thē if two should argue the one that the colour of the sea water is greene and the other blewe that some ignorant Cockes-come should step in and tell them that it followes on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all Which who so euer should presume to doe he deserued to be soundlie hist at for his audacious follie so doth Sir Humfrey And as for Biell whome the knight cites saying it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament he hath indeed those wordes which are quoted by him tho' not in his 49. as he puts it but in his 40. lection vpon the Canon but yet this his saying is not contrarie to the Romanists who easilie admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christs bodie in the Eucharist is neither expressedlie declared in the Scripture nor yet in all ages and by all authours expressedlie tought in the Church as matter of faith neuerthelesse this authour himselfe in the same place addes in plaine wordes that now that opinion which defendes transubstantiation is receiued by all Catholikes yealding for a reason of the same because saith he we ought to hould of the Sacraments as the holie Roman Church doth hould And afterwards he addes Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holie Fathers we ought to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is in the Sacrament by conuersion of the bread into it we are to fee c. And the like I say of Scotus Yribarne his Scholar who altho' they seeme to diminish the antiquitie of transubstantiation yet their meaning onelie is that it was not in auncient times declaredlie proposed by Publike authoritie of the Church as an article of faith yet both of them expresselie beleeuing and defending the same professedlie as a matter of faith And by occasion of this I desire the reader to take notice that whensoeuer he findes anie Catholike authours to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time their meaning is not that the obiect in it selfe was no matter of faith in anie one time since it was first reueiled by God either expresselie in it selfe or as included in some other veritie but onelie that it was not expresselie and generallie knowne and beleeued for such by all faithfull people by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publikelie vnto them by the Church in anie Generall Councell For that as much as concernes the doctrine in itselfe it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church then it was euen before it was so defined as may appeare in the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his eternall Father in the vnitie of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like which in them selues were reueiled verites and matter of faith euer since the newe Testament and the lawe of Christ was published to the world not obstanding they were not declaredlie and vniuersallie knowne for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene Ephesin Chalcedon Councels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian Nestorian Euthycian heretikes And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this breefe obseruation may suffice to satisfie anie indifferent mynde Nowe as I said of Scotus and Yribarne the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez in his comment vpon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it vpon the first art Of the 15. quest he saith transubstantiation which ther he calles conuersion is not in the Euangell expresselie conuersio non habetur explicitein Euangelio and before he saith we expresselie receiued from the Church that which the Gospell did not explicate Yet afterwardes the same authour expresselie teaches and inculcates that those wordes this is my bodie cause both the reall presence and transubstantiation For thus addes Et perhoc verbae Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scrilicet conuersionis continentiae c. That is And by this because the wordes of Christ this is my bodie doe effect both nouelties videlicet of the conuersion and the containing By which wordes it is manifest what this authours meaning was absolutelie touching the reall presence transubstantiation howsoeuer he spoake of the manner in which it is cōtained in scripture which is not our questiō And in this sense speakes Aliaco when he saith in the place cited by our aduersarie that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remaine still a possible neither it is contrarie to reason nor to the authority of the scriptures c. For he meaneth onely it is not repugnant to anie such expresse scripture as doth conuince the transsubstantiatton plainely to euerie one without the authoritie and declaration of the Church and therfore he addeth if it could stand with the determination of the Church in which Aliaco showes such obedience to the Church as Sir Humfrey and his fellowes obstinately denie vnto her most piously captiuating his vnderstanding euen in that which he held more easie and conformable to reason and scripture according to humaine intelligence and discourse More euer touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl cap. 10. His intent in that place was onely to proue that meerly by the bare wordes of scripture without the traditionarie interpretation of the Fathers no certaintie can be had in questions of controuersie or matters of faith And to proue this which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humfrey and the rest of our nouelists he argueth exhiposthesi or vpon supposition saying that not obstanding it is true and certaine that our Sauiour by vertue of those wordes this is my bodie did make his owne bodie really present in the Sacrament yet if one were obstinate standing preciselie to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers and sense of the Church he might denie that it doth thence followe that in our Masse Prests make really present the bodie of Christ Not meaning to affirme that they doe not in deed for that the rest of his booke doth demonstate him to beleeue the reall presence in Masse especially the fourth chapter but onely intending to declare by examples and reasons that it can not be conuinced that Catholike Prests doe so by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctours of the Church and her infallible authoritie And now this being the true sense of B. Fishers discourse Sir Humfrey verie coningly by leauing out the precedent and subsequent wordes of the authour so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse And that this is the true
I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authours true sense in which I was forced to inlarge my selfe more then the substance of the matter required the more plainelie to discouer vnto him the fraude of the aduerfarie both in detorting the sense and mangling the tenor or continuation of the text of this most Catholike and renowned Prelate Moreouer Sir Hūfrey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par q. 75. ar 7. as also the Romā Cathecisme at randome as affirming that the substance of the bread remaines till the last worde of the consecration be vttered But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long souer the substance of the bread remaines if at lenght it ceaseth as they both confesse they both agree with vs Romanists and not with the nouellists in the faith of transsubstantiation so professedly that it was more then ordinarie impudencie and madnes once to mentione them for the contrarie Now for cōclusion of the secōd paragraffe of his 9. section Sir Humfrey affirmes in his 115. p. out of Bell and suauez that manie writers in our Roman Church professe the tenet of transsubstantiatien was lately receiued for a point of faith Which affirmation neuerthelesse is not iustifiable but false and calumnious to the authours he cyteth for it videlicet Scotus Durand Tunstal Ostiensis and Gaufridus Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce supposing Erasmus whome he likewise alledgeth is no Romanist in much of his doctrine in what faith soeuer he ended his life of which I am not able to iudge yet none of these Romanists I say euer affirmed the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be no point of faith as I haue aboue sufficiently declared in my answer to euerie one of their testimonies in particular And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alledged by our aduersarie as affirming Scotus to haue said that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not dogmafidei a decree of faith before the Councell of Lateran the other as aduising to haue him and those other schoolemen corrected who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not verie auncient I professe I haue diligentlie read Scotus in this matter and I sinde he onelie saith that what soeuer is auerred to be beleeued in the Councel of the Lateran capite firmiter is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemne declaration yet he in no place hath this negatiue transsubstantiation was not a point of faith before that Councel not obstanding our aduersaries allegation to the contrarie out of the Cardinal who if he conceiued right of his whole discourse could not iudge Scotus to haue absolutelie denyed transubstantiation to haue beene a point of faith in it selfe as Sir Humfrey will haue it but at the most quoad nos or in respect of our expresse and publike faith of the same For that some of Scotus his owne wordes plainelie importe that trāssubstantiatiō is included in the institution of the Eucharist howe be it it was not explicitly or expresselie declared for such in all ages before the solemne declaration as he termeth it made in the Generall Councel of Lateran The wordes of Scotus to this sense and purpose are these Scot. d. 11. q. 3. ad ar Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis That is For it was not in the power of the Church to make this the point of transsubstantiation true or not true but of God the institutour And according to the vnderstanding deliuered by God the Church did explicate it directed as it is beleeued by the spirit of trueth By which ratiocination or discourse of Scotus it is most cleare and apparent that the point of transsubstantiation was in it selfe a matter of faith euer since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ in regarde that it being now a point of faith it must of necessitie in substance haue beene ordained for such by God himselfe for that it is not in the power of the Church to make but onelie to declare and propose to beleeuers the articles of Religion And according to this I say that suarez sauing the due respect I owe vnto them both had yet lesse reason then Bellarmin had concerning Scotus to taxe the same Scotus and some other diuines as if they had tought that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is not verie auncient For neyther Scotus as his wordes which I haue related doe testifie nor anie other approued diuine of the Roman Church doe vse anie such manner of speech or at the least haue no such sense in their wordes as euen by all those their seuerall passages which our aduersarie could alledge doth manifestlie appeare How be it some of them haue not omitted to say that the worde transsubstantiation hath not beene auncientlie vsed in the Church but eyther inuented by the Fathers of the Lateran Councel or not long before or at the most that there haue beene some in the world of a contrarie opinion to the trueth of transsubstantiation in itselfe which altho' we Romanists should graunt to be true yet doth it not argue anie noueltie in the doctrine but rather the nouellitie of some fewe extrauagant wits as heretiks or corrigible Catholikes in opposing the same which otherwise was generallie maintained by the rest of the Orthodox diuines in all succeeding ages the antiquitie of which doctrine euen those same authorities which the same Scotus himselfe professeth to be produced by him out of S. Ambrose Scot. d. 11. quest 3. §. quāt ergo to the number of 11. doe euidentlie conuince yet further adding that manie others are alledged cap. de consecrat and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better haue spared to passe their censures in that manner vpon anie Catholike diuines supposing such reprehensions serue for little or no other vse then to aforde our aduersaries the nouelists newe occasion and matter of contention without eyther necessitie or conueniencie of which the present fact of Sir Humfrey lind euen in this place doth alreadie yealde vs some experience In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might haue saued the labour for that the Romanists hould him absolutely for none of theirs as in like manner neither doe they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which neuertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though onely by waye of omission howbeit in this particular Erasmus onely affirmeth that it was late before the Church definde it which is not contrarie to the certainetie of the doctrine in it selfe but onely a superficiall relation of the time when it was declared expressely for a matter of faith or infalible trueth in
therfore the Church of Rome hath ouerthrowne in one tenet all certaintie of true faith I ansere first that altho' this is the forme which Sir Hūfreys argument must be reduced vnto if anie it cā haue neuerthelesse if we should examen it according to the rules of logique ther will scarcely be founde either forme or figure in it yet least the knight should hould himselfe too rigorously delt with as not making profession of that arte I am content to let that passe and answere secondly that I graunt the maior in this sense viz. That whensoeuer the Preist doth administer a Sacrament it is required that he intends at the least in generall to doe that which the true Church vseth to doe in that action I meane either formally or virtually this is defined by the Councell of Trent as a certaine trueth But in the minor there lyeth secretly a certaine false supposition which is this That to the faith of a Sacramēt is necessarilie required that the intention of the minister in particular cases be knowne by faith which is not true nor defined by the Councell because to the faith of a Sacrament is sufficient that faith by which a Christian beleeueth that euery one of those visible signes which the Church proposeth to the people to be beleeued receiued as Sacraments of the new lawe are instituted by Christ to conferre grace to the receiuers that to euery one of them is required a sincere intention to administer or performe that particular action as is was instituted or as the Tridentine decreeth intentione saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia that is at the least with intention to hoe that which the Church doth that seriously not in mockrie but notwithstanding it is not necessary that either he that performeth that ceremonie or he that receiues the same haue certaine knowledge of faith that this or that indiuidual Sacramēt hath ben instituted with the forsaid intention but to this a morall certaintie doth suffice both in the minister in the receiuer the reason is because to know whether one hath receiued or doth truely receiue a Sacrament or not falleth not vpon the essence or making or marring of a Sacrament as a thing necessarily precedent vnto the constitution of it but it is onely a thing consequent or following the same as seruing onely to rectify quiete the consciences of those that either administer it or receiue it to the which as being but a morall matter morall certainty onely is required And surely if all true faith should therefore be ouerthrowne as Sir Humfrey infereth because of wāt of certainty of faith in the receiuers that they receiue true Sacraments euerie time they reciue thē then should it followe by an argument ad hominem that the faith of the reformers were also ouerthrowne for that they themselues neither haue nor can haue any such certaintie of faith or if they say ther is no faith of any such intention of the minister in their religion so doe we say the same of ours for altho' it is a matter of faith in the Roman Church that the intention of the Preist is necessary in generall to the constitution of a Sacrament yet that intention is not necessarily knowne by faith in euerie particular case in this consisteth the equiuocation of the whole argument if the knight had distinguished between the intention the faith of the intention he might easilie haue perceiued that his discourse was founded vpon a false foundation To say nothing of the conclusion which although the premises were neuer so true yet had they not ben able to inferre such à vast consequence as is the ouerthrowe of all certaintie of true faith precisely in respect of the supposed want of faith of intention aboute the Sacraments And now by this generall ansere may be solued what soeuer Sir Humfrey saith afterwardes of the intention required to the Sacraments in particular To which I alson adde that if certaintie of faith were required in the receiuers of the Sacraments that as often as they receiue them the receiue true Sacraments hic nunc that as often as they want that faith they ouerthrow all certaintie of true faith then the reformers themselues were in a more pitifull case then the Romanists in regarde that it is vnpossible for them to knowne more then either by their owne seight or by relation of others that the true matter forme of the Sacraments be truelie applyed vnto them yet certaine it is that vpon neither of these two knowledges anie supernaturall faith can be founded but onely either a kynde of naturall cognitiō or knowledge at the most taken from the senses or a certaine morall certitude proceeding from the relation of their parents or others all which is farre inferior to the knowledge of faith as no man can denie That which may by a speciall reason be yet more plainelie vrged against the receiuers of the Sacraments in the reformed Churches in regarde they are so farre from certaintie of faith of the trueth of their Sacraments in particular that they cannot possible haue as much as a morall certaintie of the same nay nor morall probabilitie I meane such an one as may iustlie moue a prudent man to giue credit by reason they haue no certaintie nor yet probabilitie of the trueth of the vocation ordination of their ministers without certaintie of which two conditions it is well knowne on both sides that no certaine knowledge of the truth of indiuiduall Sacraments can possiblie he had And so we see that whereas Sir Humfrey thought he had framed a stong argument against the doctrine of Bellarmin he onelie heapeth coles vpon his owne head And from hence also we may gather an easie solution to that which he addeth against the necessitie of the Preists intention in some of the Sacraments which he specifieth as baptisme Order Matrimonie Touching which matter I desire the iudicious reader consider whether it is not much more conformable to reason to the dignity of the Sacraments to the honour of Christ who instituted them to the confort securitie of the receiuers that a sincere intention of the Preist Gods substitute be required to the truth due administration of them as the Roman Church doth teach ordaine or onely so that if the receiuers take them in the name of God as the reformers speake it is sufficient for the minister to performe that externall actiō which Christ did institude tho' he doeth it in iest or morkery as Luther teacheth or animo illusorio that is with an intention or meaning to delude as kemnitius affirmeth or to haue no intention necessarily required as Sir Humfrey here professeth this I say I leaue to the iudgement of any indifferent man to discerne whether the Romanists or the reformers proceed more safely religiously And as for the illations which the knight deduceth out of the necessity of the
his mynde lesse clearcly in one place occasion yet did he amēd the same in another more exact worke of his owne hand industrie of his owne accorde how be it althou ' our aduersarie takes him at the greatest aduantage he can yet reightly vnlierstanded alledged he doth not a iot aduantage his cause In his citation of the Rhemes Testament in the annotation vpon the 6. of the Epistle the Hebrewes v. 16. the knight relateth wordes in which the author of the notes affirmes that God should be iniust if he rēdered not heauen for meritorious workes But to make the matter more odious he craftely omittes the wordes of S. Hierome there cited for proofe of the same lib. 2. contra Iouinianum cap. 2. saying that in deed great were Gods iniustice if he would onely punish sinnes and would not receiue good workes And if that cōditionall of the Rhemists be not iustifyable then may our aduersarie more iustely taxe S. Augustin who lib. de nat and Grat cap. 2. And lib. 4. contra Iulianum cap. 3. gaue then examples of that forme of speech Saying in the first place non est iniustus Deus qui instos fraudet mercede iustitiae and in the second per quod vera iustitia per hoc regnum Dei Deus namque ipse quod absit erit iniustus si ad eius regnum non admittitur iustus Wherfore except Sir Humfrey will ioyne in his accusation those two renound ancient Fathers he can not in reason accuse those learned doctors Althou I conceiue it may seeme vnseasonable to my present purpose distinctly to treate of anie matter of doctrine in this place and occasion yet in regarde I haue lately reflected that Sir Humfrey professes him selfe an enimie to implicit or vnexpressed faith therfore I esteemed conuenient for the accomplishing of my worke to insert a compendious discourse touching that point And to come to the purpose I can not conceiue or inuente anie other motiue in our aduersaries for their soe obstinate denyall of vnexpressed faith except it is because euerie one of them confidently presumes to knowe the expresse contents of Scriptures as well as him who made them yet on the contrarie I am assuredly persuaded that in reallitie a verie great parte if not all their congregatiō inioyes not this great extrauagant priuilege what soeuer they imagin or conceiue of them selues For altho' it is true that the illuminate brothers generally vse to brag they are docibiles Dei and admit noe other schoolemaster in this matter then God almightie him selfe yet is it certainely knowne that some of them be soe ignorant that they knowe not as much as their Abcedarie or Christ crosse rowe And now of these whoe can not read the Bible I question our aduersaries thus either these ignorants beleeue althings cōtained in the whole scripture or no If they doe not then they ar heretikes for refusing to beleeue the whole worde of God If they doe beleeue all and euerie particular contained in the Scripture then necessarily they must haue an implicit faith in regarde manie particular truethes be there included which they can not possibly knowe by reason they can neither haue them selues nor receiue a perfect knowlege from anie other of euerie seuerall trueth therin contained and consequently if anie faith they haue of those particular verities contained in the Scripture which they knowe not it is onely an implicit vnexpressed or implied faith supposing this consists in nothing esse but a generall faith euen of those particulars of which the beleeuers haue no expresse knowledge except onely in a certaine cōfuse or generall manner or as they ar contained in other generall propositions or matters which expressely and seuelally they know to be reueiled in the worde of God and of which they haue an explicit expresse or disinuolued faith For as he who eypressely graunteth or assents to anie general Principle or proposition for example that all Angels ar incorporall or without bodies or that all men ar reasonable creatures doth by necessarie consequens assent implicitly to all the particulars there included viz that S. Michael S. Gabriel and euerie other particular Angel is incorporal and that S. Peter and Paule and euerie other particular man is a reasonable creature altho' he neuer had anie particular knowledge of them Soe in the verie same manner those whoe with an expresse act of faith beleeue al the Church proposeth vnto them in that kynde or all the scripture conteines doe likewise necessarily beleeue with an implicit or tacit faith euerie seuerall matter included in those general tearmes And this kynde of implicit faith our aduersaries must either graunt or else necessarily confesse that euerie Mecanike hath as much knowlege in the Scripture as the most learned Minister and euerie sheep as much as his pastor which neuerthelesse euerie rude rustick is able to iudge for most absurde and voyde of trueth Soe thus we see that of the denyal of an implicit faith eyther the ignorant and vnlearned sorte of people in the pretensiue reformed Churches knowe as much in the Scripture as their greatest doctors or that they ar plaine heretikes because they beleeue no more in the Bible but that onely which they expressely knowe And the same I say with proportion euen of the learned sorte them selues in regade they seldome or neuer ar soe conuersant in Scriptures that they explessely knowe euerie seueral proposition or particular truth conteined in the text and consequētly euen they who ar the greatest Rabbies in their reformed flock haue no explicit or expresse faith consisting in an assent to all they expressely knowe in the text of scripture but they must as well as theire brothers be content with an implicit faith of those particulars they expressely knowe not or else they ar to be accounted heretikes for not beleeuing them as I said before of the ruder sorte In respect of both which sortes of people I meane both the learned and vnlearned beleeuers in the pretensiue reformed Churches this same argumēt may yet farther be vrged euen according to their owne receiued doctrine by which they cōfesse they haue not all their faith expressely in the scriptures but parte of it drawne by their owne consequences or deductions from the text of scripture of all which illations or inferences of theirs it is manifest they could not possible haue anie other faith of them then implicit or vnexpressed before they made them in regare that those supposed verities or truethes which they soe deduce were not otherwise contained in the text or deliuered to the Church then in that inclusiue or hidden manner as it most apparent in regarde that if otherwise they had ben contained in the scripture that is clearely or expressely then no illation or deduction had ben necessarie for beleeuers for the bnowledge and establishing of their faith in those particulars as both natural reason and euen common sense conuince and consequently either the pretensiue reformers
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-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
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
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
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
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
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
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
in the Gospell but in the Epistle what would Sir Humfrey replie to that But in earnest I haue vewed Bessarions treatie of the Eucharist where I finde that altho' he makes no plaine mention of the seuen Sacraments as not hauing anie iuste occasion there offered to handle that matter yet out of some passages of his discourse with other circumstāces there vnto annexed it is euidentlie gathered what his meaning and faith was touching the same For in the place cited by the knight and ther aboutes Cardinall Bessarion treates particularlie of the forme of the Sacrament of Eucharist prouing that it consists of no other wordes then those same which our Sauiour himselfe consecrated with and deliuered to the Church videlicet This is my bodie This is my bloud And by occasion of this he mentioneth Baptisme as being one of the two Sacraments which onelie haue their formes expresselie and in speciall termes contained in the Gospell and specified by Christ himselfe And therefore a little before that which Sir Humfrey cited out of this authour he saide Illud quoque haud contemnendum videtur quod cum duo nobis Sacramenta à Saluatore traditae fuerint Baptismus Eucharistia vtrumque verbis suis confici iussit By which wordes it is certaine cleare that he there speakes onelie of such Sacraments as our Sauiour most verbally or most expresselie ordained his disciples to consecrate and administer And now that this Cardinall did beleeue that there are more Sacraments then these it is euidentlie conuinced out of those his wordes fol. 169. saying Ante omniaigitur sciendum est tam hoc Sacrosanctum Communionis de quo agimus quam caetera Ecclesiae Sacramenta ideo sacra vocitari quoniam aliud in se habent quod videtur aliud quod non corporis oculis sed solo intellectu comprehenditur And after in the same page Etenim in Sacramento Baptismatis ablutio carnis per aquam ita est Sacrementum vt duntaxat signum sit ablutionis peccatorum Ipsa enim peccatorum remissio res est significata nihil vltra significans And to these wordes he presentlie addes that which is plainelie to our purpose to wit Hoc idem in reliquis Sacramētis Ergo in Sacramento Eucharistia And yet more plainelie f. 175. Quēadmodum in caeteris omnibus ita etiam in hoc Sacramento concordes sunt Occidenibus Orientales That is Euen as in all the rest so in this Sacrament the Occidentals that is the Romanists doe accorde with the Orientals that is the Grecians Besides this authour was a Greek Cardinall of the Roman Church and a cheefe agent and promoter for the vnion of the Latin and Greek Church in the Councell of Florence where the number of seuen Sacraments was defined and declared To omit that the same Bessarion fol. 181. makes expresse mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation for so he saith Quod manifestum fiet si quis ad Sacramentum Chrysmatis mentem conuerterit So that Sir Humfrey could scarce a chosen a worse Patron for proofe of his pare of deformed Sacraments then is this Cardinall if he had sought all Greece ouer it being manifest that he was a professed defender not onelie of the two Sacraments he mentioneth in the place cited by him but also a firme beleeuer of the other fiue which the pretended reformers renounce thrust violentlie out of the rancke of true Sacraments It is true I haue aduertised some smale sleight of Sir Humfrey in translating or transforming the worde manifeste in Latin into the worde plainelie in English but this but one of his diminutiue trickes and so I passe it ouer Onelie I desire the indifferent reader to reflect how peruers and incredulous a generation this is which refuseth to beleeue points of doctrine because they are not manifestelie contained in the scripture Whereas on the contrarie this most learned and Catholike Cardinall Bessarion altho' he graunted that two onelie Sacraments of the Church are so expressed in the written worde of God yet doth he with a firme and constant faith imbrace the rest S. Aug. is impertinētlie cited both in his third booke of Christian doctrine c. 9. and also de simbolo ad Cathecu l. 2. c. 6. in regarde that in neither of the places he speakes of two onely Sacramēts as his wordes cited by Sir Humfrey himselfe doe manifest Nay in the latter place he speakes not at all of proper Sacraments as his wordes following faithleslie omitted by our aduersarie doe declare for thus S. Austin finisheth his sentence Aqua in qua est sponsa purificata sanguis in quo inuenitur esse dotata That is water in which the spouse is purified and bloud in which she is founde to be endowed in which passage no mention is made of anie of the seuen Sacraments as the reader may plainelie perceiue Of S. Cypriā I saie the same I saide of S. Ambrose Austin the rest Vid. lib. de operib Card. sub nom Cyp. And yet more I know Sir Hūfrey will be loath to graūt fiue Sacramēts as S. Cyprian doth altho' we should giue him leaue to put the lotion of feet for one as S. Ambrose did put it for an vnproper Sacrament Dominicus à toto cited out of Bellarmin cap. 4. de Sacramento Ordinis doubteth not of Order in generall but he onelie makes a question of Episcopall Order in particular whether it be trulie a Sacrament and so he is ignorantlie and impertinentlie here alledged with abuse both of him and the reader As in like manner Suarez or rather Hugo Lombard Bonauenture Hales and Altisiodor Of whome altho' Suarez Tom. 4. de Sacramento Extremae Vnctionis affirmes that they were of opinion that Extreme Vnction was not instituted by Christ but by S. Iames from whence suarez saith id plainelie followes not to be a true Sacrament yet suarez himselfe addes which Sir Humfrey fraudulentlie left out that those authours denied the consequence By which it is manifest that those diuines absolutelie beleeued Extreme Vnction for one of the seuen Sacraments not obstanding their material errour aboute the institution of it which errour being impertinent to this present question of the septenarie number of Sacraments their testimonie was impertinentlie alledged and proueth nothing to our aduersaries purpose S. Bonauēture also is abused by the knight p. 165. where out of Chamier he carps him saying that for wante of better proofes he was prodigall of his conceiptes in honour of the septenarie number of Sacraments But here I finde greater prodigalitie in the dishoneste proceeding of Sir Humfrey and his master minister chamier in their iniuste taxeing of Bonauenture then I finde wante of proofes in that authour for if either Chamier or the knight had beene disposed they might haue found warrantable allegations in him out of scripture for the probation of euerie Sacrament in particular as his seuerall questions vpon them doe testifie But these men being much more disposed to cauille then to
Wherfore qui legit intelligat he that shall read Bellarmine in the place cited by the knight that is de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Will easilie preceiue him to be so farre frome the confessing all sufficiency of scripture in that sense in which the reformers take it that the verie title of his booke which is of the vnwritten worde doth manifestlie conuince the contrarie And as for the wordes which Sir Humfrey cited altho' we take them in that mangled manner in which he hath rehearsed them yet if they had ben reight vnderstood by him I ame persuaded he could haue founde no iuste coulor to produce them in fauour of himselfe For that it is manifest by those two limitations necessarie for all men preached generally to all men that the Cardinalls meaning could not be that absolutelie all things which are necessarie for euerie person or state of persons in particular or as the logitians speake necessarie either pro singulis generum or pro generibus singulorum are written in the scriptures but onely Bellarmin meant that altho' all those things are written which all men both in generall in particular must necessarilie knowe haue for the obteining of saluation yet that there are some other things necessarie to some particular persons or to some particular states of persons included in that generall number of all men which are not written as namelie aboute the Gouernment of the Church administration of the Sacraments in particular the Baptizme of children the rites of the same that the beptizme of Heretikes is valid All which Bellarmin doth so plainelie specify that it is imposible for him that reades vnderstands him to doubt of this his meaning And yet not vnlike to this doth Sir Humfrey proceed with the same Bellarmin whome he citeth to the same purpose in his first booke of the worde of God wher out of these his wordes the scripture is a most certaine most safe rule of beleeuing the kinght concludeth that it is a safer way to rely wholely vpon the worde of God which can not erre then vpon the Pope or Church which is the authoritie of man sayth hee may erre Which conclusion neuerthelesse is most false captious as well in regarde that according to Sir Humfreys owne confession Bellarmin houldeth the scripture to be but a partiall rule of faith â—age 258. as also cheeflie because when Bellarmin calleth the scripture a most certaine most safe rule he doth not exclude the authoritie of the Church or diuine tradition but expresselie includeth them both as the other parte of the totall rule of faith which scripture also so onelie not otherwise he calleth with great reason regula credendi certissima tutissima knowing neuerthelesse on the contrarie supposing for certaine that with out the authoritie of the Church traditions the scripture can neither be knowne to be true Scripture not in what sense it is to be vnderstood consequentlie as Sir Humfrey taketh it it is not either an all sufficient certaine or safe rule by an other consequence it can much lesse be imagined to be a safer way to relie wholelie vpon the written worde as the reformers doe then to rely vpon both the scriptures the authoritie of the Church diuine traditions as doe the Romanists taking God for their Father in the writteÌ„ worde the visible Church for their mother in the knowledge interpretation sense of the same And thus wee see by this discourse that Sir Humfrey proueth nothing but his owne dishonest dealing with Bellar. whom besides that which I haue alreadie showed he doth more then impudenlie belie in that he affirmeth him to allowe the worde of God to be but a pertiall rule of faith which Bellarmin doth not say but onelie that the scripture is a partiall rule Page 258. not denying but the worde of God in all it latitude js a totall rule of all the Christian Catholike faith but yet supposing for certaine that the scriptures are not totallie conuertible with the worde of God but that they are distinct things the one from the other as ta parte is from the whole which any man of common iudgement may easilie perceiue And if these be the trickes shifts by which Sir Humfrey meaneth to make Bellarmin a confesser of his reformed religion in steed of gaining him he will loose his owne faith credit The knight still passeth on his way tells his reader it is a safer way to adore Christ Iesus sitting on the reight hand of God the Father then to adore the Sactamentall bread which depends vpon the intentioÌ„ of the Preist But I tell him againe that the safest way of all is to adore Christ both in Heauen whersoeuer els he is And he himselfe hath tould vs his bodie blood are in the Sacrament wheâ— if wee will not be accounted infidels wee most constantlie beleeue he is And so we say with that most auncient vanerable Father Saint Cyrill of Ierusalem Hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus Math. 26. Mark Luc. 22. since that Christ himselfe affirmeth so saith of the bread this is my bodie who dareth here after to doubt of it he also confirming saying this is my bloud who can doubte say it is not his bloud And supposing this his reall presence which we Romanists trulie beleeue with auncient S. Cyrill the rest of the Fethers the safest way is to adore him in the Sacrament not as sitting at the reight hand of his Father onelie But as for you reformers as it can not be safe for you to denie Christs reall presence in the Eucharist so neither is it safe for you to refuse to adore him there where in the true Sacrament he is truelie present I knowe Sir kinght you make your comparison betweene the adoration of Christ in Heauen the adoration of the Sacramentall bread but it proceds vpon a false supposition for the Romanists adore not the bread but Christ vnder the forme of bread whose existence there doth not so much depend vpon the intention of the Preist but that sufficieÌ„t certaintie may be had of the same at the least much more then you can haue that you receiue a true Sacrament whe you take the bread at the ministers hand who if he hath no intention to doe it as Christ did when he gaue it to his disciples then may you receiue as much at your owne table as at the communion table But the trueth is that all this is nothing but captious cogging in Sir Humfrey for proofe of which he most impertinentlie produceth S. Aug. de bono pers lib. 13. cap. 6. Wher he hath not a worde to this purpose but onelie treateth there of the supernaturall actions of man saying that to the end our confession may be humble lowlie it is a
the same yet that is not truly the Iesuites challendge but that you produce some which haue professed your religion in euery point in euery age before the daies of Luther This is the charge you haue vndertaken till you haue discharged your selfe of this your honor still remaines at the stake for all your bragges your safe way is to the Romanists all other of mature iudgment but onely a by-way serueth onely for a cowardly excuse of your want of abillitie to performe your promise But now to returne to the contents of this section in particular from which I haue in some sort digressed I say it consists onely in a recapitulation of those seuerall pointes of controuersie which I haue alreadie examined in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I haue not sufficiently confuted conuinced to be of no force but all eyther false equiuocall or impertinent it is most apparent that what soeuer he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is noe conclusion nor of any more authority then his owne bare affirmations or negations consequently notobstanding the vaine knight will needes seeme to haue the victorie to haue gained his cause yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather iudge in fauour of the anserer then of the abiector especially considering how farre more easie a matter it is for any man to impugne the doctrine of another then to defend his owne Wherfore I ioyne issue with myne aduersaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath heere sett downe applying the same to the safe way by-way as he hath donne by-way of antithesis or oppositiue comparison betwixt them both in the manner followeing And firste I say The Romanists teach that not scripture onely but scripture with diuine Apostolicall traditions receaued for such by the vniuersall Church in all ages the approued generall Councells the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the onely certaine meanes safe way to saluation But Sir Humfrey with his complices teach that scripture onely interpreted otherwise them by authoritie of the most vniuersallie florishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers doctors of the same is sufficient to saluation this is a doubtfull by way Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe perfect rule of faith yet in some places obscure ambiguous as euen some of their aduersaryes confesse therfore it is not sufficient alone but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter this is a safe way to saluation but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation conference of one place with another by euerie priuate man or woman that can but reade it is a sure euident perfect rule of faith this is an vncertaine by-way Thirdly the Romanists teach that traditions appertayning to faith or manners receaued from Christe by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselues by inspiration of the holie Ghost as such conserued in the Church by continuall succession are to be imbraced reuerenced with like pious affection as the scriptures this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that onelie those traditions concerning faith manners that can be proued by scriptures of which sort they denie anie to be in the Church notobstanding sainct Paul in the scripture expresselie commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions deliuered vnto them by word of mouth or by epistle And this is an vncertaine by way Fourthly the Romanists teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures some certaine persons in the Church as professors of diuinitie some others for the auoyding of noueltie in doctrine take an oath of the same moreouer that where they finde that consent they are to receaue it as a certaine rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or inuention of other new sense or glosses this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed onelie so farre as according to their priuate spirit or iudgment they agree with scriptures which is a captious deceitfull rule of expounding them And this is an vncertaine by-way Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholike Church is a congregation or companie of people beleiuing professing the true faith of Christe vnder one cheife head our Sauiour Iesus Christe his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as cheife Pastor visible gouernour of the same vnder Christe sayeing with all that the notes whereby the true Church is knowne from all other hereticall scismaticall conuenticles are not onelie cheiflie exteriour splendour amplitude miracles as our aduersarie doth deceitfullie insinuate but principallie the name Catholike antiquitie continuall succession c. And this is a certaine safe way but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastours people with out anie certaine infallible authoritie assigning for markes of the same that which is common to all congregations euen of heretikes schismatikes according to their seuerall opinions as all euerie one of them holding they haue the true word Sacraments rightlie preached administred in their conuenticles which consequently can be no certaine markes of the true Church in particular no more then the name of a Christian in generall can be an infallible note of a true beleiuer this is an vncertaine by-way Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Councells by the Popes authoritie or approbation conuocated confirmed are not onelie of great vse in the Church But also of certaine infallible power for the determination of all doubts controuersies in religion which may arise in seuerall times occasions this is a certaine safe way But the Reformers teach that General Councells althou ' they say they be of great vse authority in the Church to determine controuersies in religion yet they hold them of vncertaine authoritie subiect to errour both in faith manners this is an vncertaine by-way Seauenthly the Romanists teach that the cheife rock angular stone vpon which the Church is built is Christe the Sauiour of the world yet they say with Christe himselfe that Peter is also in his kinde a rock vpon which he promised to build his Church this is a certaine safe way But the reformers teach that Christe alone is the onelie rock vpon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the expresse wordes of Christe in the scripture sayeing to Peter vpon this rocke will I build my Church this is a diuerticle or by-way Eightly the Romanists teach that the
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
the Osseni which I haue shewed all readie out of S. Epiphanius to haue beene of a farre different nature notwithstanding out aduersarie doth indeuoure falselie to persuade the same to his simple reader neither was this as the knight vntruelie affirmes to introduce seruice in a strange language but rather in the most knowne in the world that in which most nations agree and so this may serue to demonstrate that the Romanists deriue not this parte of their Pedagane frō auncient heretikes as our aduersarie doth calumniate but frō the practise of the most aūcient Church at the least in the west partes of the world to wit the Apostolicall Church And heare we see also that Sir Humfrey in steede of deriuing the Pedegree of the Roman faith from Iewes and heretikes he deriues his owne from the Father of lyes that is from the abuse of both scriptures and auncient Fathers of the Catholike Church In the next braunch of the Pedegree he plaplaceth transsubstantiation going about to proue that it was the doctrine or at least the practise of certaine heretikes named Helcesaitae who faigned a two fould Christ as saith Sir Humfrey the Masse Preists doe who admit one bodie with all his dimentions and properties in heauen and other in the Sacrament which hath noe properties of a true bodie Thus Sir Humfrey talkes most absurdely ignorantly and falsely Ignorantly for that according to this discourse he houldes the want of locall dimensions or properties of a bodie sufficient to cause an absolute indiuiduall sustantiall diuersitie in it and to distinguish it really from it selfe and so to make it an other distinct bodie which is so voyde of reason that if he had not bene grossely ignorant in Philosophie haue he would neuer vttered such doctrine vnworthie of other confutation them a schoole stampe or hisse He speake also falsely first in that he either affirmes or supposes Preists to admit that Christs bodie in the Sacrament is without anie properties of a true bodie For they all contrarily teach and beleeue that as Christs bodie in the Sacrament is the same which is in heauen so hath it all the same properties excepting locall extension Secondly he speakes falselie in that he Fathereth that on Preists which none of them either thought or tought and so makes them guiltie if the Helcesaits heresie onelie for that which he hath forged in his owne phantasticall braine Also abusing the authority of learned Theodoret in misaplying his words in which he vtters not anie iot or title by which it can be gathered that these heretikes meant of Christ in the Sacrament when they faigned a double Christ but of two visible Christs the one aboue I knowe not where and the other belowe in the world or I knowne not where els adding that the supernall Christ did in former times liue in manie but at being descended from aboue And more they sayde he passed into other bodies other such like fabulous stuffe they haue of Christ which neuer enterd into the cogitations of any people of learning and iudgement and therefore it is as great dotage in Sir Humfrey to impose this vpon Catholike Roman Preists as it was in the authour to inuentit as will yet more plainely appeare by the formall words of Theodoret which here I put in the margin Christum autem non vnū dicunt Helcesaitae sed hūc quidem infernè illum verò supernè eum olim in multis habitasse postremò autem descēdisse Iesum autē aliquando ex Deo esse dixit Elxai aliquādo vocat spiritū quandoque autem Virginem matrem habuisse in alijs autem scriptis ne hoc quidē Rursus autem eum etiam dicit transire in alia corpora in vnoquoque tempore diuerse ostendi Theodor. heret fab to 2. lib. 2. pag. 380. And the like absurditie Sir Humfrey commits in that which immediatly followees attributing the doctrine of transsubstantiation to one Marke an heretike because forsooth he by some kinde of inchaunting inuocation ouer the Sacramentall cuppe caused the wine to appeare like bloud which sacrilegious example and practise of Marcus what force it can haue to proue the Romanists to be of that fellowes Pedegree let any indifferent man be iudge And moreouer to take away all doubt and assure himselfe the more let the reader but consider what S. Irenaeus in the same place cited by Sir Humfrey videlicet libr. 1. cap. 9. saith of that Marcus I doubt not but he will see most clearely how egregiously our aduersarie abuseth the Romanists in this matter Marcus saith S. Irenaeus pro calice vino mixto fingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermonem inuocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit vt putetur ea gratia ab ijs qui sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare per inuocationem eius valde concupiscere presentes ex illo gustare poculo vt in illos stillet quae per magum hunc vocatur gratia By which words let the reader if he vnderstand Latin iudge how voyde of grace is he who so shamelesselie applies this to the Consecration of the Eucharist by Preists of the Roman Church And yet the preposterous knight not being content to haue spoken so irreasonably yet further addes that the authours of transsubstantiation were those disciples that beleaued the the grosse carnall eating of Christs Flesh. From whence he would deduce that the Romanists descend from the Iudaicall Capharnaits in this point But this is a most grosse and ridiculous conceipt of him to imagin that they can be successours to such as refused expressely and absolutely to beleeue that same which they hould for a matter of faith tho' not in the same grosse manner which those incredulous disciples of Christ did apprehend and as you also not like reformers but deformers out of the madnesse of your noddles grossely conceiue them to doe but in a much more spirituall manner and yet truely really and substantially and not onely in spirit as your priuate spirits would haue it Which if it were so onely it were not the true Sacrament which necessarily requires to containe really and not by faith onely that which it represēts but it were onely a meere shadowe or figure of a Sacrament as the sacrifice of Melchisedech the manna and bread of Proposition were signes and figures of the Sacrament of the holie Eucharist as not containing but onely representing the body and blōde there contained And supposing that Sir Humfrey himselfe absolutely denies the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and supposing also that as S. Iohn doth testifie the Capharnaits did also refuse to beleeue the same this fable of Sir Humfrey mutat o nomine may much more aptely and truely be verified of him and his companions I will not say then of the Romanists but euen then of the Capharnaits themselues in regarde the Capharnaites as farre as can be gathered by the
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
cites yet hath he others in the same place which doe sufficientlie declare his meaning in that manner of speech for he presentlie addes that S. Gregorie is sayde to haue graunted Indulgences they saye saith he that there was some most auncient vse of them among the Romans which the stations of the Citie giue vs to vnderstand And hence it is that the same Bishop in the same place turning his speach to Luther his aduersarie sayth vnto him wherefore thou art a meere imposter or deceiuer of the people not the Popes to whome in this point of Indulgences both the Gospell fauoreth and a generall Councell subscribes also the vniuersal companie of moderne interpreters vpon those wordes of Christ math 16. whatsoeuer you shall bynde in earth shall be bounde in heauen whatsoeuer you shall loose in earth shall be loosed in heauē thus hee So that it is plaine that Bishop Fisher neuer duobted of the power of Indulgēces or that the vse of them is not lawfull or profitable as neither doth he bring in question whether the auncient Fathers diuines did denie or not acknowledge these particulars but as I saide before he onelie treates of the antiquitie of the vse of the same as manifestlie appeares euen by the same wordes which the knight cites where he sayth that Indulgences began not till a while after the sainte or tremble of Purgatotie By which also it doth further appeare that in his passage that renowned Prelate who not onelie with his pen but also with his sacred bloud defended the Roman faith as well in this as all other points is not sincerelie dealt with nor pertinentlie alledged to the true state of the question proposed by our aduersarie Now other authours which Sir Humfrey cities onely affirme that much can not be said of Indulgences of certaintie as vndoubtedly true seeing scriptures speake not of them expresselie as Durand affirmes to which purpose also Antoninus speakes yet neither of them say that nothing can be spoken with certainetie of them Which is not contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists who altho' they beleeue there is sufficient grounde of the power truth of them in the Bible yet they willingly graunte with all that diuers particulars concerning them are disputable among diuines And it is cleare that Durand S. Antoninus as they say onely that pauca fewe things can be sayde with certainetie of pardons or Indulgences that the scripture doth not speake expressely of them so by the same reason euident it is that the same authours graunte that both some things may be pronounced certainly of them also that at the least ther is implicit vnexpressed mention or containement of them in the scripture to wit of power of the Church to graunt vse them which a lone is sufficient to shewe that they consequētly maintaine the vniuersalite antiquitie of the Roman doctrine in this point impugne the contrarie position of the false reformers who absolutelie obstinatelie denie such power to reside in the Church of God And as for that which Durand affirmes that diuers of the auncient Fathers make no mention of Indulgences yet he doth not say that it doth thence followe that they did reiect the power or vse of them in the Church much lesse doth Durand affirme that other auncient Fathers did not mention them yea if he had affirmed this yet he him selfe kewe well enuffe that this being but a negatiue argument at the most it proueth nothing But that which followes of those auncient Fathers silēce in this matter is that they had not occasion to speake of them as others had or at the most that Indulgences were not much in vse in their tymes which doth not contradict the Romanists who doe not stand vpon defense of the frequent vse of them in the Primatiue Church but of the power which they maintaine to be as auncient as the spirituall power of binding loosing giuen by Christ him selfe to the Pastors of his Church in most generall and ample manner Mat. 16. And to this I adde that which Sir Humfrey for his owne aduantage omitted in the citation of both Durand Antoninus to wit that they both alledge the testimonie of S. Gregorie for the vse actuall graunte of Indulgēces Gregorius tamen loquitur qu◠etiam Indulgentias Rom◠iustituit instationibus vt dicitur Durand id 4. sent d. 20. q. 3. which Pope say they is reported to haue instituted the Roman stations which wordes of Durand the like of S. Antoninus if the knight had rehearsed as he ought to haue done according to the lawes of plaine dealing the vse of Indulgences would haue appeared not to be so newe as he indeuores to persuade his reader Touching the citation of Caietan Sir Humfrey proceedes no lesse insincerely for in the same place which is his 15. Opuscle Ex his hābetur textibus non solum quod Indulgentiarū gratia antiqua est in Christi Ecclesia non noua inuētio sed habentur clarè quatuor c. Caiet Opusc 15. c. 1. he addes that in the fourth of the sentences it is alledged by S. Thomas that S. Gregorie did institute the stations of Indulgences producing manie other testimonies out of the Ecclesiasticall decrees he concludes thus Out of those texts it is had that the graunte of Indulgences is not onely auncient but c. Where also the reader is to be aduertised that Caietan is corrupted by Sir Humfreys translation of the worde hunc or hanc them which the author referres to the begining or certaintie of their begining not to the Indulgences themselues or power to graunte them And doubtlesse siluester Prierias had the same meaning where he sayde if so he sayde that Pardōs are not knowne vnto vs by the authoritie of the scripture but by the authoritie of the Church of Roman for the sense is that they are not expressely declared deliuered vnto vs by the text of the scripture in plaine wordes but by the Church whose office it is to propose such doctrine in particular to the faithfull as she findes not so plainely deliuered in the scripture as they themselues can without her directions come to due knowledge of it And surely this athour is so farre frome denying the Antiquitie of the power vse of perdons that he professedly defended the same against his professed aduersarie Luther And the same I saye of Eckius Tecelius who as Sir Humfrey can not be ignorant were also Luthers Antagonists euē in this particular to omit that he cites those two authors onely vpō relation of the Councel of Trents historie in English to which as I haue alreader noted we giue no credit Nay since I writ this at first I finde that Prierias Eckius Tecelius are falsely charged by the same false historie of Trent to haue layde for their grounde of Indulgēces the Popes authoritie in their impugnation
foundation vpon which the altitude of the Ecclesiastici structure ariseth And by this S. Augustins faith of S. Peters soueranitie in the gouerment of the Church most clearilie appeares so that no other peculiar opinion of his cōcerning the sense of those wordes super hanc Petram could possible preiudicate his owne constant doctrine in the substance of this matter in it selfe as neither could stapleton or anie other Catholike diuine by their taxation of him And yet neither did S. Augustin in deed reproue the common opinion of diuines in expounding that place of S. Mathewe of the person of S. Peter but expresselie remittes the choyse of the one or the other to the iudgement or affection of the reader as is manifest by his owne wordes vpon this same subiect in his retractions concluding his discourse aboute the two seuerall opinions in this manner Lib. 1. retract c. 21. Harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector Of these two opinions let the reader make choise of which is more probable And so this allegation is nothing to the purpose of Sir Humfreys malitious indeuors in prouing the euident testimonies of ancient Fathers to be eluded by Romanists as being neither anie euident testimonie in it selfe as I haue declared nor yet within the sphere of faith or including the point of controuersie in the matter proposed by our aduersarie in this passage as he falselie supposeth out of which compasse euerie one may lawfullie abounde in his owne sense as well the Fathers in the deliuerie of their priuate opinions as also the moderne diuines in passing their censures of the same as occasion serues So it be performed with discretion modestie as here it was by learned Stapleton as his wordes doe shewe And besides this altho' we should admitte the foresayd wordes of the Euangelist may diuerselie be expounded either of our Sauiour or of sainct Peter or both neuerthelesse the Popes supremacie cannot suffer therby anie preiudice as being sufficientlie established both by other wordes of the same passage by other places of scripture particularlie by that of S. Iohn 21. pasce oues meas c. Feede my sheepe Which wordes are so forcible for the proofe of saint Peters supreme authoritie ouer all Christs flocke that they alone with the circumstances of the text were sufficient to conuicte anie reasonable persons iudgement Thirdlie concerning the communion of the Cup he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying in his answere to the wordes of S. Ignatius one cup is distributed to all that in the latin bookes is not founde distributed to all but for all But first I say that why should Bellarmin be produced for an eluder of the Fathers recordes for telling the trueth or for reporting that which he did see with his eyes perhaps without spectacles And if it be founde by eye witnesses to be otherwise in the Latin copies then in the Greeke as truelie it is as also it is founde that the Greeke copies are not sound in diuers other particulars in which they are discouered not to agree with the citations of S. Athanasius Theodoret What sinne did Bellarmin commit in vttering the same But howsoeuer it bee good Sir Humfrey doth Bellarmin relie onelie vpon that anser nay doth he not giue two other more cheefe ansers then that both which you dissemble And yet more then this you haue shamefullie corrupted that one ansere which you cite For Bellarmin sayth not that S. Ignatius hath the wordes distributed for all but one chalis of the whole Church vnus calix totius Ecclesiae meaning that there is one common chalice because it is offered to God for all Nay besides this Bellarmin yet further addeth that the Magdeburgers read those wordes of S. Ignatius as the Romanists doe of which also craftie Sir Humfrey taketh no notice so that the reader may see that Bellarmin is here diuerslie abused by the false knight yet is he no more guiltie of eluding of the Fathers recordes in this particular then the foresayd Lutherans them selues that is nothing at all Fourthlie he taxeth Sixtus Senensis for saying he suspecteth Origen to haue ben corrupted by the heretikes where he sayth Thus much be spoken of the typicall symbolicall bodie But what if Senensis vtter his opinion in that manner of that place of Origen For doth not eyther he or at the least a number of other diuines giue other solid ansers to the same as may be seene in Bellarmin others As that it is not certaine that workes is trulie Origens that those wordes are not spoaken of the Eucharist but of the bread of the Cathecumes which we commonlie call holie bread that Origen tearmes the bodie of Christ Sybolical Typical because it is present in the Sacrament as a type or signe of the same bodie of Christ as it is vnited to the diuine worde in the mysterie of the Incarnation in a visible māner For in that place Origen compares the bodie of Christ as it is in the Sacrament with the same as it is in it proper existence And so in like manner sanders and Baronius for diuers reasons hould the wordes cited by Caluin out of the epistle of Epiphanius to Iohn of Hierusalem touching the cutting of a vayle with an image of Christ or some other man which he founde at the entrance of a Church for suppositious as being added after the whole epistle was ended And yet notobstanding they relie not intirelie vpon this answere but yeald others also which supposing the foresayd addition were truelie the wordes of that holie Father yet those same authors abundantly cleare the difficultie declare the trueth of his meaning in the controuersie of honour of images As also doth Valentia aboute the wordes of Theodoret touching transsubstantiation who sayth that the substance of bread wine ceased not in the Sacrament To which both Valentia other diuines notobstanding they kewe by that which passed in the Councell of Ephesus Theodoretus authoritie not to be great or at the least not to be so great as that hee alone could or ought to preponderate the rest of the Fathers Vid. Greg. de Val. l. 2. de transub c. 7. Suarez de Eucha D. 46. sec 4. I haue giuen other solide answeres to his wordes besides this which is related by the knight as that he calleth the accidents of the Eucharist by the name of the substāce of bread wine attributing to the naturall properties of nature or substance the name of nature or substance it selfe as both the scriptures other Fathers in the like occasions vse to doe Gelas ep particularlie Gelasius whome the reformers vse to cite against the trueth of transsubstantiation he onelie taking the worde substance which is ambiguous signifieth both the interior substance itselfe the externall signes of the same for the second not for the first all which may be easilie perceiued by him who shall read
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
S. Cyrill with all his fellow Bishops assembled in Ephesus what Greece with them what Egipt and what S. Hierome him self whoe published the liues of the holye Fathers in latin And therfore not obstanding some erre in this by ignorance neuerthebesse as yet ther is none that openly contradictes that which the whole world doth beleeue confesse Thus Pascasius a learned and venerable and virtuous Abbat testifyeth the faith of the vniuersall Church in his dayes touching the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Whoe altho' he was not English nor liued iuste in the tyme of Alfric yet he liued within the compasse of the same age in which Alfric was Bishop of wilton and Archbishop of Canterburie that is the yeare 900. yea it may be Pascasius was yet aliue whē Alfric was Abbat and consequently when he is supposed by our aduersaries to haue writ those epistles which they produce in his name concerning this matter Soe that by this testimonie of Pascasius a forcible argument is made that the contrarie doctrine of the reall presence cauld not possible haue ben soe publick and common in anie parte of the Christian world in soe shorte a space of tyme as passed if anie passed betwixt Pascasius and the writing of the homilie and Epistles attributed to Alfric if he did euer write them And how beit is may appeare by the writings of Pascasius that ther were some in or aboute his tyme whoe argued writ in an vnacustomed and new manner touching the doctrine of the presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament as particularly Ioannes Scotus Bertrame and Frudegarde yet as much as I can perceiue by reading Pascasius Fulbertus Stephanus Eduēsis others whoe writ of this matter the broachers of this question did neuer absolutely auerre and maintaine anie assertion directly repugnant to the true and reall existence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely made a schoole question of it arguing the matter pro and contra and that not determinately of the reall presence but whether the same bodie bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie was crucifyed vpon the Crosse was contained vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament not rather some other kynd of Christs bodie and bloud yet truely his and truely present in the Eucharist thou in a figuratiue and tropicall manner And that neither the named authors nor anie other in or aboute Pascasius tyme did plainely or of set purpose impugne the reall presence it plainely appeares by his wordes aboue cited affirming that not obstanding some erred by ignorance yet that none did openly contradict that which the whole world did beleeue and confesse That which is yet further confirmed for we read not that either Scotus Frudegard or Bertrame were euer condemned by the Church in their persons in anie Councell or otherwise which is an euidēt signe they were not obstinate in defence of their opinions but onely deliuered their doubts by way of proposition as at the least in Frudegard in particular doth manifestly appeare by the responsion of Pascasius to his Epistle saying thus Quaeris enim de re ex qua multi dubitant You inquire of a thing of which manie doubt And for conclusion of his owne Epistle Pascasius saith to Frudegard Tu autem velim relegas libellum nostrum de hoc opere For I would haue you read my booke of this matter which you say you haue read in tymes past And if you reprehend or doubt of anie thing in it let it not be tedious vnto you to reuiewe it And finally towardes the end of his exposition of the wordes of the institution of the Eucharist he speaketh to Frudegard in this manner Quapropter charissime Wherfore most dearely beloued doe not doubt of this Mysterie which Christ the truth it self hath of him self bestowed vpon vs. For altho' he sits in heauen at the reight hand of his Father yet doth he not disdaine to be Sacrifyced dayly by the preist in the Sacrament as a true hoaste Now that the same Frudegardus doubt was onely whether the bodie of Christ contained in the Sacrament was the same bodie which he assumed of the Virgin Marie is plaine by Pascasius anser saying thus almost in the beginning of his Epistle Ergo cum ait Wherfore when he saith this is my bodie or my flesh or this is my bloud I think he intimated no other flesh then his owne propter bodie which was borne of the Virgin Marie and hanged en the Crosse Nor anie other bloud then that which was spilt vpon the Crosse and which then was in his bodie No man therfore which is soundly wise doth beleeue that Iesus had anie other flesh or bloud then that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and suffered vpon the Crosse And for conclusion of his foresaid exposition he saith thus to the same Frudegard Ad vltimum quaeso te Lastely I praye fallow not the fooleries of the tripartite or triple bodie of Christ. Doe not mingle salt nor hunnie in it as some would doe not adde nor substracte anie thing but beleeue and vnderstand it all as Christ instituted c. As for Scotus and Bertrame althou ' their bookes haue hen reproued yet it doth not fallow that their authors did directly and absolutely impugne the reall presence or transsubstantiation but they onely deliuered their myndes in a doubtfull obscure and ill sounding manner for which cause and for auoyding of danger they were iustely prohibited the onely the Councell of vercelles the other by the purgatorie Index Howbe it I find nothing in Bertram which with a pious interpretation might not passe among the learned sorte of people And thus much may suffice for proofe that in Pascasius tyme ther had ben no plaine denyall of the reall presence or transsubstantiation in the Christian world but onely some incident doubts made by some particular persons and that in a discussiue manner not as obstinate maintainers of such Doctrine And now by this same and the rest which I haue aboue produced out of the same Pascasius Lanfrāc and others the false Archbishop and Primate of Ireland is conuinced of an apparent falsitie for that in the 79. page of his anser to a Iesuits chalenge he had the face to affirme that til the dayes of Lanfranc this question of the reall presence continued still in debate and that it was as free for anie man to followe the Doctrine of Bertram he calles him Ratrannus or Ioannes Scotus as that of Pascasius This audatious affirmation of vsher I say is clearly condemned of falsitie by the same Pascasius whome he citeth and whoe as I haue alledged testifyes that the doctrine of the reall presence in his tyme was not as yet contradicted by anie except those whoe denye Christ but beleeued and professed by the whole world althou some saith he did erre in the same by ignorance And this onely
to conceiue it rightlie he runneth a madding throu ' his whole section vpon an erroneous supposition prouing nothing but his owne spleene against the Pope want of vnderstanding iudgement And in this same Frantick fashion he dealeth with sainct Gregorie in his 9. epistle of the Register the Bull of Pius quartus concerning images equiuocating in the word adoration which by reason holie S. Gregorie takes it for diuine honour he teacheth with great reason that althou ' images may be lawfullie made vsed with due reuerence as he sheweth in another place yet they cānot be lawfullie adored in the other sense From whence Sir Humfrey will needes collect that the moderne Pope Pius contradicteth that which his famous predecessor did teach before him in that he declareth according to the doctrine of the Tridentine Councell due honour veneration is to be giuen to the images of Christe his sainres in which neuerthelesse there is no contrarietie at all but rather great agreement conformitie not onelie in the matter it selfe but euen in their manner of speech And by these two pointes which are the cheife matter of moment which our aduersarie hath in this section the reader may easilie cōiecture of the rest if besides this if he doth but marke how deceitfully he dealeth with Bellarmine in the conclusiō of this section about the succession of the Popes to S. Peter I am persuaded he will neuer trust Puritan writer as long as he liues But note the impostors subtletie that which Bellarmine sayth of the immoueable placing of the seate of sainct Peter at Rome by Christes appointment which he affirmes not to be a matter of faith or immutable precept of God this honest disputant applies it to the absolute being of sainct Peter at Rome the seating of his chaire ther then vpon this false detorted vnderstanding of his doctrine inferreth as from his owne confession that therefore at the best it can be but probable that the Pope should succeed Peter in that Seat thre is no necessitie to beleiue it for that Bellarmine saith it is no point of faith that if Christe gaue anie such precept it may be changed thus the knight And yet the truth is that in none of those places the Cardinall speaches of the succession of the Pope to sainct Peter but onelie of the certaintie of the connexion of the Apostolicall seate with the particular Roman Church whether the one is so strictlie ioyned to the other that it cannot be transferred to another place viz. to Antioch where sainct Peter did fitlie for a time abide or to some other Episcopall seate of the Catholike Church which Bellarmine affirmes not to be a point of faith or immutable diuine precept but of the infallibility of the succession of the Pope in the seate of S. Peter he makes no doubt but constantlie defends it to be a matter of faith diuine institution as is manifest by his owne wordes in the 12. chapter of his second booke de Rom. Pont where he saith expresselie Successio Romani Pontificis in Pontificatu Petri ex institutione Christi est a little after Si quis tamen petat an iure diuino Romanus Pontifex Pastor sit caput totius Ecclesiae omnino id esse asserendum And now by these plaine wordes of Bellarmine it manifestlie appeereth he is so farre from standing vpon probabilities in the point of succession of the Pope to sainct Peter that all those places which the knight cites out of the second fourth booke de Rom. Pont. as that non est improbabile Dominum iussisse vt Petrus sedem suam Romae figeret And non est de fide diuina immutabili praecepto Romae sedem Petri esse constitutam est tamen probabilissimum pie credendum And those other wordes forte non est de iure diuino Romanum Pontificem Petro succedere And those Ius successionis Romanorum Pontificum in eo fundatur quod Petrus Romae suam sedem fixerit All those places of which the knight makes a praye to deceiue his reader are spoken not of the succession but of the reason of the succession of the Pope to the Apostle Sainct Peter for Bellarmine doth expresselie distinguish in the same place saying aliud esse successionem aliud rationem successionis the firste which is the succession he teaches cleerlie to be by the institution of Christe but the manner of the same succession that is the reason wherefore the Bishop of Rome rather then the Bishop of Antioch or anie other doth succeed S. Peter in that Seat hath it beginning from the fact of Peter But Bellarmine neyther in anie piace of those cited by Sir Humfrey nor in anie other affirmes that the right of succession is founded in the fact of Peter But this was the craft of our subtle knight whereby he might inferre that the fact of Peter being no matter of faith but at the most of morall certaintie the whole frame of the Roman religion might therefore seeme to be doubtfull vncertaine And to this end he falselie applied to the succession it selfe that which by Bellarmine was spoken onelie of the manner of the same succession From which vniust proceeding of Sir Humfrey we may gather by the way that there is no dealing with these people but at hand blowes I meane by producing of the bookes out of which they make their allegations otherwise if they can but scape without examen they will make no scruple to cousen their owne Fathers as experience hath alreadie taught vs. To conclude I assure the reader that the rest of the matter in this place is but such loathsome stuffe as this mingled with so manie impudent vntruthes that I am not able to recount them seuerallie All which because I perceaue the more it is stirred the more it stinkes I will leaue it to himselfe to make the best he can of it if by corruption fraude he will needes build a by-way for vs Romanists he doth but labore in vayne since that he can no sooner finish it but that we can assoone returne it vppon himselfe fellowes Sec. 21. In the next section which is the 21. the knight treateth of the Popes iudgment which he saith is not yet certaine agreed vpon among the Romanists notwith standing it is by them made the rule of faith In this section I finde nothing meritorious of a schollers labour either in reading it or ansering it for it is but an idle continuation of the authors former fooleries concerming the Popes authority in the determination of matters of faith which on the one side he will needes haue it so that the Romanists hold his iudgment for an infallible rule of faith yet he himself cites diuers Romanists which doe not hold the Popes authority to be infallible which in my opinion is no lesse then playne dotage For who is he if he be not
operation effect of the Sacraments depend cheiflie principallie vpon the institution of Christe yet they say withall that both for the securitie of the consciences comfort of the receauers c. The Preist must haue a sincere intention to minister the Sacrament not in ieast as Luther some other sectaries doe teach this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the Reformers teach that onelie the instistitution of Christe is sufficient the Preists sincere intention not required this is an vncertaine by-way Nintly the Romanists teach that Christe is our onelie mediatour of redemption who onelie of himself by his owne power knoweth the secrets of our hartes yet withall they say that his Saintes in heauen who in by him doe assuredlie knowe the secrets of our hartes in such things especiallie as cōcerne the good of our soules are our mediatours of intercession by offering our vnworthie prayers to God this is a certaintie safe way to saluation But the reformers calle vpon Christe onelie exclude neglect his saintes seruants whome neuerthelesse he himselfe doth promise to honore in heauen condemning also for impious sacrilegions the saintes intercession for sinners which notwithstanding he doth not condemne for such in anie parte of holie scripture this is an vncertaine by-way Tenthly the Romanists teach we ought to adore Christes bodie present in heauen where he sits on the right hand of his diuine Father yet withall they say it is lawfull yea we ought to adore him whersoeuer he is particularlie in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach that the bodie of Christe ought not to be adored in the Eucharist but onelie in heauen this is an vncertaine by-way Eleauenthly the Romanists as the word of God instructs them confesse themselues to be vnprofitable seruants in regarde neyther they nor their actions bring anie profitte to God who hath no need of anie thing yet they say withall that no man liuing can be iustified by his owne merits that is such merites as proceed purelie from his owne naturall forces actions more then this that all those who expect saluation must beleiue in Christe with a liuelie faith wholely relie vpon his meritts satisfaction as vpon the proper principall cause of their saluation yet they say besides this that altho' they may not relie vpon their owne merits or the satisfactions of the saintes alone neuerthelesse they may vse both the satisfaction of saintes their owne merits as a meanes to saluation by virtue application of the merits satisfaction of Christes passion also that they can by the grace assistance of God obserue his commandements yea by virtue of the same diuine grace performe some workes of supererogation or not commanded by precept of God but counselled by his aduise this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach they are vnprofitable seruants which I confesse that in deed they are both to God his Church as euer were anie in the world that no mans good workes altho' they proceed from the speciall grace of God can in anie sort iustifie him before God that euerie Christian must so wholie relie vpon the merites of Christe that he beleiue also that no man can haue anie of his owne euen by the power grace of God that he is bound to expect hope for saluation without anie such workes or merites meerlie by a sole bare faith that his sinnes are remitted in Iesus Christe this is an vncertaine by-way Heere you see a plaine confrontment of diuers particular pointes of controuersie betwixt the Romanists the reformers by way of affirmation negation because I knowe that my aduersarie I are not agreed of a Iudge of our cause I for for my part remit my selfe to the indifferent reader as our onelie vmpiere to determine of the matter not onelie for as much as concernes the contents of this particular section but also of the whole worke who if he consider with due ponderation the proceedings of both parties compare the sincere plaine dealing which I haue vsed with the insincere and double dealing of my aduersarie who hath so perseuered in his indirect courses that euen in the end conclusion of his worke he hath practised no smale partiallitie and fraude in the rehearsall of the doctrine of the Roman Church as particularlie where he affirmes that the Romanists teach that diuers traditions of faith and manners whereof there is no ground nor euidence in the scripture are to be reeeaued with equall reuerence and respect with the scriptures themselues and that they relie partelie vpon their owne merites and satisfaction of Saintes for their saluation and the like I say if the iudicious and vnpartiall reader duelie ponder all the particulars I doubt not but he will easilie discerne the house of truth and safe way to saluation to be where he findes honestie and plainenes and in the contrarie the house of falsitie the by-way where he findes tricks cousinage And therfore the more to facilitate rectifie his iudgment in the businesse I will reduce the whole argument of the knightes booke to a forme of sylogisme in this manner That Religion is a by-way leading the weake vnstable into dangerous pathes of error which is founded vppon coulourable showes of Apochriphall scriptures vnwriten traditious doubt full Fathers ambiguous Councells and pretended Catholique Church But the religion of the Church of Rome is founded vppon colourable showes of apochriphal scriptures vnwritten traditions doubtful fathers ambiguous Councels pretended Catholique Church Therfore the relgiō of the Romā Church is a by-way leading the weake vnstable in to the dangerous pathes of error Now the minor of this sylogisme in which the whole force of the conclusion and by consequence the whole scope and authoritie of the worke depēdes not onely hauing binne in the discourse of my anseere to euerie seuerall section disproued for false counterfeit but alsoe more appeare to be such ex ipsis terminis euen of it selfe by the termes propositions of which it consists to all such as shall consider it with due attention I persuade my selfe the iuditious reader will presently perceaue determine with him selfe that the author of the worke hath quite fayled of his proiect that by composing a by path with a sinister intention to father it Falsely vppon his aduersaryes he hath in stead of that onely framed an ingen for his owne torment And thus hauing attayned not onely to an accomplishment of myne owne desires in finishing my labours but also in some sorte to a satisfaction of the request of my aduersary in regard that at the least in showe as I perceaue by the conclusion of his preface he desireth nothing more then
chapter of the third booke of Bellarmin de verbo Dei pag. 15. And of his owne by way page 503. And secondly in the same Gretzers defense of the first chapter of the first booke of Bellarmine verbo Dei In the first place he abuseth that author in that he produceth him to proue that the Church is finally resolued in to the Pope as head bodie of the same And yet in the verie same chapter page 1456. next leafe Gretzer plainely teacheth that our faith is lastely resolued in to diuine reuelatiō or in to God reueiling or that which is the same in to the prime veritie in which our faith is founded His wordes are these in latin Nam sides nostra vltima resoluitur in reuelationem diuinam seu in Deum reuelantem seu quod idem est in primam veritatem qua nititur fides nostra tanquam fundamento paimario tametsi non inficior fidem quoque resolui in Ecclesiam seu Ecclesiae propositionem altho I doe nor denye that faith is resolued in to the Church or the proposition of the Church c. Immediately after this he saith Sed haec resolutio non est omniuo vltima in principium plane substantiale essentiale sed tantum vt in fundamentum secundarium seu vt in conditionem sine qua fides neque recipitur neque retinetur And euen in these wordes by the knight the Pope alone is not put by Gretzerus for the whole Church but he doth onely say he denyeth not that the Romanists vnderstand by the Pope the Church in one acception not absolutely Which is manifest out of his wordes in the precedent page where he saith Intelligimus etiam nomine Ecclesiae Pontificem pro tempore viuentem quod ipse congregare conuocare potest Concilium hunc summi Pastoris aliorum Praesulum caetum dicimus esse immediatum ordinarium visibilem omnium Controuersiarum quae de religione existunt Iudicem By which wordes it is apparent that Gretzerus doth not take the Popes person alone for the head bodie of the Church but for the head of the bodie of the Church How be it I doe not denye but that the Pope as head cheefe parte of the whole Church may by a senecdoche be taken for the whole Church as he is accepted both by Gretzer and other diuines but yet this acception will nothing profit Sir Humfrey whose wise designe in this place is to persuade his simple reader that the Romanists take the Pope alone without a generall Councell truely and properly for the whole Roman Catholique Church which is his owne phamtasticall dreame not our doctrine In the other place Sir Humfrey plainely falsifyeth this author for wheras Gretzerus onely redargueth his aduersaries whoe falsely affirmes that what soeuer the deuill suggesteth to this or that Pope in particular euen against manifest scripture the Romanists receiue it for Gods worde saying that these things be crepitacula nugantium Praedicantium the clappers of prating preachers that in truth wee Romanists onely receiue reuerence for the worde of God that which the cheefe Bishop doth by Cathedrall definition propose vnto vs as the supreme master Iudge of controuersies Sir Humfrey by fraudulent displaceing of the worde onely putting it before the worde of God quyte peruertes the sense making his reader beleaue that Gretzer affirmes that onely to be the worde of God which the Pope proposeth and as if they held not the scripture it selfe to be Gods worde the contrarie of which neuerthelesse the Iesuit deliuers immediately before in expresse termes saying that it meaning the scripture is had reuerenced by the Pontificians for the worde of God which is soe well knowne that the impudencie of the Predicants can not denye it And thus much touching the corruption abuse of Gretzere by the calumnious knight Moreouer wheras Sir Humfrey cites Castro in his 12. booke as affirming the denyall of Purgatorie to be a most notorious knowne error of the Greciās Armeniās that author is abused by him for he meanes onely of the moderne Grecians not of the ancient Grecian Fathers as the knight giues his reader to vnderstand falsely applying Canus wordes page 181. to the Greek Church of the first ages soe that here is plaine forgerie In like fashion in his 536. page of the Deuia he falsifyes the same author lib. 1. cap. 9. For where Castro saith quamuis enim teneamur ex fide credere verum Petri successorem esse supremum totius Ecclesiae pastorem for those wordes quamuis teneamur that is altho' we are bound Sir Humfrey translates admit we are bounde to beleeue that point as if Castro had doubted of it of which neuerthelesse he makes not anie question but onely saith men are not obledged to beleeue by faith that this or that particular person is true Pope Neither yet doth he denye that euerie Pope hath infallibilitie in a reight line of succession frō S. Peter as the knight doth falsely taxe him but he affirmes onely that it is not a matter of faith soe to beleeue of euerie Pope in particular And therfore he addeth that altho' he were not to be accounted an heretike that should denye obediēce vnto this or that particular Pope to wit Clemēt or Leo yet should he not for doubt of his election sustract him selfe from his obedience And soe we see that here his no other argument then of want of honest dealing in our aduersarie And yet in his 21. section of the deuia page 551. he traduceth the same Alfonsus as if he had scoffed at the Dominicans in generall for that thay were wonte to brag before the people that he that hath once receiued their habit can not erre or fayle in fairh Wher it is true that Castro reprehends sharpely not without reason some particular religious men that vsed such speeches but he is soe farre from saying they are Dominicans that he expressely addes that least he should seeme to taxe the whole order he purposely conceiled the name Ne hoc toti ordini ac societati impressisse videar nomen ordinis ex industria subticui this he did of Charitie But Sir Humfrey contrarily is soe farre from the exercise of that great virtue that he will needs make Castro to impose that vpon a whole order which he meant onely of some particular person of persons Which is a trick of a iuggler thou ' a verie pore one Neither can I conceiue except it were by reuelation howe Sir Humfrey came to know that Castro spake of the Dominicans more then of anie other religious order but let that passe for one of his great miracles Touching the mariage of priests cassander is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey in the 23. art of his consult p. 990. where for antiquae consuetudinis immutandae he puteth in English the change of the lawe and soe leauing out the worde ancient as alsoe the wordes