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
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
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
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
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
the authours them selues with attention care And as for Theodoretus Iames Gordon in his fourth Controuersie of transsubstantiation noteth that if he be trulie translated according to the force of the Greeke wordes all difficultie touching his true meaning doth presentlie cease And thus much for Theodoretus who is no way eluded by Valentia but truelie sincerelie expounded As for Bellarmin whome when he answereth to the testimonie of S. Cyprian aboute traditiōs the knight seemeth to taxe for attributing error vnto him It is not true that Bellar. sayth that he doth not maruell that S. Cypriā erred in reasoning as Sir Humfrey affirmeth but the Cardinall onlie sayth of S. Cyprian ideo non mirum si more errantium ratiocinaretur therefore it was no maruell if he should argue after the manner of those that erre because he writ that passage to which Bellarmin doth ansere in the place cited by the knight when he defended his errour aboute rebaptization against S. Augustin But withall Bellarmin addeth that S. Cyprian reiected not all traditions as the reformers commonlie doe at the least in faith manners but onelie he disalowed that tradition in particular which S. Augustin alledged against his error onelie for that reason because he conceiued it to be cotrarie to scriptures which yet afterwardes appeared not to be so by the definition of the Church not to be So that Bellarmin is both here falselie accused to haue absolutelie affirmed S. Cyprian to haue erred in reasoning also it is false that his testimonie touching traditiōs in generall is by him eluded which is that Sir Humfrey ought to proue if he speakes according to his owne purpose in this place And not much vnlike to this is the same Bellarmin falselie accused by the knight to haue affirmed that S. Chrisostome exceeded the trueth when he sayd It is better not to be present at the sacrifice then to be present not comunicate for Bellarmin sayd not that sainct Chrysostome exceeded the truth but onelie that he spoake by excesse per excessum ita esse locutum or amplificandi gratia as he sayth afterwardes which is not to exceede the truth but to vse a tropicall speech by which the trueth is as farre extended as may be possible within her boundes but no further And more ouer Bellarmin addeth so much besides to this ansere to Saint Chrysostomes wordes Vide Bell. l. 2. de Missa cap. 10. § Porro Chrysost as takes all difficultie quite away touching his meaning in the point of Priuate Masse Neyther is Sir Hūfreys complainte against Bellarmin lesse vniuste where he sayth yet not specifiing aboute what matter that the Cardinall affirmes Prudentius to playe the poet for why should anie man be reprehended for attributing to a Poet that which is proper to all those of his profession that is to speake by way of fiction or to vse poeticall licence The trueth is I can finde no such wordes of Bellarmin as Sir Humfrey citeth but suppose he speaketh in that manner of Prudentius yet I hould it to be no greater an extenuation of his authoritie then it were an extenuation of Sir Humfreys honour to say he vseth his weapons dexterouslie or plaieth the Champion couragiouslie But yet worse then this doth Sir Humfrey deale with Bellarmin aboute his ansere to a certaine testimonie of Tertullian For whereas he onelie sayth that Tertullians authoritie is of no great accounte when he contradicts other Fathers when as S. Hierome speaketh he was no man of the Church the knight to saue labor but not to saue his honestie leaueth out that speeche of S. Hierome putteth the whole censure of Tertullian vpon Bellarmin onelie notobstanding it appeares plainelie that the greater parte of it is taken out of S. Hierome so consequentlie if anie proofe or recorde were eluded in Tertullian Sir Humfrey might more iustelie haue accused him then the Cardinall But it seemes the knight proceeded in this as those that in cases of reuenge either for want of wit or valour still strike their next fellowe whether he be in faulte or no. In conclusion Sir Humfrey had no reason to stand vpon Bellarmin's ansere to those two authours I meane Prudentius Tertullian for that neither of them in the places cited speaketh of anie point of doctrine defined by the Church but of other matters in which as it was free for them to speake what they pleased so was it also free for Bellarmin to ansere what he pleased especiallie supposing that Tertullian speakes but doubfullie in the matter for which he is taxed by the Cardinall that is in the manner of Christs penetration of his mothers wombe if he held he was borne according to the course of nature he contradicteth the rest of the Fathers in which case no one Father hath the credit of an absolute testimonie amongest the Romanists neyther can he or anie for him iustelie complaine if he be disesteemed in such a case Now for the censure which Riuera giueth of Origen to wit that he was full of errours which the Church hath alwayes detested it is so manifestlie true that no man that will not dogmatize with him can denie the same And the truth is that the reformers make as little yea much lesse account either of him or anie other ancient writers then the Romanists doe as the world knoweth especially when they finde them contrarie to their positions And not of one two or three dissenting from the rest but euen of the torrent of their consent of which ouer plaine testimonie is extant in Luther Caluin Kemnitius Chamier Vid. Luth. de capt Babyl c. 1. Calu. 4. Instit c. 18 Kem. pag. 798. Cham. de descens Chr. ad Inf. And yet for all this the knight could produce nothing in particular in which he could accuse the Romanists to haue reiected the recordes of the foresaid authours at the least in matter of faith As for S. Hierome whome Canus affirmeth to be no rule of faith I would knowe what reformer will maintaine the contrarie And if they hould him to be a rule of faith then a dieu their all-sufficiencie of scripture Besides Canus yealdes a pregnant reason why S. Hierome was not to be followed in that particular of which he speakes in that place to wit in the assignation of the Canon of the old testament because sayth Canus he followed Ioseph the Iewe but S. Austin followed the Christians in that point of doctrine which reason of Canus Sir Humfrey ought not to haue omitted if he had dealt sincerelie As impertinent as this also is the taxation of Bellarmins answere to Iustin Ireneus Epiphanius Oecumenius who seeme to haue held that the diuells are not to be tormēted with the paines of hell before the day of Iudgement For this is so absurde a position that I thinke fewe or none of the misreformed Churches defend it so I see not why Bellarmin can iustelie be reprehended for
fuisset siue quod tam leue esset vt a quolibet redargui facillime posset AN APPENDIX TO THE VVHETSTONE OR A COMPENDIOVS ANSER TO THE BY-WAY CHEEFLY consisting in a breife discouery of the authors indirect partiall false dealing with a detection of some particular examples of falsification BY THE SAME AVTHOR Sicut nouacula acuta fecisti dolum Psal 51. CATVAPOLI Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS Anno M.DC.XXXII THE INTRODVCTION TO THE APPENDIX BY that tyme I had in a manner finished my censure of knight Humfreyes nicnamed false way I receaued sodaine newes of another way eyther of the same author or of his frend for him which like a second parte of the Pickro came ruflling out with a greater noyse then the first the reason is as I suppose as well for that it carrieth a more extrauagant title to wit via deuia as also in regard it is some what larger both inleaues as I thinke in lyes Why the author should call his firste booke via tnta or the safe way this via deuia or the by way rather then the contrarie in my conceit few will be able to imagine anie other reason then his owne knightlie pleasure for my part I must needes confesse that his titles seuerallie applied to the contents are to me meere riddles as not conteyning eyther explicitlie or implicitlie that which they make showe of but rather standing onelie for cyphers or markes of the authors affected follie promising much but performing nothing as I haue made appeere in part by myne ansere to his first worke partlie also shall be showed by Gods assistance in this against which I now write of which altho' I doe not intend to make anie fotmall confutation in euerie particular point of doctrine as I did before more then once repenting my selfe that I spent so much time vpon such idle matter yet will I make a breife suruey of euery distinct section principallie noting notifieing to the reader such faultes as I shall finde the author guiltie of whome I also aduertise that notobstanding the knight with these his two bookes as it were with the deliuerie of two prodigious twinnes would seeme to haue brought forth some great strange noueltie to the world yet in veritie there is nothing of moment alleaged by him eyther in this or in his former treatie eyther out of scriptures Councells or Fathers which hath not binne long since examined confuted by a greater farre more learned number of Catholike diuines then all the pretensiue reformed Churches can affoord as apposers of the Roman doctrine And altho ' I doe ingenuouslie confesse that Sir Humfrey hath vsed no smale art industrie in the application of his predecessours labours to his owne intent purpose neuerthelesse he hath performed the same in such a cousening deceitfull manner that the reader may assure himselfe t' is almost one the same labour to discouer his lyes equiuocations false suppositions impertinent corrupted allegations other his insincere dealing to confute his doctrine it being little more then a masse or compound of those the like corrupted vitious ingredients nor contayning anie graue or solid discussion of anie one question in terminis or professedlie but onelie or cheiflie consisting in a certaine abstractiue way by compacting patches shreads of furtiue stollen diuinitie deliuered in a plausible persuasiue manner of which altho' I doe not denie but the author hath receiued great parte at the second hand from his antecessors especiallie from his great Patron Daniel Chamier who in the art of cheating doth in my opinion eyther exceed or at the least equalize anie that euer writ before him in regard of which altho ' the knight might seeme in some sort excusable at the least by ignorance yet hath he or his chaplins inuented added so much in that nature of his owne coyning that I doe not see what coulourable excuse can possiblie be alleaged for iustification of his bad proceedings And when reading of Bellarmines bookes of controuersies I found so manie vntruthes falsifications corruptions by him discouered out of Luther Caluin Beza Brentius Kemnitius other sectaries who had writ before him I imagined that at least for verie shame their successors as being such great professors of reformation would haue reformed themselues in that kinde but now of late since I came to read the workes of Daniel Chamier Sir Humfrey Lind I professe I haue quite lost my hope of their reclamation especiallie reflecting that as they are all men of one profession haue all of them an ill cause to maintaine so are they all fallen into a fatall necessitie of abusing their readers with trickes sleights the reason of which is plaine in regard that falsehood as being of a contrarie nature to truth it cannot possibly be defended patronized by the same truth but must of necessitie be defended by it selfe And as for Sir Humfrey he is so deepelie plundged in that muddie ditch that he his honour are like to lye there for euer his ill custome being now almost turned into nature as proper to him as blacke is to an Ethiopian or white to a swanne And to proceed to particulars he is so voyde of shame that he doubtes not to abuse Bellarmine in the very frōtispice of his booke where for posye or sentence of the same he putteth certaine words of his taken out of his first booke de verbo Dei cap. 2. intending by this indirect meanes to perswade his readers that the contents of his whole worke haue that famous Cardinall for their patron approuer which in my iudgmēt is a point of the greatest cousenage impudency that euer was heard of among Christian writers since that neither that which Bellarmines words import containe the whole or yet the cheife drife of Sir Humfreys booke neither are they vttered by him in that sense in which he doth apply them to wit that the scriptures are the sole rule of faith that there is no other rule but onely them wher as Bellarmin onely affirmeth that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe rule in case they be rightly interpreted according to the ancient tradition of the Church Vid. li. 1. de verb. Dei c. 2. l. 3. de verb. Dei c 1. seq Scriptura regulacredendi certissima tutissimque est supra Lib 4. de verbo Dei cap. 12. that they are not to be neglected by imbracing the priuate spirit which is fallible vncerteine to be relyed vppon by none but such as neglect the certaintie or safe way of saluation in which sense meaning how the wordes of Bellarmine can possibly be applied to Sir Humfreys Deuia or by way let the indifferent reader iudge especially considering that he could not be inuincibly ignorant that the learned Cardinall in another place plainly declareth himselfe touching the totallity
alteration for that to omit other authorities of ancient Fathers of the same nature sainct Chrysostome who liued in the beginning of the fouerth age of Christian religion vseth the same manner of phrase if not playner Com. in c. 2. Epist 2. ad Thes sayeing that it doth appeere that the Apostles did not deliuer all by epistles but manie things without writing but as well these as those deserue the same faith The which is not onelie as much as can be expressed for the authoritie of traditions but also a more playne commendable testimonie then anie Romanist euer vttered concerning the same From whence the reader may deduce that the knight is heere also out of the right way of the primitiue Church in which he runneth forward till the verie end of his section like a man ouer heated breatheth out nothing but abuses of diuerse moderne diuines which he citeth in a cauilling captious sort peruerts their true sense meaning in all or most places by him alleaged Sec. 8. In the eight section he pretends to proue that the traditions of the Roman Church were vnknowne to the Greeke Church that they want vniuersalitie antiquitie succession but on the contrarie that faith which the reformed Churches maintaine at this day is the same in substance which the Apostles published in Greece therefore hath antiquitie vniuersalitie succession And this is the substance of his section if anie substance it hath But in truth he proueth his position with such mediums that I am scarce willing to relate them for losse of time the greatest part of his proofes being but eyther his owne bare false affirmations or onelie friuolous argumēts long since ansered destroyed by Bellarmin and other Romanists partlie also by my selfe in my Censure or else they are onelie authorities drawne from his owne brothers both in religion lyeing as from Illiricus whome Bellarmine doth cleerlie discouer to haue binne most expert in that black art or from other professed enimies of the Roman Church as Nylus other Grecian Scismatikes adding also the resistance or disclame of some Grecians in different occasions heere there a without doubt of his owne citing diuers authors vnfaithfullie for his owne aduantage contrarie to their meaning especiallie Bellarmine whome he abuseth in diuers places partelie by peruerting his sense partlie by mangling his sentences as lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 16. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 30. lib. 1. de Sanct. beatid cap. 19. mingling also some vntruthes as that most of the Greeke Latin Fathers did hould that the faithfull till the resurrection doe not attaine to the beatificall vision of God c. And now let the prudent reader iudge whether Sir Humfrey doth proceed sollidlie or rather not most absurdlie weaklie in that he goeth about to eleuate the antiquitie vniuersalitie succssion of the Roman faith eyther in generall or particular points by virtue of a scattered companie of moderne Grecians who in those matters they dissent from vs contrarie to the doctrine of their most ancient renowned auncestors haue no more authoritie then the pretended reformers themselues nay especiallie considering them to be of a religion which agrees neyther intirelie with ours yet much lesse with theirs what a madnesse is it in the knight to make vse of their authoritie eyther to infringe the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of the Roman doctrine or for confirmation of his owne Dicunt Armeni in Christo Domino vnam naturam esse vnam voluntatem vnamque operationē Aub. Mir. not Episc p. 43. Hodie Aethiopes baptisantur circumciduntur Idem p. 54. Neyther is Sir Humfrey thou ' most repugnant to the knowne truth content to say that the Greeke Church hath continued the truth of his doctrine in all ages but he also addeth further that if we looke beyond Luther we shall easilie discerne that the Muscouites Armenians Egiptians Ethiopians did teach their reformed doctrine euen from the Apostles time till now By which porticulars I doubt not but the reader may perceaue euen without a comentarie how ridiculous he makes himselfe his Religion to what streits this mā was put how impossible it is for him to auoyde the by way in the proofe of his antiquitie vniuersalitie succession who by his owne confession was forced to fetch his faith from such by places deuious regions where yet he hath not found it but remaineth still in his owne vnquoth English by way The nynth section pretendeth to proue that the scriptures are a certayne safe euident way to saluation traditions a by way In which section Sir Humfrey beginneth with a large homelie about the certaintie safetie of scriptures which two wordes because he peraduenture dreamed the night before he writ this that he had seene them in the scripture the one in the firste of S. Luke 4. the other Philip. 3.1 he assured himselfe he had thrust the Papists frō the wall at the first push But alas for pittie his dreame proued so false that when he awaked he found himselfe in the channell for in neyther of those places are those wordes found nay nor yet the sense which he intendeth heere which being no other then that onelie scriptures no tradition is to be followed in anie matter of faith or manners neyther those two places of scripture nor anie other testimonie that he bringeth eyther out of anie scripture or Fathers doth proue his peremptorie position but onelie shewe that all scriptures are profitable to instruct a man in all good workes to the end he may be perfect moreouer that the scriptures be as Bellarmine sayth a most certaine most safe rule of faith yet that they be the sole or onelie certaine safe rule neyther Bellarmine nor anie other Romanist nor yet anie proofe or testimonie which the knight produceth doth eyther teach or testifie It is true Sir Humfrey alleageth diuers authors but all according to his accustomed manner that is neyther much to the purpose nor yet verie faithfullie the testimonies of those eyther impertinētlie produced or alreadie cleared by Bellarmine other Controuertists to containe nothing contrarie to the Roman doctrine in this particular or else such obscure grolles as neyther his predecessors as I thinke did euer cite by reason of their smale authoritie nor are they of that moment that they deserue anie ansere at all as Waltram Fauorinus which at the leaste by reason of the ill vse he maketh of thē serue the knight for nothing more then to leade him out of the common path of the euerduring constant Church as a sure guide which according to the scriptures cannot faile euen by the power of hell into a dangerous diuerticle of scriptures expounded by deductions proceeding from the priuate spirit of particular men which is all he concludes in this his section Sec. 10. From hence
quite depriued of iudgment doth not conceiue that if there are Romanists which doe not defēd the Popes authority to be infallible there most of necessity be also some yea the same Romanists that hold his iudgment not to be an infallible rule of faith from whence it doth further necessarily issue that the infallibitie of the Popes iudgment in determining Controuersies is no point of faith among Romanists how be it is commonly held for the most safe doctrine consequently as the proposition of the title of this sectiō is but a fallacious paradox of the knights owne inuenting so are all the authorities proofes which he produceth to shewe that there is vncertaintie among the Romanists of the Popes infallible iudgment in the rule of faith in vaine of no force as tending to demonstrate that which is not denied by all Catholike diuines And thus Sir Humfrey marcheth on in the by-way of his owne deuious francies euen to the end of his section neuer omitting to excercise himself by the way in some part of impiety against the Popes carping malitiously at the euill life of some of them in particular all which how true or false it is yet not doubting but that they haue binne much calumniated by emulators heretiques ill aduised persons as by the writers of their liues appeereth I cannot heere stand to examine by reason I study professe breuity but will onely answere generally with pious S. Augustine in the like case of obiectiō touching the Popes which liued before in his time that although some traytor had cript in to that order of Bishops which is deducted from Peter himself to Anastasius I say to vrbanius who doth now sit in the same chaire yet should he not preiudice the Church the innocent Christians to whome our poruident Lord sayd Doe what they say but doe not what they doe Sec. 22. In the 22. section the knight affirmes that the Church vppon which the learned Romanists grounde their faith is onely the Pope but the Church vppon which the vnlearned rely is no other then their parishe preistes It is iust so why because ipse dixit because Sir Humfrey sayd it But how doth he knowe it to be so by scripture or by tradition if by scripture let him turne his Bible produce the text if by tradition he is a traytor to his owne cause One said plesantly that the faith of a Puritan is resolued 1. in Biblia 2. in spiritum 3. in carnem firste into the Bible secondly into the spirit thirdly into the flesh heere rests the last resolution of their religion But now seriously to the matter but indeed there is little matter except by matter we vnderstand corruption of this I am certaine there is no want For to begin with the title of the sectiō it hath two partes they both false the one is that the learned Romanists ground their faith vppon no other then the Pope the other that the vnlearned rely vppon no other then their parish prestes neyther of which is absolutely true as experience doth teach And yet if it were true that the simple sort of people did rely wholy vppon their Parish preistes what then may not simple Romanists as safely rely vppon their Parish preistes as simple reformers vppon their Parish ministers who are sometimes euen as simple ignorant in diuinity as themselues setting aside that perhaps they are a little more expert in reading the text of the Bible in English or a misreformed homilie And touching the learned Romanists they doe not rely vpon the Pope onely but chiefly vpon the word of God as also the most simple Romanists doe thou ' not interpred according to ther owne priuate sense as the pretended reformers doe but expounded according to the consent commonly receiued sense of the vniuersall visible Church To this I adde a most odious slanderous lye of the knight where he saith of the beleife of the Romanists that if it be receiued with an affected ignorance a blind obedience Page 573. the partie shall be saued by the fire of Purgatory which is most palpably false neuer asserted by any Romanist but coyned by his owne froathie braine besides this the like dishonest dealing he abuseth Bellarmine in diuers places as lib. 1. de iustif cap. 7. in which place wheras Bellarmine produceth S. Bernards expositiō of those wordes of Iob the oxē did plowe labore the asses did feed by them to proue against sectaries that iustifieing faith consists not so much in knowledge as in assent sayeing docet Bernardus Bernard teacheth that by the oxen are vnderstood the learned doctors of the Church by the asses are meant the ignorant which by their simple beleife rest satisfied in the vnderstanding of their superiors nimble Sir Humfrey applyeing this thou ' very fondly preposterously to the disprofe of the ignorant peoples relyeing vppon their pastors in their faith by changing the word dicit he sayth meaning S. Bernard in to these wordes the Cardinall saith he makes his reader beleiue that the foresayd exposition is Bellarmines owne glosse wheras yet he doth but allege it out of S. Bernard onely to confirme his owne doctrine touching the nature of the forme of iustification Another place the knight corrupts in the same Bellarmine lib. 5. de Euchar. cap. 5. concerning the doctrine of Peter Lombard S. Thomas where the Cardinall affirming that they were not carefull of the question now in controuersie to wit whether that which the Preist celebrateth daily be properly a sacrifice but supposed the affirmatiue part as a thing knowne to all men the crafty Cauallier relates the wordes of Bellarmine so transuersly that the reader cannot but vnderstand by them that the Cardinall affirmes that those two most famous diuines cared not whether the Masse were a proper sacrifice or no but that they did onely content themselues to hold that it is a commemoratiue sacrifice onely as the reformers teach And now let these examples suffice to demonstrate the infidelity of our aduersarie in this section to omit much other impertinent false captious matter allegations diuers of which I haue ansered in my censure are heere superfluously repeated by the knight towards the building of this part of his crooked blinde by-way which as you see by the matterialls of it is so fowle rugged that it is not fit for any person of reputation to appeere in it Sec. 23. The next section is the 23. in number affirming that the visibilitie of the Church is no certaine note of the true Church but rather the contrarie thus Sir Humfrey but he that should duelie consider how farre euen by his owne confession he is ingaged to the Iesuit his aduersarie to proue his owne Church to haue binne visible in all former ages since the Apostles times till this day doubtlesse he would much wonder at this his title altho' if contrarilie
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
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
it is euer essentially one the same in it selfe cleare from distinction cleare from error the coÌ„trarie to which neuerthelesse should necessarily be true if ei-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
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
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
you in some points of faith so in like manner might we deduce a proofe of the greater saftie of our way from the certaintie of those points of faith in which you agree with vs all which is but nugatorie friuolous absurd in regarde that as a parte ad totum from a parte to the whole no lawfull deduction can be made so neyther can it be inferred that because one parte of the obiect of a mans faith is true therefore the whole obiect of is faith is true by reason that notobstanding one parte of the obiect be true yet there may be in the whole obiect or matter trueth falsitie mixed together of which we haue instāces both in diuine humane matters And more then this Sir Humfrey must giue vs licence to tell him that he was to forward in the proofe of his tenet For before he went aboute to proue his way to be safer then ours he ought first to haue conuinced his owne way to be a true perfect way not to haue giuen his reader a parte for the whole by a false Senecdoche or contrarie to the Grammer rules to obtrude vpon him a comparatiue without a positiue that is a safer way were no way is to be found at all or at the least no safe intyre way And yet more ouer it is to be obserued that besides those positiue points of doctrine in which he sayth that both partes agree there be also diuers negatiues which they quite distinguish one from an other which negatiues neuerthelesse are parte of the reformers faith as well as their positiue doctrine so in this parte of their Creed they stand single as well as we consequentlie if standing single as he auerreth or at the least supposeth doth hinder the safetie of our way the same effect it must of necessitie haue in theirs according to this ground of Sir Humfreys it is manifest that the reformers can neuer haue the safer way till we ioyne with them in euerie point thereof by that meanes to hinder their single standing which yet we assure our selues will neuer come to passe except God almightie reduce them to vs from whome they once departed as we greatlie desire daylie praye And according to this wee may breeflie ansere to all the rest of the instances which the knight produceth And so we Romanists confesse we stand with the reformers in the affirmation of heauen hell but we stand not with them in the deniall of Purgatorie limbus We stand with them in the affirmation of the merits and satisfactions of Iesus Christ But we stand not with them in the negation of the merits satisfactions of those that liue in the grace of God by the virtue of the same the cooperation of their owne free will performe good workes of charitie mercie iustice the like houlding for certaine with S. Augustin that he who created vs without vs will not saue vs without vs yet further assuring our selues that God doth not operate with bests men both in one manner We stand with them in the defence of Baptisme Eucharist so farre as they Orthodoxlie maintainte them but we stand not with them in the impugnation of the other fiue Sacraments We stand with them in that they affirme that the images of Christ his Saints are ornaments memorialls of the absent but we stand not with them in their denyall of due honour to be exhibited vnto them for the great loue reuerence we beare to Christ his Saints We stand with them in the defence of the diuine worship of God but we stand not with them in the denyall of intercessiue inuocation honour of his Saints We stand with them in that Christ is the prime mediator betwixt God man but we stand not with thē in their denyall of the secondarie mediators or intercessors which are his seruants frends We stand with them in that Christ is head Monarch of the whole Church triumphant militant but we stand not with them in their denyall of the visible Vicarious head the Pope or cheefe pastour of the visible Church in earth subordinate subiet to Christ in the gouernement of the same We will not refuse to stand with them in that they graunt that S. Peter had a Primacie of Order but we stand not with then in that they denie his Primacie of power Iurisdiction We stand with them in that they teach there are 22. bookes of Canonicall scripture but we stand not with them in the refusall of the booke of Tobie Iudith two first bookes of Machabees the booke of wisdome Esdras Baruch the Prophet We stand with thē in that they affirme the scripture is the rule of faith But we stand not with them in their denyall of diuine traditiōs not properly added to the scriptures but commended by them included in them in a general manner We stand with them in that they say there are twelue articles of the Creed But we stand not with them in their denyall of the rest of the doctrine defined in generall Councells as neither doe we ioyne with them in the defence of all the 39. Articles of the English faith or Creed And so now by these particulars the iudicious reader may euidentlie perceiue that by reason the Romanists agree with the knight onelie in some parte or partiall of his doctrine he could not possible proue by their confessions the greater safetie of his way as both in the title of this his last section also in the title of his whole booke he did propose Nay he is so farre from the proofe of this that he hath most apparentlie fayled in the proofe of the verie argument of his whole worke which to the end it may more plainelie appeare I will reduce to this Sylogisme That faith is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith which is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther But the faith now professed in the Church of England is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther Therefore the faith now professed in the Church of England is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith Now there being contained in the minor of this Sylogisme the whole argument purpose drift of Sir Humfreys whole booke yet neuerthelesse it hauing ben by mee in this my censure demonstrated not to haue ben proued and made good by anie argument by him produced all he produceth to that purpose being voyde of force as by the discussion of the particulars of euerie section the reader may easilie vnderstand it followeth by a necessarie sequele that his way can not be safe but is to be auoyded with most great care circumspection
of the lawe Exodus that that which in the first Commaundement is forbiden in the Exodus in the 26. of the Leuiticus the same is declared to be idolum sculptile that is an idol a grauen thing And thus wee see the reformers stand single in this matter that the Romanists in their diuision of the ten Commandements proceed vpon a most sound approued foundation it being both conformable to the doctrine of S. Augustin who they more willingly followe then anie other especially to the true sense of the scriptures them selues expounded aceording to the orthodoxe faith and tradition of all succeeding ages A POSTCRIPT OF ADVERTISSEMENTS FOR THE READER I Request the reader of my Censure so take notice of some particulars which occurred since the finishing of it And imprimis touching the homilie and epistles alledged by Sir Humfrey in the 9. section of his safe way against the reall presence and transsubstantion I ansered in the 8. Period of my Censure what I conceiued at that present to wit that ther was not anie doctrine publikly or cōmonly read or preched in England contrarie so the reall presence or transsubstantiation or in anie publik manner deliuered to the people either by Alfric or anie other Bishop or Bishops in anie synod or publik assembly in those dayes since which tyme of the dispatch of that worke some delaye hauing ben made in the cōmitting it to the presse hauing had greater opportunitie leasure to view the histories of our countrie which treate of the affayres of those ages in which Alfric liued which was in some parte of the 10. and leuenth Centuries by more exact examinatiō search in to the matter I finde my selfe assured of the trueth of that which I then deliuered And now for greater satisfaction of the reader and more cleare conuincement of the same I adde that touching Alfrics person and state of life he was first a monke by profession in the monasterie of Abington and as Malesburie relates lib. 1. de gest Pont. Aug. pag. 203. Abbat of the same then Bishop of wilton and after Archbishop of Canterburie Ther is diuersitie of opinions whether Siricius alias sigericus or Alfric did immediately succeed S. dunstan in that seat but that importeth little certaine it he was a Roman Catholique Vid. Harpsf saec 10. cap. 7. for that an ancient Chronicle writ by a monke of the same monasterie of Abington wher of as I alledged our of Malesburie Alfric was Abat conuinceth testifying that he went to Rome for his Episcopall pall as the custome was which iourney Alfric would neiuer haue made nor euer haue obtained his request if he had not ben of the same faith in euerie point which at that tyme the Pope him selfe professed That which also is most plainely demonstrated by an ample testimonie which the church of Canterburie gaue of the same Arcbishop Alfric and at their request sent to the monkes of his order and monasterie Abington for a perpetuall memorie of his faith and manners which for greater sattsfaction of the reader I will here rehearse at it as recorded by the foresaid religious man To the children of the holy church of Canterburie the clergie and the same church after their deuoute prayers It is knowne vnto you all how long since it is that by the successes of diuers and various euents the mother church of England hath ben depriued of her pastor and destitute of her rector which doth pertaine not onely to our losse but alsoe to the detriment of you and all this Iland since it is apparent that the sollicitude and care of the whole countrie is committed to the Metroplican For which cause we haue elected Alfric by name monke of the holy church of Abington most sufficiently knowne vnto vs noble in brith and maners indued with Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall discipline and in faith a Catholique by nature prudente docible patient temperate chaste sober humble affable mercifull learned instructed in the lawe of God cautelous in the senses of the scripture exercised in Ecclesiasticall decrees or determinations And according to the path of scripture orthodox traditions and Canons and constitutions of the Prelates of the Apostolicall seat vnderstanding teaching Praesulum Sedis Apostolica and obseruing the Ecclesiasticall rules in a sound sense and embracing that faithfull worde which is according to doctrine and reprehending with modestie those whoe resist it and hauing power to resiste and redargue them hospitable modest well ruling his house not a neophit hauing a good opinion or testimonie ministering in euerie degree or order according to Ecclesiasticall tradition Prepared for all good workes and to giue satisfaction to euerie one that shall demaunde it of the hope which is in him c. Thus proceedeth the testimonie of the electors of Alfric And to this I ioyne that S. Dunstan his immediate predecessor excepting Ethelgar or at the most according to the opiniō of some writers excepting Ethelgar and Siricius whoe both liued but fiue yeares or ther aboutes as our histories reporte at the tyme of his death spake much of the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist in a sermon he made the same day he dyed Svy S. Dunstan And in like manner of Elphegus Alfrics successor it is reported by our English historians he was such a mortifyed man by reason of his great abstinence and fasting that when according to the custome of the Romā church he eleuated the sacred hoaste in masse the reflected ayre appeared as it were in a glasse throu ' the iunctures of his fingers Now touching the twoe immediate predecessors of Alfric which I mentioned before to wit Ethelgar Sricius neither anie historiographer nor yet anie of our aduersaries themselues doe note them to haue diuulged or admitted in their tyme anie other doctrine concerning the Eucharist then that which was then professed in the Roman church By which it is manifest that both immediately before and immediately after Alfrics dayes the same doctrine of the reall presēce which at this tyme the Romā church maintaines was cōmonly tought practised in England and no other soe that morally speaking it is not apprehensible that in the tyme of Alfrics being Bishop of Canterburie which according to the computation of tymes was but ten yeares or littlemore Godwins Catalogue the contrarie doctrine and the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation could haue bin publikly professed and published by diuers Bishops in their synods as Sir Humfrey Line affirmes Besydes this Lanfranc whoe in the next age succeeded Alfric in the seat of canterburie habetur in vlt. edit Bibl. Patr. tom 11. in his booke against Berengarie of the sacrament of the Eucharist som'at after the midest he speakes thus against his aduersarie Propulsatis iam quantum satis visum est calumnijs c. hauing sufficiētly repelled the calumniations which with cantumely of Bishop Humbert the Roman Church thou hast temerariously vttered it remaines that we
S. Cyrill with all his fellow Bishops assembled in Ephesus what Greece with them what Egipt and what S. Hierome him self whoe published the liues of the holye Fathers in latin And therfore not obstanding some erre in this by ignorance neuerthebesse as yet ther is none that openly contradictes that which the whole world doth beleeue confesse Thus Pascasius a learned and venerable and virtuous Abbat testifyeth the faith of the vniuersall Church in his dayes touching the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Whoe altho' he was not English nor liued iuste in the tyme of Alfric yet he liued within the compasse of the same age in which Alfric was Bishop of wilton and Archbishop of Canterburie that is the yeare 900. yea it may be Pascasius was yet aliue whē Alfric was Abbat and consequently when he is supposed by our aduersaries to haue writ those epistles which they produce in his name concerning this matter Soe that by this testimonie of Pascasius a forcible argument is made that the contrarie doctrine of the reall presence cauld not possible haue ben soe publick and common in anie parte of the Christian world in soe shorte a space of tyme as passed if anie passed betwixt Pascasius and the writing of the homilie and Epistles attributed to Alfric if he did euer write them And how beit is may appeare by the writings of Pascasius that ther were some in or aboute his tyme whoe argued writ in an vnacustomed and new manner touching the doctrine of the presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament as particularly Ioannes Scotus Bertrame and Frudegarde yet as much as I can perceiue by reading Pascasius Fulbertus Stephanus Eduēsis others whoe writ of this matter the broachers of this question did neuer absolutely auerre and maintaine anie assertion directly repugnant to the true and reall existence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely made a schoole question of it arguing the matter pro and contra and that not determinately of the reall presence but whether the same bodie bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie was crucifyed vpon the Crosse was contained vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament not rather some other kynd of Christs bodie and bloud yet truely his and truely present in the Eucharist thou in a figuratiue and tropicall manner And that neither the named authors nor anie other in or aboute Pascasius tyme did plainely or of set purpose impugne the reall presence it plainely appeares by his wordes aboue cited affirming that not obstanding some erred by ignorance yet that none did openly contradict that which the whole world did beleeue and confesse That which is yet further confirmed for we read not that either Scotus Frudegard or Bertrame were euer condemned by the Church in their persons in anie Councell or otherwise which is an euidēt signe they were not obstinate in defence of their opinions but onely deliuered their doubts by way of proposition as at the least in Frudegard in particular doth manifestly appeare by the responsion of Pascasius to his Epistle saying thus Quaeris enim de re ex qua multi dubitant You inquire of a thing of which manie doubt And for conclusion of his owne Epistle Pascasius saith to Frudegard Tu autem velim relegas libellum nostrum de hoc opere For I would haue you read my booke of this matter which you say you haue read in tymes past And if you reprehend or doubt of anie thing in it let it not be tedious vnto you to reuiewe it And finally towardes the end of his exposition of the wordes of the institution of the Eucharist he speaketh to Frudegard in this manner Quapropter charissime Wherfore most dearely beloued doe not doubt of this Mysterie which Christ the truth it self hath of him self bestowed vpon vs. For altho' he sits in heauen at the reight hand of his Father yet doth he not disdaine to be Sacrifyced dayly by the preist in the Sacrament as a true hoaste Now that the same Frudegardus doubt was onely whether the bodie of Christ contained in the Sacrament was the same bodie which he assumed of the Virgin Marie is plaine by Pascasius anser saying thus almost in the beginning of his Epistle Ergo cum ait Wherfore when he saith this is my bodie or my flesh or this is my bloud I think he intimated no other flesh then his owne propter bodie which was borne of the Virgin Marie and hanged en the Crosse Nor anie other bloud then that which was spilt vpon the Crosse and which then was in his bodie No man therfore which is soundly wise doth beleeue that Iesus had anie other flesh or bloud then that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and suffered vpon the Crosse And for conclusion of his foresaid exposition he saith thus to the same Frudegard Ad vltimum quaeso te Lastely I praye fallow not the fooleries of the tripartite or triple bodie of Christ. Doe not mingle salt nor hunnie in it as some would doe not adde nor substracte anie thing but beleeue and vnderstand it all as Christ instituted c. As for Scotus and Bertrame althou ' their bookes haue hen reproued yet it doth not fallow that their authors did directly and absolutely impugne the reall presence or transsubstantiation but they onely deliuered their myndes in a doubtfull obscure and ill sounding manner for which cause and for auoyding of danger they were iustely prohibited the onely the Councell of vercelles the other by the purgatorie Index Howbe it I find nothing in Bertram which with a pious interpretation might not passe among the learned sorte of people And thus much may suffice for proofe that in Pascasius tyme ther had ben no plaine denyall of the reall presence or transsubstantiation in the Christian world but onely some incident doubts made by some particular persons and that in a discussiue manner not as obstinate maintainers of such Doctrine And now by this same and the rest which I haue aboue produced out of the same Pascasius Lanfrāc and others the false Archbishop and Primate of Ireland is conuinced of an apparent falsitie for that in the 79. page of his anser to a Iesuits chalenge he had the face to affirme that til the dayes of Lanfranc this question of the reall presence continued still in debate and that it was as free for anie man to followe the Doctrine of Bertram he calles him Ratrannus or Ioannes Scotus as that of Pascasius This audatious affirmation of vsher I say is clearly condemned of falsitie by the same Pascasius whome he citeth and whoe as I haue alledged testifyes that the doctrine of the reall presence in his tyme was not as yet contradicted by anie except those whoe denye Christ but beleeued and professed by the whole world althou some saith he did erre in the same by ignorance And this onely
may be made in S. Augustine who as Caluin confesseth being a faithfull witnesse of antiquity Lib. 18 de Ciuit. cap. â—6 Calu. li. 4. â—nst c. 14. Sac. testifieth touching the bookes of the Machabees that althou ' the Iewes receiue them not for Canonicall yet the Church doth receaue them And according to this it being true that few or none of the great multitude of writers which the kinght produceth in euery seuerall age doe positiuely affirme that those 22. bookes of scripture onely which the reformers vse were by the vniuersall Christian Catholike Church held to be the complete or intire Christian Canon of the ould testament or that those particular bookes now in controuersie betwixt vs them were expresly reiected eueÌ„ by the Iewes themselues as not Canonicall or not of infallible credit not rather held by them for sacred diuine althou not registred in their Canon which is the cheife part of Sir Humfreyes proposition it followeth cleerly that he quite faileth in his proofe that for all his braggs he onely steppeth out of his pretended safeway into the same by path he hath euer walked in since he firste began to write neuer omitting his occustomed sleightes in the allegation of authors concluding his section with that laregelye so often repeated by him in this other places as affirming that by his aduersaries owne confessions the true orthodox Church did reiect those Apocriphall bookes which his Church reiecteth the Trent Councell alloweth at this day for Canonicall out of which thrasonicall audacity of this boysterous Caualier the reader may easily take a scantling of the rest so come to know the fox by his tatterd tayle â—ec 6. In his sixt sex section he pretendeth to solue the Romanists arguments deduced froÌ„ authoritie of Fathers Councells for those bookes which the reformers hold for Apocriphall Touching which point althou ' it cannot be denyed but that doubt was made in former times among the fathers whether the foresayd bookes were Canonicall or not in which there was diuersitie of opinions especially before the Councell of Carthage neuerthelesse it is certaine that neither the whole Church in any Councell nor yet anie of the Doctors or fathers did positiuely at any time euer agree to exclude them out of the Christian Canon but as some of the fathers made doubt of the same so others made none at all among whome S. Augustine was so confident in that matter that in his 2. booke of Christian doctrine that not obiter but professedly treating of it he setteth downe the very same number names of the very same bookes which the Roman Church defendeth for Canonicall at this present day yet notobstanding this our aduersarie is so presumptuous voyde of shame that he doubtes not to affirme that Sainct Augustine did not allow the bookes of Iudith â—… 132. wisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees for Conanicall In iustification of which his impudent assertion it is wondrous to consider how the crafty Sicophant doth excercise his witts in framing euasions wherby to elude the plaine testimony of that renowned orthodox Doctor the decree of the Councell of Carthage in that particular to which the same S. Augustine subscribed eueÌ„ in this same point of the Canonicall scriptures reiected by the preteÌ„siue reformed Churches Howbeit all that Sir Humfrey could inuent for the infringeing of these two sound irrefragable authorities consists either wholely or cheeflie in equiuocations insincere dealing in the citing construeing of the authors he alleageth yea in vttering of diuers plaine vntruthes as where he saith of the third Councell of Carthage that it is not of that authority as the Romanists themselues pretend adding presently after for reasoÌ„ of his first lye another as great or greater against Bellarmine affirming that the Cardinall wheÌ„ the Protestants produce this Councell against the head of their Church answereth that this prouinciall Councell ought not to binde the Byshops of Rome nor the Byshops of other Prouinces citing him for this sayeing in his 2. booke de Rom. Pont. cap. 31. where neuerthelesse there are no such wordes to be found And finallie to omitt other of lesse noyse he affirmes that S. Augustine declares by pregnant seuerall reasons that the Machabees are Apocriphall yet he denyeth not euen in this very place but that the same S. Augustine both put them in the Canon of the scriptures in his second booke de doct Christ nor yet that he affirmed in his 18. booke de Ciuit. Dei cap. 36. that the Church hath them for Canonicall thou ' the Iewes hould them not for such By which it appeeres that Sir Humfrey touching this point of controuersie is not in the way of S. Augustine of the determination of the Church of Rome in his times but is with shame enuffe fallen againe into his owne by way where he his progenitors haue euer wandred since the daies of Luther Sect. 7. In the seuenth section he reprehendeth the proofe of Catholike doctrine by traditions makes such a trade of dealing vntruelie that one would thinke sure he liues by lyeing And now I verilie persuade my selfe it is most true which a certaine ingenious Protestant sayd of the Puritans that they will rather affoord ten lyes then one oath In his verie firste wordes he affirmes that to admit traditions other constitutions of the Church is the firste article of the Roman Creed to which all Bishops Preists are sworne citing in the margen the Bull of Pius the fourth this is his first lye in this section but he will make sure it shall not be his last for he incontinentlie addeth two or three more one in the neck of another affirming that those obseruations constitutions of the Church which Pope Pius mentioneth are declared by the Councell of Trent to be those traditions which the Church receiueth with equall reuerence religious affection for so the knight insincerelie translates the wordes pari pietatis affectu as she receaues the holie scriptures Ego firma fide credo omnia singula qua contineÌ„tur in symbolo fidei c. Bul Pij 4. sup form iur prof fid adding more that heere was the firste alteration made touching the rule of faith with diuers other falsities too large to recount And yet if when he read the foresayd Bull he had not for hast scipped ouer the whole Creed which the Pope placeth in the verie firste part of the profession of faith showeing euen by that vnfaithfull tricke how little faith he hath I thinke he would neuer haue had the face to calumniate in this manner And if to speake in commendation of diuine Apostolicall traditions in that forme of speach which the Councell vseth were to make alteration in the rule of faith as the knight will haue it yet is it apparentlie false that the Tridentine Councell was the firste author of that
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
first chapter of his Euchyr saith these wordes praestantia huius scripturae c. the excellencie of this scripture doth surpasse the scriptures multis partibus in manie respects or by manie degrees those scriptures which the Apostles left vs in partchement he doth not speake of the vnwritten tradition of the Church but of that scripture which as afterwardes he declareth Spiritus sanctus in cordibus imprimere dignatus est that is which the holie spirit doth digne or voutsafe to imprinte in our hartes Which as he speakes before in the same chapter is nothing els but the spirit of consent of the Catholike Church in faith and the concording doctrine of all faithfull Christians not of those onely which now liue in the whole world but those alsoe whoe by continuall succession haue propagated the faith of Christ from the tyme of the Apostles which is that Scripture which the Apostle saith 2. cor 3. is read by all men and the vnction quaest 2. Io. 2. docet nos de omnibus c. which teaches vs all things which as he further addeth afterwardes hath all truth in it selfe and containeth all faith and mysteries of Christian religion and resolues all doubtes which may aryse in matter of faith and soe costerus compareth not the vnwritten worde with the written precisely but the internall with the externall which internall scripture is iustely preferred by him before the bare written worde or caracter because as he takes it here it includes the true sense of both the one and the other by which it appeares that the exceptions which Sir Humfrey takes at this authors wordes ar captious and voyde of reason Vrspergensis is produced by Sir Humfrey page 400. of his deuia as a witnesse that the second councel of Nyce or seuēth generall synod assembled in the yeare 788. was reiected in the councell of Francford as vtterly voyde and not to be named the seuenth And yet hauing examined this passage in that author I fynde he speakes not a worde of the Nycene councell but of a cettaine councell of Constantinople which he affirmes to haue ben called the seuenth synod general by the Emperatrice Irene and her sonne Constantine his wordes are these Sinodus etiam qua ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli congregata sub Irene Constantino filio eius septima vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacua ab omnibus nimirum patribus Concilij Francfordiensis abdicata est Vrsperg pag. 176. in which wordes of what soeuer Councell vrpergensis intended to speake yet none of them mention the Councell of Nyce as all those whoe vnderstand latin may easily perceiue And if Sir Hunfrey will replye and say that tho' that author doth not mention the Nycene Councell in wordes yet doth he sufficiently declare his meaning to be of no other Councell then the seeond Nycene Synod in regarde he affirmes it to haue ben vnder Irenne and her sonne and the same which was condemned in the Councell of Francford I anser that by reason this author doth vtter twoe things which seeme to implye contradictiō to wit that this Councell was assembled at Constantinople and yet that it is the same which was reiected by the Councell of Francford it euidently followeth that no certaine argument can be drawne frō his wordes whatsoeuer his meaning was and this is sufficient to shewe that he is cited in vaine by the knight Secondly I say not obstanding vspergensis hallucination and suppose he did truely meane that the Councell of Nyce concerning the adoration of images was reproued by the Synod of Francford as some other authors admit in their disputatiōs with the sectaries of our tymes yet doth this nothing auaile our aduersaries cause both in respect the Synod of Francford is not accepted by the Romanists for an authenticall Councell in this particular as alsoe for that as some opinate it proceeded vpon false information and persuasion that the foresaid Synod of Nyce had decreed that images were to be adored with diuine honor and by this meanes the Fathers and doctors ther assembled were deceiued and committed an error of fact Which error neuerthelesse neither can nor ought to preiudice that doctrine which was before established by an authenticall generall Councell as was the secōd Synod consisting of a happie cōiunction of both the latin Grecian Church as of sune and moone And the reader may see that Sir Humfrey hath both dealt some thing insincere in the allegatiō of Vspergensis and alsoe hath proceeded preposterously in that he indeuored to infringe the authoritie of the greater Councell by the vncertaine proceeding of the lesse Page 261. of the same deuia he detortes the S. Irenaeus wordes contrarie to his meaning against Apostolicall traditions And yet S. Irenaeus euen in the wordes which are cited by him speakes onely against those who denyed absolutely that the trueth is deliuered by the Scriptures but onely by tradition and soe made them selues or their onwe traditions the rule of faith Of which number of hererikes saith he were Valentinus Marcion Cerinthus Basilides of whome he vttered the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey as affirming that the truth could not be founde by Scriptures by those whoe were ignorant of traditions for say they the truth was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth yet notobstanding this the same Irenaeus afterwardes speakes against others whoe doe not denye scriptures or rather against such as follow scriptures onely and reiect traditions receiued from the Apostles by succession of preists and conserued or obserued in the Church saying that they haue founde the pure truth as the pretended reformers nowe commonly babble of whome he saith that They neither consent to scriptures nor tradition and against whome saith the saint we ought euerie way to resist Soe that it is cleare that he disputes here onely against such heretikes as neither yealde to scriptures nor traditions and therfore he putteth for the litle of his chapter in this place quod neque scripturis neque traditionibus obsequantur haretici that heretiques neither obey scriptures nor traditions both which S. Irenaeus doth expressely imbrace And by this lett the reader iudge how intempestiuely the knigh doth produce this testimonie against those I meane the Romanists who neither reiect the scriptures nor approued traditions but like twoe indiuided companions receiue them both and let him alsoe consider whether the doctrine of holye Irenaeus in this place be not farre more contrarie to the tenet of the pretēded reformers then to the doctrine of the Roman Church whoe make onely scriptures expounded according to their owne sense the sole rule of faith Especially considering that the same ancient Father in the next ensuing chapter doth expressely receiue Apostolicall traditions saying in the verie first wordes traditionem itaque Apostolicam in toto mundo manifestam in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera volunt audire habemus
chapter of the third booke of Bellarmin de verbo Dei pag. 15. And of his owne by way page 503. And secondly in the same Gretzers defense of the first chapter of the first booke of Bellarmine verbo Dei In the first place he abuseth that author in that he produceth him to proue that the Church is finally resolued in to the Pope as head bodie of the same And yet in the verie same chapter page 1456. next leafe Gretzer plainely teacheth that our faith is lastely resolued in to diuine reuelatiō or in to God reueiling or that which is the same in to the prime veritie in which our faith is founded His wordes are these in latin Nam sides nostra vltima resoluitur in reuelationem diuinam seu in Deum reuelantem seu quod idem est in primam veritatem qua nititur fides nostra tanquam fundamento paimario tametsi non inficior fidem quoque resolui in Ecclesiam seu Ecclesiae propositionem altho I doe nor denye that faith is resolued in to the Church or the proposition of the Church c. Immediately after this he saith Sed haec resolutio non est omniuo vltima in principium plane substantiale essentiale sed tantum vt in fundamentum secundarium seu vt in conditionem sine qua fides neque recipitur neque retinetur And euen in these wordes by the knight the Pope alone is not put by Gretzerus for the whole Church but he doth onely say he denyeth not that the Romanists vnderstand by the Pope the Church in one acception not absolutely Which is manifest out of his wordes in the precedent page where he saith Intelligimus etiam nomine Ecclesiae Pontificem pro tempore viuentem quod ipse congregare conuocare potest Concilium hunc summi Pastoris aliorum Praesulum caetum dicimus esse immediatum ordinarium visibilem omnium Controuersiarum quae de religione existunt Iudicem By which wordes it is apparent that Gretzerus doth not take the Popes person alone for the head bodie of the Church but for the head of the bodie of the Church How be it I doe not denye but that the Pope as head cheefe parte of the whole Church may by a senecdoche be taken for the whole Church as he is accepted both by Gretzer and other diuines but yet this acception will nothing profit Sir Humfrey whose wise designe in this place is to persuade his simple reader that the Romanists take the Pope alone without a generall Councell truely and properly for the whole Roman Catholique Church which is his owne phamtasticall dreame not our doctrine In the other place Sir Humfrey plainely falsifyeth this author for wheras Gretzerus onely redargueth his aduersaries whoe falsely affirmes that what soeuer the deuill suggesteth to this or that Pope in particular euen against manifest scripture the Romanists receiue it for Gods worde saying that these things be crepitacula nugantium Praedicantium the clappers of prating preachers that in truth wee Romanists onely receiue reuerence for the worde of God that which the cheefe Bishop doth by Cathedrall definition propose vnto vs as the supreme master Iudge of controuersies Sir Humfrey by fraudulent displaceing of the worde onely putting it before the worde of God quyte peruertes the sense making his reader beleaue that Gretzer affirmes that onely to be the worde of God which the Pope proposeth and as if they held not the scripture it selfe to be Gods worde the contrarie of which neuerthelesse the Iesuit deliuers immediately before in expresse termes saying that it meaning the scripture is had reuerenced by the Pontificians for the worde of God which is soe well knowne that the impudencie of the Predicants can not denye it And thus much touching the corruption abuse of Gretzere by the calumnious knight Moreouer wheras Sir Humfrey cites Castro in his 12. booke as affirming the denyall of Purgatorie to be a most notorious knowne error of the Greciās Armeniās that author is abused by him for he meanes onely of the moderne Grecians not of the ancient Grecian Fathers as the knight giues his reader to vnderstand falsely applying Canus wordes page 181. to the Greek Church of the first ages soe that here is plaine forgerie In like fashion in his 536. page of the Deuia he falsifyes the same author lib. 1. cap. 9. For where Castro saith quamuis enim teneamur ex fide credere verum Petri successorem esse supremum totius Ecclesiae pastorem for those wordes quamuis teneamur that is altho' we are bound Sir Humfrey translates admit we are bounde to beleeue that point as if Castro had doubted of it of which neuerthelesse he makes not anie question but onely saith men are not obledged to beleeue by faith that this or that particular person is true Pope Neither yet doth he denye that euerie Pope hath infallibilitie in a reight line of succession frō S. Peter as the knight doth falsely taxe him but he affirmes onely that it is not a matter of faith soe to beleeue of euerie Pope in particular And therfore he addeth that altho' he were not to be accounted an heretike that should denye obediēce vnto this or that particular Pope to wit Clemēt or Leo yet should he not for doubt of his election sustract him selfe from his obedience And soe we see that here his no other argument then of want of honest dealing in our aduersarie And yet in his 21. section of the deuia page 551. he traduceth the same Alfonsus as if he had scoffed at the Dominicans in generall for that thay were wonte to brag before the people that he that hath once receiued their habit can not erre or fayle in fairh Wher it is true that Castro reprehends sharpely not without reason some particular religious men that vsed such speeches but he is soe farre from saying they are Dominicans that he expressely addes that least he should seeme to taxe the whole order he purposely conceiled the name Ne hoc toti ordini ac societati impressisse videar nomen ordinis ex industria subticui this he did of Charitie But Sir Humfrey contrarily is soe farre from the exercise of that great virtue that he will needs make Castro to impose that vpon a whole order which he meant onely of some particular person of persons Which is a trick of a iuggler thou ' a verie pore one Neither can I conceiue except it were by reuelation howe Sir Humfrey came to know that Castro spake of the Dominicans more then of anie other religious order but let that passe for one of his great miracles Touching the mariage of priests cassander is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey in the 23. art of his consult p. 990. where for antiquae consuetudinis immutandae he puteth in English the change of the lawe and soe leauing out the worde ancient as alsoe the wordes