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
first chapter of his Euchyr saith these wordes praestantia huius scripturae c. the excellencie of this scripture doth surpasse the scriptures multis partibus in manie respects or by manie degrees those scriptures which the Apostles left vs in partchement he doth not speake of the vnwritten tradition of the Church but of that scripture which as afterwardes he declareth Spiritus sanctus in cordibus imprimere dignatus est that is which the holie spirit doth digne or voutsafe to imprinte in our hartes Which as he speakes before in the same chapter is nothing els but the spirit of consent of the Catholike Church in faith and the concording doctrine of all faithfull Christians not of those onely which now liue in the whole world but those alsoe whoe by continuall succession haue propagated the faith of Christ from the tyme of the Apostles which is that Scripture which the Apostle saith 2. cor 3. is read by all men and the vnction quaest 2. Io. 2. docet nos de omnibus c. which teaches vs all things which as he further addeth afterwardes hath all truth in it selfe and containeth all faith and mysteries of Christian religion and resolues all doubtes which may aryse in matter of faith and soe costerus compareth not the vnwritten worde with the written precisely but the internall with the externall which internall scripture is iustely preferred by him before the bare written worde or caracter because as he takes it here it includes the true sense of both the one and the other by which it appeares that the exceptions which Sir Humfrey takes at this authors wordes ar captious and voyde of reason Vrspergensis is produced by Sir Humfrey page 400. of his deuia as a witnesse that the second councel of Nyce or seuēth generall synod assembled in the yeare 788. was reiected in the councell of Francford as vtterly voyde and not to be named the seuenth And yet hauing examined this passage in that author I fynde he speakes not a worde of the Nycene councell but of a cettaine councell of Constantinople which he affirmes to haue ben called the seuenth synod general by the Emperatrice Irene and her sonne Constantine his wordes are these Sinodus etiam qua ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli congregata sub Irene Constantino filio eius septima vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacua ab omnibus nimirum patribus Concilij Francfordiensis abdicata est Vrsperg pag. 176. in which wordes of what soeuer Councell vrpergensis intended to speake yet none of them mention the Councell of Nyce as all those whoe vnderstand latin may easily perceiue And if Sir Hunfrey will replye and say that tho' that author doth not mention the Nycene Councell in wordes yet doth he sufficiently declare his meaning to be of no other Councell then the seeond Nycene Synod in regarde he affirmes it to haue ben vnder Irenne and her sonne and the same which was condemned in the Councell of Francford I anser that by reason this author doth vtter twoe things which seeme to implye contradictiō to wit that this Councell was assembled at Constantinople and yet that it is the same which was reiected by the Councell of Francford it euidently followeth that no certaine argument can be drawne frō his wordes whatsoeuer his meaning was and this is sufficient to shewe that he is cited in vaine by the knight Secondly I say not obstanding vspergensis hallucination and suppose he did truely meane that the Councell of Nyce concerning the adoration of images was reproued by the Synod of Francford as some other authors admit in their disputatiōs with the sectaries of our tymes yet doth this nothing auaile our aduersaries cause both in respect the Synod of Francford is not accepted by the Romanists for an authenticall Councell in this particular as alsoe for that as some opinate it proceeded vpon false information and persuasion that the foresaid Synod of Nyce had decreed that images were to be adored with diuine honor and by this meanes the Fathers and doctors ther assembled were deceiued and committed an error of fact Which error neuerthelesse neither can nor ought to preiudice that doctrine which was before established by an authenticall generall Councell as was the secōd Synod consisting of a happie cōiunction of both the latin Grecian Church as of sune and moone And the reader may see that Sir Humfrey hath both dealt some thing insincere in the allegatiō of Vspergensis and alsoe hath proceeded preposterously in that he indeuored to infringe the authoritie of the greater Councell by the vncertaine proceeding of the lesse Page 261. of the same deuia he detortes the S. Irenaeus wordes contrarie to his meaning against Apostolicall traditions And yet S. Irenaeus euen in the wordes which are cited by him speakes onely against those who denyed absolutely that the trueth is deliuered by the Scriptures but onely by tradition and soe made them selues or their onwe traditions the rule of faith Of which number of hererikes saith he were Valentinus Marcion Cerinthus Basilides of whome he vttered the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey as affirming that the truth could not be founde by Scriptures by those whoe were ignorant of traditions for say they the truth was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth yet notobstanding this the same Irenaeus afterwardes speakes against others whoe doe not denye scriptures or rather against such as follow scriptures onely and reiect traditions receiued from the Apostles by succession of preists and conserued or obserued in the Church saying that they haue founde the pure truth as the pretended reformers nowe commonly babble of whome he saith that They neither consent to scriptures nor tradition and against whome saith the saint we ought euerie way to resist Soe that it is cleare that he disputes here onely against such heretikes as neither yealde to scriptures nor traditions and therfore he putteth for the litle of his chapter in this place quod neque scripturis neque traditionibus obsequantur haretici that heretiques neither obey scriptures nor traditions both which S. Irenaeus doth expressely imbrace And by this lett the reader iudge how intempestiuely the knigh doth produce this testimonie against those I meane the Romanists who neither reiect the scriptures nor approued traditions but like twoe indiuided companions receiue them both and let him alsoe consider whether the doctrine of holye Irenaeus in this place be not farre more contrarie to the tenet of the pretēded reformers then to the doctrine of the Roman Church whoe make onely scriptures expounded according to their owne sense the sole rule of faith Especially considering that the same ancient Father in the next ensuing chapter doth expressely receiue Apostolicall traditions saying in the verie first wordes traditionem itaque Apostolicam in toto mundo manifestam in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera volunt audire habemus
you in some points of faith so in like manner might we deduce a proofe of the greater saftie of our way from the certaintie of those points of faith in which you agree with vs all which is but nugatorie friuolous absurd in regarde that as a parte ad totum from a parte to the whole no lawfull deduction can be made so neyther can it be inferred that because one parte of the obiect of a mans faith is true therefore the whole obiect of is faith is true by reason that notobstanding one parte of the obiect be true yet there may be in the whole obiect or matter trueth falsitie mixed together of which we haue instāces both in diuine humane matters And more then this Sir Humfrey must giue vs licence to tell him that he was to forward in the proofe of his tenet For before he went aboute to proue his way to be safer then ours he ought first to haue conuinced his owne way to be a true perfect way not to haue giuen his reader a parte for the whole by a false Senecdoche or contrarie to the Grammer rules to obtrude vpon him a comparatiue without a positiue that is a safer way were no way is to be found at all or at the least no safe intyre way And yet more ouer it is to be obserued that besides those positiue points of doctrine in which he sayth that both partes agree there be also diuers negatiues which they quite distinguish one from an other which negatiues neuerthelesse are parte of the reformers faith as well as their positiue doctrine so in this parte of their Creed they stand single as well as we consequentlie if standing single as he auerreth or at the least supposeth doth hinder the safetie of our way the same effect it must of necessitie haue in theirs according to this ground of Sir Humfreys it is manifest that the reformers can neuer haue the safer way till we ioyne with them in euerie point thereof by that meanes to hinder their single standing which yet we assure our selues will neuer come to passe except God almightie reduce them to vs from whome they once departed as we greatlie desire daylie praye And according to this wee may breeflie ansere to all the rest of the instances which the knight produceth And so we Romanists confesse we stand with the reformers in the affirmation of heauen hell but we stand not with them in the deniall of Purgatorie limbus We stand with them in the affirmation of the merits and satisfactions of Iesus Christ But we stand not with them in the negation of the merits satisfactions of those that liue in the grace of God by the virtue of the same the cooperation of their owne free will performe good workes of charitie mercie iustice the like houlding for certaine with S. Augustin that he who created vs without vs will not saue vs without vs yet further assuring our selues that God doth not operate with bests men both in one manner We stand with them in the defence of Baptisme Eucharist so farre as they Orthodoxlie maintainte them but we stand not with them in the impugnation of the other fiue Sacraments We stand with them in that they affirme that the images of Christ his Saints are ornaments memorialls of the absent but we stand not with them in their denyall of due honour to be exhibited vnto them for the great loue reuerence we beare to Christ his Saints We stand with them in the defence of the diuine worship of God but we stand not with them in the denyall of intercessiue inuocation honour of his Saints We stand with them in that Christ is the prime mediator betwixt God man but we stand not with thē in their denyall of the secondarie mediators or intercessors which are his seruants frends We stand with them in that Christ is head Monarch of the whole Church triumphant militant but we stand not with them in their denyall of the visible Vicarious head the Pope or cheefe pastour of the visible Church in earth subordinate subiet to Christ in the gouernement of the same We will not refuse to stand with them in that they graunt that S. Peter had a Primacie of Order but we stand not with then in that they denie his Primacie of power Iurisdiction We stand with them in that they teach there are 22. bookes of Canonicall scripture but we stand not with them in the refusall of the booke of Tobie Iudith two first bookes of Machabees the booke of wisdome Esdras Baruch the Prophet We stand with thē in that they affirme the scripture is the rule of faith But we stand not with them in their denyall of diuine traditiōs not properly added to the scriptures but commended by them included in them in a general manner We stand with them in that they say there are twelue articles of the Creed But we stand not with them in their denyall of the rest of the doctrine defined in generall Councells as neither doe we ioyne with them in the defence of all the 39. Articles of the English faith or Creed And so now by these particulars the iudicious reader may euidentlie perceiue that by reason the Romanists agree with the knight onelie in some parte or partiall of his doctrine he could not possible proue by their confessions the greater safetie of his way as both in the title of this his last section also in the title of his whole booke he did propose Nay he is so farre from the proofe of this that he hath most apparentlie fayled in the proofe of the verie argument of his whole worke which to the end it may more plainelie appeare I will reduce to this Sylogisme That faith is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith which is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther But the faith now professed in the Church of England is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther Therefore the faith now professed in the Church of England is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith Now there being contained in the minor of this Sylogisme the whole argument purpose drift of Sir Humfreys whole booke yet neuerthelesse it hauing ben by mee in this my censure demonstrated not to haue ben proued and made good by anie argument by him produced all he produceth to that purpose being voyde of force as by the discussion of the particulars of euerie section the reader may easilie vnderstand it followeth by a necessarie sequele that his way can not be safe but is to be auoyded with most great care circumspection
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
operation effect of the Sacraments depend cheiflie principallie vpon the institution of Christe yet they say withall that both for the securitie of the consciences comfort of the receauers c. The Preist must haue a sincere intention to minister the Sacrament not in ieast as Luther some other sectaries doe teach this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the Reformers teach that onelie the instistitution of Christe is sufficient the Preists sincere intention not required this is an vncertaine by-way Nintly the Romanists teach that Christe is our onelie mediatour of redemption who onelie of himself by his owne power knoweth the secrets of our hartes yet withall they say that his Saintes in heauen who in by him doe assuredlie knowe the secrets of our hartes in such things especiallie as cōcerne the good of our soules are our mediatours of intercession by offering our vnworthie prayers to God this is a certaintie safe way to saluation But the reformers calle vpon Christe onelie exclude neglect his saintes seruants whome neuerthelesse he himselfe doth promise to honore in heauen condemning also for impious sacrilegions the saintes intercession for sinners which notwithstanding he doth not condemne for such in anie parte of holie scripture this is an vncertaine by-way Tenthly the Romanists teach we ought to adore Christes bodie present in heauen where he sits on the right hand of his diuine Father yet withall they say it is lawfull yea we ought to adore him whersoeuer he is particularlie in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach that the bodie of Christe ought not to be adored in the Eucharist but onelie in heauen this is an vncertaine by-way Eleauenthly the Romanists as the word of God instructs them confesse themselues to be vnprofitable seruants in regarde neyther they nor their actions bring anie profitte to God who hath no need of anie thing yet they say withall that no man liuing can be iustified by his owne merits that is such merites as proceed purelie from his owne naturall forces actions more then this that all those who expect saluation must beleiue in Christe with a liuelie faith wholely relie vpon his meritts satisfaction as vpon the proper principall cause of their saluation yet they say besides this that altho' they may not relie vpon their owne merits or the satisfactions of the saintes alone neuerthelesse they may vse both the satisfaction of saintes their owne merits as a meanes to saluation by virtue application of the merits satisfaction of Christes passion also that they can by the grace assistance of God obserue his commandements yea by virtue of the same diuine grace performe some workes of supererogation or not commanded by precept of God but counselled by his aduise this is a certaine safe way to saluation But the reformers teach they are vnprofitable seruants which I confesse that in deed they are both to God his Church as euer were anie in the world that no mans good workes altho' they proceed from the speciall grace of God can in anie sort iustifie him before God that euerie Christian must so wholie relie vpon the merites of Christe that he beleiue also that no man can haue anie of his owne euen by the power grace of God that he is bound to expect hope for saluation without anie such workes or merites meerlie by a sole bare faith that his sinnes are remitted in Iesus Christe this is an vncertaine by-way Heere you see a plaine confrontment of diuers particular pointes of controuersie betwixt the Romanists the reformers by way of affirmation negation because I knowe that my aduersarie I are not agreed of a Iudge of our cause I for for my part remit my selfe to the indifferent reader as our onelie vmpiere to determine of the matter not onelie for as much as concernes the contents of this particular section but also of the whole worke who if he consider with due ponderation the proceedings of both parties compare the sincere plaine dealing which I haue vsed with the insincere and double dealing of my aduersarie who hath so perseuered in his indirect courses that euen in the end conclusion of his worke he hath practised no smale partiallitie and fraude in the rehearsall of the doctrine of the Roman Church as particularlie where he affirmes that the Romanists teach that diuers traditions of faith and manners whereof there is no ground nor euidence in the scripture are to be reeeaued with equall reuerence and respect with the scriptures themselues and that they relie partelie vpon their owne merites and satisfaction of Saintes for their saluation and the like I say if the iudicious and vnpartiall reader duelie ponder all the particulars I doubt not but he will easilie discerne the house of truth and safe way to saluation to be where he findes honestie and plainenes and in the contrarie the house of falsitie the by-way where he findes tricks cousinage And therfore the more to facilitate rectifie his iudgment in the businesse I will reduce the whole argument of the knightes booke to a forme of sylogisme in this manner That Religion is a by-way leading the weake vnstable into dangerous pathes of error which is founded vppon coulourable showes of Apochriphall scriptures vnwriten traditious doubt full Fathers ambiguous Councells and pretended Catholique Church But the religion of the Church of Rome is founded vppon colourable showes of apochriphal scriptures vnwritten traditions doubtful fathers ambiguous Councels pretended Catholique Church Therfore the relgiō of the Romā Church is a by-way leading the weake vnstable in to the dangerous pathes of error Now the minor of this sylogisme in which the whole force of the conclusion and by consequence the whole scope and authoritie of the worke depēdes not onely hauing binne in the discourse of my anseere to euerie seuerall section disproued for false counterfeit but alsoe more appeare to be such ex ipsis terminis euen of it selfe by the termes propositions of which it consists to all such as shall consider it with due attention I persuade my selfe the iuditious reader will presently perceaue determine with him selfe that the author of the worke hath quite fayled of his proiect that by composing a by path with a sinister intention to father it Falsely vppon his aduersaryes he hath in stead of that onely framed an ingen for his owne torment And thus hauing attayned not onely to an accomplishment of myne owne desires in finishing my labours but also in some sorte to a satisfaction of the request of my aduersary in regard that at the least in showe as I perceaue by the conclusion of his preface he desireth nothing more then
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
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
fuisset siue quod tam leue esset vt a quolibet redargui facillime posset AN APPENDIX TO THE VVHETSTONE OR A COMPENDIOVS ANSER TO THE BY-WAY CHEEFLY consisting in a breife discouery of the authors indirect partiall false dealing with a detection of some particular examples of falsification BY THE SAME AVTHOR Sicut nouacula acuta fecisti dolum Psal 51. CATVAPOLI Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS Anno M.DC.XXXII THE INTRODVCTION TO THE APPENDIX BY that tyme I had in a manner finished my censure of knight Humfreyes nicnamed false way I receaued sodaine newes of another way eyther of the same author or of his frend for him which like a second parte of the Pickro came ruflling out with a greater noyse then the first the reason is as I suppose as well for that it carrieth a more extrauagant title to wit via deuia as also in regard it is some what larger both inleaues as I thinke in lyes Why the author should call his firste booke via tnta or the safe way this via deuia or the by way rather then the contrarie in my conceit few will be able to imagine anie other reason then his owne knightlie pleasure for my part I must needes confesse that his titles seuerallie applied to the contents are to me meere riddles as not conteyning eyther explicitlie or implicitlie that which they make showe of but rather standing onelie for cyphers or markes of the authors affected follie promising much but performing nothing as I haue made appeere in part by myne ansere to his first worke partlie also shall be showed by Gods assistance in this against which I now write of which altho' I doe not intend to make anie fotmall confutation in euerie particular point of doctrine as I did before more then once repenting my selfe that I spent so much time vpon such idle matter yet will I make a breife suruey of euery distinct section principallie noting notifieing to the reader such faultes as I shall finde the author guiltie of whome I also aduertise that notobstanding the knight with these his two bookes as it were with the deliuerie of two prodigious twinnes would seeme to haue brought forth some great strange noueltie to the world yet in veritie there is nothing of moment alleaged by him eyther in this or in his former treatie eyther out of scriptures Councells or Fathers which hath not binne long since examined confuted by a greater farre more learned number of Catholike diuines then all the pretensiue reformed Churches can affoord as apposers of the Roman doctrine And altho ' I doe ingenuouslie confesse that Sir Humfrey hath vsed no smale art industrie in the application of his predecessours labours to his owne intent purpose neuerthelesse he hath performed the same in such a cousening deceitfull manner that the reader may assure himselfe t' is almost one the same labour to discouer his lyes equiuocations false suppositions impertinent corrupted allegations other his insincere dealing to confute his doctrine it being little more then a masse or compound of those the like corrupted vitious ingredients nor contayning anie graue or solid discussion of anie one question in terminis or professedlie but onelie or cheiflie consisting in a certaine abstractiue way by compacting patches shreads of furtiue stollen diuinitie deliuered in a plausible persuasiue manner of which altho' I doe not denie but the author hath receiued great parte at the second hand from his antecessors especiallie from his great Patron Daniel Chamier who in the art of cheating doth in my opinion eyther exceed or at the least equalize anie that euer writ before him in regard of which altho ' the knight might seeme in some sort excusable at the least by ignorance yet hath he or his chaplins inuented added so much in that nature of his owne coyning that I doe not see what coulourable excuse can possiblie be alleaged for iustification of his bad proceedings And when reading of Bellarmines bookes of controuersies I found so manie vntruthes falsifications corruptions by him discouered out of Luther Caluin Beza Brentius Kemnitius other sectaries who had writ before him I imagined that at least for verie shame their successors as being such great professors of reformation would haue reformed themselues in that kinde but now of late since I came to read the workes of Daniel Chamier Sir Humfrey Lind I professe I haue quite lost my hope of their reclamation especiallie reflecting that as they are all men of one profession haue all of them an ill cause to maintaine so are they all fallen into a fatall necessitie of abusing their readers with trickes sleights the reason of which is plaine in regard that falsehood as being of a contrarie nature to truth it cannot possibly be defended patronized by the same truth but must of necessitie be defended by it selfe And as for Sir Humfrey he is so deepelie plundged in that muddie ditch that he his honour are like to lye there for euer his ill custome being now almost turned into nature as proper to him as blacke is to an Ethiopian or white to a swanne And to proceed to particulars he is so voyde of shame that he doubtes not to abuse Bellarmine in the very frōtispice of his booke where for posye or sentence of the same he putteth certaine words of his taken out of his first booke de verbo Dei cap. 2. intending by this indirect meanes to perswade his readers that the contents of his whole worke haue that famous Cardinall for their patron approuer which in my iudgmēt is a point of the greatest cousenage impudency that euer was heard of among Christian writers since that neither that which Bellarmines words import containe the whole or yet the cheife drife of Sir Humfreys booke neither are they vttered by him in that sense in which he doth apply them to wit that the scriptures are the sole rule of faith that there is no other rule but onely them wher as Bellarmin onely affirmeth that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe rule in case they be rightly interpreted according to the ancient tradition of the Church Vid. li. 1. de verb. Dei c. 2. l. 3. de verb. Dei c 1. seq Scriptura regulacredendi certissima tutissimque est supra Lib 4. de verbo Dei cap. 12. that they are not to be neglected by imbracing the priuate spirit which is fallible vncerteine to be relyed vppon by none but such as neglect the certaintie or safe way of saluation in which sense meaning how the wordes of Bellarmine can possibly be applied to Sir Humfreys Deuia or by way let the indifferent reader iudge especially considering that he could not be inuincibly ignorant that the learned Cardinall in another place plainly declareth himselfe touching the totallity
Concedimus quod oramus Sanctos proprie ipsi orant pro nobis proprie vt cum dicimus sancte Petre ora pro nobis c. Wee graunt saith Antisiodore that wee praye to the saincts properly that they pray for vs properly as when we say Sainct Peter pray for vs. And now loe here how faithlessely the knight hath proceeded in his allegation of the testimonies of these twoe authors whoe both soe plainely conspire against him let the reader alsoe consider how little reason our aduersarie had to conclude that inuocation of saincts hath neither antiquitie vniuersalitie nor succession supposing that he can conclude no other safetie out of these and the like premisses then such as proceeds frome his owne forgerie deceite And altho' Gabriel cites an opinion of manie others that graunt the Saints doe praye onely improperly for vs by mediation of their merits yet doe they not exclude all prayer to saincts as Sir Humfrey the rest of his pretensiue reformed brothers doe whoe if they would but graunt the same the Roman Church would not soe much complaine of them neither is the difference of those Romanists frome others in the substance of this question in controuersie which is whether the saincts intercede praye for faithfull Christians liuing in this world whether we may praye vnto them inuocate them in both which partes of doctrine all Romanists agree but these diuines mentioned by Biel doe dissent from the rest onely aboute the maner of intercession which saints doe vse making a question whether they performe that charitable acte by formall prayer made vnto God for vs or by interposition of their merits by that meanes to moue his diuine maiestie to graunt our requests which manner of mediation as it is not the cheefe question betwixt our aduersarie of these tymes vs soe neither is it an argument of defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or succession in the Roman doctrine nor anie proofe of the same notes to concurre in the tenets of the moderne sectaries as Sir Humfrey doth falsely suppose proueth not but onely equiuocateth in the state of the question or rather by affected ignorance transuersteth the meaning of the foresaid diuines touching this point taking the maner for the substance of the matter soe either throu ' affected ignorance or plaine malice diludes his reader To let passe that altho' the foresaid authors doe not graunte that the saints vse anie formall or proper forme of prayer to God for vs yet doe they not deuie our in vocation vnto them Nay supposing these diuines of whose doctrine the kinght would faine take hould as if it were contrarie to the vniuersalitie of the Roman faith supposing I say as Sir Humfrey him selfe relates out of Gabriel they defend the mediation of saints by their merits at the least if he had had is senses in readinesse he might easily haue either inferred that those same authors in like māner hould that we may inuocate pray vnto them euen peoperly formally or at the least it is plaine he neither ought nor could deduce the non inuocation of saints frome the foresaid mediation as erroneously he doth consequently he greatly abuseth the maintainers of that opinion in that he produceth them against the vniuersalitie antiquitie and continuall succession of the Roman doctrine in this particular seeing they differ not a iot frome other Catholique diuines in it touching the substance of faith yea they are soe farre from this that they expressely consent with them both in the doctrine of mediation merits both which points neuerthelesse the Nouellists doe obstinately impugne soe that it appeareth as a manifest trueth that Sir Humfrey can not possible with all his arte deuises scrape anie thing out of them for the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of his pretensiue reformed congregation but rather that which doth quite destroye it if he had his dyes aboute him to perceiue it To the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey page 263. concerning images Biel subioyneth these Nec tamen propter haec imagines proijciendae sunt aut de oratorijs eliminandae occasione idololatriae deuitandae aut peregrinationes ad certas imagines vel certa loca praesertim consecrata vel etiam consecranda penitus reprehendenda non enim vsque quaque negandū est quin in certis locis singulariter reluceant beneficia maiora crebrius quam in alijs vel propter imagines sanctorum reliquias ibi conditas uel occulta ministeria alias mysteria futuris temporibus ibi celebranda aut celebrata vel alias causas nobis occultas propter quas Deus vnum locum elegit suo cultui non alium Thus much Biel in can missae sec 49. Which wordes neuerthelesse are slylie omitted by Fir Humfrey his freind Cassander which other wise are soe plaine for the Catholique practice in this matter euen at this day that they confounde them both And this is their false plot which they vsed to make this most Catholique author seeme to fauore their ill cause wheras in reallitie he is plainely against them Page 152. of the by-way Canus is cited by Sir Humfrey lib. 3. cap. 3. And falsely alledged as if he gaue a reason wherfore traditions are aboue scriptures For he onely affitmes that they are of greater force to conuince haeretikes then scriptures that which in substance was taught long since by ancient Tertullian is no blemish vnto the written worde of God which in other respects both the same Canus all other Romanists at the least equalize yea prefer before the vnwritten doctrine of the Church in generall In his citation of Canus page 399. of his by way Sir Humfrey puts the obiection as if it were the doctrine of the author whoe propoundeth ansereth the same in his last chapter of the first booke sharpely reprehending Pighius out of whose opinion the obiection is framed by Canus reproued Altho' he insinuates with all that the error of Pighius Is not in matter of faith doctrine necessatie to saluation which is that onely which Canus professeth to maintaine in the defense of the authoritie of Councels Nos enim in dogmate fidei deeretis ad salutem fidelium necessarijs Conciliorum authoritatem asserimus in rerum gestarum iudicio ordine non asserimus Canus de locis lib. 5. cap. vlt. ad sep argumentum When Costerus pag. 44. of his Enchir. prefers traditions before the word of God he takes tradition as it is writen in carnall tables of the harte by the finger of the holy spirit on the contrarie he takes the written worde of God precisely as it consists in letters caracters which may perish or be corrupted by the false construction of heretikes or otherwise And therfore Costerus calles the first internall the secōd externall scriptures in the margen of the same page 44. And when the same costerus citcd by Sir Humfrey page 149. of his Deuia in the
it is euer essentially one the same in it selfe cleare from distinction cleare from error the coÌ„trarie to which neuerthelesse should necessarily be true if ei-faith were diuided in to fundamental not fundamental faith the Church could erre in her propositioÌ„ of the one not of the other And to this I adde that one propertie of the true Church is holines but now what sanctitie integritie or holines can possible be in the Church if it be infected with errors in faith of what nature soe euer they bee For as the scripture affiirmes sine fide that is true pure intyre faith impossibile est placere Deo True faith is the forme fashioÌ„ beautie of the Church which is the immaculate sponse of Christ ' not hauing spot or wrincle In soe much that if she be defaced thus with errors she can not possible be the sponse of Christ as in the cided place like wise in the Canticles she is described all faire or comely but rather she would be like a leaper or most deformed creature Thirdly I confesse for my parte I could neuer perfectly vnderstand what the Nouellists truely meane by fundamental not fundamental points by reason I finde the matter in none of their workes sufficiently explicated I veriely coÌ„ceiue they purposely anoyde the declaration of it to the ende the absurditie may lesse appeare Neuerthelesse it seemes in probabilitie that by fundamentals they meane all those points which according to their owne exposition ar contained in scriptures the three creedes And by not fundamentals the points of controuersie betwixt vs theÌ„ as is the number of Canonical bookes the infallible rule of interpretation of scriptures the real presence transsubstantiation iustification ' c. This beiÌ„g supposed I argue thus Either those points which our aduersaries call not fundamentals ar matters of faith ' to be beleeued by all sortes of Christians according to the diuersitie of their tenets vnder paine of damnation or not to be beleeued If they ar thus necessarily to be beleeued by faith then doubtelesse they ar included in those truthes touching which as I haue declared coÌ„firmed before by both scriptures Fathers Christ promised to his Church the assistance of the diuine Sprit to remaine with it eternally that is till the consummation of the worlde and consequently the Church can not committe anie error in proposing them to the people as being no lesse fundamental in that respect then anie of the rest of the articles of faith But if our aduersaries on the contrarie denye them to be necessarily beleeued vnder paine of losse of SaluatioÌ„ hould theÌ„ onely as matters of indifferencie such as may either be beleeued or not be beleeued without preiudice of faith or maÌ„ners vpon this supposition I graunte the Church may erre in proposing theÌ„ to her flock but yet in this case that parte of our aduersaries distinctioÌ„ affirming that the Church can erre in not fuÌ„dameÌ„tal matters of faith is still false and impertineÌ„t in regarde those particulars aboue telated in which they teache the Church can erre ar soe farre from being either fundamentals or not fundamentals in matter of faith that according to the former supposition they ar not either one way or other with in the circuit of faith and consequently that parte or member of our aduersaries dinstinction viz that the Church can erre in not fundamentals is both false nugatorie and impertinent in which sense soeuer they intend to maintaine it Fourtly I proue directly that the affirmatiues euen of those particulars controuerted betwixt vs and the professors of the English Religion ar fundamental points of faith and by consequence that if the Church can erre in them that parte of their new distinction is false according to which they auerre the Church can not erre in fundamental points of Religion which I conuince in this forme of argument That distinction is false and absurde according to which it necessarily followes that the Church can erre in matters the true faith of which is necessarie to saluation But according to the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith it necessarily followes the Church can erre in matters necessarie to saluation Ergo The distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith is a false and absurde distinction The minor in which the total difficultie consists I proue because according to this distinction the Church may erre in these propositions The Church hath the true complete Canon of scripture The Church hath the true interpretation and sense of scripture Christs bodie and bloud ar truely really substantially and not by onely faith contained in the sacred Eucharist c. And yet the faith of these either affirmatiuely or negatiuely is necessarie to saluatioÌ„ as the aduersaries theÌ„ selues if they will not be occounted obstinate in a matter soe cleare and manifest can not denye Therfore it is hence concluded by forcible sequele that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals in matters of faith is false and absurde Fiftely I reason in this manner against the same distinction If the infallibilitie of the Churches authoritie consistes in fundamental points of Religion onely and not in all that the true Church shal at anie tyme declare vnto her members concerning their faith and Religion then were not tâ—e prouidence of Christ perfect towardes his sponse but more defectiue then God was towardes the synagog of the Iewes neither were this anie other then to imagine that Christ in deede did laye a sounde foundation for his Church but lefte walles and roofe exposed to be deiected or caste to grounde with euerie puffe of winde which how repugnant to reason his owne inuiolable promisse this is the reader may easily consider and censure Sixtly I argue yet more positiuely against the distinction related because our aduersaries frame it either in respect of the greater or lesser dignitie of the obiects of fundamental and not fundameÌ„tal points of faith in them selues or in respect of the greater or lesse necessitie of them to saluation by reason of the necessitie of faith which the members of the true Church haue of them all and euerie one in particular Now if we respect onely the material obiects in them selues and the necessitie of them to saluation precisely soe I confesse ther ar some particular matters of faith which much surpasse orhers and in that respect alsoe the one may not vnaptely be termed fundamental in comparision of the rest which haue not that preheminencie For example that ther is a God and that God is a rewarder of workes quod Deus est remunerator sit That he is one in three persons that the second person in Trinitie became incarnate or tooke humaine nature vpon him was borne of the Virgin Marie suffered death for our dedemption c. are matters both more noble and dignifiable in them selues then those Christ fasted fortie dayes and fortie nights an Angel
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