is idolatry Sir Humfrey doth most shamefullie calumniate Gregorius de Valentia affirming him to maintaine that there is a kynde of lawfull idolatrie Whereas the foresaid learned diuine onelie sayth that a man might not obscurelie gather out of S. Peters wordes in his first epistle chapter 34. vers 3. that he insinuateth that some worship of images to wit of sacred images is lawfull reight by reason that sainct Peter speaking against idolatrie he calleth it not absolutelie worship of images but vnlawfull worship of images illicitos simulacrorum cultus Which discourse of Valentia how well grounded it may seeme I will not dispute But this I assure my selfe that defence of idolatrie was so farre from the toughts of that pious man as plainelie appeareth by the rest of his doctrine euen in the place cited that if Sir Humfrey either had not beene verie full of corrupted meaning or had not had great want of matter for the finishing of his false dealing in this section for his last plaudite there in hee would not haue had the face to abuse so much the innocencie of so sincere a writer Especiallie considering that altho' Valentia had committed such a grosse errour as to defende some kynde of Idolatrie to be lawfull yet had his errour ben wholelie impertinent to proue the vncertaintie of the Romish faith in the doctrine of honour of images which is the point here in controuersie of which Valentia being knowe not to haue euer doubted in anie parte of his workes whatsoeuer orher absurditie he might be supposed to haue taught in that matter it can not argue anie disagreement from the rest of the Romanists in this particular The knight also citeteth Bellarmin Canus But I haue before sufficientlie declared their meaning in an other occasion and as for Canus he by laboring to establish his owne singular opinion that matrimonie is no Sacrament but onelie a ciuill contract except it be celebrated by a Preist with sacred solemne wordes as he is an Ecclesiasticall minister onelie alledgeth the vncertaintie of the doctrine of diuines touching the determinate matter forme of that Sacrament and aboute the manner how it giueth grace or rather when it giueth grace when it doth not by reason he holds it vncertaine amōg diuines whether it be a sacramēt or not except in those cases in which it is celebrated by the Preist by cōsequence he holdes it vncertaine among diuines whether in those occasions it conferres grace to the receiuers which he will not haue for a matter of faith nor yet more then the more common opinion Si hoc matrimoniū inquā argumētētur Sacramentū Ecclesia non esse tūc Catholicus respōdeat fidenter animose defendat secure contra pugnet Canus l. 8. c. 5. therefore he saith Nego scholae certo constantique decreto definitum matrimonium sine Ecclesiae ministro contractum esse vere proprie Sacrnmeneum nego eam rem ad fidem religionem pertinere Yet notwithstāding all diuines agree Canus with them that matrimonie is truelie one of the seuen Sacraments consequentlie that which Canus sayth in the place cited is not for the knights purpose And so now I will end this section in which our aduersarie in steed of prouing the infallible certainetie of the reformed faith as he promised in the beginning by reason of his vnfaithfull proceeding he hath lost all certaintie of his owne humane faith for which he deserueth a most rigorous censure The X. PERIOD THIS Period shall conteine the eleuenth section of the knights booke in which He indeuoreth to proue by the testimonies of his aduersaries that there is greater benefit confort saftie of the soule in his faith then in the Romish And this his taske he beginneth with great grauitie saying that he proceeds from the certaine way to the safe way Against which position neuerthelesse if one were disposed to proceed according to rigour of Philosophie he might easilie demonstrate a plaine impossibilitie in it by an argument ad hominem For if as Sir Humfrey houldes there is no certaintie in the Romish faith way that all the certaintie is in his owne as he hitherto hath labored to shewe then can he not truelie say that his way is the safer way for that the worde safer inuolueth a comparison betweene two which are both safe because a comparison as Philosophie teacheth cannot be but betwixt things of the same common nature comparatio non est nisi inter resciusdem generis Wherefore since that according to the tenet of Sir Humfrey there is neyther certaintie nor safetie in the Romish faith yet that as he supposeth they are both in his owne it is consequent that altho' it were a safe way yet vpon his supposition it cannot possible be truelie called either a safer way or of more confort benefit then the Romish way To say nothing of our knights presumption folly in offering to call that a more safe more confortable more profitable way to the soule which as yet he hath not shewed with anie probabilitie either before or now in this section to haue anie one of those attributes in it but hath beene rather by mee alreadie conuinced to be voyde of them all Ad altho' this generall ansere might serue for all Sir Humfrey bringeth in this place as being in substance but a newe repetition of the same points of doctrine of which he treated in seuerall places before yet to giue him fuller satisfaction and because tho' the doctrine be the same yet the application is different I will descend to particular examen of it He begins with Bellarmin whom he citeth as a confesser of the all sufficientie of scripture as he tearmeth it but it is as cleare as day that Bellarmin made not anie such confession ther being not anie such worde or sense to be foūde in his workes but rather the quite contrarie is founde euen in the same booke which Sir Humfrey here citeth in which he expresselie confesseth professeth traditions to be necessarie besides the scriptures yea in the very-next wordes to those which the knight citeth he addeth that all other things meanig besydes those which the Apostles publikelie commonlie preached to all men are not written His wordes are these in Latin Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicauurunt alia autem non omnia scripta esse I say that all those things are written by the Apostles which are necessarie to all men which they openlie preached to all vulgarlie or commonlie but all other things are not written Which last wordes not with standing they are a parte of the same positiō or sentence conteine the very point of difficultie in this controuersie yet by a notorious imposture Sir Humfrey left them out so at one stroake quite corrupteth both Bellarmins sense sentence
of the lawe Exodus that that which in the first Commaundement is forbiden in the Exodus in the 26. of the Leuiticus the same is declared to be idolum sculptile that is an idol a grauen thing And thus wee see the reformers stand single in this matter that the Romanists in their diuision of the ten Commandements proceed vpon a most sound approued foundation it being both conformable to the doctrine of S. Augustin who they more willingly followe then anie other especially to the true sense of the scriptures them selues expounded aceording to the orthodoxe faith and tradition of all succeeding ages A POSTCRIPT OF ADVERTISSEMENTS FOR THE READER I Request the reader of my Censure so take notice of some particulars which occurred since the finishing of it And imprimis touching the homilie and epistles alledged by Sir Humfrey in the 9. section of his safe way against the reall presence and transsubstantion I ansered in the 8. Period of my Censure what I conceiued at that present to wit that ther was not anie doctrine publikly or cōmonly read or preched in England contrarie so the reall presence or transsubstantiation or in anie publik manner deliuered to the people either by Alfric or anie other Bishop or Bishops in anie synod or publik assembly in those dayes since which tyme of the dispatch of that worke some delaye hauing ben made in the cōmitting it to the presse hauing had greater opportunitie leasure to view the histories of our countrie which treate of the affayres of those ages in which Alfric liued which was in some parte of the 10. and leuenth Centuries by more exact examinatiō search in to the matter I finde my selfe assured of the trueth of that which I then deliuered And now for greater satisfaction of the reader and more cleare conuincement of the same I adde that touching Alfrics person and state of life he was first a monke by profession in the monasterie of Abington and as Malesburie relates lib. 1. de gest Pont. Aug. pag. 203. Abbat of the same then Bishop of wilton and after Archbishop of Canterburie Ther is diuersitie of opinions whether Siricius alias sigericus or Alfric did immediately succeed S. dunstan in that seat but that importeth little certaine it he was a Roman Catholique Vid. Harpsf saec 10. cap. 7. for that an ancient Chronicle writ by a monke of the same monasterie of Abington wher of as I alledged our of Malesburie Alfric was Abat conuinceth testifying that he went to Rome for his Episcopall pall as the custome was which iourney Alfric would neiuer haue made nor euer haue obtained his request if he had not ben of the same faith in euerie point which at that tyme the Pope him selfe professed That which also is most plainely demonstrated by an ample testimonie which the church of Canterburie gaue of the same Arcbishop Alfric and at their request sent to the monkes of his order and monasterie Abington for a perpetuall memorie of his faith and manners which for greater sattsfaction of the reader I will here rehearse at it as recorded by the foresaid religious man To the children of the holy church of Canterburie the clergie and the same church after their deuoute prayers It is knowne vnto you all how long since it is that by the successes of diuers and various euents the mother church of England hath ben depriued of her pastor and destitute of her rector which doth pertaine not onely to our losse but alsoe to the detriment of you and all this Iland since it is apparent that the sollicitude and care of the whole countrie is committed to the Metroplican For which cause we haue elected Alfric by name monke of the holy church of Abington most sufficiently knowne vnto vs noble in brith and maners indued with Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall discipline and in faith a Catholique by nature prudente docible patient temperate chaste sober humble affable mercifull learned instructed in the lawe of God cautelous in the senses of the scripture exercised in Ecclesiasticall decrees or determinations And according to the path of scripture orthodox traditions and Canons and constitutions of the Prelates of the Apostolicall seat vnderstanding teaching Praesulum Sedis Apostolica and obseruing the Ecclesiasticall rules in a sound sense and embracing that faithfull worde which is according to doctrine and reprehending with modestie those whoe resist it and hauing power to resiste and redargue them hospitable modest well ruling his house not a neophit hauing a good opinion or testimonie ministering in euerie degree or order according to Ecclesiasticall tradition Prepared for all good workes and to giue satisfaction to euerie one that shall demaunde it of the hope which is in him c. Thus proceedeth the testimonie of the electors of Alfric And to this I ioyne that S. Dunstan his immediate predecessor excepting Ethelgar or at the most according to the opiniō of some writers excepting Ethelgar and Siricius whoe both liued but fiue yeares or ther aboutes as our histories reporte at the tyme of his death spake much of the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist in a sermon he made the same day he dyed Svy S. Dunstan And in like manner of Elphegus Alfrics successor it is reported by our English historians he was such a mortifyed man by reason of his great abstinence and fasting that when according to the custome of the Romā church he eleuated the sacred hoaste in masse the reflected ayre appeared as it were in a glasse throu ' the iunctures of his fingers Now touching the twoe immediate predecessors of Alfric which I mentioned before to wit Ethelgar Sricius neither anie historiographer nor yet anie of our aduersaries themselues doe note them to haue diuulged or admitted in their tyme anie other doctrine concerning the Eucharist then that which was then professed in the Roman church By which it is manifest that both immediately before and immediately after Alfrics dayes the same doctrine of the reall presēce which at this tyme the Romā church maintaines was cōmonly tought practised in England and no other soe that morally speaking it is not apprehensible that in the tyme of Alfrics being Bishop of Canterburie which according to the computation of tymes was but ten yeares or littlemore Godwins Catalogue the contrarie doctrine and the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation could haue bin publikly professed and published by diuers Bishops in their synods as Sir Humfrey Line affirmes Besydes this Lanfranc whoe in the next age succeeded Alfric in the seat of canterburie habetur in vlt. edit Bibl. Patr. tom 11. in his booke against Berengarie of the sacrament of the Eucharist som'at after the midest he speakes thus against his aduersarie Propulsatis iam quantum satis visum est calumnijs c. hauing sufficiētly repelled the calumniations which with cantumely of Bishop Humbert the Roman Church thou hast temerariously vttered it remaines that we
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
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
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
alteration for that to omit other authorities of ancient Fathers of the same nature sainct Chrysostome who liued in the beginning of the fouerth age of Christian religion vseth the same manner of phrase if not playner Com. in c. 2. Epist 2. ad Thes sayeing that it doth appeere that the Apostles did not deliuer all by epistles but manie things without writing but as well these as those deserue the same faith The which is not onelie as much as can be expressed for the authoritie of traditions but also a more playne commendable testimonie then anie Romanist euer vttered concerning the same From whence the reader may deduce that the knight is heere also out of the right way of the primitiue Church in which he runneth forward till the verie end of his section like a man ouer heated breatheth out nothing but abuses of diuerse moderne diuines which he citeth in a cauilling captious sort peruerts their true sense meaning in all or most places by him alleaged Sec. 8. In the eight section he pretends to proue that the traditions of the Roman Church were vnknowne to the Greeke Church that they want vniuersalitie antiquitie succession but on the contrarie that faith which the reformed Churches maintaine at this day is the same in substance which the Apostles published in Greece therefore hath antiquitie vniuersalitie succession And this is the substance of his section if anie substance it hath But in truth he proueth his position with such mediums that I am scarce willing to relate them for losse of time the greatest part of his proofes being but eyther his owne bare false affirmations or onelie friuolous argumēts long since ansered destroyed by Bellarmin and other Romanists partlie also by my selfe in my Censure or else they are onelie authorities drawne from his owne brothers both in religion lyeing as from Illiricus whome Bellarmine doth cleerlie discouer to haue binne most expert in that black art or from other professed enimies of the Roman Church as Nylus other Grecian Scismatikes adding also the resistance or disclame of some Grecians in different occasions heere there a without doubt of his owne citing diuers authors vnfaithfullie for his owne aduantage contrarie to their meaning especiallie Bellarmine whome he abuseth in diuers places partelie by peruerting his sense partlie by mangling his sentences as lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 16. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 30. lib. 1. de Sanct. beatid cap. 19. mingling also some vntruthes as that most of the Greeke Latin Fathers did hould that the faithfull till the resurrection doe not attaine to the beatificall vision of God c. And now let the prudent reader iudge whether Sir Humfrey doth proceed sollidlie or rather not most absurdlie weaklie in that he goeth about to eleuate the antiquitie vniuersalitie succssion of the Roman faith eyther in generall or particular points by virtue of a scattered companie of moderne Grecians who in those matters they dissent from vs contrarie to the doctrine of their most ancient renowned auncestors haue no more authoritie then the pretended reformers themselues nay especiallie considering them to be of a religion which agrees neyther intirelie with ours yet much lesse with theirs what a madnesse is it in the knight to make vse of their authoritie eyther to infringe the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of the Roman doctrine or for confirmation of his owne Dicunt Armeni in Christo Domino vnam naturam esse vnam voluntatem vnamque operationē Aub. Mir. not Episc p. 43. Hodie Aethiopes baptisantur circumciduntur Idem p. 54. Neyther is Sir Humfrey thou ' most repugnant to the knowne truth content to say that the Greeke Church hath continued the truth of his doctrine in all ages but he also addeth further that if we looke beyond Luther we shall easilie discerne that the Muscouites Armenians Egiptians Ethiopians did teach their reformed doctrine euen from the Apostles time till now By which porticulars I doubt not but the reader may perceaue euen without a comentarie how ridiculous he makes himselfe his Religion to what streits this mā was put how impossible it is for him to auoyde the by way in the proofe of his antiquitie vniuersalitie succession who by his owne confession was forced to fetch his faith from such by places deuious regions where yet he hath not found it but remaineth still in his owne vnquoth English by way The nynth section pretendeth to proue that the scriptures are a certayne safe euident way to saluation traditions a by way In which section Sir Humfrey beginneth with a large homelie about the certaintie safetie of scriptures which two wordes because he peraduenture dreamed the night before he writ this that he had seene them in the scripture the one in the firste of S. Luke 4. the other Philip. 3.1 he assured himselfe he had thrust the Papists frō the wall at the first push But alas for pittie his dreame proued so false that when he awaked he found himselfe in the channell for in neyther of those places are those wordes found nay nor yet the sense which he intendeth heere which being no other then that onelie scriptures no tradition is to be followed in anie matter of faith or manners neyther those two places of scripture nor anie other testimonie that he bringeth eyther out of anie scripture or Fathers doth proue his peremptorie position but onelie shewe that all scriptures are profitable to instruct a man in all good workes to the end he may be perfect moreouer that the scriptures be as Bellarmine sayth a most certaine most safe rule of faith yet that they be the sole or onelie certaine safe rule neyther Bellarmine nor anie other Romanist nor yet anie proofe or testimonie which the knight produceth doth eyther teach or testifie It is true Sir Humfrey alleageth diuers authors but all according to his accustomed manner that is neyther much to the purpose nor yet verie faithfullie the testimonies of those eyther impertinētlie produced or alreadie cleared by Bellarmine other Controuertists to containe nothing contrarie to the Roman doctrine in this particular or else such obscure grolles as neyther his predecessors as I thinke did euer cite by reason of their smale authoritie nor are they of that moment that they deserue anie ansere at all as Waltram Fauorinus which at the leaste by reason of the ill vse he maketh of thē serue the knight for nothing more then to leade him out of the common path of the euerduring constant Church as a sure guide which according to the scriptures cannot faile euen by the power of hell into a dangerous diuerticle of scriptures expounded by deductions proceeding from the priuate spirit of particular men which is all he concludes in this his section Sec. 10. From hence
the same yet that is not truly the Iesuites challendge but that you produce some which haue professed your religion in euery point in euery age before the daies of Luther This is the charge you haue vndertaken till you haue discharged your selfe of this your honor still remaines at the stake for all your bragges your safe way is to the Romanists all other of mature iudgment but onely a by-way serueth onely for a cowardly excuse of your want of abillitie to performe your promise But now to returne to the contents of this section in particular from which I haue in some sort digressed I say it consists onely in a recapitulation of those seuerall pointes of controuersie which I haue alreadie examined in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I haue not sufficiently confuted conuinced to be of no force but all eyther false equiuocall or impertinent it is most apparent that what soeuer he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is noe conclusion nor of any more authority then his owne bare affirmations or negations consequently notobstanding the vaine knight will needes seeme to haue the victorie to haue gained his cause yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather iudge in fauour of the anserer then of the abiector especially considering how farre more easie a matter it is for any man to impugne the doctrine of another then to defend his owne Wherfore I ioyne issue with myne aduersaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath heere sett downe applying the same to the safe way by-way as he hath donne by-way of antithesis or oppositiue comparison betwixt them both in the manner followeing And firste I say The Romanists teach that not scripture onely but scripture with diuine Apostolicall traditions receaued for such by the vniuersall Church in all ages the approued generall Councells the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the onely certaine meanes safe way to saluation But Sir Humfrey with his complices teach that scripture onely interpreted otherwise them by authoritie of the most vniuersallie florishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers doctors of the same is sufficient to saluation this is a doubtfull by way Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe perfect rule of faith yet in some places obscure ambiguous as euen some of their aduersaryes confesse therfore it is not sufficient alone but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter this is a safe way to saluation but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation conference of one place with another by euerie priuate man or woman that can but reade it is a sure euident perfect rule of faith this is an vncertaine by-way Thirdly the Romanists teach that traditions appertayning to faith or manners receaued from Christe by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselues by inspiration of the holie Ghost as such conserued in the Church by continuall succession are to be imbraced reuerenced with like pious affection as the scriptures this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that onelie those traditions concerning faith manners that can be proued by scriptures of which sort they denie anie to be in the Church notobstanding sainct Paul in the scripture expresselie commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions deliuered vnto them by word of mouth or by epistle And this is an vncertaine by way Fourthly the Romanists teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures some certaine persons in the Church as professors of diuinitie some others for the auoyding of noueltie in doctrine take an oath of the same moreouer that where they finde that consent they are to receaue it as a certaine rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or inuention of other new sense or glosses this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed onelie so farre as according to their priuate spirit or iudgment they agree with scriptures which is a captious deceitfull rule of expounding them And this is an vncertaine by-way Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholike Church is a congregation or companie of people beleiuing professing the true faith of Christe vnder one cheife head our Sauiour Iesus Christe his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as cheife Pastor visible gouernour of the same vnder Christe sayeing with all that the notes whereby the true Church is knowne from all other hereticall scismaticall conuenticles are not onelie cheiflie exteriour splendour amplitude miracles as our aduersarie doth deceitfullie insinuate but principallie the name Catholike antiquitie continuall succession c. And this is a certaine safe way but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastours people with out anie certaine infallible authoritie assigning for markes of the same that which is common to all congregations euen of heretikes schismatikes according to their seuerall opinions as all euerie one of them holding they haue the true word Sacraments rightlie preached administred in their conuenticles which consequently can be no certaine markes of the true Church in particular no more then the name of a Christian in generall can be an infallible note of a true beleiuer this is an vncertaine by-way Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Councells by the Popes authoritie or approbation conuocated confirmed are not onelie of great vse in the Church But also of certaine infallible power for the determination of all doubts controuersies in religion which may arise in seuerall times occasions this is a certaine safe way But the Reformers teach that General Councells althou ' they say they be of great vse authority in the Church to determine controuersies in religion yet they hold them of vncertaine authoritie subiect to errour both in faith manners this is an vncertaine by-way Seauenthly the Romanists teach that the cheife rock angular stone vpon which the Church is built is Christe the Sauiour of the world yet they say with Christe himselfe that Peter is also in his kinde a rock vpon which he promised to build his Church this is a certaine safe way But the reformers teach that Christe alone is the onelie rock vpon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the expresse wordes of Christe in the scripture sayeing to Peter vpon this rocke will I build my Church this is a diuerticle or by-way Eightly the Romanists teach that the
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
appeared to him in his agonie Peter denyed Christ and other such like truthes Yet this how true soeuer it bee it is nothing to the purpose which here we treate nor afordeth anie grounde or foundation for the prenominated distinction of our aduersaries in regarde that althou ' ther be neuer soe great difference among those and other points of Religion in the dignitie of the material obiects by reason of which in some sorte the one may be named fundamental the other not fundamental neuerthelesse because the faith of the one is no lesse necessarie to saluatiō then the faith of the other thēce it is that absolutely the one is as much fundamental as the other and consequently ther ar no not fundamentals in matters of faith as the distinction of out aduersaries doth falsely suppose And hence in like manner it farther insueth that if the Church should erre but onely in the definitiō or proposition euen of those matters of lesse qualitie the error would be directly against diuine faith and consequently the Church in this case should truely be said to haue erred eued in fundamental points of faith and in matters necessarie to saluation fundamental points as I haue declared and often repeated being no other then all those reuailed truethes the faith of which is necessarie in the members of the Church for the obtaining of eternal life not obstanding anie difference which otherwise may apppeare in the nature of the seueral obiects or matters supposing no one parte but the whole intyre faith of Christ and euerie parte and partiall of those verities which he hath reuailed to his Church is the foundation of true Christian and Catholique Religion it being as necessarie to saluation for euerie true Christian to beleeue truely and syncerely if it be proposed vnto him by the Church that the cocke crowed at the tyme of S Peters denyal of Christ or that a souldier lanced our sauiors side with a speare as that he dyed vpon the Crosse for our redemption and risse againe for our iustification But Finally If peraduēture our aduersaries should say that within the compasse of true faith some things be necessarie to saluation and others not necessarie and that consequently some things be fundamental but others not To this instance I replye it is founded in a manifest equiuocation For althou ' it is true that their be some things within the compasse of saith which ar not necessarie for euerie member of the Church to knowe them expressely yet is it necessarie to saluation for euerie faithfull Christian thou ' neuer soe simple or ignorant to beleeue euerie parte and partiall of those obiects or matters which God hath reuailed if for such by the Church they be proposed vnto him otherwise he should incurre the censure of that strict and fearefull sentence of the most iuste and equal iudge Christ our Sauior qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur and soe the faith euen of all those things which euerie one by reason of his state or condition of life or for want of vnderstanding is not obledged to knowe is necessarie to saluation and consequently all kinde of faith of what matter soeuer it be that God hath reuailed is as much fūdamētall as is faith of the greatest matter or mysterie of the whole Christiā beleefe whēce it is that as S. Gregorie Nazianzen treating of the vnitie and integritie of faith in his 39. oratiō aboute the ende declareth by example or similitude that faith is like vnto a goulden chaine connected and compounded of diuers linkes from which if you take anie one away you loose your saluation as S. Ambrose in the ende of hir sixt kooke vpon the Euangell of S. Luke declares By which it is manifeste that faith of euerie point or matter within the compasse of faith is necessarie to saluation and therfore fundamental absolutely whether the obiect be great or little and no faith not fundamētal as the new distinction of the Nouellists most falsely affirmes which ther distinction doubtnesse was inuented by them to the ende they might haue a more plausible coulor to accuse the Roman Church of errors comitted in faith as alsoe for excuse of ther owne their malice and irreligion being so great that like vnconscionable taylers they chose rather to cutte out a Church for Christ of such corrupted stuffe as this then to liue or dye vnreuenged of the Catholique Roman Church And for conclusion I adde that since I haue made manifest by these my reasons that the faith euen of those points of Religion which our aduersaries terme not fundamental is absolutely required to the saluation of euerie Christian soule if euen in rhese particulars onely the Church could erre none could assuredly be persuaded that by makeing them selues members of it they ar in the certaine infallible way to the obteining of eternal blessednes but still should remaine in the like dangerous desperate state they did before they were in the Church of Christ cōsequently by reason of this vncertaintie perill a generall neglect of procuring to enter in to the true Church of Christ would be caused in the mindes of men which inconuenience in regarde it proceedes by inauoiable cōsequence from this distinction broached vsed by our aduersaries it plainely appeeres the doctrine of it is in diuers respect most pernicious damnable as not tending in anie sorte to the reformatiō of the Church as is by them pretended but directely to the ruine destruction of it Deuia sec 3. pag. 45. S. Augustin in the 23. chap. of the 13. booke of his cōfessions affirming that spiritual men must not iudge of the scripture is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey for he meaneth not that spiritual men must not in anie case iudge of the true sense of scripture for that were both false yea repugnant to the doctrine practise euen of the pretensiue reformers them selues who as they can not denye whether they be spiritual or not spirituall vse to read interpret scriptures much more comonly then the Romanists doe yea giue libertie therin euen to those of the feminine sexe or gender But the true obuious sense of that diuine doctor in the cited place onely is that spiritual men must not iudge anie thing contained in the scripture as presently he subioines non rite veraciterque dictum esse that is not to be ritely truelly spoken but submit their vnderstanding etiamsi quid ibi non lucet altou ' some thing be not cleare or perspicuous in it This is the pure syncere sense of S. Augustin as his verie wordes declare And nowe let the impartial reader decide whether it doth not rather militate or warre against the manner of dealing with scriptures which the Nouelists practise then againsts the Romanists how be it I syncerely confesse it directly makes neither against the one nor the other but precisely against such as iudge those passages of scripture to be false or not ritely deliuered
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
not conceiue so basely as once to imagin they will be dangerouslie enamored with his booke but I will cheefelie offer it to the more vulgar ranke of people who by reason of their smaler tallents may more easely be circumuented whom if by conferring the one booke with the other I shall vnderstand they come to be right informed of the trueth I shall hould my selfe sufficientlie rewarded by them as by those whose wauering mindes I onely intend to rectifie by my labors which otherwise for anie matter of substance I finde in the booke I professe I should neuer haue esteemed it worth the paines I haue taken in the confutation of it A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS PERIOD 1. THE proceeding of the Roman Church with the sectaries clered defended from the iniurious impositions of the aduersarie Father Campian other authors ill alledged Where likewise the Romanists are freed from all cause of contention betweene themselues the pretended reformers who are truelie the cause of all dissention in the Church by there Preposterous pretended reformation PERIOD 2. Neyther are there any corruptions in either faith or generally approued manners in the Roman Church Nor anie want of care zeale in the Popes in procuring all necessarie reformation in the Church But the aduersaries abuse of the Councels of Trent Pisa his lyes equiuocations discouered His calumniations against Purgatorie indulgences prayer to Saints reproued PERIOD 3. No true Romanist euer renounced Poperie either in his life or at his death yet some formerly Romanists for desire of licentious libertie other temporal motiues haue apostated from the Catholike Roman Church Witnes Luther Caluin other founders of the misreformed Churches to omit those of smaler note Some cited for Romanists which are not such with abuse of some other authors PERIOD 4. An idle calumnious discourse of the aduersarie foolishly affirming that the Roman Church is hinderd frō reformation by bumane Police reproued PERIOD 5. The irrefragable argument of Catholikes that the pretensiue Reformers cannot assigne a time in which anie one point of the Roman faith was by anie publike authoritie before the dayes of Luther condemned for erroneous maintained fortified against the friuolous euasions of the aduersarie Some Romanists by him impertinently alledged others cited for Romanists which are not such PERIOD 6. The Catholike Roman doctrine cleared in it succession from all touche of heresie But contrarily the pedegree of the misreformers much stained with the same where diuers ancient Fathers are abused corrupted at the least in sense meaning PERIOD 7. The pretensiue reformed doctrine is not proued eytherby testimonie of Romanists or otherwise to haue eyther vniuersalitie or antiquite but conuinced to be quyte voyde of them both And the aduersarie promissing to proue the antiquitie vniuersallitie of his faith by testimonies of Romanists onelie produceth two or three in two or three onely points yet those impertinentlie PERIOD 8. Neyther iustification by faith nor the deniall of the reall presence or transubstantiation or priuate Masse not the dual number of Sacraments not anie vnlawfulnes of communion in one kynde of prayer or seruice in an vnknowne langue of due honor of images or Indulgences proued by testimony of Romanists or by anie other apparent argument but all the aduersarie alledgeth is discouered to be faultie friuolous or forged PERIOD 9. Not one testimonie of Romanists for the certaintie of the pseudo-reformed faith or vncertaintie of the Roman as the aduersarie idlely pretended But diuers of them abused detorted PERIOD 10. No safetie comfort or benefit for the soule but much for the bodie in the pretensiue reformed faith neyther did anie Romanists euer confesse more then this second parte of saftie comforte or benefit to be in the new Religion Where diuers authors are depraued abused by the false aduersarie PERIOD 11. It is conuinced to be absolutelie false calumnious that the Romanists eyther elude or reiect the ancient Fathers but contrarilie esteeme much more of them then anie of the misreformers euer did Where diuers authors are falsely accused abused PERIOD 12. No true recordes euer razed by the Romanists but manie by the false reformers partelie razed partely exauthorized or destroyed With discouerie of some false dealing in the aduersarie PERIOD 13. It is a miere calumnious accusation of our malitious aduersarie to affirme that the Romanists blasphemie the scripture where it is conuinced that the Romanists vse the scriptures with much more reuerence then the Nouellists doe And diuers Catholikes are traduced corrupted touching this matter PERIOD 14. It is miere phrensie to imagin that Bellarmine testifies the trueth of the misreformed doctrine eyther in ihe principal points of controuersie or in anie other point of their newe tenets And the same Cardinal is much abused by the aduersarie in this passage PERIOD 15. Ancient martyrs not pretended but defended to haue shed their blood not for defense of the newe pretended reformation but in defense of the ancient Catholike present Roman faith And the weakenes and folie of the aduersarie discouered in his proceeding PERIOD 16. The Romanists haue no need to drawe any argument for proofe of their Religion from the confession of the sectaries And to treate of this was impertinent to the aduersaries proiect PERIOD 17. It is demonstrated to be plainely false that the aduersarie hath proued by confessions of Romanists that his Religion is safer then theirs And this is founded onely in his owne crasie iudgement fayling miscarying in the verie foundation of his worke APPROBATIO VIso testimonio cuiusdam viri docti mihique de fide doctrina probè cogniti quo testatur hanc Censuram cuiusdam libelli qui inscribitur Viatuta nihil continere fidei vel bonismoribus aduersum sed multa Catholicae religionis dogmata subtiliter explicata orthodoxorumque scripta vindicata diligenter Dignam censui quam ego approbarem Duaci 28. Nouembr 1632. GEORGIVS COLVENERIVS c. Correction of faultes supplie of omissions PAge 60. line 13. reade Church Apostacie p. 114. l. 18. for them reade it p. 116. for be reade were for there formers reade the Reformers p 127. omit real presence l. 134. for sainte reade smarte p. 142. for to dissent reade not to consent p. 154. for to such contrarie reade contratie to such in the same page l. 23. for which is true reade which in his opinion is true p. 155. touching the same matter l. 15. for none of which is contrarie reade none of which abstracting from the institution is contrarie p. 145. for but hath reade but since it the rest were there included hath pag. 156. line 2. for the manner reade the whole intire manner p. 158. for declaredly vniuersally reade so declaredly vniuersally page 226. for the worde of God reade either the vnwritten worde of God in the same p. l. 14. adde althou ' there were no
aut domi concubinam foueat tammetsi graui sacrilegio sese obstingat grauiùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimonium c. Costerus Enchir. cap. 17. de caelib prop. 9. then he who keepeth a concubine at home as Costerus though incompletlie cited and vniustlie taxed by the knigth doth most truelie affirme And this is a certaine knowen trueth among diuines consequent to the prohibition of Priests marriage which prohibition once supposed he that should marrie should not onelie committe a scandalous sinne of the flesh as that Priest doth who should be a Concubinarie but also he should in that case comit a Speciall irreuerence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of it selfe a more grieuous sinne then is the keepinge of a concubine as all men Aug. de bono vide cap. 11. except the reformed brothers doe easilie apprehend conformable to which S. Aug. saith that mariage after a vowe of continencie is worse then adulterie Planè non dubitauerim dicere lapsus ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae nouetur Deo adulterijs esse peâ—ores ibidem To omit that for a Preist to marrie in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it includes also the scandall of Concubinate it selfe But now Sir Humfrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the poynt of merits Lastly saith hee how many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainetie of their owne workes doe relie wholie vpon the merits of Christ Iesus shewe me that learned man that liueth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sounde Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith Thus the knigth who as you may easilie perceiue by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to perswade his reader that all the learned Romanists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man iustified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdome of heauen by the good workes he doth by vertue of the grace of God and merits of Iesus Christ because forsooth many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainelie of their owne workes at their death doe relie wholie on the merits of their Sauiour whereas indeede these are two farre different poynts of doctrine the first that is the trueth of mans merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church the second which is the confidence in merits being none the one being about the substance of merits the other onelie about the qualitie the one about the absolute acknowledgment of merits the other onely about the ouergreate confidence or presumption in them And so he that renounceth the first renounceth Poperie indeede but he that renounceth the second doth not neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would haue him to be for the onelie deniall of confidence in merits as in it selfe it is most manifest By all which because Sir HuÌ„frey with all his diuinitie had not iudgement to distinguish he proueth nothing but doth onelie hallucinate betweene trueth and falsehood Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he alledgeth anie whit auaile his cause for suppose that be true which he affirmeth of him to wit that in his sicknes he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt Gods Iudgment his owne sinnes yet caÌ„not he thence inferre that therefore the Bishop renounced the trueth of the doctrine of merits in generall nay nor his owne merits in particular but onelie the presumption of them or the confidence in them by reason of the vncertainetie of them as I haue alreadie declared Besides that this which he is affirmed to say of himselfe being but onelie a relation of Fox we may iustlie doubt of the trueth of it For he hath bene long since hunted to his hole by a learned Catholike and his vnright Reuerence manifestlie conuinced to be a Father of lyes Wherefore he is of no credit with vs neither can his testimonie preuaile against vs. We care not for him his acts and monuments are of no moment among vs his testimonie is not the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of a Romanist which is that our aduersary promised in the title of his booke and we expect he should performe and to omit the smale credit which I and all Catholikes giue to the relations of Master Fox yet I fynde that he who hath dealt so falsely with others hath now founde one of his owne profession who dealt not verie sincerelie with him in recounting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardiner at his death for whereas Sir Humfrey will needs proue by the testimonie of Fox that this Bishop renounced Poperie at his death in the pointe of merits yet Fox in his 2622. page onelie saith thus That according to the reporte of one whome he will not name perhaps he could not when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to conforte him great comfort I warant you with wordes of Gods promisse and free iustification in the blood of Christ our Sauiour repeating the scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my lord quoth he will you open that gap now then farewell altogether to mee and such other in my case you may speake it but if you open this window vnto the people then farewell all And now according to this speech of B. Gardiner let the iudicious reader imagin if he can how Sir Humfrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrarie to wit that altho ' dayes wordes might be vttered to him others of learning and vnderstanding without danger of peruersion but not perhaps to the coÌ„mon people who by their ignorance and frayletie might easilie misinterpret them as he did that vttered them and so easilie receiue harme by them not withstaÌ„ding that they of themselues in a founde fense include nothing but truth The knight also citeth to the same purpose yet to no purpose Bellarmine in his sixte booke of Iustif 7. chap. and his testament or last will Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholy on the merits of Christ Iesus But this according to that which hath bene already said of this matter is at the most but onelie a renuntiation of presumption or ouermuch confidence in our owne vncertaine merits as is most apparent out of Bellarmines owne doctrine euen in the verie same chapter where the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey are found thoug much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwardes I will declare Now in the second place the wordes are these I beseech him that is God saith Bellar that he would admitte me into the companie of his Saints and elect not as a valluer of merits but as a giuer of mercie which wordes if the knigth had not bene ouermuch distracted he
and Emperours being so much more powerfull as they are knowen to bee then the Pope and Clergie should condescend to a matter of such indignitie as the knight would haue it and so much to their cost if they did not otherwise assure themselues both of the integrity of those who meete in those assemblies and also of the trueth of the doctrine in it selfe Besides that the same is manifestlie conuinced of falsitie for that prayer for the deade and consequentlie Purgatorie was knowen in the world before eyther Pope or Councells were extant as appeareth by the historie of the second booke of the Macchabies the 12. chapter which our aduersaries themselues cannot denie to be a true historie though they impudentlie denie it to be Canonicall Scripture against the plaine testimonie of S. Augustine who affirmeth the Church to hould it for such though the Iewes hold the contrarie Libros Machabeorum non Iudaei sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet Aug. l. 18. de Cuit Dei cap. 39. So that this is but an odious fiction of Sir Humfrey and his companion sectaries inuented by them in disgrace of the chiefe pastour of the Church and the rest of the Priests without eyther authoritie reason or sence accusing them as hinderers of reformation who labour most for it onelie because they refuse to admitte a reformation of their fashioning which indeede is no reformatiō but a deformatiō or defacing of the aunciēt Church an introductiō of a certaine new fantasticall Church most disfigured and vglie vniformiter difformiter deformis voyde of all luster beauty both internall and externall nor euer knowne or heard of before the dayes of Luther His second vntruth it in the end of the 39. page where he affirmeth that the Romanists in the psalters leaue out the second cōmaundemēt This secōd vntruth of the knight inuolueth a double vntruth the first is in that he saith the Romanists leaue out the foresaid commaūdement in their psalters whereas it is well knowne that in the whole Psalter the second cōmaundemēt is not to be foūd at the least formally as it is one of the ten But this vntruth because I perceiue it proceedes rather of ignorāce thē malice I am cōtent to pardon Yet because when he said the Romanists lefte it out of their psalters he either meant they lefte it out of the text of Scripture or that they left it out of their catechismes onely I āswer that whethersoeuer he meant he cānot be excused for telling an vntruth first because he falsely supposeth for certaine that to be the second commaundement which indeede is but an explication of the first in the opinion both of S. Augustine and either all or almost all other diuines of later yeares Secondly because those same authours who hould those same wordes Thou shalt not make to this selfe any grauen image to be the second commandemēt doe not hould that the Images of Christ and his saints and due honour of thē are prohibited by that precept among Christians but onely a gentilicall or idolatrous vse of pictures or grauen images of false Gods and other such abuses as be repugnant to the due honour of the true and onely God Lastly it is also false that all Catechismes leaue out that precept if precept it be as appeareth by the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent and of Canisius and some others So that you see now that the knight is euery way conuinced of an vntruth And although it is true that in diuerse of their Catechismes the Romanists leaue out all the rest of the first commaundement as they lie in the text of the 20. of Exodus excepting those Thou shall haue no other Gods but me Yet they doe not so with any sinister intention as the reformers vniunstly accuse them to doe in regard it is well knowne that those who vse to instruct children in their Catechisme notwithstanding they vse not to fill childrens heads with such proclamations against grauē Images as the reformers doe yet they neuer omitte to declare and explicate exactly the whole tenour of the words of the commaundement inculcating most diligently the true sense of the same and teaching them how farre it is true that images and the worshippe of them in prohibited by that precept the difference betweene the vse of Christian images and those which according to the practice of those times were vnlawfull But the true reason why Romanists most commonly omitte those wordes Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing and the rest is because Catechismes being onely a short summe of Religion it is fitting they be most briefe and compendious as being so more easy to learne and more conformable to the capacity of children then if they were large and prolixe in wordes especially considering that that which wanteth in wordes may farre more easily be added by the master by may of cxplication then many lines can be cōmitted to memory by weake and vnapt schollers Neither doe the Romanists make catechismes for Iewes and Gentiles but for Christians and Catholiks and so it were both superfluous and impertitinent to put in all the wordes of the text or more as the reformers doe some of which doe belong rather to the law of moyses then to the Ghospell of Iesus Christ and therefore for the verie same reason the Romanists leaue out of their Catechismes diuerse words of the precept of the Sabaoth as iudging them vnnecessarie for the instruction of Christian children As also because according to the doctrine of S. Augustin in his question vpon this commaundement those onely words Vide illum infra in fine op Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me are the whole substance of the first commaundement and the same in sense with the other which immediatly follow in the text to wit thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing by which grauen thing S. Augustin in the same place vnderstandeth an idol not any grauen image as the reformers doe corruptedly vse to translate and commonly put it so in their Catechismes for the false instruction of their children And hence it plainely appeareth that the Romanists leaue not out of any of their bookes of Christian doctrine anie of the ten commandements but rather that the reformed brothers put in one more then either according to Scripture or the doctrine of S. Augustin they ought to doe as by the true diuision and number of them at the end of this worke shall the be more manifestly declared Thirdly it is vntrue which he affirmeth though by way of insinuatiō onely that the Romanists doe adore a piece of bread For it is well knowne they adore not the bread but that which christ himselfe affirmed to be his body for which adoration besides the scripture we say with S. Augustin nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit Aug. in ps 98. and so this though Sir Humfrey as it seemes was ashamed to vtter it plainely yet it
secret Apostacie it is much more friuolous then all the rest you haue brought for the proofe of your purpose in this section And although perhaps you shewed no small subtiltie in it as you thought yet is it in it selfe a most ignorant piece of doctrine for that not onelie the common and vsuall sense of the worde Apostasie but the verie etimologie of the same worde which signifieth a defection or discession doth demonstrate that the thing signified by it must be a much more externall and publike action in it selfe then heresie vsed to be and so that which is ordinarilie and vulgarilie called Apostasie must be publike and not secret and therefore when anie errour comes to that degree of malice as it may truely be called Apostasie in this sense it must of necessitie be knowne and consequentlie it is such as cannot be kept secret but may be most easilie discerned yea much more easilie then anie heresie how publike soeuer it bee as being an aggrauating circunstance of the same And thus we see that for the knight to yeeld a reason why the errours of the Roman Church could not easilie be discouered because they were secret Apostasie is both most absurd in itselfe and also inuolueth a contradiction in regard it includeth that a thing may be Apostasie that is a thing of it owne selfe publike and yet remaine so secret that it cannot be discouered Neither is that which Sir Humfrey farther addeth in the same place lesse absurde to witt that secret Apostasie worketh warelie and closelie in the tyme of Darkenes when the seruants of the husbandman are asleepe for if all Apostasie as it is commonlie taken must be publike as I haue showed how can it then truelie be said to worke in darkenes or by night or how can the seede of it be scattered at vnawares to the seruants of the husbandman certainlie except the seruants be so sluggish that they sleepe both nights and dayes moneths and yeeres yea and manie hundreth of yeeres together naye and all the daies of their life they cannot but discouer the tares of Apostasie which is not euer in seede as the knight falselie supposeth but is the increase or rather full growth it selfe or yet rather the ouergrouth of the crop of heresie which is truelie the seede of it From hence the knight proceedeth to the second parte of his section in which he endeauoureth to shewe vs an vndeniable trueth as he termeth it that some opinions were condemned in the Primatiue Church for eroneous and superstitious vhich now are established for articles os faith in the Roman Church And for this his position he produceth an instance out of S. Augustin lib. de moribus Eccles Cath. cap. 34. in which place he complaines that in his tyme the ruder sort of people were intangled with superstition euen in the true Church I my selfe saith he know manie that are worshipers of Images and sepulchers whom the Church condemneth and seeketh euerie daie by correction to amend them as vngratious children Thus farre Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustin To which I answer that this place of S. Augustin hath bene so often obiected by the moderne sectaries that it is worne quite thred bare with handling and I persuade my selfe that all the Catholike authours that euer writt of controuersies haue sufficientlie answered it if it came in their way Neuerthelesse least Sir Humfrey should thinke himselfe neglected by me Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti vt obliti sint quicquid promiserint Deo Aug. supra I answer first that S. Augustin complaineth in this place of certaine gentillicall errours and abuses in the adoration of images and sepulchers then practised in the true Church by some priuate ignorant and vitious persons who without distinction either of the one or the other did worship the tombes and pictures of all sortes of people Secondlie I answer that S. Augustin in the place cited speaketh not of anie generall doctrine taught in his tyme touching the adoration of pictures but onelie of some superstitious abuses in the practise of the same and so also in this respect the obiection is impertinent I answer thirdlie that suppose there were some particular persons in the tyme of S. Augustine guiltye either in the manner of their worship of pictures or in their doctrine cōcerning the lawfullnes of the same doth it thence therefore follow that Catholikes are guiltie also of the same crime or is it consequent that that honour which Catholikes graunte to the pictures of Christ and his Saincts is iust the same with that which Saint Augustine mentioneth No suerlie For as there may be abuse committed in the due honouring of pictures so there may be also lawfull vse in the due adoreing of them and so it is cleere that it is no true manner of argument or true consequence to collect so Those people whom S. Augustin reprehended for adoring of pictures in his tyme did worship images reprehensiblie But the Romanists doe also worship images therefore the Romanists doe worship images reprehensiblie This I say were it in anie figure yet is it a captious forme of argument containing a manifest fallacie or equiuocation in the minor by reason of which the Sylogisme concludeth nothing Now vpon the foresaid wordes of Saint Augustin Sir Humfrey addeth a descant of his owne in which he comits diuerse faults First in that he saith that although S. Aug. did note some people of his time for superstitious worshippers of images yet did hee neither name the authours of that errour nor sheweth the tyme when it began tacitlie intending hence to inferre that neither are the reformers bounde to assigne the names of the authours of those errours which they attribute to the Roman Church nor yet the tyme of their defence of them But this inference of the knight is no conclusion at all for that the case of S. Augustines tyme which is the antecedent of the foresaid illation of the knights is farre different from the case of the reformers as well for that S. Augustine speaketh of an errour which happened in his owne daies as Sir Humfrey confesseth and perhappes by such persons as he could not name without preiudice of their fame as being such as practised those superstitions so priuatelie that they were not knowen to more or at the least not to manie more then himselfe after which manner preachers do vse to reprehend vices of persons knowen vnto them and yet name them not as also and chiefelie because S. Augustine was neuer demaunded of them in particular or anie other waye vrged to declare their names None of all which circumstances occurre in the case betwixt the Reformers and the Romanists and so out of the wordes of S. Augustine which be the Antecedent of the knights argument no true consequence can be deduced against the Romanists In has autem sanct as ac
definitum numerum sacramentoū statuerunt Cass p. 951. To the like purpose or rather to no purpose he citeth also Gregory de Valentia saying that it doth not appeere when the communion in one kinde beganne which saying of Valentia is most true his meaning is that the custome of communicating so is so auncient that it hath no knowne beginning and consequentlie it hath bene euer in the Church of God since the time of Christ and his Apostles and by them practized And therefore Valentia addeth prefentlie after to that purpose that euer from the beginning of the Church ther hath beene some vse of the Eucharist vnder one kinde as he hath showed before Which wordes as makeing plainelie against him he was content to omit So that this testimonie either proueth nothing to the knights purpose or els more then he desires as also want of honest dealing in the citation of it To omitte that when that manner of communion first began in the Church is no article of the Roman faith The same authour is also once againe cited by Sir Humfrey for that in the same place he affirmeth the foresaid manner of communion not to haue bene generallie receiued but a little before the councell of Constance which is no more to the purpose then the other allegation or scarse so much For this and some other testimonies which he citeth page 60. at the most doe but onelie proue that some of the points of doctrine or rather of practice onelie of the Roman Church were not declaredlie knowen and definede successiuelie in all differences of times since the establishment of the Gospell which the Romanists do not denie though they knowe it is a point impertinent to the matter heere in question which is not whether the Reformers can showe a time when the tenets at he termes them of the Roman Church were not certainelie knowne or generallie receiued but also cheefely whether they were erroneous and then if such they were when they were first publikelie knowen and by what authenticall Councell they were condemned Which points because Sir Humfrey hath proued neither of them neither by the testimonies of the authours he cites nor by any other forceable proofe he hath failed of his purpose and promise and no way recouered the reputation in this section which he lost in the former but rather hath much increased his discredit and consequentlie the censure falleth more heauilie vpon him then it hath done before To the testimonie of Scotus aboute transub I will answer in an other place THE VI. PERIOD HEere Sir Hūfrey from a diuine is turned Herold and promiseth the Romanists he will shew them their Pedegree in faith drawne downe from the auncient heretikes and contrarilie the pedegree of his owne faith drawne from Christ and his Apostles So that heere you see the knight hath vndertaken a large peece of worke and how he will be able to performe it I know not It is a double taske and therefore I doubt he will not go through with it without double dealing And I suspect this the more for that he saith he will proceede ordine retro grado that is as I conceaue he will imitate the Crabbe in going backward and therefore I can expect no better of him then a crabbed piece of busines He saith he will performe his worke by ascending vpward but indeed his proceeding is so preposterous that a man can find neither ascent nor descent it it For he begins which lattine seruice as he calleth it and prayer in a straunge tongue the beginning of which he attributeth to Pope Vitalian about the yeere 666. And ends with the restraint of mariage of Priests which he affirmed in the 60. page in his former section not to haue bene altogether established till the time of Gregory the seuenth and so according to this he doth not ascend but descend and yet more then this in the middle of his section he treateth of transubstantiation as first decreed in the Councell of Lateran about foure hundreth yeeres agoe and thus you see one cannot conceiue that he eyther ascendeth or descendeth directlie but rather that he skippeth vp and downe like a mad man without anie order at all but now I will cease to seeke order were none is to be sound and come to the examine of the particular passages of his pedegree He endeauoureth to proue the Roman faith to descend from auncient heretikes first because they teach prayer in an vnknowne language not to be vnlawfull as saith hee Epiphanius affirmeth of the heretikes Osseni in the first age But to this I answer that S. Epiphanius is heere abused by the Knight for he censureth not those people of heresie because they held prayer not to be vnlawfull in an vnknowen language as Sir Humfrey falselie and ignorantlie affirmeth but for other errours of theirs which the same Epipha relates and confutes in his 19. heresie Neither doth he onelie affirme the Osseni to teach there was no need to make prayer in a knowne tongue as Sir Humfrey imposeth vpon him to the end their errour might some to agrree with the doctrine of the Roman Church in this particular Quibus porro vorbis inanibus vocibus postea in ipso libro decipit cum cum dicit nemo quaerat interpretationem sed solum in oratione hoc dicati hac ipsa nimirum ex Habraica lingua transtulis velut ex parte deprehendimus cum nihil sint ea quae imaginatur iubet enim dicere Abar Anid Moib Nochile c. but he further chargeth Elxai the cheefe prophet of that sect that he deceiued men with idle friuolous and strange wordes containing nothing of that which he imagined and commaunding his followers to praye in this manner Abar Anid Moib Nochile c. adding that they should not seek for anie interpretation of them which forme of prayer neuerthelesse holie Epiphanius doth not so much condemne for the strangenesse of the wordes as for the obscuritie and deformitie of the sense as appeareth by his wordes here quoted in Latin All which is farre different from the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point which neither in sense nor wordes vseth anie other prayers then such as are conformable to that originall prayer which Christ him selfe appointed his disciples to vse Neither can Epiphanius with anie showe of probabillitie be thought to haue condemned them for heretikes for that which he knew neither to be contrarie to Gods worde nor anie definition of the auncient Church either before or in his time And as for that which the Reformers commonlie allege out of the fourth to the Corinthians and first epistle I say that if the same Epiphanius had vnderstood it as written against such like prayers infalliblie he would haue alledged the place against those heretikes But he well knew that the Apostles meaning was not to condemne prayer in what language soeuer it were but onelie to preferre prophesie before straunge
quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant To which might be added the Councels of Lateran sub Inno. 3. cap. firmiter the florent decreto de Purgatorio and the late Councell of Trent Which all teach the same doctrine of merits as our aduersaries cannot denie to which also might be ioyned all those are testimonies of aūcient Fathers who teach that faith onely doth not iustifie nor is sufficient to saluation by all which its manifestly conuinced that the doctrine of iustificatiō could not be openly protested against both before and after the Conquest by the Preists and professours of England except Sir Humfrey will persuade vs that the faith of England in those times was different from the faith of all the world beside and euen of those who directly sent preachers for the conuersion of it from gentilisme and superstition all which being wholely incredible so by necessary consequence is the whole discourse grounded thereupon Secondly I answer that its manifest out of the words cited by the knight out of the booke of the forme of administration of Sacraments vsed in those times supposing the booke is authenticall which neuerthelesse may be suspected as being being onely produced by Cassander a suspected authour there is not any word sentence or sillable which excludes from saluation those merits which the Roman Church defendeth but onely such merits as either exclude pressely exclude the merits of the passion of Christ and therefore the question which according to the order of that directory the Priest maketh to the sick person runneth in this tennour Doest thou belieue to come to glorie not by thine owne merits but by the virtue and merits of the Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ which interrogation as you see manifestly containeth an opposition betwene the merits of the infirme man and those of Christ and for that cause he calleth them his owne as being wholy wrought by his owne naturall power without the concourse of the merits of our Sauiour consequently in that sense of no force or vertue for the obtaining of saluation That which is yet more manifest by the like question insuing made also by the Preist to the same person in this manner Doest thou belieue that our Sauiour Iesus Christ did die for our saluation And that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his passion where you see the opposition still runneth and especially heare more clearely betwixt mans owne merits or other meanes which proceed not frō Christs Passion but from some other cause not including or depending vpon them as the principall agent of all meritorious operations And verily I am persuaded that the reason why in those daies in those occasions the formes and speach where somewhat different in the matter of merit from the formes vsed in our times is no thing els but the differences of errours reigning in the worlde in those times and those that are now at this present defended by the nouellists For the Pelagian heresie which did attribute ouer much virtue to the merits of man hauing once beene and perhaps some requikes of it yet remaining verie rife in Englād whē the foresaid directory was vsed if any such there were or at the least not lōge before it was necessary that in all occasions humane merits should be as much extenuated as could possible be without preiudice of faith in that point But contrarilie in these our daies since the publication of the errours of Luther and other sectaries in this matters it was conuenient if not necessary to extoll the same merits as much as could be without preiudice to the merits of Christ Now touching that which is added in the second parte of the knigts assertion videlicet that the Preists of former times preached saluation through Christ alone it is most plainely equiuocall and in one sense it is true and conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church in all ages but in another sense it is false and disagreable to the same it is true that Christ alone is the authour of saluation and that no other then he can saue vs according to that of the Apostle Sainct Peter Act. 4. non est in alio aliquo salus Nec enim aliud nomen est sub Caelo datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos saluos fieri Neither is there any other name vnder heauen giuen to men wherein we must be saued and in this sense and no otherwise the Preists of England in more auncient times preached saluation by Christ alone yet notwithstanding all this it is false that those Preists preached saluation with an exclusion or deniall of the merits of man wrought by the grace of Christ and by virtue of his death and Passion neither was such doctrine euer taught either in England or any other place before the time of Luther except it were by some more aūcient heretikes Moreouer that which the knight putteth in the second parte of his foresaid assertion to wit that the Preists of those times published and administred the same Sacraments in the same faith and trueth which they meaning the reformers teach administer this day this I say is partelie equiuocall in that he saith they publike professed administred the same Sacramēts For tho' it were true that two of the Sacraments which those Preists administred videlicet Baptisme the Eucharist be the same which there formers administer at this day yet it is false that the foresaid Priests did the vse in their time either to professe or administer two onelie as may appeare by the same rituall out of which S. Hūfrey draweth this testimonie in which all the seauen Sacraments are contained and appointed to be administred if the booke be perfectly published without corruption Partelie also that same parte of the assertion is false for that it is manifest the foresaid Preists did not receiue those two which the reformers hould for Sacraments in the same faith which they doe for as much as the Priests mentioned receiued those two in the faith of fiue other Sacramēts which also they beleiue to be such as well as the rest supposing that the number of all the seuen Sacraments were then in beleefe and practice as much as now they bee as both the rituall cited if it be not corrupted and also the histories of those times can testifie of which fiue Sacraments neuerthelesse the reformers haue no such faith as they thēselues cōfesse To say nothing of the faith of those same Preists in other points of religion which as it is certaine by the relation of historiographes was farre different from the faith of the reformers and practice of their Churches and consequentlie it cannot with truth be said to be the same And as for the rest of the words which the knight citeth out of the same rituall they proue nothing against merit it selfe but onelie against confidēce in proper merits as appeares by those wordes in particular place
Maldonate the Iesuit affirming that he confesseth Saint Augustin in the doctrine of transubstantiation to be wholie theirs citing the foresaid Maldonat's words vpon the 6. chapter of Saint Iohn the 5. verse For the same which although they be truelie rehearsed by the knight yet haue they no such sense or meaning as he doth either ignorantlie or malitiouslie suppose nor doth he treate in them either of the reall presence or transubstantiation but onelie of the exposition of the wordes of the foresaid verse Patres vestri manducauerunt Manna mortui sunt qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum Making a question whether in them there be made by Christ a comparison betweene the seuerall persons that did eate or betwene the seuerall kindes of breades which they did eate And whereas Maldonate citeth Saint Augustine and others to follow that opinion which houlds the comparison to be betwixt the eaters he with other authours who liued since the tyme of S. Augustin reiecting that as lesse probable more neere to the exposition of the Caluinists leaueth it so and imbraceth the contrarie and in this point onelie and in this manner doth Maldonate persuade himselfe that Saint Augustin as a most greate enimie to heretiks would haue bene of another mynde if he had liued in these our daies and seene his owne exposition of the foresaid wordes come so neere the glosse of the Caluinists And this being all yet our learned knight is so curious an Alchimist that he will needes drawe out of Maldonate by arte that he confesseth S. Augustin to haue bene wholie for the reformers in the doctrine of transubstantiation and also that which is further fetched that the Romanists haue neither antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine But alas his worke hath succeeded so vnfortunatelie that insteede of gould he hath extracted drosse I meane that in lieu of one single trueth he hath vttered a double lye falsifying most shamefullie Saint Augustine and maldonate both at once and with in the space of a verie few lines And the like Circulatorie and circumuenting tricks the knight also vseth in the citations of Alfonso de Castro Gregorius de Valentia and Cardinall Cusanus As if they did testifie that there is no antiquitie nor vniuersallitie in the Fathers touching the doctrine of transubstantiation where as in deede they haue no such matter as appeereth euen out of the verie same wordes which he citeth in this place Castro onelie affirming that there is seldome mention of the transubstantiation of the bread into the bodie of Christ in antiquis scriptoribus in the auncient writers not in the auncient Fathers as the knight doth falselie translate And that which is yet much falser he translates conuersion for transsubstantiation where it is also to be noted that Castro speakes there onelie of the worde transubstantiation not of the thing signified by the worde as is euident by his other wordes which presentlie fellowe saying thus Who but an heretike will dare to denie these things because they are not mentioned in auncient Fathers vnder such names So that both Castros wordes and sense are grosselie corrupted by Sir Humfrey Valentia onelie affirmeth that it is not to be marueled if one or two or some of the auncients not Fathers as our aduersarie yet somat more corruptedlie then before traduceth before the question of transubstantiotion was throulie debated in the Church haue tought lesse consideratelie and lesse weigtilie of this matter In which wordes the knight also translates palam throulie for openlie and leauing vnmentioned the other ansers which Valentia giues to the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret vpon whose occasion he speakes in that manner Haec ergo tam multa tantorum virorum testimonia satis esse debent vt ostē damus Luthero transsubtiationem non esse nouā nec trecentenariam vt ipse asserit sed multo vetustiorum nempe ab ipsis Ecclesiae primordijs proditam Castro li. 6. haer 5. f. 178. and yet further omitting the conclusion of the sentence to wit maximè cum non tractarent ex instituto questionem as also other wordes which follow to the same purpose Cusanus lastlie saith no more but that certaine of the auncient diuines if we may giue credit to the knight not heere citing his wordes are found to be of this minde that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantiated in nature but still remayneth and is clothed with another substāce more noble then it selfe In which wordes as you see whatsoeuer those innominated men and as it seemes vnknowne to Cusanus himselfe whatsoeuer I say they did hould touching the trueth of transubstantiation yet certaine it is that they were not Caluinists in the point of the reall presence as plainelie appeereth by that noble substance which they held to clothe the bread after consecration which doubtlesse could be nothing els but the most pretious and noble bodie of Christ which the reformers denie to be present in the Sacrament This therefore is all that the cited authours affirme And to omitte that none of them vseth the name of Fathers as the knight would haue them translating and transforming the wordes scriptotes veteres and antiqui Theologi or the like into Fathers or at the least citing the foresaid authours as if they spake planiely of the auncient fathers which neuerthelesse their wordes doe not showe I say to say nothing of this which though it is a trick to deceaue the reader yet it is so poore a one as it cannot much aduantage his cause And to admitte that by those formes of speech the foresaid moderne authours meane the auncient Fathers yet doth not this argue want of antiquity or vniuersallity of the Fathers in that pointe in regard it is not required to the argument of antiquitie that all auncient Fathers in all ages none excepted agree in the pointe for which that kinde of argument is vsed especiallie before the matter be sufficientlie declared determined by the Church in case of doubt or opposition of heretikes or otherwise but onely it is required and sufficient that the most parte of them doe consent therein the rest not obstinatelie contradicting the same or carrying themselues at least indifferent according to the aduise of Vincent lyr Contra prophanas haeres nouit saying that si in ipsa vetusttate discrepantes sentētias reperiamus sequamur sententiam plurium illustriorum Doctorum That is if in antiquitie it selfe we finde different opinions let vs followe the opinion of the more famous Doctours And this is therefore true because that if such methaphisicall antiquitie vniuersality were necessarie for all points of faith noe Church in the world could truely be said to haue antiquitie and vniuersalitie in all points of doctrine or to haue beene alwaies Catholikes it being a thing manifest that not any Church either is nor was nor euer will be so auncient and vniuersall as that ail and euery one of the auncient
I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authours true sense in which I was forced to inlarge my selfe more then the substance of the matter required the more plainelie to discouer vnto him the fraude of the aduerfarie both in detorting the sense and mangling the tenor or continuation of the text of this most Catholike and renowned Prelate Moreouer Sir Hūfrey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par q. 75. ar 7. as also the Romā Cathecisme at randome as affirming that the substance of the bread remaines till the last worde of the consecration be vttered But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long souer the substance of the bread remaines if at lenght it ceaseth as they both confesse they both agree with vs Romanists and not with the nouellists in the faith of transsubstantiation so professedly that it was more then ordinarie impudencie and madnes once to mentione them for the contrarie Now for cōclusion of the secōd paragraffe of his 9. section Sir Humfrey affirmes in his 115. p. out of Bell and suauez that manie writers in our Roman Church professe the tenet of transsubstantiatien was lately receiued for a point of faith Which affirmation neuerthelesse is not iustifiable but false and calumnious to the authours he cyteth for it videlicet Scotus Durand Tunstal Ostiensis and Gaufridus Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce supposing Erasmus whome he likewise alledgeth is no Romanist in much of his doctrine in what faith soeuer he ended his life of which I am not able to iudge yet none of these Romanists I say euer affirmed the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be no point of faith as I haue aboue sufficiently declared in my answer to euerie one of their testimonies in particular And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alledged by our aduersarie as affirming Scotus to haue said that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not dogmafidei a decree of faith before the Councell of Lateran the other as aduising to haue him and those other schoolemen corrected who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not verie auncient I professe I haue diligentlie read Scotus in this matter and I sinde he onelie saith that what soeuer is auerred to be beleeued in the Councel of the Lateran capite firmiter is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemne declaration yet he in no place hath this negatiue transsubstantiation was not a point of faith before that Councel not obstanding our aduersaries allegation to the contrarie out of the Cardinal who if he conceiued right of his whole discourse could not iudge Scotus to haue absolutelie denyed transubstantiation to haue beene a point of faith in it selfe as Sir Humfrey will haue it but at the most quoad nos or in respect of our expresse and publike faith of the same For that some of Scotus his owne wordes plainelie importe that trāssubstantiatiō is included in the institution of the Eucharist howe be it it was not explicitly or expresselie declared for such in all ages before the solemne declaration as he termeth it made in the Generall Councel of Lateran The wordes of Scotus to this sense and purpose are these Scot. d. 11. q. 3. ad ar Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis That is For it was not in the power of the Church to make this the point of transsubstantiation true or not true but of God the institutour And according to the vnderstanding deliuered by God the Church did explicate it directed as it is beleeued by the spirit of trueth By which ratiocination or discourse of Scotus it is most cleare and apparent that the point of transsubstantiation was in it selfe a matter of faith euer since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ in regarde that it being now a point of faith it must of necessitie in substance haue beene ordained for such by God himselfe for that it is not in the power of the Church to make but onelie to declare and propose to beleeuers the articles of Religion And according to this I say that suarez sauing the due respect I owe vnto them both had yet lesse reason then Bellarmin had concerning Scotus to taxe the same Scotus and some other diuines as if they had tought that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is not verie auncient For neyther Scotus as his wordes which I haue related doe testifie nor anie other approued diuine of the Roman Church doe vse anie such manner of speech or at the least haue no such sense in their wordes as euen by all those their seuerall passages which our aduersarie could alledge doth manifestlie appeare How be it some of them haue not omitted to say that the worde transsubstantiation hath not beene auncientlie vsed in the Church but eyther inuented by the Fathers of the Lateran Councel or not long before or at the most that there haue beene some in the world of a contrarie opinion to the trueth of transsubstantiation in itselfe which altho' we Romanists should graunt to be true yet doth it not argue anie noueltie in the doctrine but rather the nouellitie of some fewe extrauagant wits as heretiks or corrigible Catholikes in opposing the same which otherwise was generallie maintained by the rest of the Orthodox diuines in all succeeding ages the antiquitie of which doctrine euen those same authorities which the same Scotus himselfe professeth to be produced by him out of S. Ambrose Scot. d. 11. quest 3. §. quāt ergo to the number of 11. doe euidentlie conuince yet further adding that manie others are alledged cap. de consecrat and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better haue spared to passe their censures in that manner vpon anie Catholike diuines supposing such reprehensions serue for little or no other vse then to aforde our aduersaries the nouelists newe occasion and matter of contention without eyther necessitie or conueniencie of which the present fact of Sir Humfrey lind euen in this place doth alreadie yealde vs some experience In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might haue saued the labour for that the Romanists hould him absolutely for none of theirs as in like manner neither doe they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which neuertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though onely by waye of omission howbeit in this particular Erasmus onely affirmeth that it was late before the Church definde it which is not contrarie to the certainetie of the doctrine in it selfe but onely a superficiall relation of the time when it was declared expressely for a matter of faith or infalible trueth in
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
intention of the minister in administration of Sacraments they are so ignorant sotish as I ame ashamed to rehearse them for example when he sayth that if the Preist fayles in his intention at the tyme of solemnization of matrimonie the maried people liue all their dayes in adultrie or fornication which is a most grosse errour in the knight for that the Romanists the reformers agree in this that altho' Matrimonie were no Sacrament consequentlie that the maried people should not receiue it as a Sacrament yet were it sufficient to free them from adulterie in regarde they receiue it at the least as a ciuill contract whatsoeuer the Preists intention bee And if it were not so certainely all sectaries of this time particularilie Sir Humfrey himselfe for one should liue perpetuallie in that damnable state of adulterie which he mentioneth And yet this sequele I am sure it importes him to denie as earnestlie as he can if it be but onelie for the conseruation of his owne his wifes honour And the like foolish false inferences he makes aboute all the rest of the Sacraments as also aboute the succession of the Popes pastours of the Church as if by the confession of Romanists themselues there were no certaintie in anie of them whereas yet he himselfe citeth Bellarmin in this verie place as teaching that in all these things there is at least morall sufficient certaintie of their reall existaÌ„ce truth Certitudine autem moralem humanam quae sufficit vt homo quiescat ex SacrameÌ„tis habemus etiaÌ„si pendiaÌ„t ab intentione alterius Bel. de Sacr in genere li. 1 c. 28. So that all these deductions are voyde of all seÌ„se reason trueth meerlie framed by the knight out of the superfluitie of his braine obtruded vpon his reader as confessions of his aduersaries in a peremptorie odious manner in disgrace of that Church whose doctrine he is not able to impugne in anie more substanciall manner In a semblable fashion doth he also prosecute the like captious kinde of argument against diuers other points of the Roman doctrine as for Example because he findeth in Biel Peter Lombard that they speake not with anie certaintie of the manner how Saints doe vnderstand the prayers of their supplicaÌ„ts he inferreth that the Romanists are vncertaine touching the doctrine of inuocation of Saints it selfe which neuerthelesse is a most false illation for that although there be some vncertaintie in what manner or by what meanes the Saints doe come to knowe our prayers by reason of the diuers opinions of diuines in that particular yet as well those who Sir Humfrey citeth as also all the rest of the Romanists agree and hould for certaine that Saints are piouslie profitablie to be inuocated prayed vnto all without exception teaching inculcating the same expresselie in their bookes writings Gabriel Biel is so plaine for the doctrine of the Roman Church that if the knight had not corrupted him both in wordes sensc he could not haue alledged him with anie coulorable pretense For in the verie precedent lection to that which he cites against vs. Biel resolues the question in our fauor saying Whence it is apparent that our prayers hope of obtaining beatitude by the mediation of the Saints are not voyde in Heauen but by order constituted by God himselfe we ought to recurre to their helpe assistance perpetuallie implore them with due veneration that we may be saued by their merits In which wordes the rest following I am sure there is sufficient to make the author a plaine Papist yea much more then Sir Humfrey desires to heare in fauor of the Roman doctrine so it is cleare he hath corrupted his sense And nowe for his wordes he hath likewise corrupted them most peruerselie by displaceing tranferring them from one purpose to an other For these wordes non est certum per omnia By which Biel ansers onelie to that question whether it pertaines to the accidental Beatitude of the Saints to heare our prayers which question as you see is onelie aboute the manner or qualitie of the Saints vnderstanding our petitions not of the maine substance he respondes Non per omnia certum est It is not altogether certaine And yet Sir Humfrey applyes this as if Biel had said that it is not certaine that the Saints heare our prayers at all Yet further connecting vnto the same those other wordes vnde probabiliter dicitur Which he also soma't Insincerelie Englisheth it may seeme probable rehearsing them in one series or tenor whereas yet they are vttered by their author manie lynes after to an other purpose where ansering to the question before proposed he said thus Vnde probabiliter dicitur c. Whence it is probably said that altho' it doth not necessarilie followe the beatitude of the Saints that they heare our prayers by congruitie yet God almightie reuelles vnto them all that is offered vnto them by men All which particulars concerning the corruption of this place by the guilie knight may more plainelie be perceiued in the author himselfe then I can possible here expresse As for the Master of sentences Scotus in the 45. d. of the fourth booke altho' perchance they seeme to one that reades theÌ„ superficiallie not to speake with certainetie of the inuocation of Saints yet to the anttentiue reader it appeares clearely they both suppose for certaine of which they frame no disputation that the Angels Saints heare our prayers that we lawfullie profitablie praye vnto them of which points it is most vndoubtedlie to be supposed that those two authors could not be ignorant nor maintaine the negatiue parte in regarde the publike letanies in which the inuocation of Saints is expresselie included were vsed in the Church long before their dayes as histories so commonlie testifie that I need not produce them Besides that the writings of the ancient Fathers whose sentences Peter Lombard professedlie collected as much as was for his purpose of which Scotus could not be ignorant are full of the same doctrine as in our Catholike Controuertists may easily appeare to the reader And therefore whereas the Master vses the wordes non est incredibile scotus probabile est they speake not eyther of the absolute inuocation of Saints or of our prayers vnto them of which neyther of them proposes the question but they applye those wordes to the manner onely of their vnderstanding our intercession And therefore the Master puts the title of the question thus Quomodo Sancti glorificati audiunt preâ—es supplicantium Magister in â—it quaest â—… 45. in 4. â—…ent quomodo how or in what manner or by what meanes doe the Saints heare our prayers how they interced for vs vnto our Lord To which he ansers it is not incredible that the Saints which in the secret of the face of God inioye
sinne all punishment due vnto it as martyrs doe Thirdlie I answere that S. Augustin speaketh there onelie of those two places to which all soules are finallie destinated and to one of which generallie speaking for the most parte euerie one presentlie passeth yet as there is no rule so generall which doth not admit exception so doth this generall sentence of sainct Augustin include those onelie who dye in either of those states which he mentioneth in that place that is either absolutely in such good workes as presentlie deserue paradise or els in such ill workes as presentlie deserue the paines of hell yet it admitteth an exception in others who passe out of this world in neyther of those two states but are of those whome the same S. Augustin in an other place calleth nec valde bonos nec valde malos or mediocriter malos mediocriter bonos Enchyr. c. 110. lib. de cura pro mot cap. 1. Neyther verie good nor verie euill and of whome he also meaneth when in his first booke of care for the dead he sayth non dubium est orationem prodesse defunstis it is no doubt but prayer is profitable to the dead which speaches hee would newer haue vttered if hee had euer denyed the faith of Purgatorie that this is S. Austins true sense it is plaine in regard it was sufficient for his purpose in that place whose intent is onely in generall to persuade to virtue good lyfe that when men come to die they may be found in state rather to go presentlie to heauen thē to hell to which purpose of his because it was impertinent to mention Purgatorie therfore he passed it in silence wher as yet in other places where it cometh in his way he doth not omit it Lastely I aduertise the reader of the smale fidelitie which Sir Humfrey vseth in the citation of this place of S. Austin traslating those words pro meritis bonis for his good merits his good works flying from the worde merit out of his Puritānicall spirit as a beare doth from the ring Frō hence Sir Hūfrey passeth to proue the vncertaintie of Indulgēces honour of images by the testimonies of the Romanists but the trueth is none of them proue anie vncertainlie amōg the Romanists touching the substantiall points themselues for all the authours which he citeth here for this purpose doe vniformelie consent in both those particulars of exhibition of honour to images aboute the power lawfullnesse of the vse of Indulgences as wee haue showed before And onelie ther is some vncertainlie in that which is not determined by the Church as for example how farre Indulgences are extended aboute the begining of the practise what maner of honour is due to images the like which questions are out of the subiect of this section the title of which is if Sir Humfrey remembreth of the certainlie of the reformers faith vncertainlie of the Romish faith not of such disputable questions as the Romanists in the cited places speake of Wher also it is to be noted by the way that the kinght ahuseth S. Thomas first in that he affirmeth him to teach that the image of Christ is to be adored with diuine honour For although it is true that S. Thomas sayth that seeing that Christ is adored with adoration of latria it is consequent that his image is to be adored with adoration of Latria neuerthelesse the same S. Thomas addeth afterwardes non propter ipsam imaginem sed propter rem cuius imago est meaning that altho' both Christ his image be adored with the same externall action of diuine honour which he calleth adoration of Latria yet is not the Latria it selfe or diuine honour in spirit truth attributed or exhibited to the picture but onelie to Christ himselfe by reason of his diuinitie which diuinitie as S. Thomas knew it not to be truelie reallie in the picture so knew he also that diuine worship ought not to be giuen to the same not as much as by accident but onelie that the externall adoration or externall action of Latria or the matter of it was so to be exhibited to the image that the formall parte ther of that is the affection of the mynde ought wholelie to be cast vpon Christ himselfe represented by the same Secondlie I say that the knight abuseth S. Thomas in that he calleth him the founder of image worship whereas yet he himselfe had cited the seuenth Synod immediately before which vseth the same terme of adoration and that which is more the foresayd Synod is alledged by Sir Humfrey in another place for the authour of idolatrie which neuerthelesse was celebrated some hundreths of yeares before Sainct Thomas of Aquin was borne And altho' this doctrine of his is some what obscure in the termes which he deliuereth it soundeth harshelie in the eares of the common people yet as it is true in the sense he speaketh it so may it also be so explicated by pastours preachers that euen children themselues may be capable of it especiallie if first they be tould in generall that no picture is to be honored by it selfe without relation or reference to the prototype or thing it represents or for itselfe that whensoeuer they exhibit anie act of honour towardes an image they must withall fixe their mynde affection vpon that onelie which it representeth referring the whole action finallie lastelie not to the picture but to the thing pictured euen as they doe who bowe or make courtisie to a man whome they salute honour by touching his garment as the fashion in some places in which action of honour altho' the exterior signe is directed as well to the apparell as to the man him selfe or rather more immediatelie to the apparell then to the person yet the internall affection of the saluter is settled vpon the person onelie where finallie it stayeth remayneth An so it is in the worship of the images of Christ his Saints in which there is no more daunger or showe of idolatrie then there is danger of excesse of ciuill reuerence towardes him whose garment is honored in the manner before described And according to this if Sir Humfrey his blynde mates had but light of vnderstanding to conceiue it they should not need to feare anie danger of idolatrie in the Romanists tho' they were neuer so ignorant or simple but those might more iustlie feare spirituall idolatrie in themselues who doe so much adore the Idol of their owne priuate spirit that they will not yeald to the iudgement of the most vniuersall Church and to those who are both farre more in number incomparablie farre more learned religious then all the impugners of honor due to the images of Christ and his Saints And yet vpon supposition of this same false idol of his owne conceite that all kynde of reuerēce done to any kynde of image
the saddle for S. Bernard speakes not directlie of merits but of cōfidence in merits which we Romanists graūt to be vnsafe by reason of the vncertaintie of them in this or that particular man In an other place the same S. Ber. sayth he duelleth in the woundes of our Sauiour with more saftie which saying we graunte also to be true in the highest degree but what is this to the denyall of true merits grounded in the mercie grace of God of which the same S. Bernard sayth in an other place indeuore or procure to haue merits but when thou ' hast them acknowledge that thou hast them giuen thee merita habere cura habitadata noueris And the trueth is that by reiecting the counsell of holie S. Bernard in this particular the reformers commit a most pernicious errour in regarde that by houlding all merit of man with God impossible they come to neglect the exercise of virtue those good workes in which both merit doth consiste without which the Kingdome of Heauen is not obtained which doctrine howe domageable it is to the Saluation of soules let the indifferent reader consider Sir Hūfrey cytes also frayer walden whome he most falselie affirmeth to agree with the Protestants in the doctrine of merits For as appeareth by those same wordes which he citeth here he doth not denie all merit as they doe but at the most such a kynde of merit in particularie that is that no man simpliciter simplie meriteth the Kingdome of Heauen which merit yet he doth not absolutelie denie but onelie sayth that no man can merit it but by the grace of God or will of the giuer which are his owne expresse wordes as they are rehearse by our aduersarie and in a sounde sense doe not differ a iot from the doctrine of other diuines In fine he doth with the rest of the Catholike diuines expresselie teach that the good workes of the iust performed by the grace of God are absolutelie meritorious of the Kingdome of Heauē yet he is opiniō that the words ex condigno congruo are not to be vsed in which he differeth in deed from the opinion of most diuines but not from the Roman faith which standes not vpon those termes but onelie vpon true merit as may be seene in the Councell of Trent ses 6. Can. penult p. 48. Which Councell vseth not those tearmes but onelie the wordes vere mereri that is to merit truelie And consequentlie fryer walden agrees with the Councel of Trent but not with Sir Humfrey and his precise brothers who flie the verie name of merit as deuils flie the Crosse And to descend to a more particular discussion of fryer waldos meaning touching the doctrine of merits of which the knight subtillie contendes to make him a flat denyer I say in primis waldo in the place cyted by Sir Humfrey disputes against Wiclef who thought such confidence in proper merits that he seemed to exclude the merits of Christ his saints And therefore speaking of his peruerse tenet he sayth thus Maledicta ergo doctrina Wiclef quae potius confidere iubet in merito hoc proprio vt Christi Sanctorum videatur excludere quam in oratione humili pro Christi gratia That is Maledicted or cursed be the doctrine of Wiclef which rather commaundes to confide in merit that proper so that it may seeme to exclude the merits of Christ his Saints then in humble prayer for the grace of Christ Now this Kynde of confidence in merits as our aduersaries themselues can witnesse if they please is not anie parte of the Roman doctrine but rather we Romanists concurre with fryer waldo in his approued cursse Yea we are so remote auerted from the doctrine of Wiclef in this point from teaching such confidence euen in true approued merits that we cantelously aduise the members of our Church as the safer way not to relie vpon them but vpon the mercie of God as in an other place I haue more largelie declared More hauing most attētiuelie read his seueral treatises vpon that subiect I plainelie perceiue that religious zealous defender of the Roman doctrine against Wiclef did onelie reiect such merits as either excludes or at a the least preferres not the grace of God before them or admits not grace as the foundation of merits For touching merits founded performed by the concourse of Gods grace fryer waldo absolutelie grauntes both in this same chapter cited by our aduersarie where he mentiones both the merits of Chtist his saints particularlie of Sainct Paule in these wordes Whence it is that neyther the Apostle did applie anie thing to his owne merits but by premitting or preferring the benefits of God according to the psalmist saying Because he would so haue me As also more clearelie in his tenth Title 98. chapter where he most professedlie defendes against Wiclef the verie participation of merits especiallie among religious persons Which doctrine of participation of merits necessarilie supposes a graunt of merits themselues as common sense doth easilie apprehend Not to let passe that some of the authours owne wordes in that same place euidentlie conuince the same to be true For that thus he questiones his aduersarie cur merita non ijs partimur quos reddimus bene meritos nostris meritis Why doe not we parte merits with them whome we make well merited by our merits By which wordes waldensis appeares to be so cleare from denial of merits maintained by the Roman Church that he rather heapeth merits vpon merits in defense of the same And in the 8. chapter of his first Title he speakes most expresselie euen of merit of eternall life saying Sed noueriut vitam aeternam dari nobis pro meritis si cum meritis ipsis numeremus gratiam sine qua nec ipsa sunt merita quia nec Dei dona But let them knowe sayth walden that eternal life is giuen vs for merits if with merits we number grace without which neyther are they merits because they are not the giftes of God And by this it further appeares most manifestly that those wordes of waldensis alledged by Sir Humfrey with which he makes his florish to wit I repute him the sounder diuine more consonant to sacred scriptures who simply denyes such merit in reallitie ar not for his purpose in regarde that ther is not in them anie denyal of that merit which the Romā Church defines appooues no not the merit of eternal life but the author of them onelie reiects from the desert of eternal life tale meritum that is merit as it is signified by those tearmes de condigno And de congruo vsed among diuines both in his time at this present from the vse of which according to his priuate dictamen it were more conformable both to diuinitie the scripture to refraine to the end as he after addes they might by the auoyding of those
termes be founde both to accorde better with the former saints he meanes the ancient Fathers of the Church with the phrase of the Apostle saying 1 Cor. 3.5 sufficientia nostra ex Deo est our sufficiencie is of God As also for that in respect of the grace of God they might be founde more disagreable as in their doctrine so in their manner of speech from the Pelagians wiclesists who as the same walden saith either conceile or denie the grace of God wholely confide in the merits of men Qui gratiā Dei vel tacent vel abnegāt in meritis hominum omnino cōfidunt Ibid. so you see that all the controuersie which fryer walden hath with our Roman deuines is onelie a boute the vse of those two phrases meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo as persuading the foresaid diuines that when they dispute of merits they neuer silence the grace of God but either expresse grace not merits or else preferre grace before meritis and as he saies in Latin exprimentes gratiam silentes de meritis aut gratiam meritis praeferentes All which is but questio de nomine a nominal or verbal disputation or aboute what manner of speech may seeme most fit to be practised in this point for a voyding offense in the heares yet walden those same diuines vniformelie according in the substance of the doctrine of merits themselues as I haue said once before And so now let this be sufficient to declare vnto the reader how farre out of square our Crosse aduersarie hath detorted the true sense of this religious diuine to make him seeme to teache according to his owne newe diuinitie in the matter of merits I confesse I haue inlarged my selfe much more then the matter requires if otherwife I had not considered how much it importes in all occasions to daunte the audaciousnes of a presumptuous aduersarie who by making most plausible vse of that is least for his purpose maintaines the smale reputation of his owne newfashioned religion cheefelie by the ruines of other mens honor not sparing this his owne renowned contriman indeuoring by indirect meanes to make him speak against his owne faith conscience among the rest of which I could not possiblie be insensible but was obliged euen according to the rules of natural affection to labore to cleare him of such a foule iniurious aspertion But now I come to a conclusion where yet the reader if he please may further take notice of some other more triuiall abuse offered to this same famous diuine by the sliperie knight by leauing out the aduerbe igitur in his translation of the Latin in to English which in reason he ought not to haue omitted in regarde it necessarilie implyes a relation or reference to the authors former discourse in which he argues against merit without mention of grace of which he speakes in his subsequent wordes tale meritum c. alledged by Sir Humfrey in a cōtrarie sense to his meaning Besides this the same Sir Humfrey hath not a little transposed some of waldens wordes in his recital of them in English Connecting to these or will of the giuer those as all the former sants vntill the late schoolemen the vniuersal Church hath written Which neuerthelesse he ought to haue set immediatelie after those other which followe in the authors text to wit inuenirentur esse discordes they might be founde disagreable But because in deed I doe not perceiue it could much importe our aduersarie to proceed in this manner therefore I charitablie persuade my self it was not done of malice but rather of ill custome Lastelie Sir Humfrey produceth Bellarmin for the safety of his way in this same point But he that should haue read his fift booke of Iustification would iudge that man fitter for Bedlam or Bridwell then for the schoole of diuinie that would offer to cite Bellarmin against the doctrine of merits The wordes meaning of him I haue declared in an other place so hould it in diuers respects superfluous to repeate them He cites also S. Austin out of chemnitius as it seemes as saying I knowe not where for he quoteth not the place that he speakes more safelie to Iesus tutius iucundius loquor ad meum Iesum But what is this to the purpose of denying inuocation of Saints For besides that this comes onelie out of a iuglers bugget so may iustelie be supected for false wares yet admit S. Austin sayth so what Romanist is there who doth not say the same yea practise the same daylie in their prayers While they acknowledge with all submission humilitie that all their saftetie conforte of conscience proceedes from Iesus as the fountaine of their Saluation as the conclusion of all or most Catholike prayers demonstrate Yet not so but that they may crye also vnto his freindes seruants as being more neare allyed vnto him both in place fauour merits then we our selues that they interced mediate for vs for the obtaining of that which wee our selues are not worthy either to obtaine or craue at his hāds Which kinde of inuocation of Saints S. Austin himselfe doth approue in diuers places as tract 84. in Io. Ser. de verb. Apost de cura pro mart cap. 4. And so these being all the authors which Sir Humfrey hath produced in this section I will conclude the censure of it in this manner That whereas he promised in the begining to shewe the greater saftie of the Protestant faith then of the Roman by the confession of the Romanists themselues he hath shewed no saftie at all but onelie trifled in the wordes meaning of his aduersaries doctrine that onely in some fewe negatiue articles of his faith omitting all the rest so he hath performed iust nothing which may serue for the demonstration of anie way at all much lesse of a safe perfect way but onelie hath brought him selfe his reader further into the laberinth of his wandering wits THE XI PERIOD IN his 12. section Sir Humfrey tells his reader that the Church of Rome doth seeke to elude the recordes reall proofes in the Fathers other learned authours touching the cheefe points in controuersie betwixt vs. This accusation no doubt maketh a foule noise in a pulpit but let vs see how the knight will be able to iustifie it For his first witnesse he produceth S. Chrysostome Hom 49. operis imperf where it is sayd that the Church is knowne onelie by the scriptures But first the verie title of the treatise showeth this testimonie to be of smale authoritie as being opus imperfectum an vnperfect worke so it ought not in reason to be admitted for a sufficient proofe especiallie considering that Sir Humfrey alledgeth no other witnesse yet on the contrarie wee knowe that our Sauiour sayd In ore duorum aut trium testium stet omne verbum in
saying that he seeth not how the foresaid authours can be excused from errour in that particular for that the Cardinall onelie condemneth them in that which the reformers themselues according to reason sounde doctrine ought to condemne also that in no question of Controuersie betweene vs them nor which can iustelie preiudice the foresayd Fathers authoritie in other matters especially in which they all agree Lastelie sayth Sir Humfrey we produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin To which Salmeron the Iesuit quoth hee ansereth that weake is the place which is drawne from authoritie But first I aske of Sir Humfrey what he his consorts haue to doe with the immaculate Conception For that is no Controuersie of faith betwixt the Romanists them it is a question among some Romanists them selues lawfull for either side to make the best vse they can of the testimonies of Fathers either by imbrasing them or expounding thē in that particular point as they finde them most aduantageous for the defence of their seuerall opiniōs so farre as the Church permits thē that without any disparishmēt to their authority in regarde their wordes are not so plaine but that they may seeme to admit diuers expositions in that particular And as for Salmerō he neither speaketh of the Fathers in generall when all or most of them consent in a matter of fayth nor yet when they plainelie agree in anie other point of doctrine but onely when they speake doubtfullie or obscurelie this I say vpon supposition the place of the foresaid authour is truelie cited which in regarde I haue taken the knight so often tardie in that Kynde of proceeding I may vnrashlie suspected And the truth is that hauing now viewed the place in the booke which is in the 51. Disputation of Salmeron vpon the 5. to the Romās I finde that he speakes not of the vniforme consent of Fathers or Doctors but onelie of a certaine great number of thē to which he opposeth an other as great as he supposeth yea greater therefore he addes Quare si authorum numero decertare velint meaning the opposers of the immaculate conception of the Virgen procul dubio absorbebuntur So that this author is abused iust as I did coniecture before I sa his booke And altho' I can not much commend Salmeron for anie great ingeniousnesse in his application of the shepards sentence yet sure I ame that if he applied it not verie aptelie you Sir Humfrey applie it much worse more absurdelie And thus hauing nowe examined all the particulars of this section hauing founde nothing which proueth the authours intent I will end my period yet noting by the way how vanelie Sir Humfrey concludeth his discourse affirming his reader to haue heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the behalfe of the Protestant doctrine made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues which notobstanding is all false meere delusion for that I haue made it clearelie appeare that neyther anie Romanist by him cited hath graunted that anie one of the Fathers doth teach anie point of Protestant doctrine nor yet that they speake in those places here cited of the cheefe points of doctrine in Controuersie but contrarilie it appeareth that they speake onelie either of other matters which little concerne the Catholike faith or at the least they speake in an other sense then the reformers pretend yea that which is more remarkable not with vniforme consent but rather fewe or at the most two or three in one matter in which manner of proceeding what argument soeuer may be deduced from them it is no more trulie to be iudged called the testimonie of the Fathers absolutelie then that may be called absolutely the testimony of the reformers in which neuerthelesse onelie some fewe of them yeald their testimonies yet that but in some particulars those no principall points of faith And as for this complaint which Sir Humfrey maketh so formallie of the elusion of the proofes recordes of the Fathers as also touching that which he in like manner frameth against the Roman Church for her prohibition or censure of bookes I wonder with what face he can reprehend that which he knoweth to be so much practized in his owne Church in which there cannot the least pamphlet or smalest volume come forth which if it doth but seeme to cōtradict anie parte or point of the English faith or anie other point of Puritanimse is not presentlie ceased vpon by a pack of Pursuiuants put to the tortor of the Consistoriall assemblie there to receiue sentence of condemnation by virtue of which it seldome scapeth the flames of Vulcan Of which in parte is witnesse Doctour Mountagues latelie published booke which by reason it sauored a little of some points of Romanisme by an expresse Apeale euen to Cesar himselfe could not be saued from the seuere censure of the Puritan sinagoge And particularlie touching the authoritie of ancient Fathers if it were a faulte in the Romanists to call in questiō some passages or sentences of some of their writings where they iustelie suspect them to haue ben corrupted by heretikes Surelie the sectaries of these tymes are much deeper plunged in this nature thē they are in regarde that vnder the breight colour of reformation they doe not onelie vse to reprehend particular passages but reiect whole bookes that not onelie of the most ancient Fathers as appeareth in the Hierarchie of sainct Denis but also whole bookes of the scriptures themselues as is manifest in the bookes of the Machabies others which they vtterlie renounce condemne for Apochripha not sparing the booke of wisdome it selfe such cruell patrons they are of ignorance and of want of diuine knowledge Nay now of late they are be come so precise in this their spirituall tyranie that in their last editions as I ame informed they haue quite banished the foresaid bookes of Machabies Tobie Iudith wisdome Ecclesiasticus out of their bible To omit other bookes of lesse moment which they haue eyther mangled or left quite out of their editions as in the Inquisitors Index may be seene So that nowe the reader may plainelie perceiue that Sir Humfrey his pure simmists are so farre from excuse for their importune complaint of the Romanists in this particular that we may iustelie compare them to those Phariseis who could sooner see a mote in their fellowes eye then a beame in their owne And so here I leaue them all to be censured for hypocrites by Christ himselfe passe to the next section THE XII PERIOD THIS Period shall containe an other accusation of the knight in which he chargeth the Romanists with the crime of razing the recordes of the reformers clipping their owne authours tongues by which sayth he they are conuinced of an ill cause cōscience But how falselie the Romanists be accused by Sir
Eucha c. 24. Sixtlie touching the confession of Bellarmin aboute the duall number of proper Sacraments we haue alreadie shewed him to be quite opposite to the reformers doctrine also haue examined the same place which Sir Humfrey citeth here and founde the sense of the Cardinall to haue ben egregiouslie by him transuerted corrupted so here is no confession of anie principall point of controuersie made by him in fauour of his aduersaries but a new repetition of an old imposture of the knights owne making Lastelie the knight citeth two places of Bellarmin The first out of his 3. booke of Iustification the 6. chapter is touching the reformers faith good workes which he affirmeth Bellarmin to confesse But what a ridiculous allegation is this For it is true Bellarmin confesseth in the place cited that the reformers hould faith repentance are requisite to iustification that without them no man can be iustified but this is no principall point of controuersie nay no question at all betwene the Romanists the reformers but onelie a point of doctrine which the reformers doe commonlie teach the Romanists doe not denie So that this is impertinentlie alledged out of Bellarmin for faith good workes since that in the wordes cited out of him there is not one sillable of good workes but onelie of faith repentance as the reader sees But yet that which is most absurde of all is that Sir Humfrey haueing here cited Bellarmins confession that the reformers hould both faith repentance to be required to iustification yet presentlie after he citeth the same Bellarmin as concluding with the reformed Churches iustification by faith onely so that within the compasse of one page the knight out of the profunditie of his great head peace resolueth in fauour of his owne cause out of Bellarmin both that without a liuely faith an ernest repentance no man is iustified also that according to the doctrine of the reformed Churches mans iustification is by faith onelie Let the reader if he be able couple these two together but if he can not let him hould for certaine that Sir Humfrey line was farre out of quare when he vttered such disparates Now the second place of the two laste is touching iustification by faith onelie But this hath ben examined before founde to containe no confession of iustification by faith onelie as the knight will haue it vnaduisedly contradicting himselfe out of an inordinate desire to make Bellarmin seeme to stand for the doctrine of his Church but onelie that Bellarmin speaketh there of confidence in merits according to the sense aboue declared And thus Sir Humfrey hauing cited all he can which all neuerthelesse is iuste nothing he addeth for all this that he wondreth why the Romanists should send out such Anathemas curses against all or anie of those that denie their doctrine But I wonder more that he who hath produced nothing either in this chapter or in the rest of his booke out of Catholike authours which in his sense meaning doth not rather deserue to be hissed at then to be admitted for anie proofe of his doctrine yet should not be ashamed to affirme that the best learned of the Romanists confesse that manie principall points of their owne religion manie articles of their faith are neither ancient safe nor Catholike And suerlie I can not conceiue but that both he who soeuer els should vse so much false dealing as he hath done in propugning their owne tenets especiallie in matters of religion deserue the Anathema in the highest degree that curse being the proper brande of the defenders of erroneous hereticall or scysmaticall doctrine And indeed it seemes Sir Humfrey had not verie great conference in the industrie which he hath vsed in this his worke For notobstanding it appeareth manifestlie that he putteth the greatest streingth of his proofes through out his whole booke in the multitude of authours especiallie Romanists whome by way of emendication or begerie he alledgeth as confessers of his faith yet he here flyeth to the little flock to the paucitie of beleeuers to the simplicitie of babes as to speciall caracters of the true Church vtterlie disclaming from humane wisdome power nobilitie a pore refuge after so manie great boasts bragges of the victorie obteined as he imagineth but falselie by meere authoritie multiplicitie of testimonies piled vp both in text margin now to plead paucitie simplicitie want of power wisdome And as for your paucitie in number Sir Humfrey I will not stick to graunt in regard that how great a shewe soeuer you haue made to the contrarie yet I knowe you to be most pore beggerlie in that nature but yet I denie that to be a speciall infallible marke of the true Church as you insinuate no more then the paucitie of Manicheans or Donatists was a marke of the truth of their Churches And the same I say of the want of might wisdome nobilitie I meane of true power wisdome nobilitie for of power wisdome nobilitie of the flesh you must needs haue much more then the Romanists in regarde it is well knowne you both handle eate farre greater quantitie then they doe witnesse your little abstinence the rest which modestie causeth mee to passe in silence And touching your simplicitie except by simplicitie you meane plaine ignorance you haue no colour here to bragge of it for that there was neuer flock in the world in my opinion so full of all sortes of duplicitie as your owne Neither hath anie man greater reight to be a sheepe of that fould then the noble knight Sir Humfrey who out of the abundance of his double dealing euen in this place to say nothing of that which is paste hath made choise of as false fallacious markes of his owne Church as he hath calumniouslie fained markes for ours to wit counterfeit miracles which neuerthelesse wee disclame from detest more then he and all his consortes And if they will needs medle of these matters let them reflect vpon their Master Caluin how faine he would haue confirmed his newe Gospell with a forged resuscitation of a pore man who by his instructions fained death but the false Prophet fayling of his purpose committed a murder in steed of a miracle The knight saith further that we beleeue lyes But I say that he doth not onely beleeue them but makes them as appeares by this his pamphlet in which as we see ther is great store In Deut. 14. We doe not deny with Lira but that some times in the Church there may be great deception of the people among the Preists in fained miracles but these miracles if anie such ther be are in the Church in the Preists onely as Lira discretely insinuate not approued by the Church the Preists or their companions for lucre as the false knight iniuriously affirmes most corruptedly omitting in his
translation of Lyra's wordes both the worde aliquando in the begining also the end of his sentence to wit Lyra in c. 14. Dan. talia exstirpanda sunt à bonis prelatis sicut ista extirpata sunt à Daniele De ciuit l. 2. c. 8. And we yet further affirme with S. Augustin that he that seeketh to be confirmed by miracles nowe is to be wondered at most of all himselfe in refusing to beleeue what all the world beleeueth besides himselfe But in those wordes S. Augustin doth not deny but that true miracles may be in the Church nor yet that they were not in his time Lib. 22. c. 8. for in his bookes de Ciuit. he affirmeth expressely that Christian doctrine not onely in the begining but also in the progresse of the Church was confirmed by miracles as besides other places the very title of that same chapter rehearsed in my margen makes appeare to which these his wordes in the discourse following plainely agree De miraculis quae vt mundus in Christo crederet facta sunt ficri mundo credente nō desinunt Tit. c. 8 li. 22. For saith S. Augustin euen at this present time miracles are operated or done in his name in the name of Christ either by the Sacraments or by the prayers memories of his saints And the same S. Aug. in the same place further relates one famous miracle in particular done at the bodie of S. Geruase Protase in Milā where he himselfe remained at that present time And by this it is euident that S. Aug. in the other place produced by Sir Humfrey onely condemneth him whoe for want of miracles should refuse to beleeue to which we Romanists most willingly agree And by this it appeareth that S. Augustin is here impertinently alledged by the knight But the trueth is that because these companions haue no miracles in their owne Church they striue by all meanes possible to obscure the miracles of the Church of Rome crye out like Bedlames ther is no need of miracles And now to come to a conclusion of this section the censure of it I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey what is all this discourse of miracles to the purpose of testifying his doctrine by the confession of Bellarmin surely nothing at all I persuade my selfe the knight was mightly distracted when he penned it and so I leaue him till he returnes to his more perfect senses THE XV. PERIOD SIR Humfrey playeth the parte of a Charlatan so farre that he is not content by his prestigious trickes sleights to laie clame to ancient Fathers moderne Romanists for confessors of his owne faith but also out of the groasenes of his education in this section he presumeth to laie his greasie handes vpon those holie primatiue martyres champions of Iesus Christ ingrossing conueying those sacred wares into his owne stincking store-house which neuerthelesse all ages all Christian people all nations haue till the dayes of Luther proclamed testified to pertaine to the renowne glorie of the Roman Church And altho' he would seeme to proue that the foresaid prime martyrs doe not belong to the Church of Rome yet his cheefe proofe is but prating an idle application of his owne tenets alreadie examined confuted in their seuerall places where they haue ben all founde either plainelie false or at the least equiuocall founded vpon false suppositions vpon which no true argument can be framed which being so I may iustelie saue labour to descend to particulars yet one onelie wil I specifie which is so shamefullie impertinent that it is sufficient alone to shame the rest He sayth therefore that Father Garnet being demaunded whether if he were to consecrate the Sacrament that morning he should suffer death he durst after consecration affirme vpon his Saluation that the wine in the cup consecrated was the verie blood of Christ which flowed from his side he made ansere it might iustelie be doubted This is the wise storie which Sir Humfrey telleth vs out of Bishop Andrewes which altho' wee are not bounde to beleeue as being iustified onelie by our aduersaries yet suppose it is as true as their Gospell it maketh not anie thing for this purpose for that Sir Humfreys taske in this place was not to medle with martyrs of these later ages but to demonstrate that those ancient martyrs of former ages did not die for that fayth which the present Roman Church professeth so what soeuer he or his Prelate can faigne of Father Garnet is but a fooles boult which flying at randome cometh not neare the marke Father Garnet sayth hee durst not pronounce openlie ouer the cup after he had consecrated it this is the bloud of Christ ergo neuer anie martyr did take it vpon his death that the consecrated bread is the corporall reall flesh of Christ Behould I praye this most subtill Logike of a knight admire it Or if you list rather laffe at it as I did when I founde it out so I lefte it without anie further confutation imagining that perhaps Sir Humfrey lōg before he was borne did miraculouslie speake with some of those ancient souldiers of Christ so came to knowe that none of them euer gaue their liues for the reall presence Which in deed is the point in question not whether a man can lawfullie pronounce vpon his Saluation whether this or that hoste in particular after consecration containeth the bodie of Christ as the knight captiouslie supposeth But yet shewing vs some more graines of his follie he sayth further that it is vndoubtedlie true that the ancient martyrs could not dye in that fayth nor for that religion which was altogether vnknowne to their church O ingenious gētilman but yet I pray tell me if the fore sayd martyrs dyed not for the Romanists religion because as you faigne they dyed not for the profession of the reall presence For what religion did they dye Suerlie not for yours because if our religiō was vnknowne vnto them much more was yours vnknowne to their ages which was not in the world before the daies of Luther except perhaps your 39. articles were knowne vnto them by extraordinarie reuelation before they were coyned It is true here we haue Sir Humfreys ipse dixit for confirmation of his tenet so it must needs be doubtlesse his authority is so excessiuely great Sir Tho. Ouerb in his caract of a Puritā or Precisian And so I graunt the hypotheticall to be most true And me thinkes it is not much vnlike to an other such like position of the Puritans who vse to say it is vnpossible for a man to be damned in their religion so a facetious Protestant confesses for certaine as long as heliues in it but if he dyes in it ther 's the question Wherefore since all is but trifles that Sir Humfrey bringeth I wish the reader of his booke to consider with himselfe
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
Romanists make the husband the spouse the head the bodie of the Church This man is so full of falsity vntruth that it seemes his whole liuing is by lyeing I am perswaded he hath had his breeding in brasen faced College where impudency vntruth are the cheefe lessons in the schooles And heere the kinght hath in a manner gone beyonde if not beside himself in that faculty For I finde no lesse then there lyes euen with in the narrow limits of the title of his section nay there is not any one part or parcell of it true by which alone althou ' the reader might make a strong coniecture of the rest yet will I giue him an instance or two in particular which doubtlesse will quite conuince his iudgment of the authors knauish dealing In his 502. page now at last saith he they haue made him meaning the Pope the whole Church in so much that some are not ashamed to professe that the Pope may dispense against the Apostles yea against the new testament vppon good cause also against all the precepts of the old This lye is so exorbitant monstrous that it seemes he who made it doubted it would not be taken vppon his owne bare word wherfore he fled to the authority of his frend Iewell whome he quotes in the margent to make it more authenticall as if that famous Father of false dealing could sufficiently supply all that which in that nature is wanting in himself But I hope the iudicious reader will register them both in one predicament giue no more credit to the one then the other but send them togeather to the whetstone Another instance I giue the reader out of the 504. page where the knight chargeth Bellarmine to teach that if the Pope should so much erre as to command vices forbid virtues the Church were bound to beleiue that vices are good virtues euill vnlesses she will sinne against her conscience It is true the Cardinall hath the same wordes which Sir Humfrey cites hitherto but yet he vseth most dishonest double dealing in regare that if he had either rehearsed the whole place intirely as it lieth in Bellarmine or else had veiwed his recognition he might easily haue found the authors true meaning to be not that in generall euery matter all occasions but onely that in doubtful cases in things not necessarily good or ill of themselues in matters indifferent such obedience is to be giuen to the Pope least otherwise men should proceed against their consciences therfore saith he Si Papa If the Pope should command that which is cleerly knowne to be a vice or should prohibite that which is cleerly knowne to be a virtue then we ought rather to obey God then men And so we see that taking away the imposture cousinage of the kinght there is nothing in Bellarmines doctrine that may either iustly offend the reader or that makes for the purpose heere intended of prouing that the Pope ought to be obeyed whether his doctrine be true or false as our aduersary doth falsely calumniously affirme All the rest which the knight hath in this section is onely sophisticall fopperies crackes of his crazed braine abusing the doctrine of diuers Romanists framing such sense to their words as cōmeth neerste to his owne purpose is farthest from theirs so falsely fathering it vppon them confounding the faith of the whole Church with matters disputable in opinion he concludes discourse of all which let the reader consider whether the Romanists or he himself rather be not in the by-way he hath fallaciously framed for his aduersaries Sec. 20. In the section followeing which is the 20. in order he affirmes that the Church which he saith is resolued finally into the Pope hath neither personall nor doctrinall succession neyther in matter of faith nor fact It appeeres by the knights proceedings in this whole section that he hath met with his greatest enimie against whome he vseth all his art cunning hoping to haue the mastrie by striking most stronglie at the head that is the Pope whome to make his bloue the fuller he feignes to be the whole bodie like a venemous spider gathering poyson from the fragāt flowers of the Roman doctrine spits the verie quitessence of it against his sacred person Yet a great part of his matter is but loathsome inculcations of that which he hath a hundred times repeated which haue binne as often anseared by my selfe others But because his importunitie is so great I will giue the reader a taste thou ' I confesse it is most tedious vnto me to eate so often of the same Crambe The knights cheife plot in this place is by confronting the doctrine of the ancient Popes not onelie in matters of fact but of faith also with the moderne doctrine of the Roman Churches Popes he beginnes with priuate Masse sayeing that Pope Anacletus did decree that after consecration all present should communicate according as the Apostles set downe the Roman Church then obserued Now this Sir Humfrey compareth with the doctrine of the late Councell of Trent which determines vnder paine of excommunication that Masses in which the Preists alone communicates are not vnlawfull or to be abrogated as if this decree were contrarie to the other which directlie it is not for that althou ' the wordes of Anaclet doe shewe the common custome of his time yea of the Church of his time notwithstanding they also insinuate that the contrarie had binne practised at the least in some places to haue binne that all present at Masse did de facto communicate yea that those that did not should be put out Yet in regard the Councell of Trent doth neyther denie nor dissallowe of that custome nay rather expreslie desires the continuation of it but onelie defineth that such Masses as are celebrated without more communicants besides the Preist are not to be condemned abollishhed as the clamorous sectaries of our daies doe contend it is more then euident that there is no contrarietie to be founde betweene the one the other nor more then if the same Councell had defined that those Communions are not vnlawfull or not to be condemned in which infants are not admitted to receaue the Sacrament notobstanding the custome was in the primitiue Church to admitte them To omitte that Sir Humfrey is verie ignorant in the doctrine of the Roman Church if he knoweth not that althou ' in matters of faith there can be no chaunge yet in matters of manners alteration may be made so that according to diuersitie of times places persons that which once hath binne practised yea commanded by one Pope Councell at one time may be otherwise practised in another that without anie preiudice but rather with great profit in some cases to the vniuersal Church which doctrine because the knight wanteth eyther witt or will
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
being one of the newe reformers as is the spirit of humilitie frome the spirit of pride and contempte which is the onely guide of all those whoe reiect and impugne the Roman doctrine in all points of controuersie Finally in those wordes cited by Sir HuÌ„frey out of Gersons Apolotgeticall dialog wheras the author speakes in the case of scisme when the true Pope was not certainely knowne and cheefely of one particular point to wit of the condemnation of that proposition a tyranne may be lawfully killed by priuate authoritie or by anie priuate man the deceitfull knight soe applyes the wordes as if Gerson had generally dispared of the reformation of the Church and the more easily to persuade his reader he omittes the wordes hac tempestate and those rebus vt sunt manentibus Gersons wordes truly rehearsed are these video quod in doctrinis quae religionem quae bonas salubres respiciunt mores vix inuenietur in hac tempestate rebus vt sunt manimentibus nec habito forti fauore potentiae saecularis terminatio debita vel expedita iustitia Which wordes if the reader compares them with the wordes cited in English by the knight he will easily spye more faultes then I haue noted And then from heÌ„ce and the rest which I haue produced touching the whole allegation of Gerson he will be able to iudge both of the false deiling of our aduersarie how smale reason he had to indeuore to make that famous and renowned Romanist one of the blind brothers of his inuisible Congregation But now for conclusioÌ„ plainer intellectioÌ„ or vnderstanding of that which I haue said touching this author the reader must take noticie that Gerson liued in a tyme of a great scisme rased by the erroneous election of diuers Popes by diuers partes of the faction by reason of which strife finding in his iudgement no other meanes to bring matters to a peaceable issue and attonemeÌ„t then by giuinge greater authoritie to a generall Councell then to the Pope he preferred the power of a Councel before the authoritie of the Pope which scisme alsoe was the true cause why he likewise seemed to dispare of the reformatioÌ„ of the Church and therfore he labored to haue a generall Councell vnder one Pope by occasion of which desire he writ his treatie intituled De CoÌ„cilio vnius obedieÌ„tiae to deliberate the coÌ„posing of the Ecclesiasticall debate a and Papal dissentioÌ„ all which is by himselfe clearely deliuered in seuerall places of his workes and particularly in his Apolageticall dialog fol. 75. saying hoc vnum scio quod zelus hahendae vnionis in scismate tam desperato tantique temporis fecit multa tolerari quae fuissent aliunde nec tolerabilia nec toleranda c. And now by this it is sufficiently cleare that Gerson is not for the new reformation of moderne sectaries in anie one pointe of doctrine or manners In his citation of Cusanus lib. 3. concod Cath. cap 16. the kinght hath in his owne page 378. 8. 9. of the by way notably corrupted him for he reheareses his wordes without anie order alsoe quite contrarie to his sense meaning as that authors owne wordes most euidently conuince in his 17. chapter following where he hath this plaine clause Ecce quod de pertinentibus ad religionem Imperator inter Episcopos iudicare non debet Et in his 18. chapter he saith thus Firmitas autem iudicij omnium quae ita aguntur in concilio per quoscunque ex consensu tantum synodica dependent authoritate Quare etsi aliquando sententiasse iudices tales leguntur ex cousensu synodica commissione vigor sententiae dependebat non ex imperiali coÌ„missione cuius authoritas synodum virilem non praecellit Thus much Cusanus touching iudicatiue authoritie in generall councels which as is plaine by these wordes doth not depend vpon the Emperor It is true Cusanus grauntes I knowne not how truely that he fyndes the Emperor did alwayes praesidere that is preced or take the first place in the councels but he doth not say as Sir Humfrey feysteth in primatum habuit he had the primacie But onely graunteth the Emperor his Iudges with the senate locall preheminence before the Pope or at the most depending on the Pope councell as his whole discourse in diuers chapters of the booke cited by the kingth manifestely declare And coÌ„cerning the coÌ„gregation or conuocation of generall Councels it is almost euident out of the precedent chapters of the same booke that this author grauÌ„tes no Primacie to the Emperor but cheefely to the Pope For altou ' in the begining of the 13. chapter he hath these expresse wordes ex superioribus habetur Imperatores sanctos congregationes synodales vniuersalis concilij totius Ecclesiae seÌ„per fecisse Yet preseÌ„tly after explicaing him selfe better he saith Breuiter dico quod ita se habet Imperator ad vniuersaleÌ„ Ecclesiae Catholicae synodum sicut Rex ad vniuersale Regni sui concilium non quad coactiue sed cohortatiue colligere debet And yet more plainely presently after Vigilare dehet Imperator fidei pacis custos Romani Pontificis primo synodi necessitatem insinuare eius consensum congregandi concilij in definito loco requirere By all which it doth manifestly appeare how shamelessely the kinght abuseth Cusanus how smale reason he had to produce his testimonie for the Popes vsurpation as he termeth it both in calling assuming preheminence of place dignitie in Councels supposing that author as being Cardinall of the Popes creation soe professedly maintaines his authoritie both in the resolutorie assembling coÌ„firming of generall synods And if the reader desire greater satisfactioÌ„ concerning the doctrine of this author aboute the Popes authoritie in Councels let him please to read his epistle to Roderic he will easily perceiue howe plainely he purgeth himself from all sinister imputation in that nature and that if perhaps in his immature age when he writ his Catholique concordance by reason of the great fame which he conceiued of the Councel of Basill he inconsiderately vttered anie thing which might seeme to diminish the power of rhe Bishop of Rome in respect of a generall Councell yet afterwardes perceiuing that those whoe preferred the authoritie of Councels before the authoritie of the cheefe Bishop pastor the Church proceeded soe farre as to attempt the election of the Antipope Foelix against the true Pope Eugenius then presently he repented him self that he had soe much extolled their schismatticall syond imitating in this both Cardinall Iulian Aeneas syluius whoe both of them in the begining defended the Councell of Basill against Eugenius the true Pope yet in the end retracting their action maintained most earnestly his authoritie against tâ—e same synod That which is sufficient to manifest the inconsideration ignorance insynceritie of Sir Humfrey in his production of this author whoe suppose he had deliuered
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
will turne Iewes or Turkes they ought not to take those wordes in that rigorous sense which they doe for so by consequence if they tye themselues so strictlie to the letter of the text they must doe the same in the commaundement of the Sabaoth and so they will be come Sabatizing Iewes indeed Wherefore except Sir Humfrey will turne plaine Talmudist he can proue nothing against Christians out of the foresayd wordes Now touching authorities of auncient Fathers he confesseth that hee for beareth to cite anie in particular and what soeuer he falselie pretendeth the true reason was because he founde none to cite except hee had produced such places as they vse onelie against the idolatrie of Gentils and Ethnikes as Chamier lib. 21. de imag Daniell Chamier and others of the reformed Doctours commonlie doe which places neuer the lesse secluding their owne glosses vpon them doe not in anie sorte fauore their cause And so Sir HuÌ„frey insteede of Fathers hee cites Iewes and Gentils in whose doctrine touching this point hee showeth himselfe to be more conuersant then in Christian writers as finding more for his purpose in them then in these and therefore also as I imagin hee vseth no other answere to Bellarmin affirming that the making of images is not absolutelie prohibited by the lawe of God because God commaunded images to be made the knight I say vseth no other anser then the anser of the Iewes to wit that God did laye a generall commaunde vpon them and not vpon himselfe and so I say no more of it but leaue to the reader to iudge howsolid and good such an ansere may be and whether it sauoreth not much more of Iudaisme then of Christian religion True it is hee cites diuers authours which haue writ since the Councel of Francford but some of theÌ„ as Agrippa Erasmus Cassander Chemnitius are of no authority with vs others are suspected of corruptioÌ„ I meane to haue ben corrupted by malignant publishers as Polidor Virgil and Agobardus Others are impertineÌ„tlie alledged in regarde they eyther speake onelie of the image of God himselfe as Philo Iudeus and S. Augustin or of the manner of worship not of the substance of the honor as Peresius Bellarmin Wicelius Hincmarus for that they eyther onelie condemne the adoration of pictures takeing the word adoration for that kinde of honour which is due vnto God onelie or els they speake onelie of the priuate errous of some simple people of which sorte is Polidor Biel when they reprehend the abuses and superstitions of some simple people who out of ignorance giue more honour to images then eyther they ought to doe or the Church alloweth yet doth Polidor expresselie approue of due honour of the same as his owne wordes declare euen in those places where he vseth that reprehension for thus he saith after he had made relation of diuers images of Christ and his Apostles mentioned by Eusebius and others euen in the most primatiue yeares of the Church Hinc igitur natum vt merito tam ipsi Saluari quaÌ„ eiâ—diuis statuas in templis poni venerationi haberi consueuerit Polid lib. 6. cap. 5. Hence therefore grewe the vse of putting in Churches and honoring as well the statues of our Sauiour as his Saincts And he adds Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tamque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitne dubitare seu aliter somniare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe Sanctissimorum Patrum decreto constitutum By which wordes it is manifestly conuinced that is other wordes razed by order of the Index haue either beene foisted in by the new sectaries to wit those which auerre that till the time of S. Hierome all the auncient Fathers reiected worship of images for feare of idolatrie or els he meanes onelie that they durst not practice the same least their action might seeme idolatrous either to the ignorant Gentils or to such as were then latelie conuerted from Gentilisme and as yet but infirme in faith and easilie scandalized in this nature All which neuerthelesse cannot possible preiudice the doctrine and practice of the Church it selfe in generall So that neither anie of these authours seuerallie nor all of them together proue that absolutelie to honore the images of Christ and his saints is wicked or blasphemous which is the assertion the knight here maintaines and yet he is not ashamed to call their testimonies the confession of his aduersaries among which also that his impudencie might more clearelie appeare he foysteth in to that rancke Bellarmin and Vasquez which authours if the reader be not ouer grosselie ignorant he will easilie perceiue at the least by the rest of their workes that they cannot truelie fauore Sir Humfreys tenets in this point of Controuersie they hauing both writ professedly of it against the reformers doctrine and in defense of the practise of the Roman Church touching the vse and honour of images And as for the Emperours Valens and Theodosius whome he citeth out of Crinitus saying they made proclamation to all Christians against the images of Christ It is false that those two Emperours euer published anie decree against the images of Christ but expresselie in honour of of the same by establishing by lawe that the image of the Crosse of Christ should not be framed vpon the ground as vpon the stones of sepulchers or graues where it might easilie be prophaned by the feet of those that passed ouer them and that this is the trueth of that passage of those two Emperours or at the least of Theodosius Crinitus his verie wordes would haue plainelie declared if they had not shrunke in the wetting I meane if they had ben intirelie related by the knight who is not the first that hath corrupted the tenour of Theodosius his lawe by leauing out the worde humi vpon the grounde for the wordes of the foresaid lawe being thes let not the Crosse of Christ be painted vpon the grounde or some such like by leauing out the wordes vpon the grounde the sense as you see cometh to be quite contrarie that is the sense falleth out to be this let not the Crosse of Christ be painted which trick of the sectaries was discouered long since by Alanus Copus in his 4. Dialogue the 11. chap. to their vtter shame and discredit And yet besides this I maruell greatelie that either Sir Humfrey or his predecessours offer to make vse of the foresaid wordes of the lawe which as they are cited by him are so generall that they quite coÌ„demne the practice of the reformed brothers themselues none or verie few of them being as yet mounted to that degree of puritie as expresselie to proclame a generall lawe against the pictures of Christ as not to be painted or grauen at all and so I conclude that either those wordes of the two Emperours are to be read as the Romanists doe vse to read them and