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
Vide relat Synod Dordrecht Dort in which the reformed Prelates carryed themselues so zealouslie that as it is crediblie reported they spent 2000. pounds in Renish wine to heat their spirits before euer they had decreed anie one point of their controuersies Sec. 17. In his seauenteenth section Sir Humfrey doth nothing but foyst babble abuse Bellarmine other Romanists about the Church as if they extolled her aboue the scriptures accusing here to haue spoyled herself of them as if it were vncertaine among them whether the Roman Church is the true Church because they teach it hath diuers acceptions which is all false friuolous matter for that altho' the Church according to the heterogeniall partes diuers functions of the persons of which it consists may admit seuerall denominations as are the essentiall representatiue or virtuall Church in which point also peraduenture there may be found some difference among the Romanists in their manner of speech speculations yet in substance they all agree that the visible Church to which the faithfull must seeke in their doubtes is the visiblie perpetuallie succeeding Church from the time of Christe till this day which is the plaine way in which etiam stulti ambulant euen the most simple sort of people may easilie finde walke in all other Churches especiallie the inuisible Congregation of Sir Humfrey his fellowes is but a blinde diuerticle by-way fitter for wanderers vagabonds then for the true honest people of God to walke in Sec. 18. In the title of the 18. section the knight pretendeth to proue that the Plea which the Romanists drawe from the infallible authoritie title of the Catholike Church is false vaine friuolous Althou ' the name authoritie of the Catholike Church hath euer binne so odious to all sortes of sectaries that they made it a cheife parte of their labours to impugne the same of which seuerall instances might easilie be produced yet this practise of theirs hath neuer bin so much vsed or so earnestly pursued as in these present tymes For as it is well knowne that their Captaine Antesignane Luther strucke his firste stroake at the Pope Churches power to graunt indulgences so is it also apparent by experience that all his followers continue the same battle with all their strenght stratagems For proofe of which wee need goe no further then to this our aduersarie Who throu ' his whole workes laboureth nothing more then to diminish the lustre power of the Catholike Roman Church in so much that in this verie section he maketh choise rather to lay violent hands vpon the sacred Bible shamefullie to corrupt three seuerall places of the diuine scripture then faile of his purpose or want colour for his peruerse intent which to the end the reader may more plainelie vnderstand I will particularlie reherse The firste place therefore consists in diuers passages of the epistle to the Romans especially in the firste chapter where that which the Apostle by way of admonition speaketh onely to those particular Christians members of the Church which were then at Rome exhorting them to be constant in their faith humble themselues least God cut them of for their sinnes as he did the Iewes the knight doth violentlie drawe it to the whoâ—… Roman Church as if S. Paul did intimate tâ—…â—t had a possibilitie of falling consequentlie was but a particular Church feygning also that sainct Paul did therefore pray for the continuance stabilitie of the Roman faith as if saith Sir Humfrey he had for seene by the spirit of prophesie they would glorie in their owne merites all which is quite repugnant to the meaning of the text as the reader may easilie perceaue And the like abuse of the knight the reader may see in other places which he cites to the same purpose viz. to proue that the Romane Church is faileable as 1. Thessal 8.2 Thessal 3.1 Tim. 3.15 Ephes 3.14 In all which places he vseth much of his accustomed craft peruerting the sense most sacrilegiouslie in all those sacred texts in the firste to the Corinthians he falsifieth the wordes putting thou for vs the particulars of which I am sorie I cannot stande to examine to the end his grosse cousenage might more cleerlie appeare and how vnder coulour of scriptures the sacred word of God truth is adulterated euen by him who so much braggeth glorieth in it After this same fashion he eludeth two pregnant places of Fathers for the authoritie of the Church the one is of Sainct Cypr. lib. 1. epist 3. the other is of sainct Augustine contra epist fund cap. 5. to coulore his euasion about the wordes of sainct Augustine which are these Praterea Ecclesia quae nunc est in fide errare non potest ergo si credidarit aliquem librum esse canonicum ex eius testimonio â— loneum firmum quo sumetur à Theologis argumentur Canon lib. 2. c. 7. Euangelio non crederem nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoueret authoritas he citeth Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. as if this author did fauore his false interpretation of sainct Augustines meaning who neuerthelesse besides that his wordes are not cited home by Sir Humfrey he onelie affirmes that sainct Augustine did not intend in that place to make rhe Church the formall reason why an infidell or one lately conuerted beleiues the Ghospell but onelie the necessarie condition of his beleife of the Canonicall scriptures which doctrine of Canus makes nothing at all for our aduersaries intent in this place which is to disproue the infallible authoritie of the Catholike Church which Canus doth not denie Lib. 7. de Canon c. 10. but professedlie maintayneth particularlie in the verie precedent chapter in other places in a most Catholike manner To this purpose the knight also cites Durand Driedo Gerson but rehearseth not their wordes which notobstaÌ„ding I haue seene cited by Chamier but if they be truly sincerelie vnderstood they conuince nothing against the infallible authoritie of the Church as neyther the wordes of sainct Thomas who onelie affirmeth that sainct Augustine speakes of the Church as an oueruling cause but not as the foundation of faith which no Romanists denies but all vniformely teach that their faith is founded vpon the word of God whose onelie authoritie is the supreme rule of the same but the Church the proponent onelie In the rest of his section Sir Humfrey makes a diuersion to the vniuersalitie of the Church for which he onely produceth some impertinent reasons of no force with the authorities of the Councells of Ferrara Basill waldensis others none of which proues any thing appertayning to the matter in treaty but onely serue to patch vp this part of his bypath in which I leaue him Sec. 19. The 19. section following affirmeth that the Church is finally resolued into the Pope whome saith the kinght the
and Emperours being so much more powerfull as they are knowen to bee then the Pope and Clergie should condescend to a matter of such indignitie as the knight would haue it and so much to their cost if they did not otherwise assure themselues both of the integrity of those who meete in those assemblies and also of the trueth of the doctrine in it selfe Besides that the same is manifestlie conuinced of falsitie for that prayer for the deade and consequentlie Purgatorie was knowen in the world before eyther Pope or Councells were extant as appeareth by the historie of the second booke of the Macchabies the 12. chapter which our aduersaries themselues cannot denie to be a true historie though they impudentlie denie it to be Canonicall Scripture against the plaine testimonie of S. Augustine who affirmeth the Church to hould it for such though the Iewes hold the contrarie Libros Machabeorum non Iudaei sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet Aug. l. 18. de Cuit Dei cap. 39. So that this is but an odious fiction of Sir Humfrey and his companion sectaries inuented by them in disgrace of the chiefe pastour of the Church and the rest of the Priests without eyther authoritie reason or sence accusing them as hinderers of reformation who labour most for it onelie because they refuse to admitte a reformation of their fashioning which indeede is no reformatiō but a deformatiō or defacing of the aunciēt Church an introductiō of a certaine new fantasticall Church most disfigured and vglie vniformiter difformiter deformis voyde of all luster beauty both internall and externall nor euer knowne or heard of before the dayes of Luther His second vntruth it in the end of the 39. page where he affirmeth that the Romanists in the psalters leaue out the second cōmaundemēt This secōd vntruth of the knight inuolueth a double vntruth the first is in that he saith the Romanists leaue out the foresaid commaūdement in their psalters whereas it is well knowne that in the whole Psalter the second cōmaundemēt is not to be foūd at the least formally as it is one of the ten But this vntruth because I perceiue it proceedes rather of ignorāce thē malice I am cōtent to pardon Yet because when he said the Romanists lefte it out of their psalters he either meant they lefte it out of the text of Scripture or that they left it out of their catechismes onely I āswer that whethersoeuer he meant he cānot be excused for telling an vntruth first because he falsely supposeth for certaine that to be the second commaundement which indeede is but an explication of the first in the opinion both of S. Augustine and either all or almost all other diuines of later yeares Secondly because those same authours who hould those same wordes Thou shalt not make to this selfe any grauen image to be the second commandemēt doe not hould that the Images of Christ and his saints and due honour of thē are prohibited by that precept among Christians but onely a gentilicall or idolatrous vse of pictures or grauen images of false Gods and other such abuses as be repugnant to the due honour of the true and onely God Lastly it is also false that all Catechismes leaue out that precept if precept it be as appeareth by the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent and of Canisius and some others So that you see now that the knight is euery way conuinced of an vntruth And although it is true that in diuerse of their Catechismes the Romanists leaue out all the rest of the first commaundement as they lie in the text of the 20. of Exodus excepting those Thou shall haue no other Gods but me Yet they doe not so with any sinister intention as the reformers vniunstly accuse them to doe in regard it is well knowne that those who vse to instruct children in their Catechisme notwithstanding they vse not to fill childrens heads with such proclamations against grauē Images as the reformers doe yet they neuer omitte to declare and explicate exactly the whole tenour of the words of the commaundement inculcating most diligently the true sense of the same and teaching them how farre it is true that images and the worshippe of them in prohibited by that precept the difference betweene the vse of Christian images and those which according to the practice of those times were vnlawfull But the true reason why Romanists most commonly omitte those wordes Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing and the rest is because Catechismes being onely a short summe of Religion it is fitting they be most briefe and compendious as being so more easy to learne and more conformable to the capacity of children then if they were large and prolixe in wordes especially considering that that which wanteth in wordes may farre more easily be added by the master by may of cxplication then many lines can be cōmitted to memory by weake and vnapt schollers Neither doe the Romanists make catechismes for Iewes and Gentiles but for Christians and Catholiks and so it were both superfluous and impertitinent to put in all the wordes of the text or more as the reformers doe some of which doe belong rather to the law of moyses then to the Ghospell of Iesus Christ and therefore for the verie same reason the Romanists leaue out of their Catechismes diuerse words of the precept of the Sabaoth as iudging them vnnecessarie for the instruction of Christian children As also because according to the doctrine of S. Augustin in his question vpon this commaundement those onely words Vide illum infra in fine op Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me are the whole substance of the first commaundement and the same in sense with the other which immediatly follow in the text to wit thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing by which grauen thing S. Augustin in the same place vnderstandeth an idol not any grauen image as the reformers doe corruptedly vse to translate and commonly put it so in their Catechismes for the false instruction of their children And hence it plainely appeareth that the Romanists leaue not out of any of their bookes of Christian doctrine anie of the ten commandements but rather that the reformed brothers put in one more then either according to Scripture or the doctrine of S. Augustin they ought to doe as by the true diuision and number of them at the end of this worke shall the be more manifestly declared Thirdly it is vntrue which he affirmeth though by way of insinuatiō onely that the Romanists doe adore a piece of bread For it is well knowne they adore not the bread but that which christ himselfe affirmed to be his body for which adoration besides the scripture we say with S. Augustin nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit Aug. in ps 98. and so this though Sir Humfrey as it seemes was ashamed to vtter it plainely yet it
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
Ecclesiasticall custome or lawe onelie or that there is anie such matter as oblation in the celebration of diuine seruice for that they themselues haue it not in their newe Raphsodie For Cassanders authoritie we do not care And yet I can not finde in Mycrologus those wordes which Cassander and Sir Humfrey alledge out of him to wit it can not properlie be called a communion except some besides the Preist doe communicate How be it the same Cassander in the same place doth not condemne priuate Masses for a Sacrilegious action or to be prohibited as Sir Humfrey and the rest of the Nouellists commonlie maintaine But onelie playing the parte of a Pacifyer which he professeth persuades that the auncient custome may be restored Nay and he addes further and that truelie that the Preists say when they celebrate priuatelie they doe not participate of the Sacrament in their owne priuate name but in the name of the Church and people which doubtlesse in reason is sufficient to make it a true communion if otherwise it were not And as for Mycrologus certaine it is that he is no condemner of priuate Masse how soeuer he might esteeme that communion lesse proper according to the Etymon of the worde Vid. Cassander pag. 998. in which more then one doe not actuallie receiue which is all he intendes if anie such saying he hath which notwithstanding is not contrarie to the doctrine or practise of the Romanists Innocentius tertius onelie explicates the ancient custome of the Church touching the communion of the people at euetie Masse and the change of it at seuarall times and by degrees And surelie if we consider that the Nouelists hould this Pope for one of their greatest opposites in doctrine it were madnesses to imagin that he should in anie sorte fauoure their tenets And because I reflected that Innocentius as being a Pope had no reason to finde anie greater fauour at Sir Humfreys hands then other Romanists haue founde vpon vewe of the place I discouered that he had falselie translated some parte of Innocentius wordes which make against him to wit for these wordes quia nec hoc digne potuit obseruari he translates by reason this custome was neglected whereas he should haue put in English Because neither this could be dignely or with due reuerence obserued By which false translation he inuertes the true cause of the altetation of the foresaid custome Hoffmeisterus onelie declares the publicitie of the auncient custome with a desire that endeauours may be vsed for the restitution of it with whome we Romanists all ioyne to our power so this is out of the compasse of our question The allegation of Doctour Harding who speakes much to the same purpose I haue ansered in an other place and showed the deceite of the relatour altho' in this place I finde he rehearses his wordes truelie by reason it had auailed him nothing to haue here abused him Iustinian makes no mention of either priuate or publike Masses but onelie of the participation of one consecrated bread or loafe to signifie more expresselie the vnion of charitie which is not to this purpose as neither is the place of Bellarmin following lib. 2. de missa cap. 9. as afterwardes I will declare But to returne to Doctour Harding it is true I find Sir Humfrey cytes him towardes the end of the same paragraffe out of Iewell which altho' he makes nothing for the proofe of his intent in this place but is onelie brought in vpon the by to enlarge and fournish his discourse as I suppose yet doth he abuse that learned diuine in that he leaueth out one speciall reason which he alledges why the primatiue Catholikes vsed to communicate euerie day with the Preist because sayth he they looking hourelie to be catched put to death by the Panimes I relate the sense not the formall wordes should not departe without the viaticum Which wordes being the verie harte of the authours sentence Sir Humfrey verie slylie omits it as if it were not to the purpose and by that meanes he most deformedlie couples the head and the heeles together which corruption altho' it doth not much auaile him yet it seemes he makes a recreation of that arte and so he will rather playe smale game then sit out Lastelie the wordes of Iustinian taken out of his Commentarie vpon 1. Cor 10. are impertinent for he does not affirme that the Communion directlie was giuen to all that were present as his wordes cited by the knight doe testifie which authour being the laste which he cites and no more to his purpose then the rest let this suffice for the censure of the contents of this whole paragraffe and particularlie for the confutation of that aspersion of Noueltie and corruption with the knight doth indeuore calumniouslie to cast vpon the Roman Creede it nowe being plainelie cleered and iustified by that which hath beene said and he himselfe conuinced of false dealing and forgerie The paragraffe insueing is of the seuen Sacramēts And to be plaine with Sir Humfrey I say that in the verie entrance of his treatie he telleth a plaine lie to his reader affirming the Romanists to relie wholie vpon the Councell of Trent in this pointe For this Councell expresselie hath in the margent of the decree of the septenarie number of Sacraments the Councell of Florence and in the decrees of euerie seuerall Sacrament there is reference to scriptures Councels and Fathers as the margines doe testifie Wherefore thus the knight beginneth and how he will proceed I know not but yet for the most parte an ill beginning makes an ill ending First he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying that the authoritie of the Councell of Trent if there were no other ought to suffice for proofe of the septinarie number of the Sacraments But he might with farre greater reason haue reprehend both his owne temeritie and the presumption of the reformed Churches Which without anie such authoritie as the Councell of Trent hath doe denie the foresaid number of Sacraments Besides that Bellarmins meaning is not that the Coūcell of Trent hath sufficient authoritie to define the same without foundation of the worde of God or without scripture as it seemes Sir Humfrey falselie supposeth but that supposing such a foundation it hath infallible power to declare the same as conformeable to trueth to the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church in former ages and consequentlie as a matter of faith And certainelie that Church which hath not this authoritie is no true Church nor such an one as is described in the scriptures but a meere conuenticle or Scismaticall cōgregation vnsuteable to the worde of God And whereas it seemes straunge to Sir Humfrey that according to Bellarmine one testimonie of a late Councell might suffice for the establishing of an article of faith for that by his owne tenet such an article requires both antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent let him but truelie and sincerelie consider what Bellarmines
meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstāding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was boūd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questiō diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knowē for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all Christiās but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of Trēt and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the Romā Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of
the whole miserere Psalme and crying out with an amplius laua for a perpetuall testimony of the same And now supposing as I say all this the doctrine practice of Indulgēces now vsed by the cheefe Pastours of the Roman Church is so well groūded that except onely in those in whom obstinacie reigneth more then reason it admitteth no trergiuersation in the credibilitie and faith of it For as God is infinitly not onely iust but also mercifull in himselfe by essēce so hath he cōmunicated to the gouernours of his church a kind of participatiue mixture of both those attributes betweene which according to that of the psalme iustitia pax osculatae sunt he hath made a most louing league to the end that according to diuers causes and occasions his spirituall officers may so vse them in earth as the vse may be approued in Heauen sometimes vsing rigour of discipline for the satisfaction of Gods iustice other times lenity for the exercise of his mercy But now touching the confirmation of this doctrine by the authority of Fathers I will onely produce the testimonies of Tertull. and S. Cyprian who being both so ancient as they are knowne to be they may iustely serue for sufficient witnesses of the ancient practice of the same in those primatiue times Tertullian therefore in his booke to the Martirs and first chapter speaketh of the remission of the paine due to sinnes which the Bishops gaue vnto the sinners either at the petition of martyrs or for other causes calling it by the name of peace Which peace faith he some that haue it not in the Church are accustomed to aske it of the martyrs in prision and therefore you also meaning the Bishops ought for that cause to haue norish and keepe it in your selues to the end that if perhaps you may communicate it to others where Tertullian by the worde peace vnderstandes the Bishops absolution at the least frome some parte of the sinners pennance by application of the superabundant satisfactions of the martyrs which application is also in the worde peace included as manifestly may be gathered out of the same Tertullian who afterwardes falling in to heresie in his 22. chap. of his booke of chastitie recalled that which he had tought before to wit that indult could not be giuen to those that had fallen at the petition of the martyrs because saith he now turned Heretike there remaine no satisfactions of martyrs which satisfactions hee calleth oleum faculae which can suffice for themselues others All which as the reader may clearelie perceiue is nothing els in substance but such an Indulgence as is now practiced by the Bishops of Rome of whome and others by their comission the foresayd authour doth speake in the place rehearsed And the same saith S. Cyprian in his last Sermon de lapsis saith paenitenti operanti roganti potest clementer ignoscere potest in acceptum referre quicquid pro talibus petierint martyres fecerint Sacerdotes To the working or laboring penitent the Bishop of whome he speaketh as I suppose may clemently pardon accept as receiued whatsoeuer the martyrs demaunde the Preists doe or performe And the like the same S. Cyp. hath l. 3. epist 15. or 11. I omit Sainct Gregorie whome yet both S. Thom. and Atisiodorus his predecessour testifie to haue graunted Indulgences in forme which altho' it is not founde in his workes now extant yet it is farre more credible and certaine that those two authours would not haue vsed that testimonie with out infalible grounde that it was S. Gregories then that it was feigned because kemnitius and other nouellists reiect it as suppositious And if they will not admit of this testimonie because they see it not At the least they must of necessitie admit of that which being yet more auncient is to be seeme in the Chappell of S. Crosse of Hierusalem in Rome written in legible letters that S. Siluester who was Bishop Pope aboue 1200. years paste did consecrate that Chappell and adorne it with maine reliquies of saints and indulted diuers perdons to the visiters of it I could alsoe cite the Popes which since the time of S. Greg. in seuerall ages haue very frequentlie graunted Indulgences but because I knowe our presumptuous aduersaries contemne their authority tho' iniustlie for that they haue ben of as great authoritie as their anticessours I will saue the labour and onely aduertice the reader that ther is farre greater reason for a prudent man to giue credit vnto them in the affirmatiue of this question then there is to rely vpon the authoritie of the sectaries for the negation in regard that euen by their owne confession the affirmatiue hath ben tought and practiced publikelie in the Christian world at the least for the space of 400. years euen according to Kemnitius who tho' most falsely for that it may be proued That Leo the third who liued in the 8. or 9. hundreth yeare gaue pardons according to the manner of those our times affirmeth that Indulgences began aboute the yeare 1200. who neuertelesse on the contrary contradicting himselfe graunteth that the first denyers of the same were the Waldenses a company of pore ignorant beggarlie fellowes From whence we may inferre how impudentlie the kinght affirmeth antiquitie vniuersalitie in his owne Church for the denyall of Indulgences yet dinying the same in the Church of Rome for her defence of them supposing he could not produce as much as one authour either more or lesse auncient for the negatiue parte liuing before the pore men of lions who hauing no other saint for their founder then one waldo a verie idiot appeared aboute the yeare of our Lord 1170. that is manie hundreths of yeares after Indulgences had beene practized in the Christian world euen according to the forme now vsed It is true Sir Humfrey alledgeth diuers Roman diuines as he vseth to doe but it is but a meere shift he vseth to colour his position as being destitute of all other auncient authoritie proofe For I haue examined those authours I finde there is not one of them which is not a zelous defender both of the power which Christ gaue vnto the Church to graunt Indulgences also of the lawfullnes profit of them nor doth anie one of them confesse the want of antiquitie consent of the same but some of them onelie confesse indeed there is no certainetie of their beginning or when the vse of them came into the Church in the manner they are now vsed To which purpose the testimonie cited out of B. Fisher may seeme to serue who yet doth not say as the knight falselie relates that it is not sufficientlie manifest from whome Indulgences had their Originall but he onelie sayth non certo constare a quo primum tradi caeperunt that it is not certainelie apparent who first began to giue them And altho' that author hath the rest of the wordes which Sir Humfrey
cites yet hath he others in the same place which doe sufficientlie declare his meaning in that manner of speech for he presentlie addes that S. Gregorie is sayde to haue graunted Indulgences they saye saith he that there was some most auncient vse of them among the Romans which the stations of the Citie giue vs to vnderstand And hence it is that the same Bishop in the same place turning his speach to Luther his aduersarie sayth vnto him wherefore thou art a meere imposter or deceiuer of the people not the Popes to whome in this point of Indulgences both the Gospell fauoreth and a generall Councell subscribes also the vniuersal companie of moderne interpreters vpon those wordes of Christ math 16. whatsoeuer you shall bynde in earth shall be bounde in heauen whatsoeuer you shall loose in earth shall be loosed in heauē thus hee So that it is plaine that Bishop Fisher neuer duobted of the power of Indulgēces or that the vse of them is not lawfull or profitable as neither doth he bring in question whether the auncient Fathers diuines did denie or not acknowledge these particulars but as I saide before he onelie treates of the antiquitie of the vse of the same as manifestlie appeares euen by the same wordes which the knight cites where he sayth that Indulgences began not till a while after the sainte or tremble of Purgatotie By which also it doth further appeare that in his passage that renowned Prelate who not onelie with his pen but also with his sacred bloud defended the Roman faith as well in this as all other points is not sincerelie dealt with nor pertinentlie alledged to the true state of the question proposed by our aduersarie Now other authours which Sir Humfrey cities onely affirme that much can not be said of Indulgences of certaintie as vndoubtedly true seeing scriptures speake not of them expresselie as Durand affirmes to which purpose also Antoninus speakes yet neither of them say that nothing can be spoken with certainetie of them Which is not contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists who altho' they beleeue there is sufficient grounde of the power truth of them in the Bible yet they willingly graunte with all that diuers particulars concerning them are disputable among diuines And it is cleare that Durand S. Antoninus as they say onely that pauca fewe things can be sayde with certainetie of pardons or Indulgences that the scripture doth not speake expressely of them so by the same reason euident it is that the same authours graunte that both some things may be pronounced certainly of them also that at the least ther is implicit vnexpressed mention or containement of them in the scripture to wit of power of the Church to graunt vse them which a lone is sufficient to shewe that they consequētly maintaine the vniuersalite antiquitie of the Roman doctrine in this point impugne the contrarie position of the false reformers who absolutelie obstinatelie denie such power to reside in the Church of God And as for that which Durand affirmes that diuers of the auncient Fathers make no mention of Indulgences yet he doth not say that it doth thence followe that they did reiect the power or vse of them in the Church much lesse doth Durand affirme that other auncient Fathers did not mention them yea if he had affirmed this yet he him selfe kewe well enuffe that this being but a negatiue argument at the most it proueth nothing But that which followes of those auncient Fathers silēce in this matter is that they had not occasion to speake of them as others had or at the most that Indulgences were not much in vse in their tymes which doth not contradict the Romanists who doe not stand vpon defense of the frequent vse of them in the Primatiue Church but of the power which they maintaine to be as auncient as the spirituall power of binding loosing giuen by Christ him selfe to the Pastors of his Church in most generall and ample manner Mat. 16. And to this I adde that which Sir Humfrey for his owne aduantage omitted in the citation of both Durand Antoninus to wit that they both alledge the testimonie of S. Gregorie for the vse actuall graunte of Indulgēces Gregorius tamen loquitur qu◠etiam Indulgentias Rom◠iustituit instationibus vt dicitur Durand id 4. sent d. 20. q. 3. which Pope say they is reported to haue instituted the Roman stations which wordes of Durand the like of S. Antoninus if the knight had rehearsed as he ought to haue done according to the lawes of plaine dealing the vse of Indulgences would haue appeared not to be so newe as he indeuores to persuade his reader Touching the citation of Caietan Sir Humfrey proceedes no lesse insincerely for in the same place which is his 15. Opuscle Ex his hābetur textibus non solum quod Indulgentiarū gratia antiqua est in Christi Ecclesia non noua inuētio sed habentur clarè quatuor c. Caiet Opusc 15. c. 1. he addes that in the fourth of the sentences it is alledged by S. Thomas that S. Gregorie did institute the stations of Indulgences producing manie other testimonies out of the Ecclesiasticall decrees he concludes thus Out of those texts it is had that the graunte of Indulgences is not onely auncient but c. Where also the reader is to be aduertised that Caietan is corrupted by Sir Humfreys translation of the worde hunc or hanc them which the author referres to the begining or certaintie of their begining not to the Indulgences themselues or power to graunte them And doubtlesse siluester Prierias had the same meaning where he sayde if so he sayde that Pardōs are not knowne vnto vs by the authoritie of the scripture but by the authoritie of the Church of Roman for the sense is that they are not expressely declared deliuered vnto vs by the text of the scripture in plaine wordes but by the Church whose office it is to propose such doctrine in particular to the faithfull as she findes not so plainely deliuered in the scripture as they themselues can without her directions come to due knowledge of it And surely this athour is so farre frome denying the Antiquitie of the power vse of perdons that he professedly defended the same against his professed aduersarie Luther And the same I saye of Eckius Tecelius who as Sir Humfrey can not be ignorant were also Luthers Antagonists euē in this particular to omit that he cites those two authors onely vpō relation of the Councel of Trents historie in English to which as I haue alreader noted we giue no credit Nay since I writ this at first I finde that Prierias Eckius Tecelius are falsely charged by the same false historie of Trent to haue layde for their grounde of Indulgēces the Popes authoritie in their impugnation
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
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
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
other Councell for it pag. 208. l. 20. to people adde as euer so to receiue it by Christs commaunde p. 265. for thrice reade once p. 240. lin 6. to Christ adde humane nature p. 239. for reconciliatiōs reade reconciliationis p. 287. for dignitie reade decorum p. 202. l. 7. omit other l. 27. to exhibited add by it selfe page 307. to not determined by the Church adde in euerie particular pag. 317. to illegitimate adde concerning the doctrine of images p. 371. to diuine worship add in spirit pa. 447. l. 16. for in reade since pa. 463. for thim reade him in the next l. 10. for may chalenge reade may in that respect chalenge p. 467. l. 17. adde in respecte of the people p. 433. lin 16. for able reade agreable omit su pag. 438. lin 13. for to whome reade yet p. 475. for conference reade cōfidence p. 485. l. 16. for heresie reade material heresie p. 480. for martyrs reade examples p. 493. l. 26. consequence adde to this purpose p. 566. l. 24. to soundes adde including the prayers p 546. l. 8. to glorious adde flashe l. 26. for gaspell reade Gospell p. 545. l. 2. reade Pamphleter p. 421. l. 18. omit in a visible maner In the introduction to the Appendix Page 73. line 10. adde defined l. 3. for false reade safe p. 19. l. 20. omit either in the next l. reade workes l. 24. to some of adde them Besides these neglects I aduertise the reader of an other faulte committed in the omission of titles for the distinct matters Neuerthelesse this defect is sufficiently supplied in regarde that in the commencement or entrance of euerie seuerall period the contents are breefely declared There be manie other errors of lesse importance committed by the printer as being a strāger as Nice with a great letter the like which the discretion and iudgement of the reader will easily correct In like manner he will perdone the rudnes of the style as penned by one whoe by reason of his absence daylie conuersation with strangers ignoreth the propertie of his natiue language As also he will conniue his tardance in the publication of the worke which if it had not incountered vnimagined impediments might haue appeared manie monethes paste THE FIRST PERIOD THIS Period shall containe the first and second sections of S. Humfreys way and I resolued to ioyne them together by reason I finde litle matter of doctrine in them as being rather in the nature of preamble or introduction and consequently of too small substance for a scholler to insist vpon In his first section he purposed to prooue and disprooue the bitternesse of the Church of Roome towards the reformed Churches but he bringeth verie little or nothing to that purpose onely citing for his demonstration of the same some vnchristian speeches as he tearmeth them vttered by father Campian in his first reason She tearmes vs saith S. Humfrey meaning the Roman Church Heretiques Hellhounds of Zwinglius Luthers whelpes Turkish Hugonotes damned persons and worse then Infidells which wordes if they weare truly related I must needes confesse include no small acrimony but I hauing diligently read ouer on purpose Campians first reason I finde not them all there nay nor yet the greater part of them nor any other equiualent vnto them I finde indeede he speaketh sharpely against Luther and Caluin and he tearmeth them and others whom he citeth Quid ille nunc diceret si viueret in terris Lutheros Caluinosque concerneret opifices Bibliorum qui sua lima politula elegantula vetus nouumque testamentum esse raserint Quid Lutheri Catulis vt Tobiam Ecclesiasticum Machabaeos horum odio complures alios ea calumnia comprehensos è syncero canone repente dispungerent c. Quae quidem Ecclesia custos huius depositi non magistra quod haeretici cauillnatur thesaurum hunc vuluersum quem Synodus Tridentina est amplexa vetustissimus olim concilij publicitus vendicauit c. Castatio mysticum illud Salomonis Canticum c. Nihilo pluris quam cantilenamed amicula cum pedissequis autor colloquium amatorium venereus furcifer aestimauit Camp rat 1. heretiques for their mangling the holy scriptures according to their owne priuate Spirits but he hath not one bitter worde against the persons of any sectaries of his owne Countrie but onely iustly reprehendeth the Nouelists in generall for rheir abuse of the worde of God But suppose Father Campian had vsed such speeches indeede what then do not the reformers themselues most frequently both in their writings and pulpits vse farre worse tearmes both against the Romanists and the Roman Church do not they accuse both her and her members of Idolatrie Superstition and Antichristianity exaggerating matters with all the satyricall phrases they can inuent as euen in this very place doth appeere where S. Humfrey himselfe rayling not onely against the particular members of the Roman Church but also against her sacred selfe charging her to haue lost her breasts or at least to giue her children little or no sincere milke out of her two breasts the two testaments and that she doth dayly practise spirituall fornication and that she hath plaid the Harlot with a greate H. and finally taxing her that she mainetayneth and practiseth manifest and manifould Idolatry and that her title is vsurpation her deuotion is superstition and she her selfe a professed enemy to the ghospell from whence you may inferre what a sencelesse blindenesse this was in the knight to dedicate the first chapter of his booke to the disproouing of the bitternes of the Roman Church he himselfe hauing spent a greate parte of it in rayling against her and also you may perceaue how importunely he accuseth her of malignitie and want of desire to quench the vnquenchable broyles of the Church as he tearmeth them whilest he himselfe through his exasperating speches asmuch as in him lyeth putteth no small impediment to the extinguishing of the same as the reader may plainely perceaue and notwithstanding he compareth the Roman Church and his owne to two sisters which comparison allthough it be very fond and absurd in it selfe for that the true Church being but one onely spouse of Christ she can admitte no sister nor Corriuall according to the meaning of the holy Spirit in the Canticles affirming his spouse to be one VNA ES SPONSA MEA neuertheles he must needes be conuinced to haue proceeded most preposterously in this matter and contrary to all reason in that hee intending or at least pretending to shew there ought to be loue vnion betwene them as betwene two sisters descending from one and the same catholique and vniuersall mother as he calleth her yet as it were with one the same breath he accuseth the same Roman Church to haue beene the onely cause of separation and carrieth the busines in such a rough and vncivill fashion towards her giuing her such greate occasions of new disgusts
that it plainely appeereth he doth rather demonstrate his owne bitternesse rancour towards her then with any probable argument shew any such disposition to remaine in her against any such vnion as hee pretendeth to desire Why then doth S. Humfrey complaine of that which is in a farre worse manner practised by himselfe and his owne brothers besides this I pray you doth the supposed bitternesse of F. Cāpian proue the bitternesse of the Roman Church could he alone bee the whole Roman Church who was but one onely member of it Or are his speeches or priuate positions to be attributed to the whole Church he being but one parte thereof and yet not the greatest what a false Metonymie is this if the head of the Church had vsed such speeches you would haue seemed to haue had some reason to haue attributed them to the whole because that which the head doth may induce a denomination vppon the rest of the body of which examples may be found euen in nature but whatsoeuer any other member doth it cannot rightly be attributed to the whole So that we now see that in this allegation S. Humfrey himselfe doth so carrie the matter and giueth the Church of Roome euen in this same section so much occasion of new disgusts as besides the rehearsed calumnies taxing her with creation of 12. new Articles and coyning of new expositions vpō the ould farre different from the doctrine of the Apostles and that she mayntaineth and practiseth manifest idolatry And the like most false and slanderous exprobrations that as I said before it plainely appeereth that he hath rather demonstrated his owne bitternes and rancour towards the Roman Church then shewed any such defect in her by any argument drowen from Father Campians wordes by him produced which wordes allthough by his quotation of Iewell in the margent he will seeme to haue taken them at secōd hand yet certainely it is a plaine imposture and so let them diuide it as they please betwixt themselues it being euer supposed that S. Humfrey and his Iewell are of equall authoritie with the Catholiks I meane of none at all Moreouer S. Humfteys whole drift in this section being to cleere his owne Church from the infamous brand of Apostacy he imposeth the whole cause of separation vpon the Roman Church and produceth Erasmus for a wittnes of the same who being demaunded for sooth of the duke of Saxonie what was Luthers capitall offence that stirred vp so many opposites against him made answer that Luther had committed two greate crimes for he had taken away the Crowne from the Pope and had taken downe the belly of the monkes To which saying of answer that Erasmus is no competent wittnes against the Roman Church especially in a case where his sole testimonie is interposed And if S. Humfrey had ben circumspect he would not haue cited Erasmus his answere for this purpose as containing one manifest lye if not twb. For neither did Luther euer take the Crowne from the Pope which as the world knowes he still enioyeth maugre him and all his adherents neither did Luther euer take downe the bellies of the monkes except it was by iniuste vsurpation and rapin to fill his owne and to leade his lyfe in luxurious concubinate with breach of his vowes to god and man Immediately before this momicall passage of Luther out of Erasmus which although S. Humfrey produced to colour the pretended Reformers diuisiō from the Church of Rome yet doth it farre more strongly argue a cause in the Pope iustely to reiect them then anie excuse of their preposterous separation before this I say he cited a place out of the Prophet Ose which because it makes nothing to this purpose Cap. 4.15.17 but onely vpon his owne false supposition that the Roman Church is wicked and idolatrous therefore vntill I see him prooue his supposition which yet I know he will neuer be able to performe I leaue it as impertinent as also I omit the examples he brings of Abrahams departure out of Caldea and of the Iewes out of Egypt which are as farre from the case we treate of as Egypt is from Europe or Christendome from Iewrye Therefore I will onely giue notice to the reader how grossely he abuseth certaine authours he cytes to testifye that by Babylon is meant the Christian Rome For ther is not one of those authours that affirmes that after it was conuerted to the Christian faith it was called Babylon according as the scripture vsually speakes of Babylon either properly or Metaphorically Neither is ther likewise anie of the same authours which teach that since the conuersion of that Citye to the faith of Christ Christians ought to departe from it as out of a spirituall and idolatrous Babylon which is that our aduersarie here intendes to proue or at the least ought to proue if anie thing he meanes to prooue against the Romanists And to speake first of the ancient authours here cyted by the kinght which are Tertulliā S. Hierome and S. Augustin it is directly impossible that they should meane by Babylon the Roman Church depraued by anie idolatrie of Christian people for that they were all departed out of the world before the supposed departure of the Roman Church from the true Religion is affirmed by our newe sectaries to haue begun which as they most commonly teach was not before the 600. yeare after the tyme of Christ our Sauiour Now as for the moderne authours to wit Orosius Viues Bellarmin and Baronius and Ribera they are all knowne Romanists yea and some of them cheefe defendours of the Roman Church and faith and so it is euident by this reason alone that they had not such a thought as to meane by Babylon the Roman Church Cap. 22. Viues vpon the 18. booke de cuit Dei explicates him selfe plainely saying Petrus Apostolus Roman Babylonem appellat vt etiam Hyeronymus in vita Marci interpretatur qui ad Marcellam scribens non aliam existimat describi à Ioanne in Apocalypsi Babylonem quam Vrbem Romam Bellarmin also speakes yet plainer in the verie place cited by S. Humfrey viz. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 2. for he saith Respondeo Babylonem vocari non Romanam Ecclesiam sed Romanā vrbem qualis erat Ioannis tempore Orosius I haue not But let Baronius speake for him selfe and others Baron Adam 45. Nec per somninm quidem quis vnquam inuenit Romanam Ecclesiam esse Babylonis nomine nuncupatam sed ipsā tantummodô ciuitatem ac id quidem non semper sed cum impietate referta aduersus ipsam Ecclesiam bellum gereret Ribera vnderstands by Babylon persecuting Rome not as it is nowe I need not cite his wordes in a case so cleare So that nowe I doe not see why S. Humfrey produced these authors except it were by corruption of them to make them precursors of his corrupted way And hence also the reader may gather how weakely the knight
proceeds in this his first section which is the introduction to the rest in regarde that by indeuouring to reprooue his aduersarie he doth vnaduisedly prooue his owne imperfections and so doubtlesse he had better beene idle thē so ill occupyed And I verily persuade my selfe that if the Archflamen had duely examined the contents of this section he doubtlesse would haue marked it with a non imprimatur In his second section S. Humfrey pretends to prooue the cause of contention betwixt the Reman Church and his owne originally to haue proceeded from the Romanists by their owne confession Thus much he promiseth in the title but performeth nothing For he cytes but three onely authours that is Cassander Camdē and Cesenas in fauor of his position and yet none of them are acknowledged by vs for sounde Romanists at the least if we respect their writings here produced And of Cassander both the inquisitors in their Index and Bellarmin in his Controuersies sufficiently declare the vnsoundnes of his doctrine and religion Camden I hope is well knowe Now for Cesenas notwithstanding S. Humfrey stiles him Generall of the Franciscans as indeed once he was though afterwards deposed by his owne order and excommunicated by Pope Iohn the 2◠for his pertinacie and malapert manner of defending that the Fryes of his order could haue no rents or possessions yet if he writ against the Tyrannie of the Pope as he is quoted by the kinght it is most manifest he could not be a perfect Romanist or at least that worke could not be his as in truch I am persuaded it was not but falsely fathered vpon him through the iniquitie of him who malitiously composed the mysterie of iniquitie against the Pope and Roman Church And hauing now examined the matter I perceiue that which Cesenas writ or Ockam for him was not against the Popes in generall but he writ onely an epistle or treatise if anie thing he writ him selfe against the errors as he termes them of Pope Iohn in particular with whome he was much disgusted by reason of the foresaid busines and excommunications And as for the wordes which S. Humfrey cites touching two Churches one good and an other euill I fynde none such nor anie others to that sense in Cesenas And if euer he vttered anie such wordes which according to his whole discourse is wholely improbable yet doubtlesse he could not meane that the euill Church was the Roman Church intirely and absolutely in regarde his owne wordes in his foresaide worke doe euidently declare that he subiected him selfe to the same euen in this same busines saying in his letters to the Generall Chapter of his Order 〈…〉 Ad Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam publicè solemniter appellaui me mihi adhaerentes dicta nostra supposui correctioni emendationi protectioni defensioni sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Et sum semper protestatus me illam fidem tenere seruare velle perpetuo quam tenet seruat sanctae Romana Ecclesia quae est omnium Ecclesiaram mater magistra So that this passage is a manifest imposture either of S. Humfrey or Plessis choose them whether who out of an vnsatiable desire they haue to fynde out some track or step though neuer so obscure of their imaginarie Church before the dayes of Luther care not what they forge or faine And yet more then this touching the smale authoritie which Cesenas ought to haue if he had done or spoken anie thing against the Roman Church if S. Humfrey had looked well aboute him or had beene carefull to knowe the truth he migst easily haue founde him registred in the expurgatorie Index euen in the first Classe for a prohibited authour And so a man may iustely demaunde of our aduersarie with what face then he can affirme his position to be confessed by the Romanists Or what truth or sinceritie can anie one imagin to be in him and what credit can prudently be giuen by the Reader to the rest of the allegations of his whole booke who deales in this manner euen in the frontispice of his worke And in truth I wonder that at the least in humane policie he was no more circumspect then to prostitute his reputation so lauishly euen then when he ought in reason to be most carefull of it And now this may suffice for the censure of this second section as conteyning nothing in particular wich deserueth rehersall or which may any wise redound eyther to the authours credit or serue for the confirmation of his tenets specified in the former section the proofe as you see being heere as weake and sillie as the matter calumnious before and consequently deseruing no milder sentence of condemnation then the contents of the former section THE II. PERIOD NOw I will passe to a view of the third sectiō of Sir Humfreys booke which is in effect a continuation of the same matter treated in the two first sections his chiefe drift being to shew the Pope and Roman Church to be in fault for refusing reformation 〈…〉 And because he persisteth in the same manner of proofe videlicet by the confession of the members of the Roman Church I will examine briefly how exactly he prosecuteth the same and whether he recouereth in this section the credit which he lost in the former He laboureth to shew corruption both of faith and manners in the Church of Rome and that by confession of Roman Authours and for the proofe of this confession he produceth Pope Alexander the fift out of the Councell of Pisa ses 20. the Councell of Senes the Councell of Trent in diuerse places Moulin the 21. chap. of his Eucharist Agrippa de vanit Scient chap. 17. the Bull of Pius the 4. Philippus Mornaeus Card. Caraph Consill de emendanda Ecclesia Paulus Vergerius in opusculis de Idolo Lauret hist of the Councell of Trent in English These are all the writers he alledgeth which are ten in number And although he citheth them all as if they were Romanists for that he rehearseth them all to the same purpose and in one tenour or sequele of words neuerthelesse it is well knowen that fiue of the ten are so farre from being Romanists as three of them are professed enemies to the Roman Church to wit Moulin Vergerius and Mornaeus and the other two that is Agrippa and the Tridentine history in English are of no authority nor credit amongst the Romanists as being either plaine heretikes or suspected of heresie And as for the other fiue Catholike testimonies they containe not one word whereby it may be proued that either the Pope or the rest of the Roman Church did refuse to admite of due reformation as Sir Humfrey affirmeth but the contrary is most manifest out of the Councell of Trent it selfe euen in the same places which he citeth where speciall decrees of diuerse particular abuses to be reformed by the Pastors of the Church are extant True it is that where
onely by an vnautheÌ„ticall history the allegation can be of no more authority theÌ„ is the relatour himselfe who was then a CaluiniaÌ„ sectary called Suauis who hath writ a very corrupted narration of that which passed in the CouÌ„cell as relating the coÌ„tentions or coÌ„trary opinioÌ„s which the Fathers Doctours held whiles matters were in debate vnconcluded as if they had continued after the definitions and decrees were made and so abusing both the Councell his reader egregiously And yet more then this suppose the relation were most true and authenticall yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent videlicet that the Pope denieth reformatlon of Corruptions in faith and manners for that in the wordes related out of the foresaid history there is no mention of any corruptions of that nature but onely of abuses in generall tearmes which Schomberg was of opinion that it had beene better to let them alone yet that was onely his particular dictamen and proposition to which neither the Pope nor the rest of the Councell agreed but resolued vpon a course of reformation as the decrees themselues doe testifie so that this passage of the related historie is impertinentlie alledged by the Knight Finally S. Humfrey doth equiuocate not onely in that which we haue said but alsoe in the very substance of this his whole section For his cheefe or rather whole scope being not onely to proue corruptions in doctrine and manners to be confessed by the Romanists to be in their Church but also that the Pope refuseth to take them away he by his allegations of the testimonies of some Romanists proueth in parte that there were corruptions in manners both before and when the Councell of Trent was assembled but he quite dissembleth the other parte to witte that they were reformed allso by the same Councell and yet not withstanding the very same places which he produceth out of the Romanists doe as plainely auerre the one as the other And so out of those proceedings of Sir Humfrey and the rest which hath bene said it may plainely appeere that he is so farre from recouery of that honour which he lost in the former sections that he hath now stained the same not a little more and so we may conclude this section and include it in the former censure THE III. PERIOD IN the fourth section the knight proceedeth to greater matters to matters I say of life and death for he affirmeth that manny learned Romanists conuicted by the euidence of truth either in parte or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death But let vs see how exactly and sollidly he proceedeth in so weightie a matter He citeth Medâ—cir â— celeberrimus professor D. Venerandus Gablerus tanti comitis exemplum secutus redijt ad Catholicismum Adfuerat is Petro Paulo vergerio è corpore migranti apud quem minor quae dam viderat quae illi animum videbantur perfregisse vt non modo Catholicus sed pientissimus quoque Catholicus fieret Sane aiunt viri graues hunc Apostatam Vergerium sub mortem teterrimos exhalasse faetores ac bouis instar horrendos edidisse boatus c. anno 1567. Surius Com. pag. 733. the Councell of Basill out of Genebrard Aeneas Syluius out of Platina Harding out of Iewell The Rhemish testament out of Causabon The lord Cooke B. Gard. out of Iohn Fox Bellarmins Controuersies And his last will or testament Albertus Pighins Paulus Vergerius and his brother Baptist These are all the authours hee citeth in this section For the proofe of his vast assertion which authours being but ten in number yet three of them are knowen to be no Romanists except he will haue L. Cooke and the two brother Bishops to be Romanists which neuerthelesse he confesseth to to haue protested against the Romish doctrine so that now according to his owne confession the whole number of Roman authours he citeth heere is reduced to seuen which small number I caÌ„not imagin according to what Arithmetick it can truly be accounted many especially if we compare them to the infinite number of the Romanists which haue bene yet are extant in the Christian world constant maintainers of Popery And this I say euen in case it were true that all those seuen had euer renounced the Romish faith either in part or totally as the knight affirmeth which neuerthelesse I will make apparent to be otherwise And first touching the Councell of Basil the very same wordes which Sir Humfrey citeth do conuince the same for saith hee the Councell did allow the cup to the Bohemians vpon this condition that they should not find fault with the contrary vse nor seuer themselues from the Catholike Church Now what is heere to be found in these wordes of the Councell which is any kinde of renuntiation of the Romish faith nay what is there which concerneth the Romish faith at all that which the Councell determineth being but onelie a graunt to one particular nation vpon particular reasons and that in a point of practice not of doctrine which also if our English protestants were as conformable to the Roman Church in all other points of faith and manners as the Bohemians then were might perhaps vpon the like iust reasons and vpon the same condition be graunted in the realme of England and that without any preiudice to either faith or manners But our English sectaries are so farre from conformitie to the Romanists not onely in diuerse other points but euen in this particular that they coÌ„tinually exclaime against them both in their bookes and sermons as violatours of Christs institution in that they do not allwayes and in euerie countrie communicate the people in both kindes Con. Basiliense initio legitimum postea Conciliabulum Scismaticum nullius authoritatis Con. lat sess 11. ex Bell. non refero verba accusing them also that they mangle the Sacrament and vniustlie depriue the laytie of one part there of iudging the same for a laufull cause at the least in parte of their separation from the Roman Church none of which particulars are proued by the testimonie of the Councell of Basil to haue concurred in the case of the Bohemians but rather the contrarie is most plainelie specified so that the knight hath laboured in vaine or rather against himselfe by producing the foresaid testimonie of the Councell of Basil in which noe renuntiation of Popery is to be founde nor anie agreement in doctrine or manners with the pretensiue reformed Churches From whence it is also consequentlie inferred that to be clearelie false which our aduersarie affirmes in the beginning of this section to wit that the reformed Churches haue done nothing in this otherwise then former Councels had anciently decreed He citeth in the second place Aeneas Syluius who was afterwardes Pope Pius the second as if he had renounced the Romish religion in that he saith that as marriage vpon weightie reasons was taken from the Priests so vpon weightie reasons it were wished
aut domi concubinam foueat tammetsi graui sacrilegio sese obstingat grauiùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimonium c. Costerus Enchir. cap. 17. de caelib prop. 9. then he who keepeth a concubine at home as Costerus though incompletlie cited and vniustlie taxed by the knigth doth most truelie affirme And this is a certaine knowen trueth among diuines consequent to the prohibition of Priests marriage which prohibition once supposed he that should marrie should not onelie committe a scandalous sinne of the flesh as that Priest doth who should be a Concubinarie but also he should in that case comit a Speciall irreuerence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of it selfe a more grieuous sinne then is the keepinge of a concubine as all men Aug. de bono vide cap. 11. except the reformed brothers doe easilie apprehend conformable to which S. Aug. saith that mariage after a vowe of continencie is worse then adulterie Planè non dubitauerim dicere lapsus ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae nouetur Deo adulterijs esse peâ—ores ibidem To omit that for a Preist to marrie in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it includes also the scandall of Concubinate it selfe But now Sir Humfrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the poynt of merits Lastly saith hee how many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainetie of their owne workes doe relie wholie vpon the merits of Christ Iesus shewe me that learned man that liueth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sounde Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith Thus the knigth who as you may easilie perceiue by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to perswade his reader that all the learned Romanists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man iustified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdome of heauen by the good workes he doth by vertue of the grace of God and merits of Iesus Christ because forsooth many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainelie of their owne workes at their death doe relie wholie on the merits of their Sauiour whereas indeede these are two farre different poynts of doctrine the first that is the trueth of mans merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church the second which is the confidence in merits being none the one being about the substance of merits the other onelie about the qualitie the one about the absolute acknowledgment of merits the other onely about the ouergreate confidence or presumption in them And so he that renounceth the first renounceth Poperie indeede but he that renounceth the second doth not neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would haue him to be for the onelie deniall of confidence in merits as in it selfe it is most manifest By all which because Sir HuÌ„frey with all his diuinitie had not iudgement to distinguish he proueth nothing but doth onelie hallucinate betweene trueth and falsehood Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he alledgeth anie whit auaile his cause for suppose that be true which he affirmeth of him to wit that in his sicknes he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt Gods Iudgment his owne sinnes yet caÌ„not he thence inferre that therefore the Bishop renounced the trueth of the doctrine of merits in generall nay nor his owne merits in particular but onelie the presumption of them or the confidence in them by reason of the vncertainetie of them as I haue alreadie declared Besides that this which he is affirmed to say of himselfe being but onelie a relation of Fox we may iustlie doubt of the trueth of it For he hath bene long since hunted to his hole by a learned Catholike and his vnright Reuerence manifestlie conuinced to be a Father of lyes Wherefore he is of no credit with vs neither can his testimonie preuaile against vs. We care not for him his acts and monuments are of no moment among vs his testimonie is not the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of a Romanist which is that our aduersary promised in the title of his booke and we expect he should performe and to omit the smale credit which I and all Catholikes giue to the relations of Master Fox yet I fynde that he who hath dealt so falsely with others hath now founde one of his owne profession who dealt not verie sincerelie with him in recounting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardiner at his death for whereas Sir Humfrey will needs proue by the testimonie of Fox that this Bishop renounced Poperie at his death in the pointe of merits yet Fox in his 2622. page onelie saith thus That according to the reporte of one whome he will not name perhaps he could not when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to conforte him great comfort I warant you with wordes of Gods promisse and free iustification in the blood of Christ our Sauiour repeating the scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my lord quoth he will you open that gap now then farewell altogether to mee and such other in my case you may speake it but if you open this window vnto the people then farewell all And now according to this speech of B. Gardiner let the iudicious reader imagin if he can how Sir Humfrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrarie to wit that altho ' dayes wordes might be vttered to him others of learning and vnderstanding without danger of peruersion but not perhaps to the coÌ„mon people who by their ignorance and frayletie might easilie misinterpret them as he did that vttered them and so easilie receiue harme by them not withstaÌ„ding that they of themselues in a founde fense include nothing but truth The knight also citeth to the same purpose yet to no purpose Bellarmine in his sixte booke of Iustif 7. chap. and his testament or last will Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholy on the merits of Christ Iesus But this according to that which hath bene already said of this matter is at the most but onelie a renuntiation of presumption or ouermuch confidence in our owne vncertaine merits as is most apparent out of Bellarmines owne doctrine euen in the verie same chapter where the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey are found thoug much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwardes I will declare Now in the second place the wordes are these I beseech him that is God saith Bellar that he would admitte me into the companie of his Saints and elect not as a valluer of merits but as a giuer of mercie which wordes if the knigth had not bene ouermuch distracted he
For that the question of the parable is generall and so a generall answer was sufficient But the demaund of the Roman Catholikes is particular so in reason it requiers an answer in particular for example the question is if Purgatorie be an errour of the Romā Church who was the first authour of it In what age did he liue if not to communicate in both kindes be an errour of the Romā Church who was the first authour of it c. So that in the question of the Romanists there is no impertinencie in the sense in which they demaūd it but the knight's answer is both impertinent in it selfe and also falsely fathered vpon our Sauiour True it is that the Roman Catholiks as I haue said before doe not oblige the knight nor anie of his consorts to answer so metaphisically to their demaund as he erroneously persuadeth himselfe But they onely vrge the reformers to name the authours and time of such supposed errours in a morall manner that is who they were that haue beene in anie lawfull Councell condemned for either the broachers or publike defēdours of those he calles errours Which is a demaunde so farre from impertinencie that there hath neuer beene any notorious errour in the Church of God which hath not beene noted so by the writers of the seuerall ages wherein they liued or at the least by some others presentlie after their time And so hence it appeareth manifestlie that the Roman Catholikes being no wise guiltie of impertinencie in their demaund yet Sir Humfrey is most impertinent in his answer and not onelie an impertinent alledger of Scriptures but also a peruerse detorter of the same as interpreting them by the direction of his owne priuate spirit and fathering vpon Christ that which he neuer thought nor intended And this being the substance of his answer to the Catholikes which in trueth hath no substance in it yet he still prosecuteth the same making a greate flourish out of the circumstances of the same parable adding that the tares were sowen by the enemie when men where a fleepe and that by consequence they could not see him and much lesse produce him I confesse that there both haue bene and be yet in the world who by reason of the excessiue moisture of their braiue haue sleeped both verie soundlie and verie long I know the historie of the seauen sleepers who slept some hundreths of yeares But I neuer heard of anie kinde of Congregation of people that all and euerie one of them sleeped about a thousand yeares together and that so profundelie as that not one of them did euer so much as once dreame of the enimie who sowed tares in their field Is it possible that all the good men of the houses in all that space of tyme and in euerie place should haue bene so drowsie and so ouercome with sleepe as none of them could not one tyme or other awake catch the theefe before the daies of Luther Surelie there was neuer a Puritane in the world in all that long space of tyme for if there had bene anie some of them would infalliblie haue awaked their hott brauies and fierie spirits would neuer haue suffered them to lie so long in a lethargie but vp they would haue beene and layd about them most vallantlie with the whole bulke of the Bible and haue gone to cuffes with Pennance Purgatorie and prayer to Saints with pictures Pope and praier for the dead with merits masse and monasteries with confession tradition and transubstantiation with Indults fasts and satisfactions These I say and all other such like tares as the knight esteemes them had bene by those Zealous Paterfamillians rooted out as soone as euer they peeped out of the earth if God had not permitted them to take a greate quantitie of Diapodium or pouder dormant by force of which as I suppose they were all so lulled a sleepe as not one of them could once awake till the tyme of Doctour Luther who if he had chaunced to haue taken one onelie dramme of the same receipt it is more then probable that greate worke of his had laine vndone till this present day and perhaps for euer From this parable Sir Humfrey passeth to confirme his answer by reasons saying that the doctrine which they complaine of his a mysterie of iniquitie and mysteries are secret and worke not openlie and publikly but by degrees leasurelie cunninglie and warilie to auoyde discoueries Thus he in which wordes you see he cals errours a mysterie but describes them rather like a monster then a mysterie attributing such subtiltie vnto them as if they had the vse of reason whereas all errours which are such trulie are by nature voyd of reason and so no mysteries but rather monsters Hee saith they are secret and worke by decrees And it is true errours may be secret for a short tyme but long they cannot especiallie such as we heere speake of that is publiklie defended by a whole Church and all or most of them manie ages together Mentall and priuate errours may be so smothered as not onelie not by degrees but so as they neuer come to light and knowledge of the world at all but vocall errours proposed and published to the people cannot possible be long vnknowne or vndiscouered Witnes the errours of Luther and Caluin and of all other condemned heretikes all which doubtlesse for a tyme they were meerelie mentall yet euen before the death of their authours notice was taken of them perhaps also they were publikelie condemned And so we see by this reason Sir Humfrey proueth nothing to this purpose but tels vs of nothing but meere impossibillities contrarie both to reason and common sense Neither doth it auaile him for defence of his answer to saye that errours being at first oftentimes in one or few persons onelie they cannot easilie be espied for this is not that the Catholikes vrge him too we haue tould him alreadie that wee will not deale so rigorouslie with him we are content to graunt vnto him that errours onelie so farre published were not easilie especiallie by his drowsie consociates to be discouered neuerthelesse we see no reason at all why our supposed errours being so publiquelie taught penned and preached as they were long before either Luther or Wicklifs tyme should not haue bene knowen for errours if such they were long before either of their daies This is the point of the question this is the demaunde the Roman Catholikes vrge you Reformers are to answer as longe as you goe about the bush as you doe and answer not directlie neither your Euangelicall parable nor your cockatrice egge though you write it with a greate letter to make it seeme bigger will serue your turne they are but onelie similitudes or examples ill applied they prooue nothing but onelie serue you for a vaine flourish Exempla illustrant non probant especiallie if they be equiuocall as yours be And as for your distinction of publike heresie and
secret Apostacie it is much more friuolous then all the rest you haue brought for the proofe of your purpose in this section And although perhaps you shewed no small subtiltie in it as you thought yet is it in it selfe a most ignorant piece of doctrine for that not onelie the common and vsuall sense of the worde Apostasie but the verie etimologie of the same worde which signifieth a defection or discession doth demonstrate that the thing signified by it must be a much more externall and publike action in it selfe then heresie vsed to be and so that which is ordinarilie and vulgarilie called Apostasie must be publike and not secret and therefore when anie errour comes to that degree of malice as it may truely be called Apostasie in this sense it must of necessitie be knowne and consequentlie it is such as cannot be kept secret but may be most easilie discerned yea much more easilie then anie heresie how publike soeuer it bee as being an aggrauating circunstance of the same And thus we see that for the knight to yeeld a reason why the errours of the Roman Church could not easilie be discouered because they were secret Apostasie is both most absurd in itselfe and also inuolueth a contradiction in regard it includeth that a thing may be Apostasie that is a thing of it owne selfe publike and yet remaine so secret that it cannot be discouered Neither is that which Sir Humfrey farther addeth in the same place lesse absurde to witt that secret Apostasie worketh warelie and closelie in the tyme of Darkenes when the seruants of the husbandman are asleepe for if all Apostasie as it is commonlie taken must be publike as I haue showed how can it then truelie be said to worke in darkenes or by night or how can the seede of it be scattered at vnawares to the seruants of the husbandman certainlie except the seruants be so sluggish that they sleepe both nights and dayes moneths and yeeres yea and manie hundreth of yeeres together naye and all the daies of their life they cannot but discouer the tares of Apostasie which is not euer in seede as the knight falselie supposeth but is the increase or rather full growth it selfe or yet rather the ouergrouth of the crop of heresie which is truelie the seede of it From hence the knight proceedeth to the second parte of his section in which he endeauoureth to shewe vs an vndeniable trueth as he termeth it that some opinions were condemned in the Primatiue Church for eroneous and superstitious vhich now are established for articles os faith in the Roman Church And for this his position he produceth an instance out of S. Augustin lib. de moribus Eccles Cath. cap. 34. in which place he complaines that in his tyme the ruder sort of people were intangled with superstition euen in the true Church I my selfe saith he know manie that are worshipers of Images and sepulchers whom the Church condemneth and seeketh euerie daie by correction to amend them as vngratious children Thus farre Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustin To which I answer that this place of S. Augustin hath bene so often obiected by the moderne sectaries that it is worne quite thred bare with handling and I persuade my selfe that all the Catholike authours that euer writt of controuersies haue sufficientlie answered it if it came in their way Neuerthelesse least Sir Humfrey should thinke himselfe neglected by me Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti vt obliti sint quicquid promiserint Deo Aug. supra I answer first that S. Augustin complaineth in this place of certaine gentillicall errours and abuses in the adoration of images and sepulchers then practised in the true Church by some priuate ignorant and vitious persons who without distinction either of the one or the other did worship the tombes and pictures of all sortes of people Secondlie I answer that S. Augustin in the place cited speaketh not of anie generall doctrine taught in his tyme touching the adoration of pictures but onelie of some superstitious abuses in the practise of the same and so also in this respect the obiection is impertinent I answer thirdlie that suppose there were some particular persons in the tyme of S. Augustine guiltye either in the manner of their worship of pictures or in their doctrine cōcerning the lawfullnes of the same doth it thence therefore follow that Catholikes are guiltie also of the same crime or is it consequent that that honour which Catholikes graunte to the pictures of Christ and his Saincts is iust the same with that which Saint Augustine mentioneth No suerlie For as there may be abuse committed in the due honouring of pictures so there may be also lawfull vse in the due adoreing of them and so it is cleere that it is no true manner of argument or true consequence to collect so Those people whom S. Augustin reprehended for adoring of pictures in his tyme did worship images reprehensiblie But the Romanists doe also worship images therefore the Romanists doe worship images reprehensiblie This I say were it in anie figure yet is it a captious forme of argument containing a manifest fallacie or equiuocation in the minor by reason of which the Sylogisme concludeth nothing Now vpon the foresaid wordes of Saint Augustin Sir Humfrey addeth a descant of his owne in which he comits diuerse faults First in that he saith that although S. Aug. did note some people of his time for superstitious worshippers of images yet did hee neither name the authours of that errour nor sheweth the tyme when it began tacitlie intending hence to inferre that neither are the reformers bounde to assigne the names of the authours of those errours which they attribute to the Roman Church nor yet the tyme of their defence of them But this inference of the knight is no conclusion at all for that the case of S. Augustines tyme which is the antecedent of the foresaid illation of the knights is farre different from the case of the reformers as well for that S. Augustine speaketh of an errour which happened in his owne daies as Sir Humfrey confesseth and perhappes by such persons as he could not name without preiudice of their fame as being such as practised those superstitions so priuatelie that they were not knowen to more or at the least not to manie more then himselfe after which manner preachers do vse to reprehend vices of persons knowen vnto them and yet name them not as also and chiefelie because S. Augustine was neuer demaunded of them in particular or anie other waye vrged to declare their names None of all which circumstances occurre in the case betwixt the Reformers and the Romanists and so out of the wordes of S. Augustine which be the Antecedent of the knights argument no true consequence can be deduced against the Romanists In has autem sanct as ac
salubres obseruationes si qui abusus irrepserint eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus cupit ita vt nullae falsi dogmatis imagines rudibus periculosae errorem praebentes statuantur c. Con. Trid. sess â—5 init Another fault sir Humfrey committeth also in that he affirmeth that this corruption which S. Augustin and the Church of his time condemned for superstition was confirmed 400. yeeres after by the second Councell of Nice for Catholike doctrine and is now decreed by the Councell of Trent for an article of faith Thus the knight But this is all false and grounded onelie vpon an erroneous persuasion of his owne videlicet that the worship which those people of which S. Augustin speaketh gaue to pictures is the same which the Roman Church practizeth at this daye according to the definition of those two Councells that which he neither proueth heere nor can euer proue in anie other place as being manifest by the doctrine of those same Councells in this point that they both condemned this superstitious practice of those people reprehended by S. Augustin the Church of his age eueÌ„ as much as he did in those former tymes And so neither this instance framed by Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustins wordes nor the whole argument it selfe concludes any part of his intent in this section but rather conuinceth by the fact of the same S. Augustin that no errour can possible so secretlie steale into the Church but it is either presently or within a small tyme espied and noted for such by one authenticall authour or other which is quite contrary to the position which the knight indeauoureth heere to establish and whoely conformable to the tenet of the Roman Church in this matter After this Sir Hum. maketh a large repetition of diuerse points of doctrine defended by the Church of Rome as if they were farre different from the intention of those who first taught or ordeined them but for this his conceipt he bringeth no proofe at all and so I leaue it as a voluntary tenet founded vpon his owne small authority True it is he produceth diuerse authours for the confirmation of the same alledging them all for Romanists and yet some of them are not so esteemed to be as is manifest in Cassander and Agrippa which the Roman Church houlds not for her true children but rather for illegitimate Be citeth also Ioannes Ferus who altho' he was at the lest once a Romanist whatsoeuer he was afterwardes yet there haue beene noted in his workes diuerse ill sounding propositions whether it be for that his bookes haue beene corrupted by the sectaries of these times as by some editions of his workes may be iustly suspected or whether it be that the man was something more rash in his assertions then he ought to haue beene But howsoeuer it falleth out with him in that nature yet the place cited out of him by Sir Humfrey if it be rightly vnderstood it proueth no more but that by the priuate abuses and superstitioÌ„s of some particular men many things ordeined by holy men with a good intention haue receiued some accidentall chaunge And although Ferus exemplifieth in the feasts of the Church Ceremonies images Masses monasteries yet certaine it is his meaning was not that all these are either vnlawfull or superstitious or that they are new articles of faith or not to be vsed in the Church of God as the knight and his coÌ„panions would haue theÌ„ to be but onely out of a pious zeale he wished that such abuses might be corrected as he perceiued in his daies to haue crept into the practice and vse of the same which is a thing so farre from Sir Humfreys purpose of prouing an alteration in the Doctrine of auncient tymes as it is both very conformable to reason and allso to the decree of reformation made in the Councell of Trent aboue cited He citeth allso Marius de schis Concil Et Polidore de inuent rerum as speaking of the vncertainty of the entrance into the Church of Priests mariage But this is nothing to the purpose the knight heere treateth For how I pray you doth this proue that there are errours of faith in the RomaÌ„ Church whereas the restraint of mariage of Priests it selfe is no article of faith as Sir Humfrey ignorantly supposeth but onely a precept of the Church and a matter of manners and yet in case it were so in it selfe neuerthelesse certaine it is that the question or difficultie about the first begining of the restraint of such onelie the cited authours speake is no matter of faith and consequentlie can be no errour euen in Sir Humfreyes owne false supposition of errours in the Roman Church To omitte that suppose the first begining of the restrainte of marriage in Priests were truelie an article of faith in the Roman Church yet this being but one particular instance or example drawne out of two Romanists onelie it cannot sufficientlie proue that generall position of Sir Humfrey to witte that there was a knowne tyme when those tenets meaning the points of doctrine which the Councell of Trent defined were not certainelie knowne or generallie receiued by the Roman Church since that according to the rules of Logike no generall proposition can be inferred out of a particular and that touching the rest of the articles of the Roman doctrine the reformers are so farre from the assignation of the time of their beginning that Sir Humfrey him selfe euen in this verie place is forced to hould this precise tyme of the beginning of the same to be vnnecessarie to be assigned And altho' by reason that both those authours are ceÌ„sured in the expurgatorie Index we are not bouÌ„de to giue credit vnto them yet this I saye that supposing they are both here produced to testifie that the beginning of the and prohibition of Preists mariage can not be assigned it is rather a great argument that it was appointed by the primatiue Church itselfe then introduced of later yeares Besides this Sir Humfrey doth falsifie Polydor in the place he citeth for he doth not affirme that mariage of Preists was not altogether prohibited til the tyme of Gregorie the 7. but that it could not be taken away till that tyme. Alijs snper alijs promulgatis legibus non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. coniugium adimi occidentalibus sacerdotibus potuit Pol. lib. 5. cap. 4. edit Antuerp 1554. Cassander altho' Romanists esteeme not of his authoritie either pro or contra yet here he is corrupted by Sir Humfrey for companie lest he should laff at his followes where for those wordes non temerè reperies thou shalt not easilie finde he translates was not expresselie defined speaking of the number of the 7. SacrameÌ„ts of which Cassander saith that a man shall not easilie finde anie who haue constituted anie certaine determinate number of Sacraments before Peter Lombard non temerè quenquaÌ„ reperies ante Petrum LombarduÌ„ qui certuÌ„ aliquem
Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers and because also he put a croune vpon it and worshipped it in an Ethnicall manner and not according to the custome of Christians but as S. Epihanius heres 27. explicateth those heretikes Gentilium ministeria perficiebant they sacrified vnto all those images to wit of Pithagoras Aristotle together with Christs image after the manner of the Gentiles and so this parte of the Pedegree containes an errour in in heraldry and proueth no true descent In the next passage which is aboute the CommunioÌ„ in both kinds Pope Leo tells vs saith the Knight that the Manicheis a sorte of heretikes in his time vsed the Sacrament in one kinde videlicet in bread onely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam Videlicet Manichei nostris audeaÌ„t inesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt tutius lateaÌ„t Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae omnino haurire declinant Leo ser 4. in quad It is true S. Leo saith so but he doth not condemne them for heretikes for that reason but be cause they abstained froÌ„ wine as from an vncleane creature and because they did not beleeue that Christ had bloud in in his body and so that which Pope Leo did when he gaue commaunde that those should be diligeÌ„tly obserued who vsually receiued but in one kind was done purposely for discouerie of the Manicheis who crastily to conceile their heresie touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholikes dissemblingly the Custome of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kinde and in both as now the Grecians practise and therefore that holy Pope did discretely commaunde those should be diligently obserued who in all occasions did vse to receiue vnder the forme of bread onely houlding that for an euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t of their aborring of the bloud of Christ By which it is euident that euen that same time the communioÌ„ was lawfully vsed by some in one kinde otherwise S. Leo needed not to haue vsed any great diligence for the dicouerie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had bene obledged to coÌ„municate in both the Manicheis who frequented the Communion would haue beene discouered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell toutouching a proofe of his taken from the example of the Nazarites as if he had deriued wholy or chiefly the communion of one species or kinde from the practise of their communion whereas he doth not so but hauing by other arguments of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons sufficieÌ„tly established the doctrine of the Church in that particular he bringeth that of the Nazarites onely as a confirmation of the same Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those wordes of S. Luke drinke you all of this whereby he would proue that the communion in both kindes came from Christ and so it did indeede but not by precept giuen to all in generall but onelie to those then present and to those whome they represented as to be their successours that is the Apostles and all Priests after them but not to anie Puritan or Puritannicall minister as not hauing from them anie true succession After these passages Sir Humfrey proceeds to inuocation of Saints and Aungels the founders of which he affirmeth to haue bene the heretikes called Angelici and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretikes not for the inuocation of Angells but either for that they held them to haue bene creatours of the world or in regard they vsed to boast of their owne Angelicall manner of life or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels Erant in Angelorum cultum inclinati quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur Aug. haeres 29. that they did vse to worship them with latria or diuine honour all which kinde of adoration the Romanists with the same Saint Augustin giue to one onelie God And so the knight doth peruert the trueth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. vpon the Genes explicating that passage of Apocalips 19. in which the Angell prohibited S. Iohn to adore him saith neither let it moue the that in a certaine place of scripture the Angell doth prohibite a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God for the Angell did so appeere that he might haue adored him for God and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin teacheth that the Angelici were heretikes because they were inclined to adore Angels he meanes because they adored them with diuine honour and not because they gaue that due inferiour worship vnto them which the Romanists vse For workes of merit and supererogation hee produceth for authours the heretikes named Cathari and Puritans but the heresies of these sectaries were farre different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points Nay they were neuer defenders of either merit or workes of supererogation that euer I read but that for which they were condemned by the Catholike Church was chiefelie for their defence of the errours of Nouatus and particularelie for denying remission of sinnes and the authoririe of the keyes in the Church and for that they affirmed their owne pretended puritie to be aboue the doctrine of the Apostles as not conteyned in it but farre exceeding it and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones Cathari qui seipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant Secundas nuptias non admittunt paenitentiam denegant NouatuÌ„ sectantes haereticum vnde etiam nouatiani appellantur S. Aug. haeres 38. And S. Isidor in the verie place cited by Sir Humfrey saith of them That they named them selfes Cathari for their puritie for glorying saith hee in their merits they denie pennance c. And so it appeares by this that the knight belyes Saint Isidor in two respects Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres Christian as if he did testifie that these heretikes were the first authours of doctrine of merit and workes of supererogation Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other Nor yet makes anie mention in that place of workes of superogation And so according to this lette our Puritans of England and Sir Humfrey him selfe as none of the least of them examen their consciences well and doubtles they will finde themselues to haue farre more affinitie with the foresaid fellowes then the Romanists who both graâ—nt remission of sinnes by vertue of the Ecclesiasticall keyes and allso denie and renounce all such puritie of Spirit as the Puritans pretended He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to haue bene the heresie of the Collyridians Quaedam mulieres currum quendam siue sellam quadratam
the bodie which the faithfull receiue in the Eucharist a bodie gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule But the reformers professe to receiue no such bodie in the Sacrament but the verie same bodie which sitteth on the right hād of God in heauē indued with all the properties and dimensions of a true bodie though by faith onelie and so there being such small affinitie betweene both the words and sense of the foresaid place and the reformers doctrine in this point neither S. Humfrey nor those from whom he receiued it had any reason to produce it as a testimonie wherebie to proue their Church to haue bene visiblie extant and their faith publikelie professed before the daies of Luther And from hence we may further deduce how vaine a flourish the knight maketh in the end of his 97. page were by way of conclusion he affirmes that the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie published not in pryuate corners but in publike libraries not in obscure assemblyes But in open Churches and generall congregations of our owne countrye in the darkest ages long before Luthers dayes All which deduction is most friuolous and idle first for that suppose it were most true and certaine that the denyall of the reall presence were contained in the foresaid writings the contrarie to which I haue made most manifest yet is it a most vaine and false brag of the knight to saye that therefore the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie professed in his countrie longe before the dayes of Luther it being manifest that with all the Arethmatik he can vse The deniall of the reall presence and transubstantiation confessed by Sir H. to be the most substantiall points of his religion the whole some of substantiall points of his religion falselie pretended to be sounde by him in the foresaide epistles and homilie doe not passe the number of two whereas yet on the contrarie ther are truelie and vnfainedlie aboue twise as manie against him and for the Romanists as masse prayers in Latin water mixed to the wine in the chalis offering of the same sacrifice the pronouncing of Agnus Dei in the masse the signe of the Crosse As also because there are no certaine premisses out of which anie such illation of the knights can be collected but the quite contrarie as hath beene alreadie showed and so for Sir Humfrey to say the most substantiall points of his faith haue beene generallie published not in priuate corners but in publike libraries before the dayes of Luther grounding his saying onelie vpon the foresaid writings is most absurde and voyde of truth To omit that if as the knight affirmes there is a copie of the foresaid Epistle mangled in the foresaid librarie a man may doubt how the pretēsiue reformers could come by anie more true manuscript then that razed copie out of which they could by comparing the one with the other discouer that that which was so blotted defaced did containe anie doctrine contrarie to the reall presense or transubstantiation or agreeing with their owne copies now of late translated in to English and printed by them And also we may further suspect that the copie which Sir Humfrey mentioneth as mangled and razed is the onelie true originall and that the transsumpts of Alfrickes sermon now published in English are altered and changed from the puritie of their first copies all which I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader and my owne further examen of the matter as opportunitie shall serue And yet besides this I cannot conceiue how this businesse hangs together to wit that Sir Humfrey produces the foresaid homilie against transubstantiation and yet the same Sir Humfrey page 98. affirmes that they I knowe not who haue in that same homilie suggested transubstantiation by two faigned miracles Now if in that homilie there be two miracles to proue transubstantiation as indeed there bee howe can it then be truly produced by the knight against the same So that here must of necessitie be some iuggling in the matter And more for my parte I cannot possible imagin howe that ould mustie copie of the homilie being in the saxon language could make two such monsterous iumpes as first to leape out of ould saxon in to English and then out of exiter into Oxon euen iuste at that present time when M. Fox had need of them for the fornishing of his moulie monumēts Certainelie I hould this for one of the greatest miracles that anie of the reformed brothers euer committed Besides this in my opinion it sauoures rancke of forgerie to say that the wordes razed in the Latin copie of Alfricks Epistle to Wolstan Archbishop of yorke were supplied by the saxon copie of Exiter as some of our aduersaries doe affirme not-obstanding others say they had the supplie from worcester And I demaunde further whether it is not much more probable that the sentence which he mentioneth if anie such there were in that Epistle was neuer taken away in the Latin but rather added by Swinglius Oecolampadius or Bucer or some other greater Doctour of that potatorie Confraternitie More D. Iames saith that the Latin Epistle so razed is intituled De consuetudine monachorum and yet the same Doctour out of Fox relates it to be against the bodilie presence Quibus speramus nos quibusdam prodesse ad correctionem quamuis sciamus aliis minime placuisse sed non est nobis consultum semper si lere non aperire subiectis eloquia diuina quia si praeco tacet quis Iudicem venturum enuntiet D. Iames detect part 2. pag. 55. Now what connexion the bodilie or vnbodilie presence of Christ in the sacrament hath with the custome of monks I am persuaded that excepting these two great Doctours all the world beside can not imagin Especiallie considering that in the wordes related by Iames there is no mētion at all of the bodie of Christ but of correction of some certaine persons And surelie Alfrick being an Abbat himselfe it is to be iudged farre more proper to him to haue writ of things appertaining to the profession of religious persons thē of the Eucharist or transubstātiation or as they will haue it against the same Finallie Fox referres the translation and publishing of the Homilie and Epistles to the yeare 996. Yet Iames affirmes that the Archbishop wolstan to whome Alfrick writte his Epistle concerning that businesse was a boute the yeare 1054. which yeare differeth much from the other Wherefore let Sir Humfrey be assured that till he cleares these difficulties this his new-founde writing caries no authoritie against the Romanists And so for conclusion of this matter I say that till Sir Humfrey or some of his companions can produce some authenticall authour before Luther who without their owne glosses or illations doth teach plainelie these negatiues Christs bodie and bloud are not reallie present in the Eucharist
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
being a matter in this sense either of indifferencie or at the most of greater merit and perfection it might lawfully be altered by an introduction of the contrarie custome or practise of the Church especially the communicating or not communicating of the auditours of euerie Masse being a thing wholelie depending vpon the deuotion of the people themselues Which deuotion although the Church could haue desired it had continued in the same feruour in which it was in those primitiue times neuerthelesse ther was no reason why either she should obledge the people to the same or yet that the Preist for want of deuotion in the people should omitte his owne and cease to exercise so high and profitable a function to the members of the whole Church as is the publique liturgie and common praier of the same And truelie this is a matter so conformable to reason and pietie that if it were not that our aduersaries are quite possessed with a spirit of cōtradiction they would neuer contend so much aboute it as they doe Especially supposing that of all points of controuersie betweene them and vs that is of the least moment and a thing for which they haue the smalest reason to striue as well because they themselues reiect all sorts of Masses as vaine and superstitious whether they be priuate or publique with communion of the people or without as also because euen they themselues after their newe manner celebrate their owne liturgie as they call it oftentimes yea most ordinarily not onely without the comunion of the people but euen with out the comunion of either Priest or clarke as is euident by the most common practise of all the reformed Churches which onely with a drie fothering passe the greater part of the sūdaies of the whole yeere And yet these same Zealous brothers are so Crosse in their proceedinge that they are not ashamed to reprehend in vs the same which they thēselues ordinarily practise in a much worse manner In regard of which preposterous dealing of theirs in my opinion we may not vnaptlie applie vnto them the saying of a certaine ingenious Protestant in his description of a Puritan to wit that they are become so crosse in their teaching that he thinkes verily that if the Roman Church should inioyne the puting on of cleane shirts euery sunday rather then obey her precept they would goe lowsie Ouerb Caract But besides this Sir Humfrey for the proofe of his Irish faith alledgeth scripture out of S. Matth. 26. Marke 14. Luke 22. but the wordes he citeth doe not argue Christs institutiō in both kindes in respect of all sortes of people Accepit Iesus panem benedixit dedit discipulis suis dixit accipite manducate but onely his action manner of administration not his ordination we know as well as the reformers Christ did comunicate his bodie and bloud to all his disciples there present at the institution of the Sacrament euen to the traitour Iudas as many deuines doe hould but we know with all he did not ordeine it so to be administred in all occasions Neither doe we finde one worde of commaund in the whole bible by virtue of which the Priests are inioined to celebrate this misterie alwayes iust in the same manner that Christ did And otherwise if we should be so tied to euery circumstance which Christ himselfe vsed and particularie to giue the communion to all that are present we should be bound to giue it to those also which we know are vnprepared for it nay euen to excommunicated persons and to such traitors as Iudas That which neuerthelesse I persuad myselfe the most pure precisian of them all will scarsely doe though otherwise I hould thē not for very scrupulous in that nature so they know the receiuers to be mēbers of their cōgregation And touching the foresaid citation out of the Euangelists it is to be noted that because Sir Hum. will not haue his reader heare of the consecration of the Sacrament which the reformers neuer vse in their Churches therfore he left out the wordes and he blessed it puting onely the wordes of thākes giuing whereas yet the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both blessing and giuing thankes therefore when our Sauiour multiplied miraculously the fishes Luc. 9. the Euangelist saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he blessed them The knight also citeth a place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. But the Apostle indeed reprehendeth there the fault of the richer Corinthians in that they did exclude or at the least not expect the poorer sorte to eate the vsuall supper with them when they met to gether to receiue the blessed Sacrament but giueth no precept to them that all that are present should euerie time they did meete in the Church actually receiue the communion with the Preist or that the Preist ougth not in anie case to celebrate without a competent number of communicants which is our question in this place but at the most S. Paule there ordaines that when the people comes together to eate either the vsuall and common supper or the bodie and bloude of Christ in the Sacrament they vncharitablie exclude not or preuent one an other but expect and doe it with order and sobrietie and like brethren together without scisme or separation and as Christ himselfe did who imparted his supper most louinglie to his disciples there present without exception of persons to which altho' I admit the same S. Paule in parte alludes in his first verse of this chapter saying be you followers of me as I also of Christ yet not in that sense as if he had persuaded the Corinthians that our Sauiour commaunded that the Eucharist should neuer be celebrated by the Preist alone with our receiuers as our aduersarie foundlie infers for profe of the article he opposeth to the Councell of Trent Neyther is the doctrine of that article in anie sorte fauoured by S. Augustin in his 118. Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey he onelie there affirming at the most that the Apostle speaketh of the Eucharist when he saith those wordes Propter quod fratres cum conuenitis ad manducandum inuicem expectate c. That is in English Therefore my brethren when you come to eate expect one an other c. Which wordes eyther of S. Augustin or those of the Apostle are not contrarie to the celebration of priuate Masses except it be in the imagination of the Nouellists as I haue sufficientlie aboue declared To omit that the greater parte of diuines both auncient moderne expounde not those wordes of S. Paule rather of the Eucharist but of the common supper the trueth of which exposition the text itselfe in my iudgemēt doth plainely conuince Yet not to stand vpon this it is sufficient for the defence of the doctrine of the Councell of Trent in this particular and confutation of the contrarie position that neyther in the cited place of S. Paule nor in anie other place of scripture priuate communion
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
make anie question of it in this nature For supposing their extraordinarie affection that way and that single life is so vnsauourie to them that if it lay in their power they would rather suffer the whole quire of virgins to perish then they would make a religious vowe of perpetuall chastitie or liue without a woman supposing this I say in my opinion they ought in all reason sooner to haue honoured matrimonie with the title of a Sacrament then to haue quite depriued it of that which the scripture it selfe doth giue it Yet supposing they be so preposterous that they will rather impugne that which they otherwise loue best then seeme to agree to the Romane doctrine I tell them all and particularilie him with whome I dispute that although mariage was by God himselfe onelie ordayned in paradise as a ciuill contract Neuerthelesse Christe who came not to dissolue the lawe but to eleuate it to a higher degree of perfection amongst other things he pleased to honore the same with the true nature and properties of a Sacrament giuing also tho' not immediatlie by himselfe yet by his Apostle S. Paul the verie name and title of a Sacrament whereas notwithstanding neyther he himselfe nor anie of his Apostles or Euangelists euer gaue that name to anie of the rest of the Sacraments Wherefore to come nearer to the purpose I say that the institution of this Sacrament was by Christe himselfe who in the 19. chapter of S. Mathewe ordayned the coniunction of man wife to be inseperable to the end it so might be a sacred signe of the indissoluble coniunction of Christe and his Church as it is declared by the Apostle Ephes 5. where he expreslie giueth it the name of a great Sacrament in regard of the sacred coniunction partelie by the hypostaticall vnion and partelie by the vnion of charitie betwixt Christe and his spouse the Church which it signifieth Which foresaid coniunction of man and wife explicated by words of the present tense is the element and Christs ordinance and application of the same to the foresaid signification is the institution by virtue of which it also conferreth grace to the receiuers to the end they may liue in that perpetuall vnion of mindes which is required to the representation of the inseperable vnion of Christe and his Church which is all and more then our aduersarie himselfe demaunded of vs before in this particular matter To which if we adde the authoritie of the Church and auncient fathers for the interptetation of those scriptures which we haue produced for proofe of the truth of this and the rest of the foresaid fiue Sacraments which authorities of the fathers if need required and the place did serue for them I could easilie produce it would yet more plainelie appeere with how little reason the pretensiue reformed Congregations doe exclude them out of the number of true and proper Sacraments And so now according to this a verie easie answere may be framed to all that which the knight bringeth against the septenarie number of Sacraments in the rest of this paragraph and particularilie to the testimonies of those Romane authours and Fathers which he produceth in fauour of his cause And first touching the Fathers which hee citeth besides that which hath binne alreadie spoken I further adde that there was not one of them which was of the reformers opinion in this matter as is most apparent in that Sir Humfrey himselfe could not produce so much as one Father that auerreth the onelie duall number of Sacraments Nay they are so farre ftom this that there is not one of them who doth not in one place or other make expresse mention of more then two if professedlie they make mention of anie at all Secondlie I say that as the reformers cannot with anie probabilitie inferre out of those Fathers who affirmed that the two Sacraments Baptisme and the Eucharist haue flowed out of the side of Christe that there are no more nor lesse then two so neyther can they in anie sort thence inferre that the same Fathers taught not the septenarie number of Sacraments And more then this if the reformers stand vpon this so much that the Fathers by the bloud which issued out of our Sauiours side vnderstood the Sacrament of the bloud of Christe then they must consequentlie eyther confesse that the same Fathers held the reall presence of the bloude of Christe in the Eucharist which yet they themselues denie or else at the least that the reformed Churches haue no true Sacrament at all for that according to their confession there is in it neyther bloud nor bone And out of this generall answere to the testimonies of the auncient Fathers we may inferre how falselie Sir Humfrey in the end of his 149. page affirmeth that they did insist sometimes in the number of two and so restrayned the Church to the definite number of two onelie which saying of his is a manifest falsitie and iniurious to those Fathers whome he so chargeth as that which I haue produced out of S. Augustine in this period doth plainelie conuince in these fiue Sacraments which the reformers denie Neyther was he able to produce one testimonie out of anie of them for proofe of his fayned position but so leaueth it vnconfirmed more then with that fame vntruth by which he belyeth most impudentlie the foresaid Fathers all at a clappe Neyther hath that which he further addeth of the same Fathers in the next page anie greater truth or foundation then this where he sayth that had the Fathers beleeued that those fiue Sacraments had binne instituted by Christe they would of necessitie haue concluded them for true and proper Sacraments and haue easilie found in them the number of seuen Thus in effect Sir Humfrey discourseth to which I answere first that doubtles if the Fathers had had but halfe the occasion which the Church hath had since their time and especiallie since the foundation of the reformed Churches they would of necessitie haue treated and spoken expresselie of the septenarie number and haue distinguished as now the Church and diuines doe betwixt proper and improper Sacraments But the occasion fayling they neyther had necessitie nor conueniencie to speake otherwise of them then they haue donne Nay some of them especiallie those who writ against the Gentiles were rather obliged by the course of those times not to mention the secret misteries of our faith at all then to reueale them to the profaners of them more then was preciselie necessarie for the answere of their obiections Vid. Theodoret Dial. 2. which indeed is the true reason why diuerse of the foresaid more auncient Fathers haue spoken so obscurelie and sparinglie euen of some of the cheife misteries of Christian Religion Secondlie I say that howsoeuer the auncient Fathers spoke of the expresse number of the Sacraments certaine it is they eyther expreslie taught or at the least supposed for certaine doctrine of faith that all those which
the Romane Church now holdeth for true and proper Sacraments doe giue diuine grace to the receiuers as it is apparent out of those places which I cited before out of Saint Augustine for the proofe of euerie seuerall Sacrament and their seuerall effects and consequentlie they held implicitelie at the least and if either necessitie or iuste occasion had required they would haue concluded expresselie the septenarie number of Sacraments and that they were instituted by Christe for such truely and properly And now for the more moderne diuines who wrote since the time of P. Lumbard of which Sir Humfrey citeth to the number of twelue or thirteene there is not one of them who holdeth onely two proper Sacraments as the reformers doe nay there is not one of them that doth not expreslie defende the septenarie number of true and proper Sacraments excepting perhaps Alexander Hales and Durand may seeme to opinate otherwise to the incircūspect reader of which two authours neuerthelesse I say first that Hales doth not denie all those seauen nor anie one of them in particular which the Romane Church defendes to be trulie and properlie Sacraments but he onely is of opinion that onelie fower of them are to be called Sacraments of the new lawe for that as he imagined the other three to wit Pennance Order and Matrimonie had their beginning before True it is Hales cannot be excused from errour in that he affirmeth Confirmation to haue binne instituted by the Councell of Melda except he meaneth onelie that there it was declared to be properlie a Sacrament as I am persuaded he doth but neuerthelesse supposing this his singular opinion yet notwithstanding it being with all certayne that he holdeth the same Sacrament to be one of the seauen no lesse then he doth Pennance which yet he held as it seemeth to some later writers to haue binne instituted by the Apostles Iuxta numerum malorum spiritualiū debet sumi numerus Sacramētorum septem sunt differentiae morborū Hal. 4. part q. 8. mem 7. act 2. notwithstanding all this I say he is impertinentlie alleaged by the knight as an impugner of the Romane doctrine in the septenarie number of Sacraments which notwithstanding his other allucinations he as expresselie maintaines as other diuines doe as his owne wordes plainelie testifie saying thus in his 4. parte and eight question According to the number of spirituall diseases the number of Sacraments is to be taken there are seauen differences of diseases What therefore can be more manithē that this authour tought the compleat number of seuen Sacraments And as for Durand certaine it is that he doth not denie Matrimonie to be a Sacrament absolutelie as the reformers doe but he at the most onely affirmeth that it is not properly and vniuocallie a Sacrament conferring grace in the same manner the other six doe which opinion of his altho' as it sounds it can not stand firme with the doctrine of the Church yet this not our question and in case it were yet is there no reason why one mans priuate tenet nay nor the priuate tenet or errour of more then one or two should preiudicate the common doctrine of the Church both before and after him nor diminish her antiquitie and vniuersalitie in anie point of doctrine especiallie where there is no obstinacie in the authour as in these there was not neyther can the aduersaries drawe anie argument of force against the same in anie case out of one onelie authour or more if more there were contrarie to the torrent of all the rest To omit that as vasques noteth the same Durand in the same place expreslie affirmeth that it is an heresie to denie that Matrimonie is a Sacrament which doubtlesse is a cōcluding argumēt that when Durād affirmed Matrimonie not to be vniuocallie or iuste as the rest be a Sacramēt he did not absolutely deny it to be one of those seuē which the church did both then hold now houldeth to betrue Sacramēts but at the most he onely denied the truth propertie of it in that strict vniuocall manner of conferring iustificāt grace as he and other diuines affirme of the rest which being so then cannot the Reformers haue anie colour to alledge this testimonie either against the absolute truth of that Sacrament or against the Septenarie number of it with the other Nay more then this hauing now exactelie examined the matter I finde that Durand besides that he expresselie defendes the total number of seuen Sacraments disputing seuerallie of the nature of euerie one of them he doth in particular affirme of Matrimonie euen in his resolution or direct anser to the question absolutelie that it is a Sacrament and puts it in the last place for one of the seuen And these are his wordes in their seuerall places noted in the margent Tenendū est absolute quod matrimonium est Sacramētum Quia hoc determinauit Eccle. in 4. d. 26. q. 3. Et ita sunt invniuerso septē Sacramenta Idem d. 2. q. 2. n. 6. To which if we adde that which Capreolus doth testifie of the same durand all doubt of his true meaning in this point will quite vanish away Coactus fuit in vltimo opere cautius loqui vt scilicet confiteretur matrimonium esse vere proprie Sacramētum sed non vniuoce cum alijs nouae legis Sacramentis c. Capreolus in 4. sent d. 26. q. 1. §. For Capreolus saith that in his last worke or edition he was constrained to speake more cautelously soe that he confessed matoimonie to be truely and properly a Sacrament but not vniuocally By which and that also which I haue said before touching Alexander Hales the learned reader may perceiue that both the one and the other are against truth and reason alledged against the septenarie number of Sacraments and against the vniuersalitie of the doctrine of the Roman Church in that point supposing they differ not from the rest of the Romanists as their owne wordes witnesse Except it be in the manner of defending that same number yet both agreeing in the substance of the Controuersie here proposed by the knight our aduersarie Quantum ad tertium durandi and absolutelie affirming that there are truelie seuen Sacraments in the Catholike Church Moreouer in the citation of the other moderne diuines Sir Humfrey vseth much fraud and cosenage and remitting the rest till afterwardes which I will examen in their due places as they are quoted by the knight I will first produce those two whose bookes I had at the first and both of whome he egregiouslie abuseth Bellarmin is corrupted by him in three seuerall places cited in this one paragraph And first he is corrupted in his Second booke of the effect of Sacraments chap 24. where the Cardinall saying onelie that the aduersaries ought not to require of the Romanists that they shewe the name of the Septenarie number of the Sacraments either out of scripture or
species or kindes euen in respect of both his bodie and bloud Thus sainct Thomas By which it is cleare howe farre he was from patronizing Sir Humfreys new tenet maintaining that the communiō of the laitie in the Roman Church is but a halfe communion Now touching Lyra Sir Humfrey hath deceiptfullie omitted those wordes of his which include the verie reason approbation of the change which the Roman Church hath made it being the same which sainct Thomas alledgeth in parte as his wordes in the margen declare Fit autem hic mentio de duplici specie nā in primitiua Ecclesia sic dabatur fidelibus sed propter periculū effusionis sanguinis modo datur tantū sub specie panis Sacerdos tamen celebrans accipit sub vtraque specie non tantum pro se sed etiam pro alijs Lira in 1. Cor. 11. So that both these authours are so plaine against Sir Humfrey and for vs that a man may almost perceiue that he now repents that euer he cited them as also the authours following To the wordes of Arboreus but now the communion of both kyndes is abolished Sir Humfrey ought to haue added that authours reason of the abolishment to wit this Propter scandala quae contigerunt adhuc contingere possūt Arb. Theos lib. 8.11 For the scandals which haue happened and which yet may happen And the like I say of Taper to whose wordes should haue beene ioyned that which followes videlicet This communion of the people in both kindes hath danger of Sacriledge annexed vnto it in sheding the bloud of Christ and in the omission of the chalis no danger doth occurre nor anie losse of Spirituall grace The Councell of Constance is impertinentlie alledged as I haue declared before Bellarmin in the same place and wordes cited by Sir Humfrey doth directlie impugne that for which he is alledged by the knight to wit for the Communion of all the people in both kindes For so he saith Bellar. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. And besides all did not receiue in both kindes As for Cassander altho' we haue him not in the rancke of Romanists Ex his itaque confici puto hanc integram in vtraque panis vini communicationē etsi simpliciter necessaria non habeatur ei cōmunicationi quae in altera tantū specie fit etiamsi mandato contraria non putetur multis nominibus esse anteponēdam c. Cass loco cir yet for anie thing I can perceiue hee doth not absolutelie stand for Sir Humfrey in the subsustance of this Controuersie as neither houlding it absolutelie necessarie for the laytie to communicate in both kyndes nor yet contrarie to Christs institution as his owne wordes in that treatie page 1046. Doe plainelie either suppose or insinuate And for as much as concernes priuate or extraordinarie communion he himselfe relates diuers examples of it So that the reader may perceiue how smale reason Sir Humfrey hath to vse Cassanders authoritie for diuers respects in this matter especiallie if he consider his owne drift in this place altho' I cannot denie but the same Cassander leanes vnto him in that he desires the present practice of the Roman Church might be changed as lesse perfect legitimate then the contrarie in his conceipte And this being all I need to say touching the testimonies of the cited authours and of Sir Humfreyes proceedings about them I will now conclude the censure of this whole Paragraph that directly it containeth nothing which requires so exacte a discussion as I haue made of it And that I haue oftentimes maruailed why the reformers should stand so peremptorily against the Communion in one kinde supposing that euen according to their owne principles neither the words of Christ nor the intention of the minister nor both these together are of force and efficacy to make any change or alteration in the matter of the Sacrament but that when they haue said and done all they can they shall remaine bread wine as truely as if they had receaued them in the tauerne especially if we consider yet farther that according to the reformed doctrine the intention of the minister is not necessarily required to the constitution of any Sacrament and yet without the same it is cleerly vnpossible to conceiue how the Eucharist can be receaued by them in remembrance of the death and passion of Christ more in both the formes of bread and wine then in one alone especially supposing that by virtue of the institution and commaunde of Christ each of them in particular is to be receiued in memorie of him And this I say hath caused me many times to wonder euen yet persuading my selfe the Nouellists can haue no other motiue then the satisfaction of their owne contentious spirits to stand so nicely vpon this puntillio with the Church of Rome which refractory proceeding of thē in this matter may yet seeme more vnreasonable to the reader if he consider that altho' Vasquez and some other Romane diuines are of opinion that greater fruites of grace are reaped by the communion in both kindes then in one yet doth it not thence followe that the communion in one kinde cannot be lawfully practized as our Precisians will needes haue it nor yet that the communion vnder one kinde is but a halfe Communion as the knight doth heere malitiously inculcate but in either of the two kinds it is most euident there is a perfect and intire Sacrament according to the true definition thereof in regard there is found in either of the consecrated formes a visible signe of an inuisible grace instituted by God as also because the body of Christ euen according to the tenet of our aduersaries being truely really and substantially receiued vnder the forme of bread onely altho' they meane onely by faith it doth follow infallibly that vnlesse they graunt that Christ can dye againe by separatiō of his bloud from his body or that his perfect and intire body is not there receaued but onely a part of it it doth I say necessarily follow that vnder the forme of bread alone there is Christs bloud with his body and so a perfect communion of them both receaued in that one kinde The Parahraph following is about prayer and seruice in an vnknowne tongue in which point Sir Humfrey saith true in that he affirmeth that the Roman Church celebrates Masse and publick seruice in Latin and it is also true that the Councell of Trent hath declared it not to be expedient that it be celebrated euerie where in the vulgar language But yet it is false to say that either the Church or Councell hath commaunded it to be celebrated in an vnknowne language for Latin cannot trulie be said to be an vnknowne language but rather it is a generall language a knowne speech more vsed then anie one language in the world And altho' it be not vnderstood of the ignorant sort of people yet it is lesse vncoth vnto them then
Councell doe consequentlie affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the edification of the Church For it is manifest out of the verie same place cited by our aduersarie himselfe that the Councell of Trent doth command that the Pastours doe frequently expoūd some parte of those things which are read in the Masse not for that it hauing decreed the contrarie could possiblie hold it better to haue the Masse in a vulgar language then otherwise but because that supposing for other reasons it was better for the Church the Masse should not be in a vulgar tongue and that besides this it includeth matter of great instruction for the faithfull people therefore the Councell prudentlie decreed not for one onelie but for both these causes that it should oftentimes by the Pastours and Preists be declared to the common people for their greater edification and better vnderstanding of the doctrine contayned in it And this is all that in substance the Councell eyther sayth or from the wordes of the decree can be trulie inferred and so that from the Romanists owne confession it can be gathered that the seruice and prayer in the vulgar tongue was better for the edification of the Church is but such a dreame as Sir Humfrey vseth to haue the night before whensoeuer he citeth the Councell of Trent in fauour of the reformed doctrine After this the knight endeuoureth to proue that the Masse ought not to be celebrated in a silent and vnknowne voyce because sayth he the Apostles were cōmanded to showe forth the Lords death till his comming and to this end he citeth Haymo vpon the 14. chapter of the firste to the Corinth and Iustinian the Emperour in Nou. Const out of Cassander also the Greg. Decet Tit. 31. de Off. Iud. Ord. cap. 14. But to this I answere that both the knights reason and the testimonies of these authours are impertinent because the command layd vpon the Apostles was not that in this misterie they should shewe forth Christs death in words but principallie indeedes and therefore our Sauiour in the institution of the Eucharist did not bid his Apostles say it in remembrance of him but doe it in remembrance of him Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Otherwise the Sectaries themselues should be conuinced to violate Christes commaundement since that those who receiue their communion say not one worde In like manner let the reader veiw and vnderstand perfectlie the sense of the the wordes cited out of other authours and he will easilie perceaue there is not one sillable in them against Latine seruice or prayer as condemning it eyther for vnlawfull in itselfe or otherwise contrarie to the commandement of God Haymo doth onelie comment vpon that passage of sainct Paul 1. Cor 14. If I am ignorant of the virtue of the voyce I shall be to him to whome I speake barbarous onelie declaring in playner words that which the Apostle speaketh breiflie and obscurelie but sayth not a worde against the office of the Church in Latin Iustinian if anie such constitution he made of which it is much doubted by reason this clause is not founde in the auncient translation neither is it expounded by Cuiacio ordaineth onelie in generall that Bishops and Preists celebrate the oblation and minister the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist non tacito modo not secretlie but with a lowde voice but he speaketh not in particular of all partes of the Masse and at the least he speaketh not of the Canon except he meanes of the wordes of consecration which the Romanists doe not denie but the Grecians haue a custome of pronouncing them loude And as for other partes of the Masse the most of them are pronounced commonlie in the Romane Church so that the auditours may heere And according to this Iustinian peraduenture might aduise the Preistes of his time to doe when neuerthelesse it is certaine the Masse was in no vulgar language The decretalls speake not of anie vulgar tongue but onelie of Greeke and Latin as the decree of Innocent the third which may be seene in the ninth chap. of the Generall Councell of Lateran doth declare Neyther doth the Roman Church so strictlie command that the publike seruice be ministred in the Latine tongue that she doth condemne eyther the Greeke or Syrian Church for vsing the Grecian or Caldaian tongue in the diuine offices or publike seruice but onelie commandeth as more couenient that they be not performed in a vulgar language Lastly Sir Humfrey citeth some eight or nine Romanists who confesse sayth he that in the first ages publike prayers were vsed for the vnderstāding of the people But to omit that he vseth no great sinceritie in the citation and translatiō of the testimonies of some of the authours he citeth in this paragraph as may appeere particularlie in the quotation of Waldensis I say not to stand here vpon this which I shall more conuenientlie examen afterwardes I answere that those authours affirme that which we doe not denie to wit that perhaps which worde Sir Humfrey deceitfullie leaues out in his translation of S. Tho. testimonie cited out of his 3. lection vpon 1. Cor. 14. In 1. Cor. 14. lect 3. the case of the primitiue Church was different from the practise of the ptesent time in this matter yet withall the same authours doe affirme that the alteration was made vpon iust causes which causes are so sufficientlie deliuered by Bellarmine and others euen those whome the knight heere citeth that I need not rehearse their reasons they being so easilie to be found as they are to those that reade their bookes And altho ' sainct Thomas aduertiseth his reader that it might haue seemed madnesse in the primitiue Church to haue performed all the Ecclesiasticall offices in the Latine tongue for that they were rude ignorāt in the rites of the Church and ceromonies yet doth he adde that now all are so well instructed that tho' it be in Latine the people vnderstands what is donne in the Church whose saying is most true at least in generall yea and in particular so farre as is necessarie for euerie person state and vocation for that throu ' the diligence of their pastours and preachers and their owne industrie they may haue sufficient instruction Howbeit that if it were necessarie for euerie one that prayes or sings to vnderstand all they say the Puritans themselues might put vp their pipes it being most certainely true that there be manie things in the psalmes which they sing so merilie and in the scriptures which they read so readilie Conscquitur ergo Canonem clare aperte legendū vt ad gratiarum actionem Sacerdotis populus respōdeat Amen Cassander ex Gerardo Lorichio p. 65. which by reason of their great obscuritie they cannot possiblie vnderstand euen in their owne mother tongue And from hence I passe to a breefe Suruey of the rest of the authors cited
in this paragraph among which I finde Cassander in the first rancke of corruption for altho' the testimonies which Cassander cites doe not proue fully his intent yet is it euident by the wordes of those he produceth that he speakes in that places of the Canon of the Masse especiallie when he sayes in the title of his chapter canonicam precem c. And Sir Humfrey translates it not the Canō of the Masse as he ought to haue done but Canonicall prayers so odious and reformidable vnto him is the reporte of that great Canon that he durst not name it Moreouer the testimonie of Cassander is detorted by Sir Humfrey quite from the sense in which he speakes it For he speakes not there of the vulgar tongue one worde but whether the Canon of the Masse ought to be pronounced with a lowde voyce especiallie the consecration that the people may heare it and anser Amen And the same I or Cassander forme me anser to the constitution of Iustinian which Cassander himselfe alledges to that same purpose and in no other sense And so in like manner the wordes of the Decretals are violentlie drawe to a sense repugnant to the authors meaning that is from doctrinall tongues to vulgar languages To the wordes of Lyra if he had dealt sincerelie Sir Humfrey ought to haue added those which immediatlie ensue and explicate his minde more clearelie Sed postquam populus multiplicatus fuit consueuit se conformare ministris Ecclesiae vtpote stando cum dicitur Euangelium deposito caputio adorando Eucharistiam consimilia fiunt in Ecclesia Latina in Latino sufficit quod Clericus respondeat pro populo expeditius enim fit hoc modo quam in vulgati But since the people increased and is accustomed to conforme it selfe to the ministers of the Church to wit by standing at the Gospell by puting of their bonet to adore the Eucharist and such like are done in the Latine Church in Latin and it is sufficient that the clearke ansers for the people for it is thus more readilie performed then in the vulgar tōgue Lyr. in 1. Cor. 14. Which wordes are so plaine against Sir Humfrey in diuers respects that he may be ashamed to heare them Belethus cited out of Cassander to proue that seruice and prayer must be in the vulgar language is abused by them both Inde etiam inoleuit vsus vel laudabilis cōsuetudo in Ecclesia vt pronūtiato literaliter Euāgelio statim in vulgari populo exponeretur Belet in Proae Exp. diuinorum offic For Belethus expresselie supposeth that the Masse and office of the Preist are in Latine and therefore euen in this same place and euen in some of the wordes cited by Cassander he mentioneth a laudable custome of some places an which sayth he the Gospell being pronounced it is presentlie expounded in the vulgar tongue Now if it were read in the Masse by the Preist in the vulgar tongue then it had beene vaine for Belethus yea and impertinent to haue made mention of that custome in the entrance of his worke of expounding the diuine offices for the vse of the lesse learned sorte of the Clergie as he professeth to vndertake It is true he hath in the same passage that it was prohibited to speake with tongues without an interpreter but that is nothing els but the very same which the Apostle himselfe declared 1. Cor. 14. vnderstanding by tongues the miraculous speech of strange languages which the speakers them selues did not vnderstand aboute which saith this author there was in the Primatiue Church a prohibition except it were with an interpreter And this is that which by accomodation Belethus applyes to the argument of his booke by way of Prologue In the rehearsall of D. Hardings wordes Sir Humfrey takes onelie those which testifie that in the Primatiue Church prayers were in the vulgar language But he leaues out the iuste reasons which the Doctor alledges for the alteration of the same made by the authoritie of the Church euen with in the first foure hundreth yeares as also he omits those pregnant proofes which he brings to showe that six hundreth yeares after Christ the seruice of the Church was in no other language then in Greeke or Latine By all which the reader may perceiue this author is not sincerelie dealt with in this passage that which yet will more plainelie appeare if he will please to see his anser to Iewels chalenge the 3. article The testimonie of Waldensis is vsed by Cassander onely to proue that diuine seruice or Masse ought to be pronounced with an intelligible voyce that the people may anser Amen but not to proue that the publike office must be in vulgar language and so it is impertinent Honorius cited by Sir Humfrey page 193. is falsified in regarde he is alledged for the cause of the alteration of the ancient custome of the vse of seruice in a knowne tongue For that author speakes not a word of the vulgar language but onely of the secret pronoūcing of the Canon which was decreed saith he I knowe not howe truely by occasion of a strange accident which happend in times past touching that matter Vnde sinodali decreto sub anathemate est praeceptum vt nullus Canonem nisi in libro in sacris vestibus super altare super sacrificium legat In which words I knowe not what linx except our Egleeyd Humfrey can see seruice in the vulgar tongue Gretzer is abused both in sense and wordes In sense because he speakes onely of the Latin tongue and of that time when it was either vulgar or very common to manie nations and yet the knight applyes his speech to proue that publike seruice ought to be deliuered in the vulgarly knowne tongue of euerie nation and at all times not contenting himselfe with lesse then this In wordes he doth also abuse Gretzerus for that he cites them neither intirely nor consequenter in English omitting or at the least altering those which haue relation to the authors precedent sentence to wit hinc illae exhortationes c. hence are those exhortations of the Fathers c. and also others before them which he ought to haue rehearsed compleatly because they are to the same purpose I will put the whole tenour of his wordes in the margen that the reader may more plainely see the fraude Latini Patres quos citat Whitakerus loqunn tur De eo tēpore quo lingua Latina erat multis gētibus vulgaris aut valde cōmunis hinc omnes simul psallebant Missae linguae populo nota celebātur quia Latina lingua erat omnibus vel plerisque nota Hincillae Patrū exhortationes vt omnes simul psallant vtque faciant attēte intelligibiliter vocēque suam cum Sacerdotum vocibus coniungant Quae admonitiones iustissimae erant quādoquidem lingua auditoribus non ignosa omnia peragebātur cōsuetudo ita ferebat vt tota ecclesia simul
psalleret Nūc alia est ratio antiquato vulgari linguae Latinae vsu quam linguā propter intermissum communē vsum ex Ecclesia diuinisque osficijs minime conueniebat exturbari inque locū eius vulgares vernaculas substitui Multa etiam dicta Patrum c. Gretzerus defens lib. 2. c. 16. and how repugnant Gretzerus is to Sir Humfreys tenet in this particular as professedly he must of necessitie be as being a professed defender of Bellarmins doctrine in matters of Controuersie But now because I haue already treated in part of this before and breifly giuen sentence already of that which Sir Humfrey produceth for the defense of his doctrine I will include the contents of this whole paragraph in the same censure and so passe along to the next which is of the worship of images where we are to examine whether the knight bringeth any sounder matter then he hath donne heere where as I should haue noted before he falsely relateth a historie of certaine shepheardes out of his false frend Cassander which shepherds he affirmeth according to his emendicated relation to haue transubstantiated bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ by pronuntiation of the words of consecration which they had learned whereas indeed the authenticall historie of that strange accident written by Sophronius saith onely that the bread and wine were suddenly burnt by fire from heauen and the shepheards struken speachlesse for a time But this howsoeuer it happened being it can serue Sir Humfrey for no greater purpose then to replenish his pages I leaue it to the reader to consider of this his proceeding as he pleaseth Presently in the entrance of the 7. Paragraph Sir Hūfrey pronoūceth a very sharpe sentence against the Coūcell of Trent for decreeing that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to the images of Christ and his Saintes condemning it for a wicked and blasphemous opinion Loe heere the sentence of condemnation which is to be iudged so much the more rash and temerarious in respect the peremptorie Iudge leaueth out the greater part of the doctrine he censureth which if he had added at large as it standeth in the Councell it would sufficiently haue iustified it selfe and because Sir Humfrey for reasons of state would not take so much paines I will doe it for him The Councell therefore in the 25. Sess page 202. decreeth in this manner The images of Christ the Virgin the Mother of God and other Saintes are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and due honour and veneration is to be giuen vnto them not that it is beleiued there is in them any diuinity or virtue for which they are to be worshipped or that any thing is to be asked of them or that confidence is to be put in them as in times past the Gentiles did who put their trust in Idols but because the honour which is exhibited vnto images is referred vnto the Prototipes which they represent so that by the images which we salute and before which we vncouer our heads and kneele we adore Christ and reuerence the Sainctes whose similitude they haue that which by the decrees of councels especially of the second