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
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
meaning of this authour both the title of his chapter out of which our aduersarie taketh the wordes he cites which is this Of the interpretation of scripture by Fathers And the whole tenor of his discourse doe sufficiently declare so that if the matter comes to scanning the fraude will easily appeare with shame enuffe to this our professed aduersarie of truth who not content with this hath also like a cheating gramster to mende his ill game dropt a carde I meane the worde nostra which he hath left out in his translation but this but a pore trick and so let it passe And perhaps it was onely the negligence of the printer But for the readers better instruction I will punctually rehearse the authors wordes concerning his true meaning as well those which Sir Humfrey hath omitted for his owne aduantage as the rest Thus he saith Doceamus quod citra Patrum interpretationem vsum ab eisdem nobis traditum nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis Euangelij verhis sacerdotum quempiam his temporibus verum Christi Corpus Sanguinem consecrare non quod res haec ambigua fit sed quod eius certitudo non tam haheatur ex Euangelij verbis quam ex Patrum interpretatione vsu tanti temporis quem illi posteris reliquerunt That is let vs teach that without the interpretation of the Fathers and the practise by thē deliuered vnto vs noman can proue by the bare wordes of the Gospell them selues that anie man in these our times doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ not because this thing is doubtfull but because the certainetie of it can not be had so much by the wordes of the Euangell as by the interpretation of Fathers and the practise of so long time which they left to posteritie By which wordes it is voyde of all doubt and tergiuersation that the authour of them neuer made question but that true Catholike Prests as he him selfe was truly consecrate and make present the uerie bodie and bloud of Christ the contrarie of which our aduersarie pretendes to proue onely intending by this pasage and others to declare against his aduersarie Martin Luther that scriptures alone without the expositiō of the Fathers and practise of the Church are not sufficient to conuince the trueth expecially when the wordes are obscure and subiet to diuers senses And therefore in his page 172. giuing the reason of this he saith Hoc idcirco dixerim ne quis ipsis Euangelij verbis pertinacius adhaereat spreta patrum interpretatione quemadmodum Lutherus fecit vsum interpretationem a patribus traditam nihili pendens nuditati verborum infistens quae non sufficiunt ad id quod velint conuincendum Therefore quoth B. Fistier I said these thinhs least anie one should ouer obstinately adhere to the wordes of the Gospell themselues as Luther did not esteeming the vse and interpretation deliuered by the Fathers and insisting in the nakednes of the wordes which are not sufficient to conuince that which they desire And in the insuing page he concludeth in this manner Therefore that is manifest which afore we promised to sbow to wit that long continuing custome and concording exposition of Fathers none dissenting doth yeald more solid certainetie how anie obscure place of the Ghospell must be vnderstood then the bare wordes which may be varioufly detorted by contentious people at their pleasure By all which wordes it is more then certaine and manifest that this authour neuer intended to show that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can not be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse as our false aduersarie doth endeuore to persuade his reader for he onely affirmes that this can not be conuinced by the bare text of scripture without the exposition of Fathers if anie contensious person should obstinately denie it as his wordes aboue cited euidently declare And as for those wordes which Sir Humfrey quotest in his margent which in English are these Neither is there anie worde put there by which the verie presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ may be proued in our Masse I say that he dealeth not honestlie in the recitall of them in regarde he omittes the next wordes following not obstanding they belong to te integritie of the same discourse and also are a plaine explication of the former as the reader of the whole discourse may more clearely vnderstand the wordes being these For altho' saith he Christ made his flesh of the bread and his bloud of rhe wine it doth not therfore follow by virtue of anie worde here set downe that we as often as we attempt the same doe effect it In which as the reader may plainely perceiue the authour absolutelie affirmeth not that Preists doe not effect that which Christ effected concerning the reall presence of his bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely saith there that is among the wordes of the institution of the Sacrament as they are related by S. Math. and in which those wordes doe this in remembrance of me are not contained there is not anie worde by virtue of which the same can be concluded of Preists which is ther affirmed of Christ our Sauiour yet not denying but expresselie auerring that by other wordes of the scripture and particularlie by those wordes rehearsed by S. Luke and S. Paule doe this in remembrance of me interpreted according to the exposition and practise of the auncient Fathers the making of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrement is firmelie proued and established And hence it is that after he had vttered those wordes which Sir Hūfrey also citeth tho' not intirely to wit non potest igitur probari per vllam scripturam it can not therfore be proued by anie scripture that either laie man or Priest as often at he shall make triall of the busines shall in like manner make the bodie and bloud of Christ of bread and wine as he him selfe did since that neither this is contained in the scripture immetiatelie after this I say he subionines for conclusion of his discourse this insuing clause By these things I thinke no man will be ignorant that the certaintie of this matter the faith of consecration as the note in his margen doth declare doth not so much depende vpon the Ghospell as vpon the vse and custome which for the space of so manie ages is commended vnto vs by the first Fathers themselues For it seemed to them the holie Ghost teaching so to interpret this parte of the Euangell and iudged it was so to be vsed in their times that whosoeuer now would introduce either an other sense or an other vse he should vtterlie resist the holie Ghost by whose instinct the former Fathers did deliuer this rite and ceremonie in the consecration of the Eucharist Thus plainelie doth Bishop Fisher explicate his owne meaning in that which he had before deliuered somat more obscurelie so that now
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
Wherfore qui legit intelligat he that shall read Bellarmine in the place cited by the knight that is de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Will easilie preceiue him to be so farre frome the confessing all sufficiency of scripture in that sense in which the reformers take it that the verie title of his booke which is of the vnwritten worde doth manifestlie conuince the contrarie And as for the wordes which Sir Humfrey cited altho' we take them in that mangled manner in which he hath rehearsed them yet if they had ben reight vnderstood by him I ame persuaded he could haue founde no iuste coulor to produce them in fauour of himselfe For that it is manifest by those two limitations necessarie for all men preached generally to all men that the Cardinalls meaning could not be that absolutelie all things which are necessarie for euerie person or state of persons in particular or as the logitians speake necessarie either pro singulis generum or pro generibus singulorum are written in the scriptures but onely Bellarmin meant that altho' all those things are written which all men both in generall in particular must necessarilie knowe haue for the obteining of saluation yet that there are some other things necessarie to some particular persons or to some particular states of persons included in that generall number of all men which are not written as namelie aboute the Gouernment of the Church administration of the Sacraments in particular the Baptizme of children the rites of the same that the beptizme of Heretikes is valid All which Bellarmin doth so plainelie specify that it is imposible for him that reades vnderstands him to doubt of this his meaning And yet not vnlike to this doth Sir Humfrey proceed with the same Bellarmin whome he citeth to the same purpose in his first booke of the worde of God wher out of these his wordes the scripture is a most certaine most safe rule of beleeuing the kinght concludeth that it is a safer way to rely wholely vpon the worde of God which can not erre then vpon the Pope or Church which is the authoritie of man sayth hee may erre Which conclusion neuerthelesse is most false captious as well in regarde that according to Sir Humfreys owne confession Bellarmin houldeth the scripture to be but a partiall rule of faith â—age 258. as also cheeflie because when Bellarmin calleth the scripture a most certaine most safe rule he doth not exclude the authoritie of the Church or diuine tradition but expresselie includeth them both as the other parte of the totall rule of faith which scripture also so onelie not otherwise he calleth with great reason regula credendi certissima tutissima knowing neuerthelesse on the contrarie supposing for certaine that with out the authoritie of the Church traditions the scripture can neither be knowne to be true Scripture not in what sense it is to be vnderstood consequentlie as Sir Humfrey taketh it it is not either an all sufficient certaine or safe rule by an other consequence it can much lesse be imagined to be a safer way to relie wholelie vpon the written worde as the reformers doe then to rely vpon both the scriptures the authoritie of the Church diuine traditions as doe the Romanists taking God for their Father in the writteÌ„ worde the visible Church for their mother in the knowledge interpretation sense of the same And thus wee see by this discourse that Sir Humfrey proueth nothing but his owne dishonest dealing with Bellar. whom besides that which I haue alreadie showed he doth more then impudenlie belie in that he affirmeth him to allowe the worde of God to be but a pertiall rule of faith which Bellarmin doth not say but onelie that the scripture is a partiall rule Page 258. not denying but the worde of God in all it latitude js a totall rule of all the Christian Catholike faith but yet supposing for certaine that the scriptures are not totallie conuertible with the worde of God but that they are distinct things the one from the other as ta parte is from the whole which any man of common iudgement may easilie perceiue And if these be the trickes shifts by which Sir Humfrey meaneth to make Bellarmin a confesser of his reformed religion in steed of gaining him he will loose his owne faith credit The knight still passeth on his way tells his reader it is a safer way to adore Christ Iesus sitting on the reight hand of God the Father then to adore the Sactamentall bread which depends vpon the intentioÌ„ of the Preist But I tell him againe that the safest way of all is to adore Christ both in Heauen whersoeuer els he is And he himselfe hath tould vs his bodie blood are in the Sacrament wheâ— if wee will not be accounted infidels wee most constantlie beleeue he is And so we say with that most auncient vanerable Father Saint Cyrill of Ierusalem Hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus Math. 26. Mark Luc. 22. since that Christ himselfe affirmeth so saith of the bread this is my bodie who dareth here after to doubt of it he also confirming saying this is my bloud who can doubte say it is not his bloud And supposing this his reall presence which we Romanists trulie beleeue with auncient S. Cyrill the rest of the Fethers the safest way is to adore him in the Sacrament not as sitting at the reight hand of his Father onelie But as for you reformers as it can not be safe for you to denie Christs reall presence in the Eucharist so neither is it safe for you to refuse to adore him there where in the true Sacrament he is truelie present I knowe Sir kinght you make your comparison betweene the adoration of Christ in Heauen the adoration of the Sacramentall bread but it proceds vpon a false supposition for the Romanists adore not the bread but Christ vnder the forme of bread whose existence there doth not so much depend vpon the intention of the Preist but that sufficieÌ„t certaintie may be had of the same at the least much more then you can haue that you receiue a true Sacrament whe you take the bread at the ministers hand who if he hath no intention to doe it as Christ did when he gaue it to his disciples then may you receiue as much at your owne table as at the communion table But the trueth is that all this is nothing but captious cogging in Sir Humfrey for proofe of which he most impertinentlie produceth S. Aug. de bono pers lib. 13. cap. 6. Wher he hath not a worde to this purpose but onelie treateth there of the supernaturall actions of man saying that to the end our confession may be humble lowlie it is a
the knights calumnious proceeding against him Vos enim sicut a Luthero didicistis scripturas sanctas faciles ad intelligendum interpretaÌ„dum esse putatis sic eas hactenus vestro sensis intellexistis interpretati estis At si hanc solam regulam fidei Christus in Ecclesia reliquisset quid aliud quam gladium delphicum haberemê° c. Quomodo interpretari scripturas ad libidineÌ„ proprij sensus sit vt habere DelphicuÌ„ gladium coÌ„tr Sad. p. 99. Lessius is ill cited for in his 11. reason he hath none of those wordes quoted by Sir Humfrey yet in his table he hath those Scriptura quâ ratione nasus cereus regula lesbia c. nuncupetur Cyting for this his owne page 130. of his consult Where yet he hath not those formall wordes which Sir Humfrey cites but onely some others to that sense yet the truth is he doth not applye either the words or the sense to the Romanists but to the nouelists saying of them and their interpretation of scriptures by their priuate spirit Scripturam autem quisque pro suo captu iudicio intelligit vnde cum se putant scripturam habere regulam credendi loco scripturae habent imaginationem propriam c. So that here we finde no blasphemie in Lessius but imposture in Sir Humfrey It is true Lessius in his disputation of Antichrist hath those formall words cyted by Sir Humfrey in his page of the same number wher he saith the scripture is called by Catholikes a nose of Wax a Lesbious rule c. but he presently explicates in what sense to wit when it is taken for the bare wordes or letter onely secluding the sense of the Church the interpretation of Fathers as saith he it is taken by heretikes So that it is plaine that Lessius doth not say that Catholikes calle the true scripture together with the true sense a nose of Wax but onely the naked text as it is abused by corrupters Lessius demonstr 15. p. 131. An non regula illis Lesbia quam omnibus suis imaginationibus quantumuis absurdis accommodant seruire faciunt qui per AntichristuÌ„ designari volunt non vnum hominem sed plurimorum seriem c. And presently Apud Catholicos non est regula Lesbia quia est animata vero nimirum sensu qui contrarijs placitis aptari nequit Among Catholikes saith Lessius the scripture is not a lesbie rule because it is animated with true sense which cannot be applyed to contrarie opinions By which wordes it is euident that this author is mightely wronged being he hath the verye negatiue proposition to that is imposed vpon him In the citation of Pighius Sir Humfrey ought to haue continued his rehearsal from the beginning of his wordes to the end of the period of the authors whole passage then it would haue appeared plainelie howe falselie he is accused For so he discourseth But because saith he no place of scripture is so plaine or open as it can defend itselte from the iniurie of the heretikes who adulterate depraue detort it to their owne sense for they as one no lesse truelie then merrilie hath sayd are euen as a nose of wax which doth easilie suffer it selfe to be fashioned drawne this way that way which way thou wilst like a certaine leaden rule vsed in the buildings of Lesbos which is not harde to be accomodated to what you will there must be a line ioyned vnto it such a one as is not as flexible as it selfe but firme stiffe I say that pillar that firmament of Catholike trueth that is the common sense sentence of the Church then wee shall be certaine sure of the true vnderstanding of the scriptures if it be consonant in all things to her which as she giues Canonicall authoritie to the scriptures so is she truly the Lydius Lapis or touche stone of the true Orthodox interpretation of the same c. Pighius l. 3. Hierarc c. 3. Thus farre Pighius Where he puts also for his marginall note Scriptures ab haereticorum vi iniuria se prorsus vindicare non posse That is the scriptures can not vendicate or free them selues from the violence iniurie of heretikes By which note alone if his wordes in the text were not so plaine as they bee yet is it clearer then the leight that the comparisons which Pighius vseth be not applyed by him to the scriptures absolutelie but onelie as considered according to their bare caracters letter as they are subiect to be corrupted by false interpretations neither is he who vsed such speeches onelie with relation to the abusers of scripture more guiltie of iniurious proceeding against the scriptures them selues as truelie they are the worde of God then those are esteemed to be iniurious to the writings of S. Thomas Aristotle who by reason they are expounded in coÌ„trarie senses occasioned by their obscuritie affirme their expositors make them a nose of wax or compare them to some such other flexible matter mierly in that respect And conformable to this also which wee haue said because the Romanists know by experience how falselie the misreformers vse to deale in their citations as partelie hath been conuinced in diuers places of this censure therefore not for anie other cause doe they some tymes if they cite the Fathers iustelie reiect them as by them corrupted or falselie cited And so if they cite Berengarius the waldenses they iustelie reiect them as heretikes If they cite reformers for Romanists they iustely reiect them for none of theirs If they cite Catholike authours impertinentlie corruptedlie or in a false sense they iustelie reiected them as abused by them so remit them to the Censurers purgatorie If they cite scriptures either falselie translated by addition or detraction or falselie interpreted or falsified they iustelie reiect them as imperfect as made by them a couerture for theeues an officine or shop of heretikes And yet notobstanding all this it is manifest both by an expresse decree which the Councell of Trent made in the fourth ses against the profaners of the sacred scriptures Decret de edit vsu sacrorum l. vers fin as also by some ceremonies of the Masse it selfe that the Romanists giue farre greater reuerence euerie way vnto them without comparison then the Reformers And the same I say of the ancient Fathers whoÌ„ the Romanists as it is well knowne respect so much that they accounte it plaine temeritie in anie writer to teach anie doctrine contrarie to the common consent of them Whereas one the contrarie there is nothing more ordinarie among the writers of the misreformed Churches theÌ„ to reiect the authoritie of the ancient Fathers or at the least to vilifie them speake contemptuouslie of them as diuers of their workes doe testifie But for all this Sir Humfrey is still harping vpon that
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
Romanists touching the inconueniences which that libertie which the Nouellists haue giuen to the common people in reading the scriptures hath caused in the Christian world in these our present times as that to permitt euerie ignorant man or woman without distinction or order to read them is to cast pearles before hogges the like which because thy are both impertinent in this place as also for that I haue in parte ansered them in my censure I omit to reherse them Period 13. alibi that which in like manner I doe for the same reason in the rest of the authors which the knight citeth in this section onelie aduertising the reader that besides that they make not to the purpose diuers of them are by him corruptedlie alleaged mangled either in wordes or sense or rather both in words sense By way page as particularlie may appeere in the citation of Sanders whome our aduersarie affirmes to say that it is little better then heresie to translate the scriptures Haeresi◅ esse si quis dicat esse necessariū vis m◅ Haer. 191. yet Sanders onelie sayth that it is an heresie if one doe affirme it is necessarie for scriptures to be translated into vulgar tongues as the same words which Sir Humfrey cites doe testifie He also abuseth Acosta whome he cites lib. 2. de Christo reuel cap. 2. yet Acosta speakes note a word of reading scriptures in vulgar language much lesse affirmes that much profit may redound to the lay people by reading them in these our daies especiallie in that manner as the knight falselie alleageth who if he will proue his intent must needes speake in that sense when he imposeth vpon that author the approbation of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue In this fashion he also couseneth his reader in his citation of S. Hierome affirming that in his epistle to Paulinus he sayth that the booke of Genesis is most plaine for euerie mans vnderstanding whereas S. Hierome rehearsing seuerallie all the parts of scripture with an intent to shewe breiflie what they containe what meanes is required to the true vnderstanding of them particularlie signifying to Paulinus that he would haue him vnderstand that he cannot vndertake the worke or interprise of reading scriptures without a master putteth the booke of Genesis firste in order as it lyeth in the Bible sayeing thus videlicet manifesta est Genesis meaning not that the contents of the booke are manifest easie to be vnderstood as Sir Humfrey doth most falselie affirme him to say hut onelie affirming that in the whole number of the bookes of scripture the Genesis is manifestlie knowne to be one the firste of the same number for which reason he doth in like manner consequentlie adde of the two bookes following saying presentlie after patet Exodus in promptu est leuiticus c. By which particulars the true sense of S. Hierome doth so plainelie appeere to make nothing for our aduersaries purpose that we may iustlie wonder how he could haue the face to peruert detort it in so shamelesse a fashion And by such trickes fraudes as this now then dropping a lye or two by the way as that the Romish Preistes agree like Pilate Herod both to the condemnation of Christe his word that it is a crime worthie the Inquisition for the people to haue a Bible the like still dissembling the true state of the question which is not whether the laytie can lawfullie read the scriptures absolutelie but whether they can read them commonlie without licence that in vulgar tongues it being euer supposed that in Latine Greeke or Hebrew anie one that can may reade them by those fraudes I say such like insincere dealing the knight patches vp this peece of his by way for his priuate spirit to walke in where I leaue him to his melancholie contemplations passe forward to the next matter Sec. 3. The third section is about the interpretation of scripture in which question Sir Humfrey affirmes that according to the iudgment of the ancient Fathers the Bible is the sole Iudge of controuersies Quod si nō poteris assiduitate lectionis inuenire quod dicitur accede ad sapientiorem vade ad Doctorem Chrysost hom 3. de Laz. interpreter of it selfe For this his affirmation he cites diuers places out of S. Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome but in this he sheweth verie small iudgment in the reading vnderstanding of the ancient Doctors For it is cleere to anie cleere wit that these holie Fathers onelie speake by way of instruction to such onelie as for their owne priuate profit comfort vnderstanding read interpret scriptures as they read them to themselues not as publike Iudges or deciders of doubs in faith or manners And in this sense onelie not otherwise the foresaid Fathers proceede excepting the place of S. Augustin cited out of his confessiōs which yet is to a differēt purpose from this we here treate as in an other place I will declare perhaps to the end they might more easlie persuade such as in their time were slowe ought to haue binne more diligent by reason of their profession qualitie capacitie to retire cohibit themselues from the accustomed vanities of those dayes applie themselues to that holie wholesome exercise And yet more then this except Sir Humfrey will adde to the Fathers sentences the worde sole as his Father Luther did to the text of S. Paul nay the word controuersie also he will neuer iustifie by their authoritie his vast proposition viz that scripture is the sole Iudge interpreter of itselfe Optatus speake of one particular case for which the scriptures were plaine cleere not in generall nor yet doth either he or Pope Clement speake of sole scriptures but of scriptures interpreted according to the traditionarie current sense of the successiue Catholike Church or cheefe pastors for the time present Euangelio non crederē nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoueret authoritas tom 7. contr ep fund Quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritatē quaestionis Ecclesiam de illa consulat c. Lib. 1. cōt Cresc cap. 33. not of particular Doctors of priuate spirits in which distinction consisteth the mayne difference betwixt the Romanists the Reformers in this points which if you Sir Humfrey had duelie pondered considered how much authoritie the ancient Fathers particularlie sainct Augustine commonlie attributes to the Church in expounding scripture determining controuersies I persuade my selfe you would neuer haue had the face eyther to denie that euer the ancient Fathers made ansere to the Heretikes of their tymes that they must heere the Church or that their Church was that Catholike Church which is the sole iudge of Controuersies the viue or liue interpreter of scriptures which they ought to heere in all doubtfull cases obscure or
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
is but onelie one in which it can be sayd with anie coulourable probabilitie that sainct Gregorie in anie of the places heere cited doth contradict the doctrine of the Roman Church that is the point of the Canon of the scriptures in which patricular althou ' he refused to giue the bookes of Machabees the title of Canonicall scripture as yet S. Augustine others did before him the rest of the writers for the most parte euer since haue donne whether it were because he ment onelie they were not contained in the Canon of the Iewes or for that the whole Church had not then declared them for Canonicall vnder that name Neuerthelesse he is not to be iudged more repugnant to the doctrine of the present Roman Church in that point then those who notobstanding that in the primitiue Church certaine bookes of the new Testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes others were doubted of yet now with infallible certaintie faith receaue them for diuine sacred scripture althou ' they were not accounted beleiued for such by all the orthodoxall Fathers of the Church in all former ages since the time of the Apostles who firste published them to the world Especiallie considering that the same sainct Gregorie neuer denyed neyther in the place cited nor in anie other of his workes but that as the declaration of the Church was sufficient to assure all faithfull people that those bookes of which before his dayes there had binne doubt were then trulie Canonicall scripture thou ' not knowne for such in euerie age before him so might the same succeeding Church in later times determine the like of those bookes which in his time so generallie vndoubtedlie were not as yet held for such Neyther according to the rules of diuinitie can that man be reputed not to be of the same religion of which another is because he now beleaueth some thing more in the materiall obiect of faith then the other did in that time in which he liued but at the most it can onelie be truelie verified that he hath the same habit of faith thou ' some what more extended in the obiect as neyther the Apostles were of a diuerse faith when they were firste instructed by Christe before his passion from that they had after his resurrection when yet doubtlesse they receaued more expresse extensiue knowledge in matters of faith then before they had receiued And sure I am S. Gregorie without exception cites both the booke of Tobie Ecclesiasticus sapience most frequentlie none of which bookes neuerthelesse the misreformers admit for the worde of God And till Sir Humfrey or some of his associates can produce out of S. Augustin S. Gregorie as plaine pregnant places either for his owne tenets or against the Roman doctrine as the Romanists haue long since produced for theirs as their workes vpon euerie seuerall controuersie make apparent let them for shame neuer claime them for theirs in anie one point of controuersie for notobstanding they make a plausible vse of some fewe patches of their more ambiguous ill construed ill related sentences yet turne but the iudicious vnpartiall reader to the bookes them selues he will ingenuouslie confesse absolutelie crye a loud all is ours And if it would please his maiestie of his royall clemencie to suffer vs freelie to make tryall of our cause by scripture Fathers I knowe which side would be founde minus habens manie graines to light But it is our great miserie yet in one sense our great happines to be so crossed curbed with seueritie of tēporal lawes that we cannot be safe in the most priuate corners much lesse can we appeare in any publike assemblie for defense of our Religion Vid. Bell. in quatuor Cōtr. tom valēt Anales fid But yet supposing that S. Gregorie had binne contrarie in that particular of the bookes of Machabies for touching the rest mentioned by the knight he is sufficientlie cleered from that imputation by Bellarmine other Romanists yet could it not possiblie proue that monstrous great proposition of our aduersarie to wit that S. Gregorie in his vndoubted writings directlie opposeth the Romish faith in the maine pointes thereof consequentlie from hence it manifestlie appeereth how farre Sir Humfrey hath walked by the way when in the end of his eleauenth section he auouched his reader should plainlie discerne how the later Popes Bishops doe differ from the former how these two Fathers of the Church meaning sainct Augustine sainct Gregorie concurre expresselie with the doctrine professed in the reformed Churches different from the Roman it being most apparent by the premisses that by anie thing which he hath heere produced out of the foresayd Fathers he hath neyther proued anie one point of his owne religiō nor disproued ours but hath onelie prestigiouslie deluded the eyes of the reader with a coulorable florish yet in realitie remaineth still in the same byway in which he hath hitherto walked separate from the royall street of the ancient Doctors of the primitiue Church Sec. 14. The next section being the fourteenth is that the ingenuous Romanists confesse that the Councells which they oppose against the Reformers were neyther called by lawfull authoritie nor to the right ends Heere I finde that to be most true which a pleasant Protestant pronounceth of the Puritans sayeing their religion willinglie admitts no founder but Bragger they flourished much about a time And in sober sadnes the best Sir Humfrey can make of his aduersaries confession throu ' out his whole worke in fauour of his doctrine doth nothing more then plainlie conuince him to be of no other progenie Neyther doe their confessions fit his purpose anie better then if he should put his shooes vpon his handes or his hose vpon his head A patterne of this you may see in this verie section in which how soeuer he vaunteth of the confession of his aduersaries that by two principall conditions as he sayth ancientlie in vse for the authoritie of Councells are both acknowledged to be abrogated by later Councells to wit because quoth the knight now a dayes the Pope calls Councells without right he his assemble them in their owne name for their owne ends for proofe of which calumnious position he cites but onely two authors those scarce held for sound mettle among the Romanists neyther yet doth eyther of them plainlie auerre his position as it is vttered by him but they onelie speake by way of reprehension of such abuses as might be practised in that nature by the malice of men without taxing the Pope or anie other in particular as the knight would maliciouslie inferre out of their wordes for the confirmation of the sinister opinion he hath of the Church of Rome her head in earth The rest which he hath in this section is but eyther his owne bare assertions those not true as that from
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
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
thē if two should argue the one that the colour of the sea water is greene and the other blewe that some ignorant Cockes-come should step in and tell them that it followes on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all Which who so euer should presume to doe he deserued to be soundlie hist at for his audacious follie so doth Sir Humfrey And as for Biell whome the knight cites saying it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament he hath indeed those wordes which are quoted by him tho' not in his 49. as he puts it but in his 40. lection vpon the Canon but yet this his saying is not contrarie to the Romanists who easilie admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christs bodie in the Eucharist is neither expressedlie declared in the Scripture nor yet in all ages and by all authours expressedlie tought in the Church as matter of faith neuerthelesse this authour himselfe in the same place addes in plaine wordes that now that opinion which defendes transubstantiation is receiued by all Catholikes yealding for a reason of the same because saith he we ought to hould of the Sacraments as the holie Roman Church doth hould And afterwards he addes Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holie Fathers we ought to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is in the Sacrament by conuersion of the bread into it we are to fee c. And the like I say of Scotus Yribarne his Scholar who altho' they seeme to diminish the antiquitie of transubstantiation yet their meaning onelie is that it was not in auncient times declaredlie proposed by Publike authoritie of the Church as an article of faith yet both of them expresselie beleeuing and defending the same professedlie as a matter of faith And by occasion of this I desire the reader to take notice that whensoeuer he findes anie Catholike authours to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time their meaning is not that the obiect in it selfe was no matter of faith in anie one time since it was first reueiled by God either expresselie in it selfe or as included in some other veritie but onelie that it was not expresselie and generallie knowne and beleeued for such by all faithfull people by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publikelie vnto them by the Church in anie Generall Councell For that as much as concernes the doctrine in itselfe it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church then it was euen before it was so defined as may appeare in the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his eternall Father in the vnitie of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like which in them selues were reueiled verites and matter of faith euer since the newe Testament and the lawe of Christ was published to the world not obstanding they were not declaredlie and vniuersallie knowne for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene Ephesin Chalcedon Councels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian Nestorian Euthycian heretikes And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this breefe obseruation may suffice to satisfie anie indifferent mynde Nowe as I said of Scotus and Yribarne the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez in his comment vpon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it vpon the first art Of the 15. quest he saith transubstantiation which ther he calles conuersion is not in the Euangell expresselie conuersio non habetur explicitein Euangelio and before he saith we expresselie receiued from the Church that which the Gospell did not explicate Yet afterwardes the same authour expresselie teaches and inculcates that those wordes this is my bodie cause both the reall presence and transubstantiation For thus addes Et perhoc verbae Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scrilicet conuersionis continentiae c. That is And by this because the wordes of Christ this is my bodie doe effect both nouelties videlicet of the conuersion and the containing By which wordes it is manifest what this authours meaning was absolutelie touching the reall presence transubstantiation howsoeuer he spoake of the manner in which it is cōtained in scripture which is not our questiō And in this sense speakes Aliaco when he saith in the place cited by our aduersarie that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remaine still a possible neither it is contrarie to reason nor to the authority of the scriptures c. For he meaneth onely it is not repugnant to anie such expresse scripture as doth conuince the transsubstantiatton plainely to euerie one without the authoritie and declaration of the Church and therfore he addeth if it could stand with the determination of the Church in which Aliaco showes such obedience to the Church as Sir Humfrey and his fellowes obstinately denie vnto her most piously captiuating his vnderstanding euen in that which he held more easie and conformable to reason and scripture according to humaine intelligence and discourse More euer touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl cap. 10. His intent in that place was onely to proue that meerly by the bare wordes of scripture without the traditionarie interpretation of the Fathers no certaintie can be had in questions of controuersie or matters of faith And to proue this which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humfrey and the rest of our nouelists he argueth exhiposthesi or vpon supposition saying that not obstanding it is true and certaine that our Sauiour by vertue of those wordes this is my bodie did make his owne bodie really present in the Sacrament yet if one were obstinate standing preciselie to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers and sense of the Church he might denie that it doth thence followe that in our Masse Prests make really present the bodie of Christ Not meaning to affirme that they doe not in deed for that the rest of his booke doth demonstate him to beleeue the reall presence in Masse especially the fourth chapter but onely intending to declare by examples and reasons that it can not be conuinced that Catholike Prests doe so by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctours of the Church and her infallible authoritie And now this being the true sense of B. Fishers discourse Sir Humfrey verie coningly by leauing out the precedent and subsequent wordes of the authour so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse And that this is the true
Sir Humfrey passeth to another matter that is to the testimonies of the ancient fathers where he chargeth the Romanists that they eyther openly reiect them or secretly decline their authority by euasions in particular pointes This is the tenth section a great part of which is repeated out of his firste booke ansered by me in my censure He makes a large preamble touching the clayme the Romanists make to the ancient fathers as patrons of their doctrine as if they did arrogate that which is not their owne but the discourse is very idle mutatis mudandis may be verie iustely verified of the knight his predecessors especiallie Iewell Plessis who both of them were the greatest braggars in that kind that euer were yet none so shamelesse in corrupting the Fathers workes abusing their sense as themselues The rest of this section is verie meane stuffe consisting of captious constructions of the sayeings of some Romanists contorting them to this matter as if they did disesteeme or reiect the ancient Fathers authoritie which is impossible to be true as is manifestlie conuinced by the continuall vse they make of them much more then the Nouellists as it is well knowne to the world And the truth is that the Romanists onelie modestlie confesse especiallie when they are vrged to it by the clamours of the sectaries that some of the Fathers in their single opinions or in such cases as they did not all consent together did sometimes perhapps fall into some erroneous point of doctrine that they are not alwayes in euerie point to be followed in their expositions of scriptures or otherwise in matters nothing concerning the controuersies of these tymes But onelie when they all agree in matters of faith or by graunting that in pointes of practise for example about the Communion in one kinde or priuate Masse they are not all in all matters expreslie for them How beit they knowe they neither are against them all things considered Which if it be duelie pondered is no inconuenience at all in regard that these things such others be mutable according to the diuersitie of times persons consequentlie might be otherwise thē by practised thē by vs. Neyther doe the Romanists when they affirme the Fathers to be for them teach as the knight doth falselie deceitfullie suppose that all the Fathers in euerie point of faith be it transubstantiation or anie other are positiuelie for them but onelie that the whole streame nay nor anie part of them is positiuelie against them in anie such doctrine that in the most pointes they are expresselie wholie for them against the reformers in all Pag. 290. Out of which the reader may collect how impudently the kinght doth belye the foresaid Romanists when he affirmeth that they are reputed no good Catholikes by their owne tenets that teach not contrary to the vniforme consent of Fathers especiallie considering that he himselfe hath already related how the same Romanists take an expresse oath to follow that consent Sect. 4. init And by this it may in like fashion be easilye perceaued how little credit this man deserues when he accuseth his aduersaries of citation of counterfeit authors wheras he himselfe doth deale so vniustly in that nature especially with Bellarmine that he doth not onely mutilate his wordes but also citeth that which is not to be found as by way of example you may see page 290. where he affirmes Bellarmine to professe that they are not to be numbred among Catholiques that thinke the Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne for hauing deligently passed ouer two seuerall times the 15. chap. of the 4. booke de amiss grat which is that same Sir Humfrey citeth I find no such sentence nor words in it but rather the quite contrary doctrine as by his owne words in my margen related clerely appeares Neque desunt qui impudenter affirment ab Ecclesia Romanae defendi cōceptionem immaculatam Virginis Mariae tanquam articulum fidei Bell. loco cit neither is it lesse plainly false which he affirmeth for the conclusion of this section to wit that Bellarmine the Romanists in generall some times condemne the Fathers as counterfeit some times they purge them as if they were full of corruptions that according to seuerall occasions they haue their seuerall deuices to produce them or auoyd them at their pleasure yea that they cōfessing thē to be counterfeit yet produce them for their doctrine all which particulars are so farre from truth that they cry shame on the author so much the more in regard that he his brothers are not a little guiltie in this busines but doe daily offend in the same kinde as by many instances might be proued particularly in that one for example of the Imperfect which passing vnder the name of S. Chrisostome is conuinced by Bellarmine others not to be his in regard it houldeth the Homousians for heretikes yet is it commonly cited by our aduersaries euen by Sir Humfrey himself in diuers places of his workes in which they verifie most fitly that of the Apostle Rom. 2.21 in that while they preach to others that they must not steale they steale themselues Neyther yet doe any of the testimonyes which the kinght produceth for his accusation of Bellarmine in this nature proue his intent nor any thing more then that both Bellarmine other Romanists doe indeed some times produce such authors in fauour of their doctrine as are not by all Romanists held to be of certaine vndoubted authority or at the least not certainly iudged to be the workes of those authors whose names they beare thou ' otherwise althose who cite them hold them for workes of ancient standing not counterfeit at least in the substance of theie authority as the knight doth counterfeitly indeuore to perswade his reader nay Bellarmine whome the knight particularly taxeth in this behalf showeth himself so iust sincere in this point that he is not content eyther alwayes or for the most parte to aduertise the reader when he cites doubtfull authors in his tomes of controuersies but also to take away all occasion of scruple in himself of calumniation in others he hath made a particular censure of such authors as are in anie sort held for doubtfull or Apochriphal or otherwise called in question And so to conclude this the reader may see by what indirect courses Sir Humfrey huddles vp this parte of his by-way for himself freinds to spend their tyme in Sec. 11. In his eleauenth section he indeuoureth to proue that the substantiall pointes of the Romane faith as they are now receiued taught by the Church of Rome were neuer taught by the primitiue Church nor receiued by the ancient Fathers these are the contents of the section but it containes so little substance that we may trulie say it stands onelie for a
first chapter of his Euchyr saith these wordes praestantia huius scripturae c. the excellencie of this scripture doth surpasse the scriptures multis partibus in manie respects or by manie degrees those scriptures which the Apostles left vs in partchement he doth not speake of the vnwritten tradition of the Church but of that scripture which as afterwardes he declareth Spiritus sanctus in cordibus imprimere dignatus est that is which the holie spirit doth digne or voutsafe to imprinte in our hartes Which as he speakes before in the same chapter is nothing els but the spirit of consent of the Catholike Church in faith and the concording doctrine of all faithfull Christians not of those onely which now liue in the whole world but those alsoe whoe by continuall succession haue propagated the faith of Christ from the tyme of the Apostles which is that Scripture which the Apostle saith 2. cor 3. is read by all men and the vnction quaest 2. Io. 2. docet nos de omnibus c. which teaches vs all things which as he further addeth afterwardes hath all truth in it selfe and containeth all faith and mysteries of Christian religion and resolues all doubtes which may aryse in matter of faith and soe costerus compareth not the vnwritten worde with the written precisely but the internall with the externall which internall scripture is iustely preferred by him before the bare written worde or caracter because as he takes it here it includes the true sense of both the one and the other by which it appeares that the exceptions which Sir Humfrey takes at this authors wordes ar captious and voyde of reason Vrspergensis is produced by Sir Humfrey page 400. of his deuia as a witnesse that the second councel of Nyce or seuēth generall synod assembled in the yeare 788. was reiected in the councell of Francford as vtterly voyde and not to be named the seuenth And yet hauing examined this passage in that author I fynde he speakes not a worde of the Nycene councell but of a cettaine councell of Constantinople which he affirmes to haue ben called the seuenth synod general by the Emperatrice Irene and her sonne Constantine his wordes are these Sinodus etiam qua ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli congregata sub Irene Constantino filio eius septima vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacua ab omnibus nimirum patribus Concilij Francfordiensis abdicata est Vrsperg pag. 176. in which wordes of what soeuer Councell vrpergensis intended to speake yet none of them mention the Councell of Nyce as all those whoe vnderstand latin may easily perceiue And if Sir Hunfrey will replye and say that tho' that author doth not mention the Nycene Councell in wordes yet doth he sufficiently declare his meaning to be of no other Councell then the seeond Nycene Synod in regarde he affirmes it to haue ben vnder Irenne and her sonne and the same which was condemned in the Councell of Francford I anser that by reason this author doth vtter twoe things which seeme to implye contradictiō to wit that this Councell was assembled at Constantinople and yet that it is the same which was reiected by the Councell of Francford it euidently followeth that no certaine argument can be drawne frō his wordes whatsoeuer his meaning was and this is sufficient to shewe that he is cited in vaine by the knight Secondly I say not obstanding vspergensis hallucination and suppose he did truely meane that the Councell of Nyce concerning the adoration of images was reproued by the Synod of Francford as some other authors admit in their disputatiōs with the sectaries of our tymes yet doth this nothing auaile our aduersaries cause both in respect the Synod of Francford is not accepted by the Romanists for an authenticall Councell in this particular as alsoe for that as some opinate it proceeded vpon false information and persuasion that the foresaid Synod of Nyce had decreed that images were to be adored with diuine honor and by this meanes the Fathers and doctors ther assembled were deceiued and committed an error of fact Which error neuerthelesse neither can nor ought to preiudice that doctrine which was before established by an authenticall generall Councell as was the secōd Synod consisting of a happie cōiunction of both the latin Grecian Church as of sune and moone And the reader may see that Sir Humfrey hath both dealt some thing insincere in the allegatiō of Vspergensis and alsoe hath proceeded preposterously in that he indeuored to infringe the authoritie of the greater Councell by the vncertaine proceeding of the lesse Page 261. of the same deuia he detortes the S. Irenaeus wordes contrarie to his meaning against Apostolicall traditions And yet S. Irenaeus euen in the wordes which are cited by him speakes onely against those who denyed absolutely that the trueth is deliuered by the Scriptures but onely by tradition and soe made them selues or their onwe traditions the rule of faith Of which number of hererikes saith he were Valentinus Marcion Cerinthus Basilides of whome he vttered the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey as affirming that the truth could not be founde by Scriptures by those whoe were ignorant of traditions for say they the truth was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth yet notobstanding this the same Irenaeus afterwardes speakes against others whoe doe not denye scriptures or rather against such as follow scriptures onely and reiect traditions receiued from the Apostles by succession of preists and conserued or obserued in the Church saying that they haue founde the pure truth as the pretended reformers nowe commonly babble of whome he saith that They neither consent to scriptures nor tradition and against whome saith the saint we ought euerie way to resist Soe that it is cleare that he disputes here onely against such heretikes as neither yealde to scriptures nor traditions and therfore he putteth for the litle of his chapter in this place quod neque scripturis neque traditionibus obsequantur haretici that heretiques neither obey scriptures nor traditions both which S. Irenaeus doth expressely imbrace And by this lett the reader iudge how intempestiuely the knigh doth produce this testimonie against those I meane the Romanists who neither reiect the scriptures nor approued traditions but like twoe indiuided companions receiue them both and let him alsoe consider whether the doctrine of holye Irenaeus in this place be not farre more contrarie to the tenet of the pretēded reformers then to the doctrine of the Roman Church whoe make onely scriptures expounded according to their owne sense the sole rule of faith Especially considering that the same ancient Father in the next ensuing chapter doth expressely receiue Apostolicall traditions saying in the verie first wordes traditionem itaque Apostolicam in toto mundo manifestam in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera volunt audire habemus
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