fiue hundreth yeeres To which I replye first that Sir Humfrey dealeth heere according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie first because he produceth this authours testimonie as if he had bene of opinion that perhaps it had bene better to haue left the doctrine of Transubstantiation vndetermined and free for euery one to vse his owne coniecture as in his Phansie it was before the Councell of Lateran which is most false for that the Bishop doth onely relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not his resolution being in that pointe farre differēt as his booke testifieth in that same place Secondly he dealeth insincerely in that he taketh hould of that onely which maketh for his purpose in some sort but leaueth out not onely that which maketh expressely against him and for the reall presence quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Ecclesiae fides which was the faith of the Church from the beginning but also he leaueth out the very resolution it selfe of the authour in this same pointe of transubstantiation where after the wordes by the knight cited he saith expressely he houldeth it iust for that the Church is a pillar of trueth that her iudgment is to be obserued as throughly firme Adding further that those who contend that that manner of transubstantiation ought to be reiected meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth because the worde is not found in scripture nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt Quasi vero saith hee Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset cuius omnipotentiae spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione videntur By which plaine wordes of this learned Bishop the reader may plainely see how deceiptfullie he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight Secondly I answer that how indifferent soeuer the doctrine of transubstantiation might seeme to our aduersarie to haue beene before the Councell of Latran neuertelesse both this authour and all others truely Catholikes both since and before that councell haold it not for a matter indifferent but for a certaine trueth and verity as appeareth planely by that which hath beene said allready in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which haue in this paragraffe beene produced for the contrary Lastly I answer that there was neuer such indifferēcy in the Romā Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatiō but that so manie authours in all ages folowed the affirmatiue that the reformed flock shall neuer be able to show anie for the negatiue no not one classicall authour He makes vse also of the testimonies of the other Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct Theol. Scholast cap. 11. alib who seeme to say that Christ did not consecrate with those wordes this is my bodie but by his benediction But to these authours I say first that whatsoeuer they held in this particular they all agree in that point which is here in controuersie betwixt Sir Humfrey and the Romanists that is they all accorde and teach the reall presence and transubstantiation and so they are all impertinentlie alledged Secondlie I say that these authours dispute in the places cited onelie by what wordes or action Christ himselfe did consecrate and not of the wordes of Consecration by which the Preists vse to consecrate And altho' they propose a question of this also yet they agree in that the Preists doe consecrate by no other wordes but those This is my bodie That which in durand at the least is most plainelie expressed when in his page 166. he saith Cum ad prolationem verborum istorum hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat d. 11. credibile iudicatur quod Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit By which wordes it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate wordes by which Preists doe consecrate nor yet was of opinion that Christ himselfe did vse anie other how be it he relates an opiniō of some others which thinke that Christ did not consecrate with those same wordes but he saith in the opinion rather of others then himselfe that virtute diuina nobis occulta confecit that he did it by diuine virtue or power himselfe and afterwardes expressed the forme sub
qua posteri benedicunt by which the succeeding Preists doe blesse or consecrate Now Sir Humfrey in his citation of this authour lefe out the latter parte of his text which doth plainelie declaire his minde to wit the wordes scilicet hoc est corpus meum which durand includes in the benediction or cōsecration of Christ chimericallie ioyning to some of the authours former wordes others which belonge to another opinion related by durand which houldes that Christ repeated the wordes twise first to giue them power and vertue of confection or consecration and afterwardes to teach the Apostles the forme of consecration by which the reader may easily perceiue that the knight insteed of making durand his owne he both lost him his owne reputation by either most ignorant or malitious peruerting of that Catholike authours wordes and sense The like to which proceeding he vseth also in the testimonie of Odo whome he cites to proue that Christs bodie is made in the Sacrament by his benediction and not by the wordes this is my bodie For he neither sincerelie relates nor trulie construes them And first whereas that authour by may of exposition of that worde benedixit saith benedixit corpus suum fecit meaning that Christ blessed the bread that is to say made it is bodie Sir Humfrey doth English the wordes both with a false interpretation of them and a false separation so Math. 26. and then made that his bodie adding the worde then of his owne stampe Secondlie he makes a false construction of Odos wordes in that whereas Odo vnderstands by benediction consecration as diuers other diuines doe and as it manifestlie appeares by his owne wordes vttered presentlie after to wit those which Sir Humfrey cytes saying virtute sermonis Christi factum est corpus sanguis Christi that is by virtue of Christs speech the bodie bloud of Christ are made the ignorant knight imagined that because he affirmed before that Christ by benediction made his bodie therefore he made it without those wordes this is my bodie which neuerthelesse are the verie wordes of benediction or consecration which Christ himselfe vsed True it is Odo speakes some thing intricatelie and obscurelie by reason of his breuitie yet those plaine wordes which followe in the same place and matter videlicet virtute sermonis Christi fiunt corpus sanguis Christi doe sufficientlie explaine the authours mynde and serue for a cleare exposition of the rest as the iudicious reader of his whole text will easilie perceiue Concerning the citation of Christopher De capite fontium I suspect there is some legerdemaine vsed in it because it seemes not to me a thing credible that anie man of learning and iudgement as he is held to be should be so farre out of temper as peremptorilic to conclude for an infallible truth to which scriptures Councels and all antiquitite yeald an vndeniable testimonie and consent that the wordes this is my bodie are not the wordes of consecration how be it the might say with the opinion of some others that those are not the wordes by which Christ himselfe consecrated which point as it is not yet declared by the Church as a matter of faith so neither is it pertinent to the matter we here treat if so it were as being no denyall of transubstantiation which onelie is here in question and not the wordes of consecration and consequentlie if that authour whome I could not haue whereby to examen the truth if I say he speakes in that sense onelie then his testimonie was cyted in vaine As also I may not rashelie auouch that especiallie if he meanes in the other sense and as according to their rehearsall of our aduersarie the wordes doe sounde That surelie he had tasted of a wrong fountaine when he spoake in such an exorbitant manner if so he euer spoake I haue exactelie examined Card. Aliaco and finde he speakes in those wordes cyted by Sir Hūfrey onely of the possibility of the coexistēce or presence of the substance of the bread the bodie of Christ vnder the same accidēts which possibilitie he affirmes neither to repugne to reason nor to the bible no more then that two quantities or qualities may possiblie stande together vnder one matter videlicet de potentia absoluta that is by the absolute power of God which is true in regarde that no text of scripture can be found to such contrarie possibility nor implicatiō of contradictiō in reason But all this how true soeuer it is yet is it out of the purpose and state of our question which is not about the possibilitie but aboute the fact of transsubstantiation in which point the resolution of this authour is plainelie for vs saying that altho' it doth not euidentlie followe of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth absolutelie cease to be nor yet as it seemes to me of the determination of the Church neuerthelesse because saith he it doth more fauore the determination of the Church and the common opinion of the holie Fathers and Doctours therefore I hould it And this same is that which the Councell of Trēt declares to which doctrine if Sir Hūfrey would consent as farre as Aliaco this disputation were at an end for that here is nothingels required either of him or any other of his profession but that they obey the authoritie of the Church in her definition Ses 15 c. 4 Secundum hanc viam dico quod panis transsubstātiatur in corpus Christi ad sensum expositum in descriptione transubstantiationis Alic in 4. q. 6. art 2. In his 111. page the knight proceedes most sophisticallie in this same matter where vpon a false if or conditionallie false supposition that neither according to the doctrine of S. Thomas the Roman Cathechisme and the Masse-Preists as he pleaseth to terme them the consecrated bread is transubstantiated by Christs benediction before those wordes this is my bodie be vttered nor by the same wordes vttered after benediction as saith he the Archbishop of Cefarea and others doe affirme he presentlie thence inferres that absolutelie there are no wordes at all in the scripture to proue transubstantiation for an article of faith which collection of his neuerthelesse is no other then to deduce for conclusion of his discourse an absolute proposition from a conditionall and this also grounded vpon a meere equiuocation for admit it is true that the foresaid authours doe not agree whether determinately transubstantiation be made by the benediction or by the wordes of consecration yet they all accorde most constantlie and conformablie in this that by one of the two to wit either by benediction or consecration or at the least by both the one and the other the transubstantiation is vndoubtedlie effected and consequentlie they agree vnanimouslie against the position of Sir Humfrey affirming that there be no words of scripture to proue the same And the trueth is that Sir Humfreys captious ratiocinatiō proues no more
properlie so called and to be beleeued of all for an article of faith as instituted by Christ The number of which authours being not onelie verie greate in itselfe but also farre greater and of farre more learned men then all those who in the reformed Churches hould the contrarie as I persuade my selfe Sir Humfrey cannot denie it is most euidēt that to saie nothing of those auncient writers which by their proofes of euerie particular Sacrament by Scriptures and Fathes doe plainelie wittnesse the same trueth he had no reason at all for this parte of his greate demaunded And now touching the rest of it I answer first that as it is certaine the reformers themselues if we should demaunde the like of them concerning the number of those Sacramēts which they defēd for truely properly such to be belieued as an article of faith and as instituted by Christ cannot prooue either by scripture or any one authour I doe not say for about a Thousand yeeres as they doe but for a Thousand and foure hundreth yeeres after Christ that they are precisely twoe and no more nor lesse so consequentie they ought not to require of vs that which they themselues are not able to performe in their owne cause and case Neuerthelesse that our aduersarie may plainely see we are not behinde with him but rather farre before him and the rest of his brothers in this particular I answer farther that all those Fathers who by expresse places of scripture proue euerie one of those Sacraments in particular and no other which the Roman Church houldeth for truely properlie such doe thereby also shew at the least tacitly that those and no more nor lesse are beleeued for such by faith For testimonie of which trueth because it would be too tedious in answere of one argument to produce so many of the Fathers as might be alledged I will onely alledge Cal. Instit S. Augustine who beinge euen according to our aduersaries oppinion of him a faithfull witnesse of antiquitie his testimonie may iustly serue for all the rest and because of the Sacramēts of Baptisme and Eucharist there is no controuersie I will onely produce those testimonies which conuince the other fiue Wherefore that confirmation is truely and properlie a Sacrament S. Augustine affirmeth lib. 2. contra lit Pet. cap. 104. where he saith thus The Sacrament of Chrisme in the nature of visible signes Sacrosanctum est is a sacred and holy Sacrament as Baptisme and he hath the like of order lib. 2. cont Epist Parm. cap. 13. sayinh They are both Sacraments and both by a certaine consecration are giuen to man that when he is baptzed this when he is ordered and in the same place he also saith that both of them be Sacraments which no man doubteth Of Pennance he saith lib. 1. de adult coniug cap. 26. 28. eadem est causa Baptismi reconciliations fine quibus Sacramentis homines credunt se mori non debere The same cause or reason is of Baptisme and Reconciliation with out which Sacraments men beleeue they ought not to dye Matrimonie he compareth with Baptisme lib. 1. de nuptijs concup cap. 10. where he saith that the matter of this Sacrament is that man and woman ioyned in mariage may inseperably perseuer together as long as they liue And the like saying he hath of the perpetuall effect of this Sacrament comparing it with the perpetuall effect of Baptisme And in the 14. chapter of his booke de bono coniugali he compareth matrimonie with the Sacrament of Order which order as we haue cited before he compared with Baptisme in another place Finally of Extreame vnction he maketh mention lib. 2. de visit infir cap. 4. and in his 215. Sermon of the saints Where although he doth not in expresse tearmes affirme extreame vnction to to be one of the Sacraments yet he expressely affirmeth there and serm de temp 115. that the ceremonie of vnction which S. Iames mentioneth and the promisse belong vnto the faithfull and are to be practized by the Priests as the Apostle commaundes all which proues plainily that S. Augustin held it for a Sacrament as well as the other six and altho' some doubt may be made whether the booke de visit infir be truelie S. Augustines worke yet certaine it is that the authour of it is both good and auncient And thus much out of S. Augustine for the proofe of euerie one of the seuen Sacraments in particular besides that which he speaketh in generall of them and of the benefit which the Church hath receaued from God by the institution of them in his first sermon vpon the 108. psalme where he saith thus What a greate gift is the office of the administration of the Sacraments in Baptisme Eucharist and in the rest of the holy Sacraments so that we see that S. Augustin stanneth plainely against the doctrine of Sir Humfrey And doth fully answer his question touching the number of the Sacraments defended by the Roman Church And supposing he makes soe speciall mention of these seuen as he doth more then of any other externall signe or ceremonie of the Church to some of which neuertheles he giueth also the name of Sacrament and supposing also he cōpareth or all most of them with those two which the reformers themselues hould for proper and true Sacraments in their effects and sanctitie as also amplifying the benefit which God hath conferred to the Church by the institution of them that which he doth not with the rest of the holie signes and ceremonies which the same Church also vseth supposing all these circumstances I saie it is more then certaine that he speaketh of them as of true and proper Sacramants which for such haue beene recreaued and belieued in the vniuersall Church euen euer since the time of Christ the institutour of them And so let this suffice for an answere of that vast demande of our Thrasoniā knight and to demōstrate that notwithstanding all his circumspection his owne conditionall curse is turned into an absolute and so is fallen vpon him with all it weight and forces as a iust punishment of the temeritie and excesse of that boldnes which he committeth in protesting against a truth confirmed with such authoritie and testimonie as may satisfie the most tender conscience and settle the most wauering minde in the world And yet for confirmation of the foresaid answere we may further adde that supposing the Master of Sentences so manie yeeres past defended the seauen Sacraments with the institution of them by Christ himselfe and their necessitie and profit in the Church of God and supposing the same authour writ nothing but what he found in the auncient Fathers from the collection of whose sentences he tooke his appellation supposing I say all this which his workes doe witnesse it is most apparent in the morall iudgment of anie indifferent man that the doctrine which he deliuered concerning the foresaid number of
Fathers Primo notandū non debere aduersarios petere vt ostendamus in scripturis aut Patribus nomē septenarij Sacramētorum nā nec ipsi possunt ostendere nomē Binarij vel ternarij c. Bellar. l. 2. de effect Sacr. c. 24. yet honest Sir Humfrey translates out of the Latin quoted in his owne margent the number of seuen for the name of the number of seuen repeating the same twise for fayling and so daceiues his ignorant reader persuading him there by that euen by Bellarmins confession the number of the seuen Sacraments is not to be found either in scriptures or Fathers whereas neuerthelesse Bellarmin saith no such thing but onelie that the name of the foresaid number is not to be required in that manner supposing that the substance of a thing is oftentimes found both in scriptures and Fathers and yet not the name it selfe as appeares in the worde Trinitie of persons and in the name of the number of two Sacraments neither of which is extant in scriptures Secondlie Bellarmin is corrupted in his booke of Extreme Vnction cap. 2. Non omnes cōueniunt an cum Apostoli vngebant olto infirmos Marci 6. curabant illa fuerit vnctio sacramentalis an solū fuerit figura quaedam c. Bellar. lib. de Sacr. Extrem Vnct. c. 2. Where the false knight makes his reader beleeue that Bellarmin was one of those who disagreed from the doctrine of other diuines in the doctrine of the fiue Sacraments which he and his companions denie to be truelie and properlie Sacraments and yet the Cardinall onelie affirmes with some other authours that that vnction which the Apostles vsed aboute the sick and restored them to health the 6. of S. Marke was not the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction but rather a figure or obumbration of it Which as you see is a farre different matter from the deniall of Extreme Vnction as it is vsed in the Church to be properlie a Sacrament or one of the fiue reiected by the pretensiue reformed Congregations Thirdlie the knight corrupteth Bellarmin whome he cites in the nynth chapter of his first booke of the Sacraments where he peruertes both the translation of the wordes and sense The wordes in that he Englisheth these non est ita notum it is not so certaine whereas he ought to haue translated it is not so knowne The sense he corrupteth in that he persuades his reader that Bellarmin confesseth that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution from christ immediatelie whereas he speakes not a worde of the institurion but affirmes onelie that the sacred things which the Sacraments signifie are three iustifying grace the passiō of Christ and eternall life all which that Baptisme and Eucharrst doe fignifie saith he res notissima est it is most notorious de alijs Sacramentis non est ita notum of the rest of the Sacraments it is not so notorious or knowne Yet further adding that it is certaine that euen these fiue Sacraments which the reformers reiect signifie all those three things at the least implicitlie But to saie that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution immediatelie from Christ neuer entred in to Bellarmins thoughts tamen certum est saltem implicite ea omnia significare c. Bellar. loco cit And so if the knight had dealt playnelie and sincerelie in the citation of that place of the Cardinall he could haue found nothing for his purpose but rather the contrarie Furthermore Sir Humfrey also corrupteth vasquez most shamefullie in the 3. parte d. 2. cap. 5. n. 3. de Sacram. Matr. Where he impudentlie belyeth him affirming that Vasquez knewe well that neither moderne diuines nor auncient Fathers did conclude Matrimonie for a true Sacrament of the Church And yet the knight could not be ignorant that the same authour professedlie defendes the same to be trulie and properlie a Sacrament in the third chapter of the verie same disputation which he himselfe cites and in his 4. chap. Vasquez proueth it by the testimonies of diuers Fathers putting for parte of the title of the same chap. that the Vasquez de Mat. definition of the Church touching the truth of this Sacrament had foundation in the testimonies of the Fathers and who will please to read vasquez will finde it so In so much that Sir Humfrey in this particular is wholelie inexcusable especiallie considering that out of the place cited nothing can possiblie be collected or inferred wherebie it may in anie sorte be imagined that vasquez euer dreamed that either auncient Fathers or moderne diuines excepting durand and perhaps the Master of Sentences of whome he speakes doubtfullie not daring to affirme him absolutelie to haue beene of the same opinion with Durand as in truth he is not did conclude matrimonie not to be a true and proper Sacrament but onelie affirmes that none of the places which diuines alledge out of S. Augustin to proue the truth and propertie of that Sacrament conuince the same in the sense in which saith Vasquez we now dispute Which imagination of Vasquez tho' it were true as in my iudgement apparentlie it is not yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent in disprouing the septenarie number of Sacraments Especiallie supposing as the same Vasquez affirmes Cō Carth. 4. that the fourth Councell of Carthage in which S. Augustin was present as a great member of the same makes mētion of the Benediction of the Preist vsed in mariage as in a holie and sacred thing Graunt I say that Vasquez opinion were true yet would it not serue the knights turne either for the poofe of his intent or for the excuse of his false and craftie dealing Next after Vasquez I will put Suarez althou ' according to the order of Sir Humfrey he is the first man he belies in this Poragraph in 3. part d. 12. sec 1. where he charges him to saye that the councell of Florence did insinuate the number of 7. Sacraments Propter quod tandem haec veritas definita est in Con. Flor. in decreto Eugenij quā Graeci Armeni facile cum Latinis suceperūt Suar. loc cit and the councell of Trent did expresselie decree it for an article of faith yet suarez sayes in plaine termes that the same was defyned in the councell of Florence So that here is false dealing with suarez and with the truth to make the point of the septenarie number of Sacraments seeme newe as ther is also in the wordes following in which the same Sir Humfrey affirmes that the Romanists relie wholely vpon the Tridentine councell Ambrose Austin Chrysostome and Bede be impertinently alleged For they none of them denie that the Sacraments are no more nor lesse then seuen And of S. Isidore it is falsely affirmed by Sir Humfrey that he accounteth but of 3. Sacraments for altho' in the place quoted by him he speakes onely of three which yet is more then the knight will
alowe of yet doth he not affirme that ther are no more yea in other seuerall places he mentioneth three more Pennance Order matrimonie And of them all he treates onely occasionallie not professedlie as the reader may easilie perceiue and therfore doubtlesse there is no mention of Extreme vnction among the rest of which neuerthelesse he was not ignorāt how plainelie S. Iames describes it neither would haue omitted it if occasiō had serued to treate of it Of Pennance he treates lib. 8. orig page 83. lib. 2. de offi Eccles of Order in his 2. booke de offic Eccles page 597. and 598. and of matrimonie he hath expresse wordes in the same booke page 69. Touching S. Chrysostome Ambrose Cyrill and Theophilactus it is false that they maintained onely two Sacraments and as for Chrysostome and Theophilactus vpon the 6. of S. Paule to the Hebrewes they both make mention of Confirmation S. Ambrose lib. 1. de Penit makes a kynde of comparison betwixt Baptisme and Pennance saying vnum in vtroque ministerium est c. and S. Cyrill of Ierusalem lib. 12. in so cap. 56. doth alsoe compare these two Sacraments together and both of them mention the Sacrament of Chrisme the one Catech. 3. the other lib. 3. de Sacra cap. 2. de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur cap. 7. so that none of thes Fathers which Sir Humfrey produced for the number of 2. onely Sacraments doe agree with his doctrine and yet more not one of them treates in anie one place of their workes of the precise number of Sacraments but onely soe farre as their matter and drift required Pascasius also is falselie dealt with by Sir Humfrey both in his meaning and in the translation of his wordes for the doth not saye the Sacramets of Christ are Baptisme Chrisme and the bodie and bloude of our lord as Sir Humfrey doth put in English but. Sunt autem Sacramenta Christi in Ecclesia that is but Sacraments of Christ in the Church be Baptisme Chrysme c. Meaning onelie that Baptisme Chrysme and the Eucharist are such Sacraments as he treates of makeing mention of those onely not to showe the precise number but the nature of a Sacrament in generall especiallie touching the signification and effects of the same and therfore he doth exemplifie in those onely which are most notoriouslie knowne for such and their matter and formes most obuious omitting the rest as being lesse to the purpose he ther handleth And for Sir Humfrey to affirme that Chrisme is crept in to the text of the later editions that is but an idle imagination of his owne otherwise sure he would haue produced some other more auncient edition in which the worde Chrysme is not found And certainelie he that should compare the faithfulnes and sinceritie of the Romonists in that nature and the care they haue to publish authours purely with the insinceritie of the sectaries he would presentlie iudge that copie which wantes the worde Chrisme to be razed by them that haue of late yeares abolished the vse of it in their Church rather then haue the least suspiciō in the world that the same should be added by Romanists whose doctrine and practice in that particular is so frequent and auncient Especially considering that it makes no more to our purpose of maintaining the septenarie of Sacraments against the pretended reformers whether the worde Chrysme be in Pascasius or no then if it were vndoubtedlie true that he had made no mention of it Supposing it is sufficient for vs to knowe that this author in that place neither intended to proue the number of three Sacraments nor yet to exclude the number of seuen Howbeit I doe not denie but that the worde Chrysme being in the text it suffices to conuince that the Sacraments of Christ are more then two And in deed I maruell why the sectaries especiallie those of the English Church should labore so much to exclude Cōfirmation frō the number of the Sacramēts supposing they either doe practice if or at the least ought to practise it according to their owne ordināces altho' ther is nothing prescribed by them touching the vse of Chrysme but onely or cheefelie mētion is made of the blowe which the confirmer giues to the confirmed with a certaine phrase or forme of wordes Concerning which ceremonie I haue heard that vpon a time a certaine nominall Bishop of theirs at the time of administration was so extraordinarie well pleased with one of the cōpanie of the feminine gender that in steed of the ceremoniall stroake he gaue her a kisse of kindenesse by which the yonge maide assured her selfe she receiued more grace thē if she had receiued Confirmation it selfe accordnig to their ordinarie manner And now this may be sufficient for the true meaning of Pascasius Hugo a sancto Victore is most peruerselie dealt with when out of Perkins he is produced by Sir Humfrey against the Sacrament of Pennance For I haue read him lib. 1. de Sacramentis cap. 12. where he sayes thus in expresse termes Septem sunt principalia Sacramenta quae in Ecclesia ministrantur ther be seuen principall Sacraments which are ministred in the Church And he numbers them in particular and Pennance for one And in his summa sentent tract 6. cap. 10. he saith Sacramentum Paenitentiae redeuntibus ad Deum semper est necessarium Est enim secunda tabula post naufragium quia post baptismum si quis vestem innocentiae peccando amittit per paenitentiam recuperare poterit And by this you plainelie see this Romanist is groaslie abused both by Perkins and his imitatour as if he were a denier of the septenarie number of Sacraments who soe particularlie doth acknowledge them As in like manner the same authour is abused by the knight page 128. Touching the custome of the communion of the people at euerie Masse in the Primatiue Church by omission of his ensuing wordes which are these Sed propter peccatum circumstans nunc statutum est vt communicaremus solum semel in anno That is to saie But by reason of sinne which doth compase vs aboute it is now decreed that we communicate thrice a yeare Whereas likewise neither in the former wordes of this authour cited by Sir Hūfrey ther is a iot against priuate Masse as he would haue it but onelie a relation of diuers customes of the Church in that particular point of practice as I haue declared in the paragraph of that matter Bessariō in his wordes rehearsed by Sir Hūfrey doth not denie the septenarie nūber nor doth absolutely affirme that there are onelie two Sacramēts but onelie saith that we read of two onely manifestly deliuered in the Gospell which is not contrarie to the Tridentine Councell nor yet that which the knight intendes to proue to wit that the doctrine of seuen Sacraments is no article of faith And what if Bessarion should saie that some of the seuen Sacraments are found not
termes be founde both to accorde better with the former saints he meanes the ancient Fathers of the Church with the phrase of the Apostle saying 1 Cor. 3.5 sufficientia nostra ex Deo est our sufficiencie is of God As also for that in respect of the grace of God they might be founde more disagreable as in their doctrine so in their manner of speech from the Pelagians wiclesists who as the same walden saith either conceile or denie the grace of God wholely confide in the merits of men Qui gratiā Dei vel tacent vel abnegāt in meritis hominum omnino cōfidunt Ibid. so you see that all the controuersie which fryer walden hath with our Roman deuines is onelie a boute the vse of those two phrases meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo as persuading the foresaid diuines that when they dispute of merits they neuer silence the grace of God but either expresse grace not merits or else preferre grace before meritis and as he saies in Latin exprimentes gratiam silentes de meritis aut gratiam meritis praeferentes All which is but questio de nomine a nominal or verbal disputation or aboute what manner of speech may seeme most fit to be practised in this point for a voyding offense in the heares yet walden those same diuines vniformelie according in the substance of the doctrine of merits themselues as I haue said once before And so now let this be sufficient to declare vnto the reader how farre out of square our Crosse aduersarie hath detorted the true sense of this religious diuine to make him seeme to teache according to his owne newe diuinitie in the matter of merits I confesse I haue inlarged my selfe much more then the matter requires if otherwife I had not considered how much it importes in all occasions to daunte the audaciousnes of a presumptuous aduersarie who by making most plausible vse of that is least for his purpose maintaines the smale reputation of his owne newfashioned religion cheefelie by the ruines of other mens honor not sparing this his owne renowned contriman indeuoring by indirect meanes to make him speak against his owne faith conscience among the rest of which I could not possiblie be insensible but was obliged euen according to the rules of natural affection to labore to cleare him of such a foule iniurious aspertion But now I come to a conclusion where yet the reader if he please may further take notice of some other more triuiall abuse offered to this same famous diuine by the sliperie knight by leauing out the aduerbe igitur in his translation of the Latin in to English which in reason he ought not to haue omitted in regarde it necessarilie implyes a relation or reference to the authors former discourse in which he argues against merit without mention of grace of which he speakes in his subsequent wordes tale meritum c. alledged by Sir Humfrey in a cōtrarie sense to his meaning Besides this the same Sir Humfrey hath not a little transposed some of waldens wordes in his recital of them in English Connecting to these or will of the giuer those as all the former sants vntill the late schoolemen the vniuersal Church hath written Which neuerthelesse he ought to haue set immediatelie after those other which followe in the authors text to wit inuenirentur esse discordes they might be founde disagreable But because in deed I doe not perceiue it could much importe our aduersarie to proceed in this manner therefore I charitablie persuade my self it was not done of malice but rather of ill custome Lastelie Sir Humfrey produceth Bellarmin for the safety of his way in this same point But he that should haue read his fift booke of Iustification would iudge that man fitter for Bedlam or Bridwell then for the schoole of diuinie that would offer to cite Bellarmin against the doctrine of merits The wordes meaning of him I haue declared in an other place so hould it in diuers respects superfluous to repeate them He cites also S. Austin out of chemnitius as it seemes as saying I knowe not where for he quoteth not the place that he speakes more safelie to Iesus tutius iucundius loquor ad meum Iesum But what is this to the purpose of denying inuocation of Saints For besides that this comes onelie out of a iuglers bugget so may iustelie be supected for false wares yet admit S. Austin sayth so what Romanist is there who doth not say the same yea practise the same daylie in their prayers While they acknowledge with all submission humilitie that all their saftetie conforte of conscience proceedes from Iesus as the fountaine of their Saluation as the conclusion of all or most Catholike prayers demonstrate Yet not so but that they may crye also vnto his freindes seruants as being more neare allyed vnto him both in place fauour merits then we our selues that they interced mediate for vs for the obtaining of that which wee our selues are not worthy either to obtaine or craue at his hāds Which kinde of inuocation of Saints S. Austin himselfe doth approue in diuers places as tract 84. in Io. Ser. de verb. Apost de cura pro mart cap. 4. And so these being all the authors which Sir Humfrey hath produced in this section I will conclude the censure of it in this manner That whereas he promised in the begining to shewe the greater saftie of the Protestant faith then of the Roman by the confession of the Romanists themselues he hath shewed no saftie at all but onelie trifled in the wordes meaning of his aduersaries doctrine that onely in some fewe negatiue articles of his faith omitting all the rest so he hath performed iust nothing which may serue for the demonstration of anie way at all much lesse of a safe perfect way but onelie hath brought him selfe his reader further into the laberinth of his wandering wits THE XI PERIOD IN his 12. section Sir Humfrey tells his reader that the Church of Rome doth seeke to elude the recordes reall proofes in the Fathers other learned authours touching the cheefe points in controuersie betwixt vs. This accusation no doubt maketh a foule noise in a pulpit but let vs see how the knight will be able to iustifie it For his first witnesse he produceth S. Chrysostome Hom 49. operis imperf where it is sayd that the Church is knowne onelie by the scriptures But first the verie title of the treatise showeth this testimonie to be of smale authoritie as being opus imperfectum an vnperfect worke so it ought not in reason to be admitted for a sufficient proofe especiallie considering that Sir Humfrey alledgeth no other witnesse yet on the contrarie wee knowe that our Sauiour sayd In ore duorum aut trium testium stet omne verbum in
the mouth of two or three witnesses euerie worde may stand And so suppose it were true that S. Chrysostome sayd iust that which Sir Humfrey would haue him yet is not one testimony enuffe to conuince an aduersary thus much I say for as much as concerneth the point of controuersie it selfe of the all sufficiencie of scripture But because the knight may say this is not that which he intendeth directlie in this place but onelie to conuince that Bellarmin hath eluded the foresayd testimonie therefore I answere secondlie that Sir Humfrey needed not to haue gone to Bellarmin's Chronologie for the censure of the foresaid worke for he might haue founde it more plainelie censured before in his controuersies as appeareth lib. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto the 11. chapter Where the Cardinall hath these wordes But this testimonie is not of Chrysostome but of the author of the imperfect who was either an Arian or certainlie his booke was corrupted by the Arians in manie places Thus Bellarmin Shewing the corruptions by two seuerall instances taken out of the worke it selfe where he speaketh against the Homousians that is against the Christians of the Catholike Church to which he giueth that name because they defended beleeued the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his Father yet it s well knowne that sainct Chrysostome neuer eyther writ or spoake against the Homousians as being one of them himselfe a professed enimie to their aduersaries the Arians And hence it is plaine that Bellarmin had reason to censure that worke not to acknowledge it for S. Chrysostomes as Sir Humfrey would haue it except he would haue condemned that glorious Doctour of the Church for an Arian heretike as the reformed brothers must of necessarie consequence doe if they will haue him to be the authour of that vnperfect treatise Neyther did yet Bellarmin taxe it for that sentence which the knight alledgeth out of it as hee craftilie falselie insinuates but for other erroneous doctrine which it containeth which is no more contrarie to anie article of the Roman faith if it be trulie vnderstood then it is to the faith of the reformers except perhaps they be nearer in some points of their doctrine to the Arians then the Romanists bee whoe quite deteste abhorre the same Which I leaue to their owne consciences to determin For altho' the Romanists denie that the sole scripture pure text of the bible is sufficient to determin all controuersies doubts in doctrine or māners yet they doe not denie but that the sole scripture doth sufficientlie declare the most greatest parte of the doctrine necessarie to saluation particularlie they graunt that the true Church may be sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture truelie expounded which is the verie same that the authour of the imperfect affirmeth in the foresayd wordes Neyther is it all one to affirme that the Church is knowne onelie by scriptures to affirme that the scripture onelie hath all sufficiencie as Sir Humfrey doth falselie suppose when he vseth the first proposition taken out of the author of the Imperfect as a medium to proue the second which is his owne position because to know the Church onelie is not all the doctrine which the scripture containeth as necessarie to saluation but onelie a parte of the same so it is cleare that how true soeuer it be that the church is knowne by scripture onelie yet cā it not be thēce inferred that all the doctrine of the Church necessarie to saluation is sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture except out of the pregnance of his wit extrauagant skill in logique the knight can inferre an vniuersall proposition out of a particular which I know he can no more performe then he can extract by arte two oysters out of one apple And thus we see that Sir Humfrey hath not proued by the exception of Bellarmin against the foresaid treatise that either the Roman Church or Romanists haue eluded their recordes or reall proofes of Fathers touching the question of all sufficiencie of scripture for that the sentence thence produced proueth no such thing And consequentlie there was no necessitie that Bellarmin should indeuour to infringe the authoritie of the whole worke for such a testimonie drawne out of it as is not contrarie to the Roman faith neither can it with anie coulour be imagined that the Cardinall would euer haue layde his censure vpon the same if it had not ben faultie in greater matters Secondlie Sir Humfrey produceth saint Augustin touching the deniall of honour of Saints where he sayth that manie are tormented with the diuell who are worshipped by men on earth And whereas Bellarmins answere according to Sir Humfreys relation is that peraduenture it is none of Augustins that sentence the honest knight as if Bellarmin were all the Romanists that euer writ or spoake maketh a generall interrogatorie saying what say the Romanists to this As if that which one onelie priuate man speaketh in a priuate matter were to be accounted the voyce of all men of his profession And yet Bellarmin doth not onelie adde more in his ansere yea much more to the purpose which not withstanding our braue Sir Sycophant very slylie omittes viz. that he could not finde those wordes in S. Augustin but also addeth three other principall anseres to the same obiection And so it appeareth that insteed of proofe that Bellarmin eludeth the recordes of S. Augustin the elusorie knight eludes both Bellarmin his reader egregiouslie by deceitfullie omitting that which both iustified the Cardinalls proceeding also declared the true meaning of the place cited in sainct Augustins name Thirdly he taxeth Bellarmin stapleton for saying that S. Augustin was deceiued or committed a humane errour in his interpretation of those wordes super hanc Petram caused by the diuersitie of the Hebrewe Grek Latin tongue which either he was ignorant of or marked not But I ansere first that what soeuer error S. Augustin might commit in this matter certaine it is that it was onelie aboute the interpretation of those wordes Math. 16. thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church For touching Sainct Peters supreme authoritie in it selfe which is that our irreligious aduersarie intendes cheefelie to diminish in this occasion it is most apparent that S. Augustin stronglie maintaines it in his second of Baptisme cap. 1. saying Quis nesciat illum Apostolatus Petri principatum cuilibet Episcopatui esse praeferendum That is who can be ignorāt that Principalitie or soueraintie of Peters Apostolate is to be preferred before anie Episcopate or Bishoprike And in his 15. sermon of the saints he speakes yet more plaine to this purpose affirming that our sauiour did nominate S. Peter for the foundation of the Church ideo digne fundamentum hoc Ecclesia colit supra quod Ecclesiastici officij altitudo consurgit And therefore saith S. Augustin the Church deseruedlie honoreth this
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
you in some points of faith so in like manner might we deduce a proofe of the greater saftie of our way from the certaintie of those points of faith in which you agree with vs all which is but nugatorie friuolous absurd in regarde that as a parte ad totum from a parte to the whole no lawfull deduction can be made so neyther can it be inferred that because one parte of the obiect of a mans faith is true therefore the whole obiect of is faith is true by reason that notobstanding one parte of the obiect be true yet there may be in the whole obiect or matter trueth falsitie mixed together of which we haue instāces both in diuine humane matters And more then this Sir Humfrey must giue vs licence to tell him that he was to forward in the proofe of his tenet For before he went aboute to proue his way to be safer then ours he ought first to haue conuinced his owne way to be a true perfect way not to haue giuen his reader a parte for the whole by a false Senecdoche or contrarie to the Grammer rules to obtrude vpon him a comparatiue without a positiue that is a safer way were no way is to be found at all or at the least no safe intyre way And yet more ouer it is to be obserued that besides those positiue points of doctrine in which he sayth that both partes agree there be also diuers negatiues which they quite distinguish one from an other which negatiues neuerthelesse are parte of the reformers faith as well as their positiue doctrine so in this parte of their Creed they stand single as well as we consequentlie if standing single as he auerreth or at the least supposeth doth hinder the safetie of our way the same effect it must of necessitie haue in theirs according to this ground of Sir Humfreys it is manifest that the reformers can neuer haue the safer way till we ioyne with them in euerie point thereof by that meanes to hinder their single standing which yet we assure our selues will neuer come to passe except God almightie reduce them to vs from whome they once departed as we greatlie desire daylie praye And according to this wee may breeflie ansere to all the rest of the instances which the knight produceth And so we Romanists confesse we stand with the reformers in the affirmation of heauen hell but we stand not with them in the deniall of Purgatorie limbus We stand with them in the affirmation of the merits and satisfactions of Iesus Christ But we stand not with them in the negation of the merits satisfactions of those that liue in the grace of God by the virtue of the same the cooperation of their owne free will performe good workes of charitie mercie iustice the like houlding for certaine with S. Augustin that he who created vs without vs will not saue vs without vs yet further assuring our selues that God doth not operate with bests men both in one manner We stand with them in the defence of Baptisme Eucharist so farre as they Orthodoxlie maintainte them but we stand not with them in the impugnation of the other fiue Sacraments We stand with them in that they affirme that the images of Christ his Saints are ornaments memorialls of the absent but we stand not with them in their denyall of due honour to be exhibited vnto them for the great loue reuerence we beare to Christ his Saints We stand with them in the defence of the diuine worship of God but we stand not with them in the denyall of intercessiue inuocation honour of his Saints We stand with them in that Christ is the prime mediator betwixt God man but we stand not with thē in their denyall of the secondarie mediators or intercessors which are his seruants frends We stand with them in that Christ is head Monarch of the whole Church triumphant militant but we stand not with them in their denyall of the visible Vicarious head the Pope or cheefe pastour of the visible Church in earth subordinate subiet to Christ in the gouernement of the same We will not refuse to stand with them in that they graunt that S. Peter had a Primacie of Order but we stand not with then in that they denie his Primacie of power Iurisdiction We stand with them in that they teach there are 22. bookes of Canonicall scripture but we stand not with them in the refusall of the booke of Tobie Iudith two first bookes of Machabees the booke of wisdome Esdras Baruch the Prophet We stand with thē in that they affirme the scripture is the rule of faith But we stand not with them in their denyall of diuine traditiōs not properly added to the scriptures but commended by them included in them in a general manner We stand with them in that they say there are twelue articles of the Creed But we stand not with them in their denyall of the rest of the doctrine defined in generall Councells as neither doe we ioyne with them in the defence of all the 39. Articles of the English faith or Creed And so now by these particulars the iudicious reader may euidentlie perceiue that by reason the Romanists agree with the knight onelie in some parte or partiall of his doctrine he could not possible proue by their confessions the greater safetie of his way as both in the title of this his last section also in the title of his whole booke he did propose Nay he is so farre from the proofe of this that he hath most apparentlie fayled in the proofe of the verie argument of his whole worke which to the end it may more plainelie appeare I will reduce to this Sylogisme That faith is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith which is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther But the faith now professed in the Church of England is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther Therefore the faith now professed in the Church of England is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith Now there being contained in the minor of this Sylogisme the whole argument purpose drift of Sir Humfreys whole booke yet neuerthelesse it hauing ben by mee in this my censure demonstrated not to haue ben proued and made good by anie argument by him produced all he produceth to that purpose being voyde of force as by the discussion of the particulars of euerie section the reader may easilie vnderstand it followeth by a necessarie sequele that his way can not be safe but is to be auoyded with most great care circumspection