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
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
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
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 Nicene Synod hath binne established against the oppugners of images thus the decree of the Councell of Trent in which we finde not one word either wicked or blasphemous nay rather euery word soundeth nothing but piety and religion towards Christ and his Sainctes whom it will haue honoured not only in themselues but also in and by their images which manner of honour as it is declared by the Councell is not onely not contrary to scriptures as Sir Humfrey falsely affirmeth but also very conformable to them both in regard the scriptures make mention of honour due vnto materiall things for the relation of representation which they haue to God or other his holie creatures Psal 95. Matth 5. as also for that we vse no other reuerence to images thē the Church doth teach vs whose authority the same scripture commendeth and commandeth vs to follow and obey more then this the Coūcel is so farre frō attributing to images anie vnlawfull manner of honour that it doth not once vse either the worde worship or adore except where it speaketh of Christ himselfe which wordes neuerthelesse if they be taken in the sense in which diuines doe commonlie take them include no offence at all as signifying an exteriour action of honour indifferent euen according to the phrase of scripture both to God and creatures and being distinguished onelie according to the diuersitie of the internall affection and submission of the minde which submission and affection in the honouring of an inanimate creature as an image is is neuer by the worshipper exhibited to the image it selfe but onelie to the thing it representeth nay nor yet the exteriour signe of adoration as genuflectiō or inclination of the bodie is giuen to the image itselfe for itselfe and to remaine in it but rather by the image which we salute or before which wee prostrate our selues the same signe of honour is transferred ioyntelie with the affection of the mynde to the thing which is adored Which doctrine is both so cleare in itselfe and so plainelie declared by the Councell expreslie teaching that the honour exhibited vnto thē is referred to the Paterne Cōc Trid. Sess 25. decret de imag that a verie child may conceiue it to be free from all superstitious worship and adoration in so much that it is but grosse ignorance malice and madnesse in our aduersaries to exclaime against the Romanists as idolaters for the honour they giue to images And I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey or anie other of his reformed companions in what place of scripture this proposition The images of Christ and his saints are to be duelie honoured is condemned for wicked blasphemous and the same I say of the auncient Fathers And if they cannot produce as much as one onelie place either out of scripture or Fathers which doth truelie serue to that purpose I meane which doth truelie condemne the foresaid proposition in that manner as I knowe neither they nor the knight can performe let him confesse that is censure of the Romanists is temerarious and false and nothing els but a renouation of an old Iewish complainte against the Christians of more auncient ages It is true I knowe the reformers vse commonlie to alledge for their denyall of honor to images both scripture and Fathers as also Sir Humfrey doth in this paragraffe and particularlie they vse to produce the wordes of that which they call the second cammaundement to wit thou shall not make to thy selfe anie grauen image But touching this I haue showed aboue In the 4. Period that according to the doctrine of S. Augustin there is no such second commaundement those wordes being onelie a parte of the first Secondlie howsoeuer the matter stands certaine it is that except the sectaries
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
conuincement of Luther Pag. 6. And the marginall note of that place is yet more false then the text saying that the aduersaries of Luther proued the doctrine of Indulgences by common reasons onely And as for Eckius I haue read his whole treatise of Indulgences so I ame sure he foundeth them not vpon the Popes autheritie either onelie or cheefelie but principallie vpon scripture for so he sayth page 313. Indulgentiarum figurae fuerunt Iubilei in veteri Testamento De his sumus contenti eo quod habeamus solidum S. Paulâ— fundamentum ne credamur diligentiores in lucrosa Porro c. 2. Cor. 2. And to the sense of these authors may be reduced that which Cunerus sayth of the doubtfull manner of writing of some Catholike authors of Indulgences if the place be sincerely related which a man may iustely suspect especially for that the knight hath it out of Chamier at second hand And in deed the truth is if that authors sentence had not ben violentlie abrupted before the end of the same period which he deliuered with one breath it would haue plainelie declared that there is nothing for Sir Humfreyes purpose of prouing that neither Christ nor the Primatiue Fathers as he speaketh euer knewe or exercised such pardons as are now dayly practised in the Church of Rome For the wordes omitted are those Cunerus declam Cum in clauibus Ecclesiae symbolo Apostolico clarissime fundatae deprehendantur That is since that Indulgences are most clearely discouered to be founded in the Apostolicall symbole or Creed in the power of the keyes of the Church c. And so now we see that those testimonies doe not proue want of antiquitie or consent in either scripture Fathers or schoolemen for the doctrine of Indulgences themselues but onelie at the most in some accessorie points of that Controuersie yet not one of them prouing anie such want in the maine of the question aboue declared no more then he should be thought to proue want of antiquitie vniuersallitie in the doctrine of three persons one God who should affirme the same not to be in expresse termes contayned in the scripture Fathers schoolemen iuste in that manner in which the Church beleeueth defendeth it And yet graunting neuerthelesse that it is truelie contained in the same scripture in an other equiualent manner or inexpresselie As also the same doth yet more plainelie appeare euen by those same wordes which Sir Humfrey cites here out of Alfonsus which altho' they be not sincerelie related by him as leauing out that which most conduceth to the explication of that authours true meaning to wit that who but an heretike can denie transubstantiation the procession of the holie Gost Purgatorie because they are not mentioned by auncient authors sub his nominibus by these names or wordes And after what maruell therefore is it if it happened in this sorte of Indulgence that saith Castro there be not mention made of them in the auncients By which wordes it is plaine this author speakes not absolutelie of the substance of Indulgences or of the authoritie to graunte them which indeede is the cheefe question of Controuersie in this place of which he makes no doubt but that it is sufficientlie contayned in scripture Fathers altho' as he saith minus expresse lesse expresselie But he onelie speakes of the name as his wordes now related doe testifie or at the most of the antiquitie of their coÌ„mon vse which not withstanding it is no matter of faith yet doth he shewe it not to be so new as the sectaries of our times will haue it therefore he addes by way of conclusion Quod non est tam recens Indulgentiarum vsus quantum isti haeretici meaning the Lutherans exprobrant nam apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur earum vsus vt ex stationibus Romaefrequentissimis colligi vtcumque potest Et de Beato Gregorio huius nominis primo fertur quod aliquas suotempore concesserit And in the same tenor of wordes he adioyneth that et si pro Indulgentiaram approbatione sacrae scripturae apertum testimonium desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam Ecclesiae Catholicae vsus à multis annorum saeculis receptus tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur c. By all which it is euident that nothing can be proued by the wordes of Alfonsus against the substance of Ecclesiasticall Indulgences nor contrarie to the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Roman doctrine in that point but rather Sir Humfrey his brothers are manifestlie conuicted of heresie for contemning the same Now Maior in 4. d. 2. q. 2. is impertinentlie alledged for he onelie affirmes that it 's harde to founde authenticallie in scripture iuste that manner of Indulgence which is vsed at this day in the Church that some of the auncient Fathers made no mention thereof which the Romanists doe not denie for they saye difficilia quae pulchra And so that which is hardelie founded is truelie founded Yet the power vse of Indulgences euen as they are now practised the same Maior defendes as well as other moderne diuines yea deduceth the vse of them from S. Gregorie the great thus this author is excused the citer reprooued Touching Siluester Prieras altho' I cannot haue that same worke of his which Sir Humfrey cites if anie such be extant now in the world yet I haue viewed the treatise of Indulgences which he hath in his summe there I finde that he doth not saie all that with which our aduersarie doth charge him nay nor scarce halfe so much for he neither excludes scripture from the grounde of Indulgences 2. Cor. 2. but expresselie cites the same place of S. Paule for them which others cite altho' it be with a licet at the and. And much lesse doth he affirme that the authority of the Church of Rome the Popes is greater then the authoritie of the scripture which proposition if he had vttered defended obstinatelie in my opinion he had deserued the fygot almost as well as his aduersarie Martin but I persuade my selfe the discretion of Prieras was greater then so And in the same manner I vehementlie suspect our aduersaries hath vsed some of his Gipsian sleights in the citation of the place he quoteth But yet is meaning is onely that Indulgences that is the present vse of them is not manifestlie declared vnto vs by scripture Fathers as his wordes cited here in the margen insinuate absolutelie graunting both the power practise of them IndulgeÌ„tia nobis per scripturaÌ„ minime innotuit licet inducatur illud 2. Cor. 2. Si quid donaui vobis sed nec per dicta antiquoruÌ„ doctorum sed modernorum Dicitur enim Gregorius indulgentiam septennem in stationibê° Rome posuisse Et quia Ecclesia hoc facit seruat credendum est ita
the authours them selues with attention care And as for Theodoretus Iames Gordon in his fourth Controuersie of transsubstantiation noteth that if he be trulie translated according to the force of the Greeke wordes all difficultie touching his true meaning doth presentlie cease And thus much for Theodoretus who is no way eluded by Valentia but truelie sincerelie expounded As for Bellarmin whome when he answereth to the testimonie of S. Cyprian aboute traditiōs the knight seemeth to taxe for attributing error vnto him It is not true that Bellar. sayth that he doth not maruell that S. Cypriā erred in reasoning as Sir Humfrey affirmeth but the Cardinall onlie sayth of S. Cyprian ideo non mirum si more errantium ratiocinaretur therefore it was no maruell if he should argue after the manner of those that erre because he writ that passage to which Bellarmin doth ansere in the place cited by the knight when he defended his errour aboute rebaptization against S. Augustin But withall Bellarmin addeth that S. Cyprian reiected not all traditions as the reformers commonlie doe at the least in faith manners but onelie he disalowed that tradition in particular which S. Augustin alledged against his error onelie for that reason because he conceiued it to be cotrarie to scriptures which yet afterwardes appeared not to be so by the definition of the Church not to be So that Bellarmin is both here falselie accused to haue absolutelie affirmed S. Cyprian to haue erred in reasoning also it is false that his testimonie touching traditiōs in generall is by him eluded which is that Sir Humfrey ought to proue if he speakes according to his owne purpose in this place And not much vnlike to this is the same Bellarmin falselie accused by the knight to haue affirmed that S. Chrisostome exceeded the trueth when he sayd It is better not to be present at the sacrifice then to be present not comunicate for Bellarmin sayd not that sainct Chrysostome exceeded the truth but onelie that he spoake by excesse per excessum ita esse locutum or amplificandi gratia as he sayth afterwardes which is not to exceede the truth but to vse a tropicall speech by which the trueth is as farre extended as may be possible within her boundes but no further And more ouer Bellarmin addeth so much besides to this ansere to Saint Chrysostomes wordes Vide Bell. l. 2. de Missa cap. 10. § Porro Chrysost as takes all difficultie quite away touching his meaning in the point of Priuate Masse Neyther is Sir Hūfreys complainte against Bellarmin lesse vniuste where he sayth yet not specifiing aboute what matter that the Cardinall affirmes Prudentius to playe the poet for why should anie man be reprehended for attributing to a Poet that which is proper to all those of his profession that is to speake by way of fiction or to vse poeticall licence The trueth is I can finde no such wordes of Bellarmin as Sir Humfrey citeth but suppose he speaketh in that manner of Prudentius yet I hould it to be no greater an extenuation of his authoritie then it were an extenuation of Sir Humfreys honour to say he vseth his weapons dexterouslie or plaieth the Champion couragiouslie But yet worse then this doth Sir Humfrey deale with Bellarmin aboute his ansere to a certaine testimonie of Tertullian For whereas he onelie sayth that Tertullians authoritie is of no great accounte when he contradicts other Fathers when as S. Hierome speaketh he was no man of the Church the knight to saue labor but not to saue his honestie leaueth out that speeche of S. Hierome putteth the whole censure of Tertullian vpon Bellarmin onelie notobstanding it appeares plainelie that the greater parte of it is taken out of S. Hierome so consequentlie if anie proofe or recorde were eluded in Tertullian Sir Humfrey might more iustelie haue accused him then the Cardinall But it seemes the knight proceeded in this as those that in cases of reuenge either for want of wit or valour still strike their next fellowe whether he be in faulte or no. In conclusion Sir Humfrey had no reason to stand vpon Bellarmin's ansere to those two authours I meane Prudentius Tertullian for that neither of them in the places cited speaketh of anie point of doctrine defined by the Church but of other matters in which as it was free for them to speake what they pleased so was it also free for Bellarmin to ansere what he pleased especiallie supposing that Tertullian speakes but doubfullie in the matter for which he is taxed by the Cardinall that is in the manner of Christs penetration of his mothers wombe if he held he was borne according to the course of nature he contradicteth the rest of the Fathers in which case no one Father hath the credit of an absolute testimonie amongest the Romanists neyther can he or anie for him iustelie complaine if he be disesteemed in such a case Now for the censure which Riuera giueth of Origen to wit that he was full of errours which the Church hath alwayes detested it is so manifestlie true that no man that will not dogmatize with him can denie the same And the truth is that the reformers make as little yea much lesse account either of him or anie other ancient writers then the Romanists doe as the world knoweth especially when they finde them contrarie to their positions And not of one two or three dissenting from the rest but euen of the torrent of their consent of which ouer plaine testimonie is extant in Luther Caluin Kemnitius Chamier Vid. Luth. de capt Babyl c. 1. Calu. 4. Instit c. 18 Kem. pag. 798. Cham. de descens Chr. ad Inf. And yet for all this the knight could produce nothing in particular in which he could accuse the Romanists to haue reiected the recordes of the foresaid authours at the least in matter of faith As for S. Hierome whome Canus affirmeth to be no rule of faith I would knowe what reformer will maintaine the contrarie And if they hould him to be a rule of faith then a dieu their all-sufficiencie of scripture Besides Canus yealdes a pregnant reason why S. Hierome was not to be followed in that particular of which he speakes in that place to wit in the assignation of the Canon of the old testament because sayth Canus he followed Ioseph the Iewe but S. Austin followed the Christians in that point of doctrine which reason of Canus Sir Humfrey ought not to haue omitted if he had dealt sincerelie As impertinent as this also is the taxation of Bellarmins answere to Iustin Ireneus Epiphanius Oecumenius who seeme to haue held that the diuells are not to be tormēted with the paines of hell before the day of Iudgement For this is so absurde a position that I thinke fewe or none of the misreformed Churches defend it so I see not why Bellarmin can iustelie be reprehended for
no authoritie But suppose Cephas did indeed not signifie the head yet what great recorde I praye can that be for Sir Humfreys Church And so whether Cephas signifie the head or the feet whether ridiculum est be in or out of the bookes it auayles him nothing but some smale matter to quarell aboute yet the truth is that the most authenticall edition of Anwerpe 1585. hath the same wordes which Sir Humfreyes cites out of the Roman print in such sorte as one may rather much more suspect those wordes it is ridiculous to be falselie added in the Moguntin edition then detracted in the others Finallie whether the wordes of the Councell of Laodicea be that wee ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells as Sir Humfrey will haue it also some Catholike copies haue or whether in steed of the worde Angells wee reade angles or corners as some other editions haue the matter is not great so the decree be reight vnderstood that is so that the sense bee this we ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells superstitiouslie as some did in those tymes For this being the true meaning of the Councell as it appeareth by the subsequent wordes which are those and make congregations of abominable idolatrie to the Angells it is more then plaine that no recorde can there be founde for the doctrine of the reformed Churches But onelie it serues Sir Humfrey to make a plausible florish to the simple reader to the end that by working vpon his weaknesse by falselie taxing his aduersaries hee may make his owne impostures saleable which otherwise would putrifie spoile for want of vtterance Lastelie for proofe of his accusation Sir Humfrey after all this sturre he hath made produceth onelie one witnesse that a false one and altho' for the greater credit of his cause he held it expedient to giue him the decree of a diuinitie reader professor Deane of Louaine yet hauing examined the matter I founde by better information then Sir Humfrey can haue that Boxhorne before his reuolte had onelie the place a certaine of obscure Deanrie which function altho' it be a place of some credit yet it is farre inferiour to the dignitie either of a Deane of a Capitall Church or of a publike professour of diuinitie in the vniuersitie of Louaine both in learning honour profit And yet this man as I receiued by authenticall relation of the Deane of S. Gudula Church in Brussels others after some extraordinary familiarity which out of his ouer amorous nature he vsed to a domestike maide seruant of his owne out of an vnsetlednesse of his lubrik mynde began at first to defend that it was not necessarie for the Preist to prononce the wordes of consecration orally but onelie to speake them mentallie afterwardes as nemo repente fit malus Boxorno once a pettie-master by degrees falling into plaine heresie founde oportunitie to passe into the land of libertie I meane into Holand with bag bagage I meane with his Sacrilegious spouse the sacred spoiles of his Church Where from the place of a fugitiue Pedant he is preferred to the dignitie of a new Euangelist is become a blostering trumpeter in the pulpits of the misreformed congregations And this is the onely man which Sir Humfrey could bring for a witnesse against the practice of the Roman Church in her manner of censuring bookes or correcting the same or approuing them according to the order decree of the Councell of Trent which collapsed Deane being so infamous in his life as by this which I haue specified and more which I could relate doth appeare and being also now a professed enimy and Apostata from his mother Church let the reader iudge whether in reason his testimony ought to be admitted against her and let him withall be pleased to consider that Sir Humfrey in lue of conuincing his aduersaries of ill conscience he hath by his owne bad proceeding in this section conuinced his owne to be the worst of all so is fallē in to the same pit he prepared for his enimies incidit in foueam quam fecit by forgeing of false recordes hath incurred a farre deeper dungeon of cēsure then hitherto he did in which he must remaine either till he hath payde a double fine or put in suretie for the amendment of his manners THE XIII PERIOD IN His fourteeneth section Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to conuince his aduersaries of the defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions as he calleth them against the scriptures by which we see that as his booke increaseth in number of leaues so he increaseth in multiplication of his malicious and false accusations and these being the cardes he playeth with let vs examen his gaime He continueth confidently his allegation of his false Deane of Louaine for a witnesse against the Romanists whose worde notwithstanding ought not either in reason or according to the course of lawe to be admitted for recorde against those from whose religion he hath reuolted And so whereas he accuseth the Romā Church of poyson in religion tiranny in the common welth it is to be taken as proceeding from a poysonous minde which being once corrupted hateth the truth as much as an ill stomake loathes dainty meates As for the scriptures it is false slaunderous to affirme that the Romanists refuse to be tryed by them so they be taken together with the authoritie of the Church which the same scriptures commende as Saint Augustin speaketh against his aduersaries and in a true sense without which as one of the auncient Fathers saith verbum Dei male intellectum non est verbum Dei that is the worde of God ill vnderstanded is not the word of God Quamuis certum de scripturis non proferatur exēplum tamē earundem scripturarū à nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus quod vniuersae placet Ecclesia quam ipsarum scripturarum commēdat authoritas Aug. lib. 1. cōtra Cres c. 33. And according to this not that sacred Bible which was in the Apostles till the dayes of Luther without alteration is as you calumniously affirme ranked by the Inquisitors inter libros prohibitos among the prohibited bookes but your execrated Bible I meane your execrable translations and annotations mutilations of the most holy Bible are those that are registred in the censure where whether it haue as you affirme I knowe not certainely but I am sure it deserueth the first place because as the Philosopher saith corruptio optimi pessima and so as your Bible-corruption is in the highest degree of badnesse so ought it in reason to be ranked in the highest station of such false wares as that Catalogue condemnes And of the censure of your owne abuses I graunt you may with shame enough to your selues be eye witnesses but if you meane you are eye witnesses of the censure of the true scriptures
that text which hath ben at the least since the tyme of S. Augustin commonlie vsed in the Church as appeareth by the Rhemes Testamēt which because it is founde to haue ben rightlie translated is not arraigned by the Pope but exposed to be read euen by the laitie at the least by licence aduise of their Confessors Further more in regarde of the foresayd corruptions manie other which for breuitie I omitted made by heretikes in the holie scriptures those moderne authours which Sir Humfrey citeth if they be trulie cited haue ben induced to vtter some such speeches concerning the same as if they be not trulie piouslie interpreted may giue occasion of offence to the reader for example when they affirme as he sayth the scriptures to be dead caracters a dead killing letter c. such phrases neuerthelesse as it manifestlie appeareth by the rest of their doctrine discourse in those places are not vsed by those authours with an intent in anie sorte to disgrace or diminish the dignitie of the true worde of God but onelie by those comparatiue speaches to declare how subiect the scriptures are to be corrupted detorted to the defence of heresies errours if they be considered preciselie as they are the externall written letter interpreted otherwise then by the authoritie of the visible Church in all ages the ancient Councells Fathers they haue ben vhderstood Wherefore those Romanists which the knight citeth as if they had spoken irreuerentlie blasphemonlie of the holie scriptures doe no more iniurie vnto them then S. Paule did when 2. Cor. 3. he sayth of them litera occidit the letter killeth Lib. de Synodis or then did S. Hilarie when he teacheth that manie heresies haue their origin from scriptures ill vnderstood or then Martin Luther who called the Bible liber haereticorum the booke of heretikes None of which speeches as I suppose Sir Humfrey will dare to condemne either of blasphemie or irreuerence nay if he haue his senses aboute him he will easilie perceiue that those other such like phrases are not meant actiuelie of the worde of God but onelie passiuelie that is that throu ' the malice of the false interpreter it is so irreuerentlie detorted abused as if indeed it were as flexible as a nose of waxe And according to this we see that none of that which our aduersarie produceth here out of the Romanists is anie argument of irreuerence against the trueth inuiolabilitie of Gods worde but a calumnious accusatiō quite contrarie to the sense meaning of the foresaid authours who had not anie intention to taxe the scriptures but the corrupters false interpreters of them such as you pseudoreformers are your selues And now altho' by this which I haue sayd in generall touching this point of blasphemie against scripture supposed to be perpetrated by the Romanists the authors by the knight cyted remaine sufficientlie cleared from the imputation which he layes vpon them in that nature neuerthelesse because by the particular examen of the places cyted I haue discouered that either all or most of their wordes be either corruptedlie rehearsed or their sense detorted abused therefore I will seuerallie repeate their passages declare in what respects our aduersarie hath deceitfullie traduced them And to begin with Lindanus his stromata in deed I could not haue but I haue read the place cited out of his Panoplia where I finde that when he names the scripture a dead killing letter he onelie alludes to the wordes of S. Paule 2. Cor 3. for the letter killeth but the spirit giue liues Sicut illud eiusdē authoris dogma in mortuas imo ceidentes adeo literas relatum Panop lib. 1. c. 44. Neither speaking nor meaning worse of the same scripture then the Apostle himselfe affirming at the most that the bare letter of the worde of God ill interpreted doth kill the soule but reight expounded according to the tradition of the Church it doth reuiue nourish it brings it to eternall lyfe yea hauing better pondered his wordes in the end of the chapter quoted by Sir Humfrey I perceiue the doth not absolutelie call the scriptures a dead killing letter but onelie that the doctrine of that author meaning the holie Ghost as I conceiue is put in to dead killing letters As his wordes quoted in Latin in the margen declare And in this same sense I may iustelie truelie suppose the same authour speakes in the place quoted out of his other worke if any such saying he hath in regarde that a graue learned man as he is knowne to haue ben is euer iudged to be sutable to himselfe in all times places Which learned diuine is yet further cōuinced neuer to haue spoakē otherwise then reuerentlie of the scriptures in that in euerie seueral place cited by our aduersarie he stileth them sacrae litterae sacred letters And in like manner I conceiue of Charon who as being of the same faith religion he neither did nor dared to speake otherwise then with the same due respect which the Romā Church commaundes the Romanists to vse towardes the holie written worde of God Canus in his 3. chapter of his second booke is abused by the knight Nec esse eas volunt cereum quendā nasum in sensum omnem flexibiles sed potius esse per se expositas in promptu cuique sine magistro docente patere Canus lib. 3. ca. 7. f. 176 edit Louan by his imposing vpon the Romanists that which Canus speakes of the Lutherans saying that they will not haue the scriptures to be like a nose of waxe subiect to diuers senses but rather plaine for euerie one to vnderstand without a master or teacher thus the preposterous kniht doth positiuelie affirmatiuelie impute that to the Romanists which Canus onely relates to be negatiuely asserted of the scriptures by the Lutherans Turrianus agregiously abused in that he is accused to call the scriptures a Delphick sword the riddles of Sphinx and the like for he doth not absolutely say they are such but onely saith that if Christ had left in his Church that rule onely which the pretended reformers receiued from Luther to wit that scriptures are easie to be interpreted and vnderstanded and according as they haue hitherto expounded them in their owne sense then saith Turrian what els should we haue of them then a Delphick sworde In which wordes you see he doth not affirme absolutely that the scriptures are such a sworde but onely that according as the sectories handle them in their false manner of expounding they may be so compared and for this cause he puts for his marginall note how to interpret scriptures according to ones owne proper sense is as to haue a Delphick sworde so by this the authors wordes which I quote in the margen in Latin his meaning is sufficiently declared together with
the knights calumnious proceeding against him Vos enim sicut a Luthero didicistis scripturas sanctas faciles ad intelligendum interpretaÌ„dum esse putatis sic eas hactenus vestro sensis intellexistis interpretati estis At si hanc solam regulam fidei Christus in Ecclesia reliquisset quid aliud quam gladium delphicum haberemê° c. Quomodo interpretari scripturas ad libidineÌ„ proprij sensus sit vt habere DelphicuÌ„ gladium coÌ„tr Sad. p. 99. Lessius is ill cited for in his 11. reason he hath none of those wordes quoted by Sir Humfrey yet in his table he hath those Scriptura quâ ratione nasus cereus regula lesbia c. nuncupetur Cyting for this his owne page 130. of his consult Where yet he hath not those formall wordes which Sir Humfrey cites but onely some others to that sense yet the truth is he doth not applye either the words or the sense to the Romanists but to the nouelists saying of them and their interpretation of scriptures by their priuate spirit Scripturam autem quisque pro suo captu iudicio intelligit vnde cum se putant scripturam habere regulam credendi loco scripturae habent imaginationem propriam c. So that here we finde no blasphemie in Lessius but imposture in Sir Humfrey It is true Lessius in his disputation of Antichrist hath those formall words cyted by Sir Humfrey in his page of the same number wher he saith the scripture is called by Catholikes a nose of Wax a Lesbious rule c. but he presently explicates in what sense to wit when it is taken for the bare wordes or letter onely secluding the sense of the Church the interpretation of Fathers as saith he it is taken by heretikes So that it is plaine that Lessius doth not say that Catholikes calle the true scripture together with the true sense a nose of Wax but onely the naked text as it is abused by corrupters Lessius demonstr 15. p. 131. An non regula illis Lesbia quam omnibus suis imaginationibus quantumuis absurdis accommodant seruire faciunt qui per AntichristuÌ„ designari volunt non vnum hominem sed plurimorum seriem c. And presently Apud Catholicos non est regula Lesbia quia est animata vero nimirum sensu qui contrarijs placitis aptari nequit Among Catholikes saith Lessius the scripture is not a lesbie rule because it is animated with true sense which cannot be applyed to contrarie opinions By which wordes it is euident that this author is mightely wronged being he hath the verye negatiue proposition to that is imposed vpon him In the citation of Pighius Sir Humfrey ought to haue continued his rehearsal from the beginning of his wordes to the end of the period of the authors whole passage then it would haue appeared plainelie howe falselie he is accused For so he discourseth But because saith he no place of scripture is so plaine or open as it can defend itselte from the iniurie of the heretikes who adulterate depraue detort it to their owne sense for they as one no lesse truelie then merrilie hath sayd are euen as a nose of wax which doth easilie suffer it selfe to be fashioned drawne this way that way which way thou wilst like a certaine leaden rule vsed in the buildings of Lesbos which is not harde to be accomodated to what you will there must be a line ioyned vnto it such a one as is not as flexible as it selfe but firme stiffe I say that pillar that firmament of Catholike trueth that is the common sense sentence of the Church then wee shall be certaine sure of the true vnderstanding of the scriptures if it be consonant in all things to her which as she giues Canonicall authoritie to the scriptures so is she truly the Lydius Lapis or touche stone of the true Orthodox interpretation of the same c. Pighius l. 3. Hierarc c. 3. Thus farre Pighius Where he puts also for his marginall note Scriptures ab haereticorum vi iniuria se prorsus vindicare non posse That is the scriptures can not vendicate or free them selues from the violence iniurie of heretikes By which note alone if his wordes in the text were not so plaine as they bee yet is it clearer then the leight that the comparisons which Pighius vseth be not applyed by him to the scriptures absolutelie but onelie as considered according to their bare caracters letter as they are subiect to be corrupted by false interpretations neither is he who vsed such speeches onelie with relation to the abusers of scripture more guiltie of iniurious proceeding against the scriptures them selues as truelie they are the worde of God then those are esteemed to be iniurious to the writings of S. Thomas Aristotle who by reason they are expounded in coÌ„trarie senses occasioned by their obscuritie affirme their expositors make them a nose of wax or compare them to some such other flexible matter mierly in that respect And conformable to this also which wee haue said because the Romanists know by experience how falselie the misreformers vse to deale in their citations as partelie hath been conuinced in diuers places of this censure therefore not for anie other cause doe they some tymes if they cite the Fathers iustelie reiect them as by them corrupted or falselie cited And so if they cite Berengarius the waldenses they iustelie reiect them as heretikes If they cite reformers for Romanists they iustely reiect them for none of theirs If they cite Catholike authours impertinentlie corruptedlie or in a false sense they iustelie reiected them as abused by them so remit them to the Censurers purgatorie If they cite scriptures either falselie translated by addition or detraction or falselie interpreted or falsified they iustelie reiect them as imperfect as made by them a couerture for theeues an officine or shop of heretikes And yet notobstanding all this it is manifest both by an expresse decree which the Councell of Trent made in the fourth ses against the profaners of the sacred scriptures Decret de edit vsu sacrorum l. vers fin as also by some ceremonies of the Masse it selfe that the Romanists giue farre greater reuerence euerie way vnto them without comparison then the Reformers And the same I say of the ancient Fathers whoÌ„ the Romanists as it is well knowne respect so much that they accounte it plaine temeritie in anie writer to teach anie doctrine contrarie to the common consent of them Whereas one the contrarie there is nothing more ordinarie among the writers of the misreformed Churches theÌ„ to reiect the authoritie of the ancient Fathers or at the least to vilifie them speake contemptuouslie of them as diuers of their workes doe testifie But for all this Sir Humfrey is still harping vpon that
perfection or their want of frequentation in the primatiue ages which is no principall point of controuersie betweene the Reformers Romanists nay none at all And touching Bellarmins confession contained in the first place viz. That we read not expressely but gather by coniectures that the ancients did sacrifice without communion of some person or persons I say it is impertinent in regarde it inuolues no disproofe of priuate Masses as our aduersarie counningly indeuores to persuade his vnaduised reader It being sufficient for the instification of the practise of them that besides the authoritie of the present Church which approues them not anie worde either of scripture or ancient Fathers can be produced in which they ar condemned for vnlawful or repugnant to Christs institution or commaunde And if more then this were required for matters of practise in this nature certaine it is the pretensiue reformers of the Church would neuer be able to iustifie their owne order and prescription of cōmunicating at Easter or some twise or thrise more in the yeare or their newe prohibition of not receiuing their communion euen at the point of death without a competent number of neyther of which they haue not as much as one pore instance or example in the primatiue Church By which it appeares that Bellarmins confession is in this passage preposterously alledged by the knight both in respect of the Roman Doctrine against which it concludeth nothing as alsoe in respect of the inconuenience which by sequele and illation it induceth to his owne whoe yet offers the Cardinal some further abuse by omission of the worde facile in the recytal of his text Tamen id possumus ex cōiecturis facile colligere Bellar. supra Where the reader may yet once more reflect that altho' Bellarmin in his modestie tearmed the examples of antiquitie which he produceth for the practise of priuate Masses at the least in some particular cases no more then coniectures yet if some of them be duely pondered vrged with their circumstances they may iustely passe for solid reasons as that S. Chrysostome diuers tymes reprehending the people most sharpely vehemently for making the Masses priuate by their not communicating in them yet doth he not once either condemne such Masses in them selues or he him selfe euer ceased to celebrate them dayly euen then when he most preached against the negligence of those whoe were present in them without receiuing the sacrament with the preist Which doubtlesse is a morally concluding argument that Masses without communion of the people were vsed and esteemed lawful euen in those more primatiue ancient ages To which may not vnaptely be added for confirmation of the same discourse by way of aduertisment that S. Chrysostome neuer affirmed in these occasions of complainte of the people that Masses in which communicants ar wanting be euill or contrarie to Christs ordinance or precept but the most he said was that the oblation is frustrate when ther be none to participate which wordes of his ar soe farre from reprouing the practise vse of Masses without comunion of the people that they necessarily implye that the sacrifice was in realitie cebebrated notobstanding the people did frustrate the intention of the preist in that by their want of deuotion they receiued not the Communion which he had prepared for them supposing it is absolutely inpossible to conceiue that the Masse or oblation could be frustrated for wante of partakers except it were in it selfe a Masse or oblation truely really performed by the sacrificer Fourthlie it is true that Bellarmin confesseth that in the primatiue Church because the Christians were but fewe they did all sing ansere in the diuine offices But he affirmeth not that either it then was or now is vnlawfull to haue the publike or priuate prayer in an vnknowne tongue which is the onelie point in controuersie the reformers defending touth naile the affirmatiue the Romanists the negatiue Nay Bellarmin is soe farre from confessing the reformers doctrine in this particular that he expresselie affirmeth in the same place that the diuine offices in those primatiue times were celebrated in Greeke which all the people did not vnderstand yet cleareth this whole question so farre that if Sir Humfrey had vsed anie sparke of sinceritie in citing Bellarmins wordes home truelie they would haue taken away all doubt concerning his meaning Whereas by leauing out deceitfullie the latter parte of his clause he caused in his reader a preuidicate opiniō of the true sense touching which and the faithlesse proceeding of our aduersarie about the same the Cardinals owne wordes intirely recited will tell the truth for thus he speakes At obijcies sicut Apostolus c. But saith Bellarmin you will obiect As the Apostle would that the people might subioine Amen so also he was to ordaine that the diuine offices should be celebrated in the vulgar tongue that the people might answer Amen Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 16. I anser by denying the consequence because the diuine offices were performed in the Greeke tongue which manie of the people did vnderstand tho' not all this was sufficient for the Apostles will was not that all should anser Besides this because then the Christians were fewe they all sung together in the Church ansered in the diuine offices but afterwardes the multitude increasing the offices were more diuided it was left to the sole cleargie to acomplish the common prayers Laudes in the Church Thus plainely doth the Cardinall declare himselfe for a ptofessed aduersarie of Sir Humfrey his comperes in this particular euen so farre as to solue their greatest obiection which they vse to frame against the practise of the Roman Church Firstlie touching the allegation of Bellarmins confession of the reformers tenet aboute the Communion in both kyndes it is most false that Bellarmin confesseth it in the point in controuersie Bellarmin l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 16. I meane it is false that he confesseth either Christ to haue commaunded the communion in both Kyndes or that the ancient Church practized the same onelie in both kyndes both which points Bellarmin so expresselie declareth that Sir Humfrey could not possible haue found anie colour to haue alledged his confession for the contrarie if he had not mangled his wordes as he did in truth most shamefullie as may appeare most plainelie to him that will take paines to examen them as they are by him deliuered towardes the end of the chapter cited by the knight where it is euident that the Cardinall proceedeth diametrally contrarie to the reformers doctrine in the principall point of this question according to his owne expresse wordes quoted in this my margen Idcirco quaerendū superest vtrum saltē diuino praecepto positiuo eiusmodi obligatio communicandi sub vtraque specie in Ecclesia sit nos enim negamus illi sectarij asserunt Bellar. lib. 4. de
expounde the faith of the holye church the opinion of this sect that hauing expounded them we approue one reproue the other by a fewe authorities breefe reasons For neither epistolar breuitie doth permit nor anie reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation For such as ar faithfull people but seduced doe not pertinatiously insist in defence of their deprauation but rather hauing heard vnderstanded reasons desire humbly to returne to the way of truth fewe things will suffice But those whoe ar addicted to contentions determined to persiste in their infidelitie would not be satisfyed althou manie reasons should be proposed vnto them Diuinitus Wherfore we beleeue that the terrestriall substances which in the table of our lord ar diuinely sanctifyed by preistlie ministration ar infallibly incomprehensibly admirably by operation of supernaturall power conuerted in to the essence of our lordes bodie the species or formes of the things thē selues remaining with some other qualities least the receiuers should abhorre crude cruent things Cruda cruenta to the end that the credents or beleeuers might receiue more ample rewardes of their faith the bodie of Christ it selfe existing neuerthelesse in heauen at the reight hand of his Father Illeso immortall vnuiolated intyre incontaminated vnhurt soe that it may truely be affirmed that we receiue the bodie of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin and yet not the same The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue but not the same if you respect the species or formes of bread and wine and the rest before comprehended This faith from ancient tymes did hould and now holdeth that Church which diffused throù the whole world is named Catholique whence it is that as it is said before our lord said in the Euangill Receiue and eate this is my bodie And this is the chalis of my bloud c. In this cleare manner speaketh Lanfranc of the reall presence in this place And page 346. of the same booke he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiasticall histories Which Scriptures saith he altho' they doe not obtaine that most excellent tower of authoritie which those doe which we cal Propheticall and Euangelicall scriptures yet they ar sufficiēt to proue that this faith which now we haue all faithfull people which haue gone before vs haue had the same from priuatiue tymes A primis temporibus And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus more ower if that be true which thou beleeues and maintaines of the bodie of Christ vbique gentium it is false which the church beleeues of the same matter in euerie natiō For all those whoe reioyce to be called and to bee Christians doe glorie in that they receiue in this sacrament the true flesh and bloud of Christs bodie receiued from the virgin Inquire of all such as haue knouledge of the latin tongue and of our writings Inquire of the Grecians Armeniās or of Christian people of anie nation what soeuer they will with one mouth testifye that they haue this faith Furthermore if the faith of the vniuersall church be false either ther neuer was Catholique church or she hath perished nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of soules then a pernicious error But no Catholique will graunt that the church either was not or that she hath perished In this plaine sorte testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the vniuersall church in which it were madnes to imagine he did not include his owne I meane the church of England And supposing he liued writ this the verie next age following the age in which Alfric dyed to wit in some parte of the leuēth centurie it is more then monsterous impudencie in our aduersaries to affirme that in the dayes of Alfric the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation was commonely preached and beleeued in the Realme of England Further more Pascasius Rathbertus writ a booke intituled of the bodie and bloud of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram as is cōmōly supposed althoù I finde him not named by Pascasius he hath alsoe an Epistle of the same subiect to one Frudegard with an exposition of those wordes of the Euangelist Math. 26. Caenantibus autem illis c. In all which writings Pascasius most plainely defendeth both the reall presence and transsubstantiation most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same bodie and bloud which Christ receiued of the Virgin Marie and the same in which he was crucifyed is really and truely present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice I need not relate his wordes for euerie particular because I knowe our aduersaries can not denye but that this Author is plainely for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine onely I will rehearse some generall wordes of his in which he declares the faith of the vniuersall church in and before his tymes for after testimonies of diuers āciēt fathers alledged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid wordes of S. Mathewe thus he saith Ecce habes amantissime c. Behould most louing brother thou haste in the end of this little booke the sentences of the Catholique Fathers compendiously noted by which thou maist learne that I haue not seene such things in rashnes of speech when I was a child but that I haue proposed them by diuine authoritie and by the authoritie of the holye Fathers to such as demaunded them But now it being cleare that Since that tyme the faith of all men is not one and the same then cease I praye to beleeue with such as they bee if as yet they can not vnderstand that nothing is impossible to God and lett them learne to assent vnto the diuine wurdes in all things to doubt nothing of those For till this present no man is read to haue erred in them except those whoe erred aboute Christ himselfe notobstanding manie doubted or haue ben ignorant of the Sacraments of soe great a Mysterie And afterwardes the same author in the same treatise saith thus Qua expleta voce c. Which wordes being pronounced meaning the wordes of consecration we all with one consonant voyce say Amen And soe the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confesse that it is that thing which she prayeth for wherby let him whoe will rather contradict this then beleeue it regarde what he doth against our lord him self against the whole Church of Christ Therfore it is a nefarious and detestable villanie to pray with all and not to beleeue that which truth it self doth testifye and that which vniuersally all in euerie place doe teach Whence it is that since he him selfe affirmes it is his bodie and his bloud doubt ought not to be made in anie thing altho' we see not with carnall yes that which we beleeue We haue seene alsoe what Pope Gregorie houldeth of this what
Romanists touching the inconueniences which that libertie which the Nouellists haue giuen to the common people in reading the scriptures hath caused in the Christian world in these our present times as that to permitt euerie ignorant man or woman without distinction or order to read them is to cast pearles before hogges the like which because thy are both impertinent in this place as also for that I haue in parte ansered them in my censure I omit to reherse them Period 13. alibi that which in like manner I doe for the same reason in the rest of the authors which the knight citeth in this section onelie aduertising the reader that besides that they make not to the purpose diuers of them are by him corruptedlie alleaged mangled either in wordes or sense or rather both in words sense By way page as particularlie may appeere in the citation of Sanders whome our aduersarie affirmes to say that it is little better then heresie to translate the scriptures Haeresi◅ esse si quis dicat esse necessariū vis m◅ Haer. 191. yet Sanders onelie sayth that it is an heresie if one doe affirme it is necessarie for scriptures to be translated into vulgar tongues as the same words which Sir Humfrey cites doe testifie He also abuseth Acosta whome he cites lib. 2. de Christo reuel cap. 2. yet Acosta speakes note a word of reading scriptures in vulgar language much lesse affirmes that much profit may redound to the lay people by reading them in these our daies especiallie in that manner as the knight falselie alleageth who if he will proue his intent must needes speake in that sense when he imposeth vpon that author the approbation of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue In this fashion he also couseneth his reader in his citation of S. Hierome affirming that in his epistle to Paulinus he sayth that the booke of Genesis is most plaine for euerie mans vnderstanding whereas S. Hierome rehearsing seuerallie all the parts of scripture with an intent to shewe breiflie what they containe what meanes is required to the true vnderstanding of them particularlie signifying to Paulinus that he would haue him vnderstand that he cannot vndertake the worke or interprise of reading scriptures without a master putteth the booke of Genesis firste in order as it lyeth in the Bible sayeing thus videlicet manifesta est Genesis meaning not that the contents of the booke are manifest easie to be vnderstood as Sir Humfrey doth most falselie affirme him to say hut onelie affirming that in the whole number of the bookes of scripture the Genesis is manifestlie knowne to be one the firste of the same number for which reason he doth in like manner consequentlie adde of the two bookes following saying presentlie after patet Exodus in promptu est leuiticus c. By which particulars the true sense of S. Hierome doth so plainelie appeere to make nothing for our aduersaries purpose that we may iustlie wonder how he could haue the face to peruert detort it in so shamelesse a fashion And by such trickes fraudes as this now then dropping a lye or two by the way as that the Romish Preistes agree like Pilate Herod both to the condemnation of Christe his word that it is a crime worthie the Inquisition for the people to haue a Bible the like still dissembling the true state of the question which is not whether the laytie can lawfullie read the scriptures absolutelie but whether they can read them commonlie without licence that in vulgar tongues it being euer supposed that in Latine Greeke or Hebrew anie one that can may reade them by those fraudes I say such like insincere dealing the knight patches vp this peece of his by way for his priuate spirit to walke in where I leaue him to his melancholie contemplations passe forward to the next matter Sec. 3. The third section is about the interpretation of scripture in which question Sir Humfrey affirmes that according to the iudgment of the ancient Fathers the Bible is the sole Iudge of controuersies Quod si nō poteris assiduitate lectionis inuenire quod dicitur accede ad sapientiorem vade ad Doctorem Chrysost hom 3. de Laz. interpreter of it selfe For this his affirmation he cites diuers places out of S. Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome but in this he sheweth verie small iudgment in the reading vnderstanding of the ancient Doctors For it is cleere to anie cleere wit that these holie Fathers onelie speake by way of instruction to such onelie as for their owne priuate profit comfort vnderstanding read interpret scriptures as they read them to themselues not as publike Iudges or deciders of doubs in faith or manners And in this sense onelie not otherwise the foresaid Fathers proceede excepting the place of S. Augustin cited out of his confessiōs which yet is to a differēt purpose from this we here treate as in an other place I will declare perhaps to the end they might more easlie persuade such as in their time were slowe ought to haue binne more diligent by reason of their profession qualitie capacitie to retire cohibit themselues from the accustomed vanities of those dayes applie themselues to that holie wholesome exercise And yet more then this except Sir Humfrey will adde to the Fathers sentences the worde sole as his Father Luther did to the text of S. Paul nay the word controuersie also he will neuer iustifie by their authoritie his vast proposition viz that scripture is the sole Iudge interpreter of itselfe Optatus speake of one particular case for which the scriptures were plaine cleere not in generall nor yet doth either he or Pope Clement speake of sole scriptures but of scriptures interpreted according to the traditionarie current sense of the successiue Catholike Church or cheefe pastors for the time present Euangelio non crederē nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoueret authoritas tom 7. contr ep fund Quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritatē quaestionis Ecclesiam de illa consulat c. Lib. 1. cōt Cresc cap. 33. not of particular Doctors of priuate spirits in which distinction consisteth the mayne difference betwixt the Romanists the Reformers in this points which if you Sir Humfrey had duelie pondered considered how much authoritie the ancient Fathers particularlie sainct Augustine commonlie attributes to the Church in expounding scripture determining controuersies I persuade my selfe you would neuer haue had the face eyther to denie that euer the ancient Fathers made ansere to the Heretikes of their tymes that they must heere the Church or that their Church was that Catholike Church which is the sole iudge of Controuersies the viue or liue interpreter of scriptures which they ought to heere in all doubtfull cases obscure or
Cipher to increase the number He begins with a great commendation of the scriptures because he would seeme to say some thing plausible to the common people but I knowe none make lesse estimation of thē in reallitie then he his consorts who tye them like a nose to the grindestone to the interpretation of those priuate spirits who haue walked with in the compasse of a hundred yeeres or little more rather then to the consent of all succeeding ages since they firste were penned And I pray you what is this preamble to the purpose of prouing the Roman faith not to haue binne taught by the ancient Fathers or the primitiue Church the knight produceth certaine places out of sainct Augustine Ambrose to proue that they preferred scriptures before the writings of the Fathers that they appealed from them to scriptures but what Romanist in the world denyeth that the scriptures haue incomparable preheminence aboue all other writings whatsoeuer or what Roman Catholike doth not willinglie graunt that when the scriptures are plaine the doctrine of the Fathers obscure or doubtfull prouocation from them to the scriptures is rightlie made But that euen in such cases as the Fathers doe vniformlie agree in matter of faith or generallie receaued practise of the Church it is vsuall lawfull to appeale from them to scriptures especiallie when they are not plaine manifest this I say neyther those holie Fathers produced by the knight did euer teach neyther can anie reason be found to proue it but rather it is cleerlie against all reason as opening the by-way to all sortes of heresie And if Sir Humfrey when he read S. Augustine contra Crescon had but passed one other step forward he might haue found that famous Father not to appeale to scripture onelie but also to the authoritie of the Church since that presentlie after he had sayd that he held not sainct Cyprians epistle for Canonicall but examined it by Canonicall scripture which are the words our aduersarie cites he addes that with a great emphasis sayeing Non accipio inquam I say I doe not receaue that which S. Cyprian holdeth of rebaptization because the Church doth not receaue it for which blessed sainct Cyprian shed his bloud By which the reader may plainelie perceiue that one as it were the cheife motiue which sainct Augustine had to reiect the doctrine of rebaptization was not the sole authoritie of the scripture as not being in that case so cleere as to conuince S. Cyprian but he struck the last stroake by force of the authoritie of the Catholike Church And thus you see Sir Humfrey is still out of the way of the Fathers which he himselfe citeth if they be ritelie vnderstood followeth his owne crooked tract relating the particular pointes of the Roman doctrine vnfaithfullie as he vseth to doe making manie conditionall promises to subscribe in case the ancient Fathers be found for vs but remitting the performance to his next opportunitie which is so farre to seeke that I assure my selfe he will neuer finde it Sec. 12. In his twelfth section he comes to particulars contending that S. Augustine is reiected by the Romanists in the seuerall pointes in which he agreeth Page 317. as he supposeth with the Reformers I expected Sir Humfrey would haue performed the large promise which he made in his precedent section sayeing he dares confidentlie auowe that in all fundamentall pointes of difference the Romanists eyther want antiquitie to supplie their firste ages or vniuersalitie to make good the consent of Christian Churches or vnitie of opinions to proue their Trent articles of beleife but in steed of prouing this he goeth about the bush euading the difficultie which he found impossible for himselfe to ouercome he onelie indeuoures to persuade his reader that according to the Romanists owne confessions sainct Augustine is wholelie for the presumed reformers doctrine for proofe of which he produceth diuers instances out of Roman diuines but effecteth nothing in regard that althou ' it is true that some of the Romanists confesse that S. Augustine did dissent from their opinions partlie in the interpretation of some certaine passages of scripture partlie in some other particulars yet none of them confesse that in anie mayne point of religion or faith euen those which haue binne declared by the late Councell of Trent that holie Doctor dissenteth from them in this consists the equiuocation which togeather with some vntruthes which he vttereth as when he affirmes that those which he rehearses heere be cheife points in question betwixt vs such like is the by-way in which his worship walketh with great grauitie all the lenght of this section Sec. 13. In his next ensueing section which is the 13. in number he pretends that S. Gregorie who sent S. Augustine the monke into England to preach the Christian faith is directlie opposite to the Roman religion in the mayne pointes of faith By the contents of this section it appeeres that the knight is as fitte to write matters of diuinitie as an asse is fitte to play on the fiddle he makes such fiddling worke as one may plainlie perceiue that eyther he doth not vnderstand the Fathers other Catholike authors that write in Latin or that passion malice quite obfuscate his witts when he reades them In his 350. page he affirmes that in the vndoubted writings of Gregorie there will be found few or no substantiall pointes which are not agreable to the tenets of their Church altogether different from the Roman this he sayth but in stead of proofe comming to particulars he committs diuers palpable fraudes for firste whereas he professeth to compare the doctrine of Tridentine Councell his owne with the doctrine of sainct Gregorie in lieu of that he cites the doctrine of Bellarmine the notes vpon the Rhemes testament the expurgatorie Index which altho' they be authenticall Catholike authors yet are they not rules of the Roman faith Neither yet doth our aduersarie conuince them to be repugnant to sainct Gregories true meaning in anie one point of faith And I earnestlie wish I had time place to discouer to the reader the egregious fraude the knight hath vsed in his trāslation interpretation of this holie Fathers wordes touching the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist Greg. in 6. ps poenit for by this onelie passage he might frame a coniecture of the rest Secondlie wheras our aduersarie treateth in this section of substantiall pointes of faith yet some of the particulars in which he exemplifies are not substantiall points of faith but rather of manners which according to diuersitie of times may alter change as priuate Masse the double Communion reading of scriptures in vulgar language in which there is a mayne difference from matters of faith which can neuer varie Thirdlie of all the pointes which he rehearseth being all as I take it 9. in number There
the same yet that is not truly the Iesuites challendge but that you produce some which haue professed your religion in euery point in euery age before the daies of Luther This is the charge you haue vndertaken till you haue discharged your selfe of this your honor still remaines at the stake for all your bragges your safe way is to the Romanists all other of mature iudgment but onely a by-way serueth onely for a cowardly excuse of your want of abillitie to performe your promise But now to returne to the contents of this section in particular from which I haue in some sort digressed I say it consists onely in a recapitulation of those seuerall pointes of controuersie which I haue alreadie examined in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I haue not sufficiently confuted conuinced to be of no force but all eyther false equiuocall or impertinent it is most apparent that what soeuer he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is noe conclusion nor of any more authority then his owne bare affirmations or negations consequently notobstanding the vaine knight will needes seeme to haue the victorie to haue gained his cause yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather iudge in fauour of the anserer then of the abiector especially considering how farre more easie a matter it is for any man to impugne the doctrine of another then to defend his owne Wherfore I ioyne issue with myne aduersaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath heere sett downe applying the same to the safe way by-way as he hath donne by-way of antithesis or oppositiue comparison betwixt them both in the manner followeing And firste I say The Romanists teach that not scripture onely but scripture with diuine Apostolicall traditions receaued for such by the vniuersall Church in all ages the approued generall Councells the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the onely certaine meanes safe way to saluation But Sir Humfrey with his complices teach that scripture onely interpreted otherwise them by authoritie of the most vniuersallie florishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers doctors of the same is sufficient to saluation this is a doubtfull by way Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe perfect rule of faith yet in some places obscure ambiguous as euen some of their aduersaryes confesse therfore it is not sufficient alone but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter this is a safe way to saluation but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation conference of one place with another by euerie priuate man or woman that can but reade it is a sure euident perfect rule of faith this is an vncertaine by-way Thirdly the Romanists teach that traditions appertayning to faith or manners receaued from Christe by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselues by inspiration of the holie Ghost as such conserued in the Church by continuall succession are to be imbraced reuerenced with like pious affection as the scriptures this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that onelie those traditions concerning faith manners that can be proued by scriptures of which sort they denie anie to be in the Church notobstanding sainct Paul in the scripture expresselie commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions deliuered vnto them by word of mouth or by epistle And this is an vncertaine by way Fourthly the Romanists teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures some certaine persons in the Church as professors of diuinitie some others for the auoyding of noueltie in doctrine take an oath of the same moreouer that where they finde that consent they are to receaue it as a certaine rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or inuention of other new sense or glosses this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed onelie so farre as according to their priuate spirit or iudgment they agree with scriptures which is a captious deceitfull rule of expounding them And this is an vncertaine by-way Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholike Church is a congregation or companie of people beleiuing professing the true faith of Christe vnder one cheife head our Sauiour Iesus Christe his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as cheife Pastor visible gouernour of the same vnder Christe sayeing with all that the notes whereby the true Church is knowne from all other hereticall scismaticall conuenticles are not onelie cheiflie exteriour splendour amplitude miracles as our aduersarie doth deceitfullie insinuate but principallie the name Catholike antiquitie continuall succession c. And this is a certaine safe way but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastours people with out anie certaine infallible authoritie assigning for markes of the same that which is common to all congregations euen of heretikes schismatikes according to their seuerall opinions as all euerie one of them holding they haue the true word Sacraments rightlie preached administred in their conuenticles which consequently can be no certaine markes of the true Church in particular no more then the name of a Christian in generall can be an infallible note of a true beleiuer this is an vncertaine by-way Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Councells by the Popes authoritie or approbation conuocated confirmed are not onelie of great vse in the Church But also of certaine infallible power for the determination of all doubts controuersies in religion which may arise in seuerall times occasions this is a certaine safe way But the Reformers teach that General Councells althou ' they say they be of great vse authority in the Church to determine controuersies in religion yet they hold them of vncertaine authoritie subiect to errour both in faith manners this is an vncertaine by-way Seauenthly the Romanists teach that the cheife rock angular stone vpon which the Church is built is Christe the Sauiour of the world yet they say with Christe himselfe that Peter is also in his kinde a rock vpon which he promised to build his Church this is a certaine safe way But the reformers teach that Christe alone is the onelie rock vpon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the expresse wordes of Christe in the scripture sayeing to Peter vpon this rocke will I build my Church this is a diuerticle or by-way Eightly the Romanists teach that the
were by strong fauor of the secular power This is that in substance which Sir Hūfrey alledgeth out of Gerson yea an something more then he him self produceth And yet neuerthelesse as the reader may easily vnderstand there is nothing agreeable to the reformation of Luther and Caluin For Gerson onely reprehends and that iustely some particular persons in some particular countryes and in some particular obseruations which soe exactely and rigorously obserue theit rules lawes soe exorbitantly estreeme of them that they often tymes by indiscreet zeale are more diligent in performing them then they are in keeping the lawes of God and that they some tymes punish more seuerely a religious person offending against one of those monasticall rules or statutes or against one of the Popes preceps or lawes of the decretalls or others then they punish him whoe committeth adulterie or sacrilege Wher as those twoe false reformers Martin and Iohn were not content with this and to procure a reformation in some particular persons rules and statues but they tooke away all monasticall obseruations either of vowe rule or constitution and extingnissed all Ecclesiasticall lawes both of the Pope and Church as much as lay in their power violating euerting and razing the verie buildings of religious houses and consuming by fyre the bookes of the decretals and whole Canon lawes quyte destroying that and much more by rage and furie which Gerson out of a pious Christian zeale onely wished to haue amended Gerson complained of the euill life of fryres and nunnes with desire to haue them reformed and reduced to the obseruation of their ancient rules and constitutions onely excepting against the multiplicie and varietie of religious orders suntque per haec caelestia tonitruasublata prohibita damnata omnia istius generis vota penitissimè Lut. tom 2. fol. 272. But those companions in impietie Luther and Caluin would haue all religious and monasticall discipline wholely extingnished as Sacrilegious damnable and contrarie to the lawe of God vsing opprobrious speaches against all Religious persons their profession Gerson tooke to consideration whether the multitude and varietie of images might not be occasion of idolatrie in the simple people yet did not he reproue the due honor of them But our newe reformers or rather deformers either will haue no images at all in Churches as Caluinists or at the least they will not haue them honored with religious reuerence as Lutheranes reprouing all kinde of veneration or worship of them as superstitious and idolatrous Gerson onely reprehended the excesse as he apprehended in the canonization of soe manie newe saints the more religious obseruation of thers feastes then of the feastes of the Apostles by some particular persons or Churches but these twoe prophane fellowes allowe not of anie religious celebration of the feasts of either ancient or moderne saints neither of Apostles nor Euangelists neither of confessers nor martyres making account onely of the sabaoth day as they cōmonly call the sunday in that nature alsoe houlding the canonization of noe saints for either necessarie lawdable or authenticall desiring rather their memories should be extingiushed rhen reuerenced Gerson likewise comdemneth instely superstitions comitted by particular persons in the worship of saints vaine obseruations ouer great credulitie giuen by them to euerie passage recounted in some inauthentichall legendes yet admitting defending due moderate honor of saints the authentical true histories of their liues But our pretended reformers reiect all religious honor of Saintcts hould the relatiōs of their liues miracles for Apocriphall fabelous at the least of moderne saints Gerson defended the Roman doctrine of indulgences most Catholiquely as his treatice of that matter doth testifye Indulgentiarum cōcessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectēda deuote in fide spe charitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui potestatem lium clauium Ecclesiasticarum dedit hominibus Gerson p. 2. act 23. and onely taxed some particular pardons of sinnes as he relates for saying soe manie pater nosters in such a Church before such an image calling them superstitious opiniōs and friuolous additions as hauing neuer ben approued by the Roman Church But our newe doctors masters Luther Caluin vtterly condemne all sortes of Indulgence graunted by the Pope yea and the power of the Church to graunte them Gersō speaking onely of some vitious Ecclesiastical persons reprehendes preists for that vnder the pretense of maydes they keepe cōcubines yet plainely supposing the lawe of Celibate or single life of cleargie to haue ben in vse in and before his tymes as a thing lawdable and fitting for their vocation quoniā assidue nostri sacerdotes sacris occupantur mysterijs quid diuinius quam vt continua polleant castitate Gers 2. part dialog de celib Act. 4 But those twoe luxurious imps the one a professed fryer the other a vowed priest according to their newe reformation teach it lawfull and laudable for preists not obstanding their vowes of chastitie to chāge the state of chastitie in to the state of mariage they being the first that gaue example of that sacrilegious action and leading the daunce them selues Gerson complaines that Cathedrall Churches are made dennes of theeues and consecrated monasteries markets Innes But by the followers of Luther and Caluin those holie cloysters are not onely made markets and Innes but euen stables and hogstyes Cathedrall Churches as it were common burses or exchanges for relation of newes and negotiations in which manifould iniustices and illicit contracts are plotted and accorded to the great profanation of the house of God ordained for onely prayer seruice and Sacrifyce soe that if Gerson were now aliue doubtlesse he would rather taxe the pretended reformers in this nature then those Catholique profaners of his owne tymes Gerson bids inquirie to be made if ther be not Apocryphall Scriptures and prayers introduced in the Church to the great preiudice of Christian faith not meaning of anie Scriptures or prayers approued for Canonicall and pious by the authoritie of the Roman Church as are the bookes of machibies Sapience Ecclesiasticus Tobie and Iudith and prayers to saints all which Gerson him selfe did receiue for such but he onely reprehendes such false Scriptures or prayers as some newfangled priuate persons had published and inuented with out warrant or authoritie of the prelates and gouernors of the Church But Luther Caluin and their schollers peremptoriely reiected and excluded out of the text and canon of seripture the forosayde bookes and some others as allsoe all manner of prayers to sainrs euen those prayers and kookes of scripture which had ben most anciently approued and read in the seruice of the vniuersall Church at the least since the tyme of Innocēt the first Pope of that name and soe vsed in the dayes of S. Augustin and euer since till the late dayes of Luther And now by this breefe collation or cōparision
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
text of the sixt of S. Iohn did according to the interpretation of S. Augustin but onely make question of the reall preseÌ„ce or possibility of Christs giuing his bodie to be eateÌ„ not otherwise theÌ„ in that grosse manner which they then conceiued in their mindes whereas yet the knight and the rest of his congregation directly absolutely affirme that Christs body and blood are as farre from being really contained in the Sacrament as heuen is from the altar or Communion table And thus it appeares that by indeauouring to make vs Capharnaites Sir Humfrey showes greater grossenesse of coÌ„ceipte them the grosse Capharnaites did by denying the reall presence vpon the same or like carnall imagination for for which he and his mates renounce it From this Sir Humfrey passes to another parte of his Pedegree wher he putteth in the Popes supremacie as if it were deriued fundamentally from the Gentils and to this purpose he applies the wordes of our Sauiour Lucae 22.25 so ridiculously that it makes me thinke he is will read in the booke of Quodlibets or quaeris he makes vse of Scripture so ingeniously The wordes of our Sauiour are these The King of the Gentils exercise Lordship ouer them and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactours Out of which place Sir Humfrey will needes inferre and prooue that the Gentiles haue giuen the Pope his supremacie and consequently that they are the benefactours and founders of the Roman faith in that particular Which passage of the Scripture how falsely and impertinently it is applied and how contrary to the true sense those words of our Sauiour are vsed and abused by the knight I will not spend time in examination of it but leaue to the iudicious reader to censure of it as he pleaseth onely I cannot omitte to take notice how he concludeth this his idle discourse with another place of Scripture out of the 20. of S. Math. where our Sauiour saith to his disciples whosoeuer will be greate amonght you let him be your minister whosoeuer will be chiefe among you let him be your seruant by which words it is most appareÌ„t agreed vpon by all interpreters except the nouellists that our Sauiour intended nothing els but to giue his disciples a lession of humility not so that they ought not in any case to haue superiority and dominion in that nature one ouer an other which were to destroy the Hierarchy gouernment of the Church which he himselfe ordained but that those who were to haue it should not abuse it by dominiering tiraÌ„nically ouer their subiects or subordinates And yet Sir HuÌ„frey I know not by what rule of Alchimie will needs extract out of this place that his and his fellowes doctrine touching the supremacy is receaued from Christ himselfe But in trueth with all my Logike I cannot vnderstand how he inferreth any thing hence for his purpose except he will deduce ex quolibet quodlibet and make a nose of way of the holy Scripture as indeed he doth very frequently framing such a sense to the wordes as maketh for his position and thence deduceing arguments for proofe of the same And if one were disposed to make vse of Scripture in that maÌ„ner he might-aswell inferre out of this place a kinde of supremacie for the ministrie especially if we write the word minister with a greate M. as Sir HuÌ„frey doth And indeede I must confesse that your ministers are greate among you in diuerse respects For some of theÌ„ haue greate Bishoprikes others greate benefices and allmost all greare wiues and greate store of children And if the King would be pleased to suffer them theÌ„ why might they not come to obtaine the supremacie euery one is his turne by succession in that case they might doubtlesse make farre better vse of the cited places of Scripture in fauour of themselues then they doe in applying them against the Romanists And according to his false dealing in applying the Scripture so doth he falsely affirme that the Popes supremacy was first graunted by Phocas falsely applying the testimony of Vrspergensis to that same fol. 149. for Valentinian the Emperour who liued aboue 100. yeares before Phocas in his epist to Theodosius which is extant in the preambles of the Councell of Calced sayth of the Bishop of Rome to whoÌ„ all antiquity gaue the principalitie of preisthood aboue all c. And as for Vispergensis altho' the authoritie of his booke may iustely be suspected as hauing ben published by the reformers or rather deformers of Basill yet doth he not say as Sir Humfrey affirmes that Phocas first granted the supremacie to the Bishop of Constantinople but rather the quite contrarie for thus he sayth Post Gregrorium Bonifacius sedit cuius rogatu Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum cum antea Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam omnium After Gregorie saith Vrspergensis Bonifacius did sit at vhose request Phocas constituted the seat of the Roman and Apostolicall Church head of all Churches for before the Church of Constantinople writ her selfe first of all Churches So that as the reader may plainely knowe Sir H. hath falsified Vrspergensis relating that to be said by him of the Church of Constantinople which he directly speakes of the Church of Rome which neuerthelesse is so little to his purpose that howsoeuer he takes it being not a gift of the Emperour as not being in his power since that nemo dat quod non habet but onely a declaratiue constitution I cannot conceiue why our aduersarie should haue corrupted this authour except it were to exercise his haÌ„d Especially supposing it is a thing vnpossible to appreheÌ„d how either Phocas or anie other maÌ„ or Angell could giue the Pope of Rome his supremacie which is that in this passage he intendeth to proue by coÌ„ferring the same according to our aduersaries relation vpon the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople And so I leaue this for one of S. HuÌ„freyes vnintelligible mysteries of his reformed faith For worship of Images S. HuÌ„frey deduceth the Pedegree of the Romanists froÌ„ the Basilidians and Carpocrationes But his deduction is false for it he falsely citeth S. Ireneus who saith indeede those fellowes were heretikes for worshipping of images but in another kinde farre differeÌ„t from the honour which the Romanists vse towards pictures Vtuntur auteÌ„ imaginibus incantarionibus reliqua vniuersa pererga Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 23. And he expressely condeÌ„neth Carpocrates as plainely appeareth by his wordes Imagines depictas quasdam de reliqua materia habent fabricaâ—as dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo in teÌ„porequo fuit Iesus cum hominibus has coronant ponunt eas cum imaginibus muÌ„di PhilosophoruÌ„ videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae Platonis Aristotelis reliquem reliquoruÌ„ obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt Iren. eod l. cap. 24. because he put the
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
esse quia regitur Spiritis Sancto Syluester in sum verbo Indult Bell de Indul l. 2. c. 1. Lastely touching Bellarmine Valētia I saye they are neyther of them cited by Sir Humfrey either with any great sinceretie or to any great purpose For altho' Bellarmin doth insinuate that there are not manie of the more auncient authors which make mention of Indulgences yet he doth not affirme that there is want of antiquitie consent in the Fathers in this matter as Sir Humfrey doth falselie deduce out of his wordes but onelie insinuateth that the defect of number of the more auncient Fathers which mention Indulgēces is sufficientlie supplyed by the vse custome of the Church without writing by reason saith he that manie things are retayned in the Church by that meanes onelie And as for Valentia who as he is cited by the knight relates out of S. Thomas the opinion of some who called Indulgences a pious fraude to allure men to the performance of those pious workes which are requyred in the forme of the Indulgence graunted it is true there was such a tenet in those dayes but as it is true that S. Thomas relates it so is it also true that he condēnes the same for verie dangerous that which our aduersarie if he had dealt honestlie ought not to haue omitted And yet not obstanding he could not but see that position censured by S. Thomas in the verie place cited by Valentia as also he censureth another little better to wit that by virtue of the Indulgence itselfe no punishment neither in the iudgement of God nor the Church could be remitted notwithstanding all this I saye yet Sir Humfrey subtillie let it passe making by that meanes his reader beleeue that the foresaid tenet was long before the dayes or Luther according to the relation of Aquinas as he saith an vncondemned opinion of some diuines reiected as erroneous by Valentia alone who neuerthelesse expresselie affirmeth it to haue beene an opinion hised at by all Orthodox writers opinio ab Orthodoxis omnibus explosa Nay which is yet more grosse Sir Humfrey leaueth quite out some parte of the wordes of the foresaid opinion as it is rehearsed by Valentia to wit those which mention satisfaction made to God by reason of the deuotion of the gainer of the Indulgence value of the pious workes in ioyned him for the obtaining of the same all which because it sounded contrarie to the doctrine of the pretensiue reformed Churches it struct Sir Humfrey deafe one that eare so he left it out I omit diuers particulars which our aduersarie vtters here there in the progresse of his Paragraffe Because they either consiste of some inauthenticall relations aboute the vse or rather aboute the abuse of some particular graunts of Indulgences as that out of the office of Saram out of Guitcherdin or els they cōsiste in his owne plaine calūnious vntruthes as that Indulgences are graunted onelie to drawe money frome the grainers that the Romanists pretēd vniuersalitie of Fathers for euerie point of faith that the article of Indulgences wantes authoritie of scripture of all this I saye I need to make no further discussion in regarde the apparent falsitie of it doth sufficientlie confute it selfe shewes that it proceeds rather frome a man malitiouslie affected ignorant of the state of the question more disposed to cauille then carefull to attaine to the truth of the doctrine For suppose the abuses were neuer so true which as in all other things so in this I confesse there haue ben some especiallie in the questors or inferior administrators of Indulgences may be more neuerthelesse these abuses of particular men doe not impeach the power authoritie lawfull vse of the same which onelie is that which my aduersarie I haue now in question And so now for conclusion of this matter we may hence inferre how impiouslie the sectaries proceed in the denyall impugnation of the Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church which altho' they had no other vtilitie or profit in them then to induce people to the exercise of such pious workes as are requyred in the tenor of them that is fasting prayer almes so heighly commended in the scriptures receiuing of the Sacraments yet in common reason ought they not to be reiected but rather maintained sought for with great zeale deuotion And so now let this suffice for the intyre discussion of this paragraffe in which I haue founde nothing to the excuse the author frome the same censure I haue layd vpon him in the precedent matters THE IX PERIOD VVE are now come to the 10. section of the booke in which Sir Humfrey produceth the testimonies of the Romanists touching the infallible certaintie of the Protestant faith the vncertaintie of the Romish this is his designe but I ame verily persuaded he will fayle of his purpose I will examen particulars that the truth may appeare But before this I must aduertise the reader that in this section ther is litle substance to be founde it consists cheefly in a large recapitulation of the supposed confessions of the Romanists as that they haue confessed that iustificatiō is by faith onely that the conuersion of the bread in to Christs bodie was not generally receiued by the Fathers that the certaine definite number of Sacraments was vnknowne to scripture Fathers that the Indulgences now vsed haue no authoritie from scripture or Fathers the like all which particulars we haue allreadie disproued in their seuerall places In substance a great parte of it is but an idle repetition of those falsities which the kingh hath vttered before with some newe additions to make the number of his lyes more ample complete this he performeth with great abundance of wordes of amplification thinking to make all sure calleth to witnesse both men Angels And thus for space of a leafe or two he bringeth nothing but verbal discourses which with the very breath of any iudicious reader presently vanish away so they need no other confutation Afterwardes he comes to some particulars which I haue not yet touched of these I will make a breefe examen And to omitte those points which I haue before discussed in his page 242. he indeuoreth to proue out of Bellarmin that the Church of Rome hath ouerthrowne in one tenet all certaintie of true faith he performeth it very solidly because for sooth Bellarmin affirmeth that none can be certaine by certaintie of faith that he receiueth a Sacrament by reason of the vncertainty of the intention of the minister without which the Sacrament can not be made And the argument the kinght framed of the doctrine of the Cardinall is this It is a positiue grounde of the Romā Religiō that a Sacrament can not be made without the intention of the minister but the intentiō of the minister can not be knowne by faith
Humfrey it plainelie appeares by the examen of witnesses which I will make presentlie and in the meane time let but the reader reflect vpon that which hath hitherto ben sayd he will easilie perceiue that Sir Hūfrey himselfe is conuinced not onelie of a bad cause an ill conscience but also of such grosse proceedings as is not able either to the partes or su credit of a Caualier But now to particulars His first charge is layde vpon the inquisitors for blotting out a certaine note made in the margen of the Bible of Robertus Stephanus vpon the 4. chapter of the deuter That God prohibiteth grauen images to be made But what razing of recordes is this Is a newe note made by some one moderne vnknowne authour not sutable to the true sense of the text in such an edition of the bible as cannot be of anie long standing to be accounted one of your recordes And if it be yours how came it into the Bible what doth it there hath not the Inquitor as much authoritie to put it out as some obscure brother of yours had to put it in the true meaning of the scripture neither in the place of that note nor anie other is that God did prohibit absolutelie all grauen images as one of the greatest diuines you haue doth ingenuouslie confesse Daniel Chamierus Panstrat l 21. de imag c. 8. n. 1. but onelie he did forbid them to be made to the end to adore them as Gods or at the least to adore them with danger of idolatrie and yet the foresayd wise annotation maketh the scripture to forbid all grauen images absolutelie Wherefore it s nothing but a false recorde ordayned to deceiue the reader by abusing the true sense of Gods worde so the Inquisitor when he branded it with a deleatur he did but execute iustice vpon a falsifier of the Kings letters which in him neither argueth bad cause nor ill conscience but sheweth both of them to be in the authour of the counterfet recorde which he foysted in to the sacred bible To omit that it being no note of anie Roman authour as it manifestlie sheweth it selfe not to be yet the knight leap'd quite out of the quire when he cited it for a record of his owne except he supposeth al the writings of the pretended reformed Doctors of what sect soeuer they be to be recordes for his Church against the Roman doctrine which is both most ridiculous in itselfe nor yet was anie such razing of the reformers recordes euer intended eyther by the Inquisitors or by anie other censurer of bookes in the Church of Rome His second charge is aboute a certaine glosse vpon Gratian which glosse affirmeth according to Sir Humfreyes relation that the Preist cannot say significatiuelie of the bread this is my bodie without telling a lye This glosse saith hee is condemned by the inquisitor to be blotted out It is true the Inquisitor did so but what then did he therefore doe it wit an ill conscience I denie the consequence And in your conscience Sir Humfrey is it not an idle glosse indeed Doe not your ministers themselues when they deliuer the communion call it the bodie blood of Christ And if the Preist lyeth when he sayth so not of the bread as the false glosse sayth if so it saith but of that which is contained vnder the forme of bread surelie your ministers tell a farre greater lye when they say significatiuelie of the bare bread that it is the bodie of Christ truelie reallie as Master Caluin affirmeth Instit l. 4. cap. 17. And so I conclude this point that Sir Humfrey had no reason at all to accuse the Inquisitor of an ill conscience in razing onelie such a recorde as is no lesse repugnant to the doctrine of the reformed Churches then to the Roman faith if anie matter of faith it were which indeed it is not so by consequence it is also impertinent to the matter here in question Thirdlie Sir Humfrey chargeth the Inquisitor for blotting out Cassanders whole tract of the Cōmunion in both kynds But what worse conscience sheweth the Inquisitor in this fact then the Inquisitors of the reformed Churches doe who are not content with a simple doleatur but daylie condemne whole Catholike volumes to the vnmercifull Vulcan And as for the recordes which you take out of Cassander we make no more accounte of them then we doe of those which you take out of Luther or Caluin so you may take them make your selfe merrie Fourthlie Caietans opinion that the wordes this is my bodie doe not sufficientlie proue transubstantiation is no recorde for you as you falselie suppose for he doth not denie transsubstantiation as you doe but expresselie defended it as his owne wordes declare which I afterwardes recitie nay he doth not affirme absolutelle as suarez wordes quoted by your selfe in your owne margent expressely declare that the foresaid wordes doe not sufficientlie proue transsubstantiation as you corruptedlie relate but onelie sayth at the most that secluding the Churches authoritie they doe not proue it which not as contrarie to faith but as a singular extrauagant opinion of that authour Pope Pius did if perhaps he did piouslie blot it out not preciselie because it fauoreth the reformers as in trueth it doth not to anie purpose but because it sm'at disfauored the truth which is that transsubstantiation is indeed plainelie enough contayned in those wordes of Christ this is my bodie Howbeit I must needs aduertice the reader that I neyther finde those wordes supposed to be Caietans blotted in anie Index that I haue seene nor yet can I finde them in anie edition of Caietan in the place cited by Suarez that is vpon the 75. q. art 1. But onelie these Conuersio non habetur explicite in Euangelio these Quod Euangelium non explicauit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus Nay more then this I finde other wordes in the same place which conuince that Caietan held transsubstantiation to be sufficientlie contained in those wordes this is my bodie for so he argues Sacramenta nouae legis efficiunt quod significant ac per hoc verba Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scilicet conuersionis continentiae vt expresse dicta sacri Concilij authoritas testatur consequens est vt cadem Christi verba significent vtramque nouitatem Wherefore supposing Caietan said not that the wordes this is my bodie conteine not sufficientlie transsubstantiation but onelie not expresselie I cannot conceiue what foundation Suarez might haue for this his relation except peraduenture Pius quintus founde that edition alone of Caietan to haue ben corrupted by heretikes therefore caused it to be corrected in that passage as indeed an other place of the same Caietan 2. 2. q. 122. is discouered by the authors of the prohibitiue Index to haue ben in that same fashion fraudulentlie depraued as the same Index expresselie
string that the Roman Church houlds the scriptures to be imperfect but I knowe none that makes them so imperfect as the misreformed Churches by cutting of diuers partes of them and condemning them for Apochripha in their consistoriall sessions by corrupting the text by false translations erroneous interpretations as I haue aboue declared And touching the Roman Church I haue alreadie tould him that he belyeth her For neither she here selfe nor anie of her members euer defended that tenet absolutelie that the scriptures are imperfect But onelie some Romanists affirme the scriptures alone to be no perfect rule of faith yet they neuer say they are imperfect For one thing it is to be perfect in them selues an other thing to be perfect as they be a rule of faith The first is absolutelie true maintained by all Romanists the second is but true secundum quid with restriction as before hath ben declared or as it is but one parte yet the cheefest the farre more perfect noble Wherefore the Romanists as the reader may perceiue hould both the scriptures Fathers for perfect campleit absolutelie speaking wher as the reformers whatsoeuer they say in wordes yet indeeds they doe mangle martyrize them most cruellie as a booke published by a reformed minister called the censure of the Fathers doth giue ouer plaine testimonie Censura Patrum And thus handled by thim I graunt the reformers may chalenge them for theirs but taking them in their compleit perfect latitude puritie the Romanists my iustelie say all myne in which action notwithstanding there is no police vsed to deceiue the ignorant as the reformers vse to doe but plaine dealing for their true instruction And to say the Romanists silence scriptures it is so manifest an vntruth as it needs no other confutation But by the lye Neyther doe they otherwise purge either them or anie learned writers but onelie or at the least cheefelie from such darnell as you enimies to the Crop of Christ vse to sowe by night in the feild of faith According to the sentence of the authour of the Impect Commentarie of S. Mathewe hom 44. speaking of hereticall Preists whose wordes altho' the knight world faine applie them against the Romanists yet they can not possible be so trulie fitlie accommodated to anie as to his owne ministers Bishops whose common knowne practice is by seueritie of lawes all fortes of punishment not by their bookes writings to musle the Romanists mouthes because to vse the wordes of the foresaid author they knowe that if the truth be once layd opē their Church shall be forsaken they from their Pontificall dignitie shall be brought downe to the basenesse of the people And now we see by the examen of this whole sectiō howe false Sir Humfreyes cardes haue proued how plainelie he hath lost the game notwithstanding all his iudling tricks counterfeit shuffling of which sleights there are such great store in this section that there is no place for anie matter of substance but onelie verball florishes to giue colour countenance to his fained calumnious accusations THE XIV PERIOD SIR Humfrey tells vs that in this section following there are contained allegations collected out of Bellarmin for testification of the truth of the reformed doctrine in the cheefe points of controuersie I haue alreadie declared that the Romanists reiect not either true scriptures or Fathers nor yet anie other authours of the Roman Church but onelie as either corrupted by heretikes or els onelie where we finde them to haue some singular opinion or tenet against the vniforme doctrine of the rest in matters of faith manners or Ecclesiasticall practice or discipline or els in some particular points not then sufficientlie declared determined by the Church when they did so vtter their opinions of which sorte of writers neuerthelesse there neuer were anie such either in number or qualitie of doctrine as could either make or marre the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Church in that nature And as for Bellarmin whome Sir Humfrey citeth in this section we are so farre from taking exceptions at anie thing that he euer writ published that we all hould him for a most faithfull diligent defender not onelie of the principall points of our faith but also of euerie one of them in particular of the whole Roman doctrine in so much that I accounte it no lesse then plaine madnesse in that man whoe shall offer to make vse of his testimonie for the contrarie knowing for certaine that if he be sincerelie alledged rightlie vnderstāded nothing can be founde in him for the aduerse parte And to the end that this may more plainely appeare I will breeflie examen those particular places which Sir Humfrey produceth for the contrarie First therefore he citeth Bellarmin as confessing the vncertainty of all the Trēt Sacramēts as the knight termeth thē because forsooth in his third booke of Iustification the 8. chap. he graunteth that none can be certaine by the certaintie of faith that he receiueth a true Sacrament in regard in depends vpon the intention of the minister But this testimonie I haue alreadie shewed to be delusorie it is wholie impertinent to the purpose for that the question aboute the necessitie of the knowledge of the intention of the minister by faith is no principall controuersie betwixt vs but rather meerelie incident Neyther yet can the reformers finde the contrarie position in anie place of scripture by that meanes to make it a point of faith for themselues Secondlie he induceth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. touching the reformers denyall of transsubstantiation To which place I haue also ansered before it is not for this purpose in regarde there is no mention of anie denyall of the trueth of trassubstantiation or confession of the Reformers tenet in that point but onelie of an other incident question viz. whether transsubstantiation can be proued by expresse wordes of scripture And at least touching the maine point to omit the other as impertinent disagreable to the title of our aduersaries questiō which is of principal points of controuersie it is too cleare that Bellarmin defended the affirmatiue in terminis in plaine tearmes And so this is no such confession as Sir Humfrey seekes for in this place Besides that all Bellarmins confession is but one pore non est improbabile Thirdlie he citeth Bellarmins confession against priuate Masse lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. 10. But the latter place I haue examined before founde it corrupted by Sir Humfrey both in wordes sense neyther are the wordes sincerelie recited by omission of omnino sine declaratione Ecclesiae transposition of the text And here I further adde that neyther of the places is to this purpose because they proue no vnlawfulnesse or absolute imperfection in priuate Masses but onelie at the most their lesse lawfulnes their lesse
difficult questions nor yet could you haue so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirme in one place that the text of scripture is the sole Iudge expounder of itselfe indefinitlie without liâ—itation yet on the contrarie in another place that you doe not denie the authoritie of the Fathers iointlie agreing in the exposition of them in matters of faith yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them as if the holie Ghost were bound to appeere visiblie to deliuer the true sense of them as often as anie controuersie of faith occurreth All which the like disparates the vertiginous knight vttereth within the compasse of this one section also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselues Iudges plaintiffes in their owne cause wheras indeed the Romanists neyther make themselues but the euer visible continueing Church Iudge of their cause nor doe they hould theÌ„selues for plaintiffes but for defendants faithfull possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they receiued from their auncestors And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his owne receiued Principle touching the interpretation sense of scriptures of which he his brothers make euerie priuate person man or woman Iudge vmpier yet condemnes for vnreasonable that the Roman Church should vse the like authoritie euen when it is publikelie assembled in a generall Councell So that these all those a foresaid particulars deliuered by our aduersarie touching this point are but onelie his owne fancyes of which he makes vse for want of better materialls to patch vp this part of his by path in which as you see he continueth his peripateticall exercise euen to the next section Sec. 4. In which it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise yet they make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of scripture thus the knight fableth of whom I tknowe I may iustlie say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur And in reallitie of whome I pray can this be so trulie verified as of those who notobstanding that vnder a false colour that euen in cases of doubt controuersie they ingenuouslie professe that scriptures must be interpreted by themselues onelie Vid. ChaÌ„ Panstrat I. de inten scrip yet neuerthelesse doe most pertinaciouslie maintaine that the exposition of them belongs to euerie member of their Church in particular that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another for what is this but to make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of the scripture not the scripture itselfe as they deceitfullie pretend Let the indifferent reader be Iudge of this It is true the Councell of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers yea Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities places of care of soules take an oath of the same but as they take the oath so doe they performe also the obligation of it And I demand of Sir Humfrey who hath such a great talent in reprehending whether he thinkes not in his conscience that those who vnder the strict boÌ„d of oath are obliged to anie matter are not more like to performe it then those who haue no such obligation whereby to restraine their actions surelie there is a great difference in the circumstances consequentlie a great reason to iudge that those Romanists who haue such an oath obliging them to followe the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture will be farre more carefull to performe the same then the reformed Doctours who haue no such bridle to refraine the inclination to noueltie of their itching witts Now wheras Sir Humfrey after his ordinary cauilling manner doth say that if the Romane Church can make good the vniforme consent of Fathers for their twelue new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation preferre it before any priuate or later exposition this I say is a meere sophisme in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes that he who interpreteth scriptures must haue positiuely the vniforme consent of Fathers for his expositions but onely that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers the which because the kinght did not rightly vnderstand as it seemes when he read the Concell the Bull of Pius he abuseth Caietane Canus Andradius Bellarmine Baronius other moderne Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree wheras yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established the rest being knowne for notorius defenders of it so running vppon false grownes the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts building his By-way to omitt others of lesse moment diuerse scurrilous scoffes touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it s well knowne he his companions are much more guilty in that kinde with two notorious vntruthes affirming that all the pristes Iesuites are sworne not to receaue interpret scriptures but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers that it is an article of the Roman faith so to doe all which needes no further examen in regard that to any iuditious reader these two particulars onely will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the authors iugling trickes which he vseth in this part of his by-way which being voyde of substantiall matter it suteth best to him that made it but agreeth nothing to the Catholike RomaÌ„ faith â—ect 5. In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures which he promiseth to proue by pregnant testimonies of all ages that it is the same which learned Doctors professors intirely preserued in the besome of the Roman Church in all ages I haue treated of this in parte in my former Censure to which I adde returning that Sir Humfrey saith of Campion vppon himself which is that if this Nouellist had binne as reall in his proofes as he is prodigall in his promisses he had gome beyond all the reformed proselites sinces the daies of Luther for neuer man made greater florishes with proorer proofes all that he bringeth being founded vppon the same equiuocation which he vsed in his safe way consisting of this proposition the Fathers of euery age haue acknowledged the 22. bookes of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonicall to be the true Canon no other For it is true the Fathers of all ages receiued from Christe his Apostles those same bookes acknowledging them for Canonicall but it is false that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonicall of which truth particular instance
annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesijs successores eorum vsque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognouerunt quale ab his deliratur By which wordes it is manifest that S. Irenaeus doth confute his aduersaries the heretikes not by scripture onely but alsoe cheefely by traditionarie authoritie of the Bishops succeeding frome the Apostles which is directly opposite to the tenets especially of the purer sorte of nouellists whoe neither admitte traditions nor Episcopall authoritie but the onely written worde for absolute and sole Iudge of all Controuersies confutation of heresies Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the historian bookes of the old Testament as I am persuaded doth not plainely affirme neither doth Canus charge him with that error that the bookes of Machabies are not absolutely Canonicall as Sir Humfrey alledgeth but he onely reprehendeth him for vsing a vaine distinction of Canonicall scriptures as if there were some Canonicall onely for instruction of manners and not for matters of faith against the infirmitie or vnsoundnesse of which distinction Canus vseth this reprehensiue conclusion saying Cum sub eodem contextu omnes illi libri nullo facto discrimine definiantur esse Canonici scilicet Ecclesiasticus Sapientia Tobias Iudith Machabaeorū libri duo Baruch ridiculum est vt partim in vna significatione partim in alia libros Cenonicos habeamus Ac si hāc semel distinctionem admittimus authoritate Conciliorum atque Pontificum nullus liber Sacer constare poterit And presently after Id quoniam absurdum omnino est retineamus potius eam rationem oportet quam Caietanus voluit evertere vir vt saepe iam dixi cum primis eruditus pius sed qui in libris Canonicis constituendis Erasmi nouitates ingeniumque secutus dum alienis vestigijs voluit insistere propriam gloriam maculauit And soe you see Canus doth not confesse that directly Caietan maintained the Machabies not to be Canonicall but onely with that distinction neither did in deed Caietan more denye the authoritie of those bookes then he did the Epistle to the Haebrewes that of S. Iames which neuerthelesse he held absolutely for Canonicall tho' not perhaps in the same rigorous sense in which he iudged all the rest of the bookes of scripture to be in the Canon by reason those as alsoe some other partes of scripture haue ben by some ancient authors doubted of in which doubt onely he seemeth to founde his distinction Touching the Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament Sir Humfrey doth most falsely alledge the authoritie of S. Isidore persuading his reader that he reiecteth those same bookes which he and his companions in the newe religion condemne for Apochripha Weras in deed that ancient author numbereth them all in the Christiā Canon And to the end the knights impudencie may more plainely appeare I will rehearse S. Isidores expresse wordes concerning the same whoe in his 6. booke of origenes or etymologies saith thus Quartus est apud nos ordo veteris Testamenti eorum librorum qui in Canone Haebreo non sunt quorum primus sapientiae liber est Secundus Ecclesiasticus Tertius Tobias Quartus Judith Quintus Sextus Machaboeorum Quos licet Haebraei inter Apochrypha separent Ecclesia tamen Christi inter diuinos libros honorat praedicat By which wordes it is soe euident that this holie Father standes for the Romanists and against the pretensiue reformers in this point that I much maruell how Sir Humfrey could haue the face to produce him in fauor of his cause Nay more then this out of the distinction which he maketh betweene the the Hebrewes vs Christians in receiuing the foresaid bookes for Canonicall I frame a firme coniecture that either all or most of these ancient authors whoe seeme to exexclude them out of the Canon doe onely intend to declare that they were not included in it by the Iewes as S. Hilarie S. Hierome S. Epiphanius other authors concerning which point the reader may please to reade the same S. Isidore in lib. Prooemiorum de libris veteris noui Testamenti In the 431. page of his by-way the kinght abuseth Canus whome he there cites lib. 12. cap. 13. For he foysteth in by a parenthesis of his owne the worde reall which neither Canus hath nor yet putteth the force of his reprehension of the bishop of Bitont in that he affirmed in the Councell of Trent that Christ did not offer his reall bodie in his last supper but because he affirmed that Christ did not offer his owne bodie absolutely abstracting frō reall or not reall the question not being in that passage of the reall presence but of the Sacrifice of Christs bodie bloud in the Eucharist which as it seemes by Canus relation the foresaid Bishop in the discussion of this point by way of proposition was of that priuate dictamen how beit after wardes he willingly conformed him selfe to the rest of the Fathers to the decree of the Councell By which it is plaine that this Bishop was not of anie firme setled opinion which might fauor Sir Humfreys doctrine in that particular Illud primum animaduerto iure Cornelium Episcopum Bitontinum in Conelio apud Tridentinum à Patribus Theologis vniuersis explosum qui dixerit Christum in Coena non suum corpus sanguinem obtulisse Canus loco citato And soe you see this is one of Sir Humfreyes prittie pettie trickes which omong other greater will serue to replenish his pages The kinght alsoe in his 157. page of his deuia corrupteth the same author cited in his third booke third chapter Where for these wordes in sacrificio Eucharistiae simul cum corpore sanguinem sacerdotibus esse conficiendum sumendum c. Sacrae litterae nusquam forte tradiderunt he translates the consecrating receiuing of ehe bodie bloud of Christ by the preist c. Are nowhere happily to be found in scripture In which passage the attentiue reader may easily see that the knight plaieth the iugler most nimblely For wheras Canus putteth the force of his sentence in the wordes simul together or at once in the other worde sumendum making an hipotheticall proposition of all his wordes ioyned togither our craftie Circulator soe hādleth the matter that his reader may imagin that Canus affirmed that the consecration of the Eucharist according to the custome of the Roman Church is not found in the bible That which that author neuer dreamed but onely intended to produce as an instance of Apostolicall traditions that copulatiue of the practice of the preists consecrating actuall receiuing both the bodie bloud at one the same tyme in the vse of the Eucharist which Canus supposeth rather to be a tradition then expressely contained in the text of scripture More ouer Sir Humfrey cites Gretzerus but onely twise first in his defense of the tenth
which they ar not able to vnderstand Spirituales ergo siue qui presunt siue qui obtemperant spiritualiter iudicant non de spiritualibus cogitationibus quae latent in firmamento Non enim oportet de sublimi authoritate iudicare neque etiam de ipso libro tuo etiam si quid ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ei nostrum intellectū certumque habemus etiam quod clausum est aspectibus nostris recte veraciterque dictum esse Sic enim homo licet iam spiritualis ' renouatus in agnitionem Dei secundum imaginem eius qui creauit eum factor tamen legis debet esse non index These ar the wordes of S. Augustin syncerely rehearsed in which as anie vnderstander of latin may easily perceiue ther is nothing founde in fauor of Sir Humfreys tenet in the place aboue cited viz that scripiure is the sole iudge of controuersies interpreter of it selfe but rather is ther some thing expressely repugnant to an other position of his congregation defending that scriptures ar easie to be vnderstanded or interpreted onely by conferring one place with an other the contrarie of which neuertelesse is plainely insinuated by those wordes of S. Augustin certumque habemus etiam quod clausum est aspectibus nostris c. And we ar eertaine euen that which is shutte from our eyes is ritely truely spoken And yet our corrupt aduersarie hath corruptedly interrupted them conioyning the first parte to the last omitting the verie harte of the sentence for the latin wordes spiritualibus cogitationibus putting in English spiritual knowledge for spiritual cogitateons like wise inserting by a parentesis this his owne glosse vpon the worde firmament expounding it of the scriptures them selues I knowe not by what other rule or authorite then by the dictamen of his owne priuate or familiar spirit all which particulars I remit to the censure of the iudicious reader And by occasion of this passage I aduertise the reader that wheras the author for the greater credit of his worke as it were to limme it with the authoritie of that aureous Doctor S. Augustin hath cyted him in his by-way alone at the leaste 60. seueral tymes yet hauing diligently viewed and discussed the places as they stāde in the tomes I indoubtedly assure him that of those 60 sentences there ar not 6. to the purpose for which they ar alledged and yet those 6. either such as partely by diuers Romanists in their seueral worke and partely by my selfe in this my censure haue sundrie tyme receiued their anser the rest of the total number being some of quyte impertinent others neither for our aduersauersarie nor against the Romanists others plainely against him and for the Romanists especially those which proue the apparent and conspicuous visitabilitie of the Catholique Church others finally ar not syncerily rehearsed but mangled cropt or curtald with abuse of the author and reader S. Chrisostome like wise and S. Ambrose haue their meaning detorted by the knight in the same section the one in his 13. homilie vpon Genesis in his 7. homilie vpon the first epistle to the Thesalonians the other in his 8. sermon vpon the 118. psal for S. Chrisostome onely treates in those places of twoe particular cases to wit in the Genesis he argueth against some whoe denyed the terrestriall Paradise and vpon the foresaid Epistle of saint Paule he reprehendes some others who were of opiniō that the soule is a particle of the diuine nature And touching these two particular points S. Chrysostome affirmes that the sacred scripture expondes it selfe and suffers not the reader to erre but he said not that the scripture in all other places and in all other matters doth soe interpret it selfe as Sir Humfrey falsely alledgeth Now S. Ambrose saying that the dore shall be opened vnto him who diligētly examēs the difficult and obscure passages of scripture by no other but by the worde of God he doth not there meane by the worde of God the scriptures them selues but the diuine word that is Christ our sauior the second person in Trinitie and therfore he addes to the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey de quo legisti in Apocalipsi quod Agnus librum signatam aperuit of which thou haest read in the Apocalips that the lambe opened the sealed booke which laste wordes of S. Ambrose because the knight perceiued that by their plaine explication of the former they discouered the whole sentence to be nothing for his purpose he deceitfull smunthered and left them vnrehearsed by which his palpable and grosse abuse of these two graue and ancient authors doth euidently appeare An much according to this fashion he proceeds with Pope Clement whome he cites in the same place and for the same purpose Whoe neuerthelesse is soe repugnant to the tenet of the nouellists in making the sole scripture interpreter of it selfe in all cases that he expressely teaches that we must not according to our owne sense but secundum traditionem patris according to the tradition of the Father that is either according as the tradition of the Pope him selfe as deliuerer of the sense of scriptures vnto vs or secundum traditionem Patris that is according to the tradition of the ancient Fathers and therfore he addes afterwardes ideo oportet ab eo intelligentiam discere scripturam qui eum a maioribus secundum veritatem sibi traditam reseruauit vt ipse possit ea quae recte suscepit cempetenter asserere That is And therfore we ought to learne the intelligence or vnderstanding of scriptures of him whoe reserued it to him selfe according to the trueth deliuered vnto him by his ancetors to the end he might cōpetently assert those things which he ritely receiued But Sir Humfrey conceiled these wordes as alsoe the greater parte of the period out of which he cited those wordes he alledges yet ioined vnto them the rest of those which he rehearseth not obstanding they ar parte of an other clause alsoe adding the worde seeing which neither is in the authors text nor agrees with his sense and meaning which is not that the scripture alone is an intyre and firme rule of faith but the scripture expounded according to the sense receiued from the ancients as immediately before he affirmed But vaine Sir Humfrey was soe desirous to seeme to his reader to haue a Pope for an a better of his position that he chused rather to prostitute his owne honestie in the euill vse he made of his authoritie then seeme to wāt the testiminie of soe renowned a personage And yet is the knight soe farre from obtaining his purpose that if the wordes were not soe manie that they can not with conueniencie be intyrely related they them selues would make it apparent how much the author of them is abused by the false relater The supplye of which I remit to the more diligent reader as tyme leasure shall giue him occasion But I confesse