it is euer essentially one the same in it selfe cleare from distinction cleare from error the coÌ„trarie to which neuerthelesse should necessarily be true if ei-faith were diuided in to fundamental not fundamental faith the Church could erre in her propositioÌ„ of the one not of the other And to this I adde that one propertie of the true Church is holines but now what sanctitie integritie or holines can possible be in the Church if it be infected with errors in faith of what nature soe euer they bee For as the scripture affiirmes sine fide that is true pure intyre faith impossibile est placere Deo True faith is the forme fashioÌ„ beautie of the Church which is the immaculate sponse of Christ ' not hauing spot or wrincle In soe much that if she be defaced thus with errors she can not possible be the sponse of Christ as in the cided place like wise in the Canticles she is described all faire or comely but rather she would be like a leaper or most deformed creature Thirdly I confesse for my parte I could neuer perfectly vnderstand what the Nouellists truely meane by fundamental not fundamental points by reason I finde the matter in none of their workes sufficiently explicated I veriely coÌ„ceiue they purposely anoyde the declaration of it to the ende the absurditie may lesse appeare Neuerthelesse it seemes in probabilitie that by fundamentals they meane all those points which according to their owne exposition ar contained in scriptures the three creedes And by not fundamentals the points of controuersie betwixt vs theÌ„ as is the number of Canonical bookes the infallible rule of interpretation of scriptures the real presence transsubstantiation iustification ' c. This beiÌ„g supposed I argue thus Either those points which our aduersaries call not fundamentals ar matters of faith ' to be beleeued by all sortes of Christians according to the diuersitie of their tenets vnder paine of damnation or not to be beleeued If they ar thus necessarily to be beleeued by faith then doubtelesse they ar included in those truthes touching which as I haue declared coÌ„firmed before by both scriptures Fathers Christ promised to his Church the assistance of the diuine Sprit to remaine with it eternally that is till the consummation of the worlde and consequently the Church can not committe anie error in proposing them to the people as being no lesse fundamental in that respect then anie of the rest of the articles of faith But if our aduersaries on the contrarie denye them to be necessarily beleeued vnder paine of losse of SaluatioÌ„ hould theÌ„ onely as matters of indifferencie such as may either be beleeued or not be beleeued without preiudice of faith or maÌ„ners vpon this supposition I graunte the Church may erre in proposing theÌ„ to her flock but yet in this case that parte of our aduersaries distinctioÌ„ affirming that the Church can erre in not fuÌ„dameÌ„tal matters of faith is still false and impertineÌ„t in regarde those particulars aboue telated in which they teache the Church can erre ar soe farre from being either fundamentals or not fundamentals in matter of faith that according to the former supposition they ar not either one way or other with in the circuit of faith and consequently that parte or member of our aduersaries dinstinction viz that the Church can erre in not fundamentals is both false nugatorie and impertinent in which sense soeuer they intend to maintaine it Fourtly I proue directly that the affirmatiues euen of those particulars controuerted betwixt vs and the professors of the English Religion ar fundamental points of faith and by consequence that if the Church can erre in them that parte of their new distinction is false according to which they auerre the Church can not erre in fundamental points of Religion which I conuince in this forme of argument That distinction is false and absurde according to which it necessarily followes that the Church can erre in matters the true faith of which is necessarie to saluation But according to the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith it necessarily followes the Church can erre in matters necessarie to saluation Ergo The distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith is a false and absurde distinction The minor in which the total difficultie consists I proue because according to this distinction the Church may erre in these propositions The Church hath the true complete Canon of scripture The Church hath the true interpretation and sense of scripture Christs bodie and bloud ar truely really substantially and not by onely faith contained in the sacred Eucharist c. And yet the faith of these either affirmatiuely or negatiuely is necessarie to saluatioÌ„ as the aduersaries theÌ„ selues if they will not be occounted obstinate in a matter soe cleare and manifest can not denye Therfore it is hence concluded by forcible sequele that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals in matters of faith is false and absurde Fiftely I reason in this manner against the same distinction If the infallibilitie of the Churches authoritie consistes in fundamental points of Religion onely and not in all that the true Church shal at anie tyme declare vnto her members concerning their faith and Religion then were not tâ—e prouidence of Christ perfect towardes his sponse but more defectiue then God was towardes the synagog of the Iewes neither were this anie other then to imagine that Christ in deede did laye a sounde foundation for his Church but lefte walles and roofe exposed to be deiected or caste to grounde with euerie puffe of winde which how repugnant to reason his owne inuiolable promisse this is the reader may easily consider and censure Sixtly I argue yet more positiuely against the distinction related because our aduersaries frame it either in respect of the greater or lesser dignitie of the obiects of fundamental and not fundameÌ„tal points of faith in them selues or in respect of the greater or lesse necessitie of them to saluation by reason of the necessitie of faith which the members of the true Church haue of them all and euerie one in particular Now if we respect onely the material obiects in them selues and the necessitie of them to saluation precisely soe I confesse ther ar some particular matters of faith which much surpasse orhers and in that respect alsoe the one may not vnaptely be termed fundamental in comparision of the rest which haue not that preheminencie For example that ther is a God and that God is a rewarder of workes quod Deus est remunerator sit That he is one in three persons that the second person in Trinitie became incarnate or tooke humaine nature vpon him was borne of the Virgin Marie suffered death for our dedemption c. are matters both more noble and dignifiable in them selues then those Christ fasted fortie dayes and fortie nights an Angel
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
that text which hath ben at the least since the tyme of S. Augustin commonlie vsed in the Church as appeareth by the Rhemes Testamēt which because it is founde to haue ben rightlie translated is not arraigned by the Pope but exposed to be read euen by the laitie at the least by licence aduise of their Confessors Further more in regarde of the foresayd corruptions manie other which for breuitie I omitted made by heretikes in the holie scriptures those moderne authours which Sir Humfrey citeth if they be trulie cited haue ben induced to vtter some such speeches concerning the same as if they be not trulie piouslie interpreted may giue occasion of offence to the reader for example when they affirme as he sayth the scriptures to be dead caracters a dead killing letter c. such phrases neuerthelesse as it manifestlie appeareth by the rest of their doctrine discourse in those places are not vsed by those authours with an intent in anie sorte to disgrace or diminish the dignitie of the true worde of God but onelie by those comparatiue speaches to declare how subiect the scriptures are to be corrupted detorted to the defence of heresies errours if they be considered preciselie as they are the externall written letter interpreted otherwise then by the authoritie of the visible Church in all ages the ancient Councells Fathers they haue ben vhderstood Wherefore those Romanists which the knight citeth as if they had spoken irreuerentlie blasphemonlie of the holie scriptures doe no more iniurie vnto them then S. Paule did when 2. Cor. 3. he sayth of them litera occidit the letter killeth Lib. de Synodis or then did S. Hilarie when he teacheth that manie heresies haue their origin from scriptures ill vnderstood or then Martin Luther who called the Bible liber haereticorum the booke of heretikes None of which speeches as I suppose Sir Humfrey will dare to condemne either of blasphemie or irreuerence nay if he haue his senses aboute him he will easilie perceiue that those other such like phrases are not meant actiuelie of the worde of God but onelie passiuelie that is that throu ' the malice of the false interpreter it is so irreuerentlie detorted abused as if indeed it were as flexible as a nose of waxe And according to this we see that none of that which our aduersarie produceth here out of the Romanists is anie argument of irreuerence against the trueth inuiolabilitie of Gods worde but a calumnious accusatiō quite contrarie to the sense meaning of the foresaid authours who had not anie intention to taxe the scriptures but the corrupters false interpreters of them such as you pseudoreformers are your selues And now altho' by this which I haue sayd in generall touching this point of blasphemie against scripture supposed to be perpetrated by the Romanists the authors by the knight cyted remaine sufficientlie cleared from the imputation which he layes vpon them in that nature neuerthelesse because by the particular examen of the places cyted I haue discouered that either all or most of their wordes be either corruptedlie rehearsed or their sense detorted abused therefore I will seuerallie repeate their passages declare in what respects our aduersarie hath deceitfullie traduced them And to begin with Lindanus his stromata in deed I could not haue but I haue read the place cited out of his Panoplia where I finde that when he names the scripture a dead killing letter he onelie alludes to the wordes of S. Paule 2. Cor 3. for the letter killeth but the spirit giue liues Sicut illud eiusdē authoris dogma in mortuas imo ceidentes adeo literas relatum Panop lib. 1. c. 44. Neither speaking nor meaning worse of the same scripture then the Apostle himselfe affirming at the most that the bare letter of the worde of God ill interpreted doth kill the soule but reight expounded according to the tradition of the Church it doth reuiue nourish it brings it to eternall lyfe yea hauing better pondered his wordes in the end of the chapter quoted by Sir Humfrey I perceiue the doth not absolutelie call the scriptures a dead killing letter but onelie that the doctrine of that author meaning the holie Ghost as I conceiue is put in to dead killing letters As his wordes quoted in Latin in the margen declare And in this same sense I may iustelie truelie suppose the same authour speakes in the place quoted out of his other worke if any such saying he hath in regarde that a graue learned man as he is knowne to haue ben is euer iudged to be sutable to himselfe in all times places Which learned diuine is yet further cōuinced neuer to haue spoakē otherwise then reuerentlie of the scriptures in that in euerie seueral place cited by our aduersarie he stileth them sacrae litterae sacred letters And in like manner I conceiue of Charon who as being of the same faith religion he neither did nor dared to speake otherwise then with the same due respect which the Romā Church commaundes the Romanists to vse towardes the holie written worde of God Canus in his 3. chapter of his second booke is abused by the knight Nec esse eas volunt cereum quendā nasum in sensum omnem flexibiles sed potius esse per se expositas in promptu cuique sine magistro docente patere Canus lib. 3. ca. 7. f. 176 edit Louan by his imposing vpon the Romanists that which Canus speakes of the Lutherans saying that they will not haue the scriptures to be like a nose of waxe subiect to diuers senses but rather plaine for euerie one to vnderstand without a master or teacher thus the preposterous kniht doth positiuelie affirmatiuelie impute that to the Romanists which Canus onely relates to be negatiuely asserted of the scriptures by the Lutherans Turrianus agregiously abused in that he is accused to call the scriptures a Delphick sword the riddles of Sphinx and the like for he doth not absolutely say they are such but onely saith that if Christ had left in his Church that rule onely which the pretended reformers receiued from Luther to wit that scriptures are easie to be interpreted and vnderstanded and according as they haue hitherto expounded them in their owne sense then saith Turrian what els should we haue of them then a Delphick sworde In which wordes you see he doth not affirme absolutely that the scriptures are such a sworde but onely that according as the sectories handle them in their false manner of expounding they may be so compared and for this cause he puts for his marginall note how to interpret scriptures according to ones owne proper sense is as to haue a Delphick sworde so by this the authors wordes which I quote in the margen in Latin his meaning is sufficiently declared together with
his mynde lesse clearcly in one place occasion yet did he amēd the same in another more exact worke of his owne hand industrie of his owne accorde how be it althou ' our aduersarie takes him at the greatest aduantage he can yet reightly vnlierstanded alledged he doth not a iot aduantage his cause In his citation of the Rhemes Testament in the annotation vpon the 6. of the Epistle the Hebrewes v. 16. the knight relateth wordes in which the author of the notes affirmes that God should be iniust if he rēdered not heauen for meritorious workes But to make the matter more odious he craftely omittes the wordes of S. Hierome there cited for proofe of the same lib. 2. contra Iouinianum cap. 2. saying that in deed great were Gods iniustice if he would onely punish sinnes and would not receiue good workes And if that cōditionall of the Rhemists be not iustifyable then may our aduersarie more iustely taxe S. Augustin who lib. de nat and Grat cap. 2. And lib. 4. contra Iulianum cap. 3. gaue then examples of that forme of speech Saying in the first place non est iniustus Deus qui instos fraudet mercede iustitiae and in the second per quod vera iustitia per hoc regnum Dei Deus namque ipse quod absit erit iniustus si ad eius regnum non admittitur iustus Wherfore except Sir Humfrey will ioyne in his accusation those two renound ancient Fathers he can not in reason accuse those learned doctors Althou I conceiue it may seeme vnseasonable to my present purpose distinctly to treate of anie matter of doctrine in this place and occasion yet in regarde I haue lately reflected that Sir Humfrey professes him selfe an enimie to implicit or vnexpressed faith therfore I esteemed conuenient for the accomplishing of my worke to insert a compendious discourse touching that point And to come to the purpose I can not conceiue or inuente anie other motiue in our aduersaries for their soe obstinate denyall of vnexpressed faith except it is because euerie one of them confidently presumes to knowe the expresse contents of Scriptures as well as him who made them yet on the contrarie I am assuredly persuaded that in reallitie a verie great parte if not all their congregatiō inioyes not this great extrauagant priuilege what soeuer they imagin or conceiue of them selues For altho' it is true that the illuminate brothers generally vse to brag they are docibiles Dei and admit noe other schoolemaster in this matter then God almightie him selfe yet is it certainely knowne that some of them be soe ignorant that they knowe not as much as their Abcedarie or Christ crosse rowe And now of these whoe can not read the Bible I question our aduersaries thus either these ignorants beleeue althings cōtained in the whole scripture or no If they doe not then they ar heretikes for refusing to beleeue the whole worde of God If they doe beleeue all and euerie particular contained in the Scripture then necessarily they must haue an implicit faith in regarde manie particular truethes be there included which they can not possibly knowe by reason they can neither haue them selues nor receiue a perfect knowlege from anie other of euerie seuerall trueth therin contained and consequently if anie faith they haue of those particular verities contained in the Scripture which they knowe not it is onely an implicit vnexpressed or implied faith supposing this consists in nothing esse but a generall faith euen of those particulars of which the beleeuers haue no expresse knowledge except onely in a certaine cōfuse or generall manner or as they ar contained in other generall propositions or matters which expressely and seuelally they know to be reueiled in the worde of God and of which they haue an explicit expresse or disinuolued faith For as he who eypressely graunteth or assents to anie general Principle or proposition for example that all Angels ar incorporall or without bodies or that all men ar reasonable creatures doth by necessarie consequens assent implicitly to all the particulars there included viz that S. Michael S. Gabriel and euerie other particular Angel is incorporal and that S. Peter and Paule and euerie other particular man is a reasonable creature altho' he neuer had anie particular knowledge of them Soe in the verie same manner those whoe with an expresse act of faith beleeue al the Church proposeth vnto them in that kynde or all the scripture conteines doe likewise necessarily beleeue with an implicit or tacit faith euerie seuerall matter included in those general tearmes And this kynde of implicit faith our aduersaries must either graunt or else necessarily confesse that euerie Mecanike hath as much knowlege in the Scripture as the most learned Minister and euerie sheep as much as his pastor which neuerthelesse euerie rude rustick is able to iudge for most absurde and voyde of trueth Soe thus we see that of the denyal of an implicit faith eyther the ignorant and vnlearned sorte of people in the pretensiue reformed Churches knowe as much in the Scripture as their greatest doctors or that they ar plaine heretikes because they beleeue no more in the Bible but that onely which they expressely knowe And the same I say with proportion euen of the learned sorte them selues in regade they seldome or neuer ar soe conuersant in Scriptures that they explessely knowe euerie seueral proposition or particular truth conteined in the text and consequētly euen they who ar the greatest Rabbies in their reformed flock haue no explicit or expresse faith consisting in an assent to all they expressely knowe in the text of scripture but they must as well as theire brothers be content with an implicit faith of those particulars they expressely knowe not or else they ar to be accounted heretikes for not beleeuing them as I said before of the ruder sorte In respect of both which sortes of people I meane both the learned and vnlearned beleeuers in the pretensiue reformed Churches this same argumēt may yet farther be vrged euen according to their owne receiued doctrine by which they cōfesse they haue not all their faith expressely in the scriptures but parte of it drawne by their owne consequences or deductions from the text of scripture of all which illations or inferences of theirs it is manifest they could not possible haue anie other faith of them then implicit or vnexpressed before they made them in regare that those supposed verities or truethes which they soe deduce were not otherwise contained in the text or deliuered to the Church then in that inclusiue or hidden manner as it most apparent in regarde that if otherwise they had ben contained in the scripture that is clearely or expressely then no illation or deduction had ben necessarie for beleeuers for the bnowledge and establishing of their faith in those particulars as both natural reason and euen common sense conuince and consequently either the pretensiue reformers
to reade the same nay and that which is yet more maruelous he seemeth to glory not a little that this hath beene all effected by the importunity of his reformed brothers as if forsooth they had exercised an act of some heroycall virtue therein Whereas in truth importunity is so farre from desert of commendation as it may be much more iustly registred in the list of vices then of virtues and soe we see that in the Scripture it selfe the importunitie of a beggar is branded with the marke of improbity that which I maruell the knight being so greate a Biblist as he is did not reflect vpon it And admitte it were true that the Romanists moued by the importunity of the sectaries did translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue for the laitie to reade by what rule of Logike I pray you Sir Humfrey doth it follow that many Romanists haue renoūced Popery before their death proue but this one consequence and I yeeld you the victory And pray tell me what article of faith is that which teacheth the Romanists to beleeue that the Bible ought not to be read by the laytie in no case or vpon no reasons neuer so weighty or if you can finde no such article as I know you cannot then confesse you haue lost the victory in the point confesse you haue proceeded weakely confesse you haue by your first argument proued nothing and so I will take that for graunted and passe to the second which allthough it hath some more sense in it then the other yet it is senselesse enough as shall presently appeare For that being to proue your antecedent or first proposition you onelie produce L. Cookes report that most of the Romish proselytes did frequent your Church or seruice for the first eleuen yeares of Queene Elizabeth But you must knowe that this authour is no competent witnesse against the Romanists he is one of your owne crue we care not for his reportes we leaue them to the lawyers He indeed as you do now presumed to write matters of diuinity but in that he plaied the Sutor vltra crepidam as you doe and so laboured onely to make him selfe ridiculous as you doe But let vs admit that which he reporteth to be true and that fome frequented your Church and seruice in those times as I my selfe haue heard they did at the least in exteriour shewe yet priuately at home frequenting Masse also doth it thence follow that in their minds they renounced Popery no such matter No more then doe diuerse of his maiesties subiects who euen at this day goe to your Churches whom neuerthelesse you your selues hould for none of yours but therefore doe commonly terme them Church going Papists So that according to this and euen ad hominem that is vpon your owne Principles your sequel is to be condemned to be of noe force or at the most out of that fact of those Romanists which you speake of it can onely be inferred that they proceeded contrary to the profession of their faith but not that they renounced the same which two things if you could haue duely distinguished I verily persuade my selfe you would neuer haue discoursed so friuoluslie as you doe in this point But now I greeue I haue spent so much time in ventilating so largelie such chaffie stuffe After this wise discourse Sir Humfrey passeth to his owne persuasions for the proofe of his assertion I am verily persuaded saith he that many at this day in the Church of Rome doe assent to our doctrine that dare not communicate with vs openly in the Church adding an appeale to their consciences how many of the Romanists haue renounced Popery in those diuerse points in this place But to this I answer that if Romanists would haue bene persuaded by this wise knights motiues they had lōge ago all renounced Poperie and turned Puritans indeed but God be praised they neuer were nor I hope euer will be persuaded by him and his workes if they haue anie branies in their heads No suerlie And if they come but once to examine this his booke and get a view of the discouerie of his deceipts they will be so farre from being moued either by his reasons or by his authority to relinquish their owne faith that doubtlesse they will rather be quite out of loue both with him his religion And euen in this particular persuasion of his he sheweth himselfe so ridiculous as no man of iudgment if he marke his proceeding can euer esteeme him as a man worthy either to be heard or followed For what man in the world will be moued by him who in steede of proofes bringeth his owne persuasions onely of the testimonie of the conscience of those whom he houlds for aduersaries and whose consciences if he proceedes consequently he must either hould for bad or at the least for vnknowne to himselfe What is this but absurdum per absurdius and yet he is so confident in this his vaine persuasion that he cometh to specifie diuerse points of Popery which he affirmeth to haue beene renounced by many Romanists some of which pointes are no Poperie at all but either his owne lies or els his ignorant mistake of the true doctrine of Papists in those particulars For example in his page 32. he demaundeth of vs how many Romanists doe smile at fained miracles at diuine vertue ascribed to medals beades Agnus deis and the like which saying of his is meerely grounded vpon a false supposition or rather a slanderous falsitie of his owne coyning as if it were true that the Romanists in generall did both approue false miracles and hould diuine vertue to be in medals beades and Agnus deis neither of which is true or was euer defended by any Romanist in the world it being both true and manifestlie knowen that though all Romanists hould the foresaid things for holie and do assure themselues that God doth sometimes please to worke strange effects by them yet do not they beleeue that any diuine vertue doth reside in them no more then they hould to haue resided in the shadowe of S. Peter which neuerthelesse wrought strange and miraculous effects So that by this discourse Sir Humfrey doth onelie proue his owne ignorance and malice as also he doth most manifestlie in the next lines and that more subtillie then before where he demaundeth how many Romanists do preferre the lawfulnesse of Priests mariage before the keeping of a concubine although saith hee the contrarie be the common doctrine of the Church of Rome In which wordes he doth indeauour craftilie to insinuate to his reader that it is a poynt of Poperie and that the Roman Church doth approoue the keeping of a Concubine by a Priest rather then he should marrye whereas the Church doth not in anie case allowe eyther of the one or the other but onelie houldes that that Priest offendeth God more grieuouslie who marrieth to wit after his preisthood and vowe of chastitie Saecerdos si fornicetur
tonges or at the most to preferre prayer in a knowne tonge onelie as more edificatiue not as absolutelie necessarie and the contrarie to be condemned as vnlawfull or superstitious as the nouelists will needes haue it And as for precept of the Church the same Epiphanius in like manner knew there was none extant True it is in his time the practise of the Greck Church was to haue their prayer in Greeke and the Latin Church in Latin but as then neither all those of the Latin Church did vnderstand that kinde of Latin which then was vsed in the Church so neither all those of the Greeke which was vsed in the publike seruice of the Grecians doe excepting Schollers as I haue beene truelie informed by one of that nation which practise as you see is nothing contrary to the practise of the present Roman Church but rather agreable vnto it In regard that tho' the Latin Masse be not vnderstood of all the heares yet is Latine euen by the confession of one of the most learned Protestants of this age The common language in the world and vnderstood by many And so this citation is no lesse in effect then a falsification of the foresaid Father as is likewise another which followeth out of S. Ambrose whom the knight produceth to the same purpose yet citing his wordes somewhat corruptedly which he rehearseth in this manner There were certaine Iewes among the Grecians as namely the Corinthians who did celebrate the diuine seruice and the Sacrament sometimes in the Syriake and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue which the people vnderstood not Thus the knight citeth S. Ambrose in his Comentary vpon the fourth chapter of the first to the Corinthiās but his wordes which I haue reade in Latin are these Hi ex Hebraeis erant qui aliquando Syra lingua plerumque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus vtebantur ad commendationem gloriabantur enim se dici Hebraeos propter meritum Abrahae Thus S. Ambrose where as you see that vnderstands Latin there be neither the words diuine seruice nor the word sacrament to be foūde but in tractatibus oblationibus that is as I conceiue in their exhortations and sacrifices That which as it seemes S. Humfrey did deceitfully translate otherwise then the wordes doe sound and signifie least it might appeare to his reader that the Iewes conuerted euen in those primitiue times did celebrate sacrifice as the Roman Church doth now and not such a drye Rapsodie as the reformers doe in these our daies But that which is most remarkable of all it is manifest out of the same S. Ambrose in the same Coment that S. Paul did not condemne that practise of the Iewes as contrary to the lawe of God as the sectaries doe but onely that he sought to bring them from it as a thing lesse profitable in regard of the Grecians amonge whom they liued and that in respect of their exhortations or instructions which the Corinthians could not vnderstand in Hebrew or Syriacke That which manifestly appeareth in the verie same wordes of S. Ambrose immediatly precedent where speaking of the sense and meaning of the Apostle in the place vpon which he commenceth saith onelie vtilius est paucis verbis in apertione sermonis loqui quod omnes intelligāt quam prolixam orationem habere in obscuro that is to say it is more profitable to speake few wordes in plaine speach which all may vnderstand then to haue a long oration or praier in obscurity Besides this those last words which the common people vnderstood not are none of S. Ambroses but added by Sir Humfrey and foisted in as if they had beene the reason yeelded by S. Ambrose why the Iewes did amisse in vsing their seruice in an vnknowne language whereas yet he expressely saith they did it for ostentation and commendation so that S. Humfrey dealeth heere deceiptfully in diuers respectes for the aduantage of his false cause For iustification of the which he vttereth a most impudent vntruth in his owne wordes following affirming that Sainct Paule wrote that whole chapter of the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians expressely against prayer or diuine seruice in an vnknowne tongue whereas in truth the Apostle expressely and directly laboureth onely to persuade the Corinthians that it is better to prophesie that is to interpret Scriptures then to exercise donum linguarum the done or guift of tongues And altho' the Apostle in one place makes mention of prayer or praysing of God in generall saying si benedixeris lingua c. yet he neither maketh expresse mention of publike seruice in a knowne language nor giueth anie precept about it but onely preferreth that praier which he who prayeth vnderstandeth before that which he vnderstandeth not and that not absolutelie but onelie with relation to that time leauing it for future times to the discretion of the Church to be determined according to the condition nature of the persons that liue in it and other circumstances Alwaies supposing that although caeteris paribus some one thing be better then another euen ex natura rei yet by some notable change of the time place or persons that same thing which once was more profitable may afterwardes become lesse profitable yea and sometimes quite vnprofitable or at the least of very small estimation and importance And yet for all this our Puritanicall crue runne so a madding with their Bible craste that they will needes haue a precept where none is rather then want their wils especially if it be to Crosse the Papists That which cānot appeare more plainely then in the matter of which we now treate where the knight for the conclusion of his discourse citeth Sainct Paul his wordes in forme of a precept as if he had said pray with the spirit praye with the vnderstanding also whereas the Apostles wordes are onely these orabo spiritu orabo mente that is I will pray with my spirit I will pray with my vnderstanding in which forme of speach you see there is no forme of precept or commaund at all except one will corrupt the text as he hath done The knight also cites one Wolfius as affirming that Pope Vitalian first introduced Latin seruice praier in an vnknowne tonge But he might haue saued the labor of citing that authour whom he knowes we doe not admit as a competent witnesse in regarde we finde him to be a wolfe indeed that is an enemie to our religiō and for such he is noted in the Index Epurgatorie How be it we doe not denie but that Vitalian for the conseruation of vniformity in the publike seruice of the Church might make a generall ordinance in that particular and extend the practise of some particular and most auncient Churches of the West in which Latin seruice was euer vsed to all the rest of the Occidentall Churches Neuerthelesse we denie that by this action he either did contrarie to Gods lawe or renewe the heresie of
text of the sixt of S. Iohn did according to the interpretation of S. Augustin but onely make question of the reall preseÌ„ce or possibility of Christs giuing his bodie to be eateÌ„ not otherwise theÌ„ in that grosse manner which they then conceiued in their mindes whereas yet the knight and the rest of his congregation directly absolutely affirme that Christs body and blood are as farre from being really contained in the Sacrament as heuen is from the altar or Communion table And thus it appeares that by indeauouring to make vs Capharnaites Sir Humfrey showes greater grossenesse of coÌ„ceipte them the grosse Capharnaites did by denying the reall presence vpon the same or like carnall imagination for for which he and his mates renounce it From this Sir Humfrey passes to another parte of his Pedegree wher he putteth in the Popes supremacie as if it were deriued fundamentally from the Gentils and to this purpose he applies the wordes of our Sauiour Lucae 22.25 so ridiculously that it makes me thinke he is will read in the booke of Quodlibets or quaeris he makes vse of Scripture so ingeniously The wordes of our Sauiour are these The King of the Gentils exercise Lordship ouer them and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactours Out of which place Sir Humfrey will needes inferre and prooue that the Gentiles haue giuen the Pope his supremacie and consequently that they are the benefactours and founders of the Roman faith in that particular Which passage of the Scripture how falsely and impertinently it is applied and how contrary to the true sense those words of our Sauiour are vsed and abused by the knight I will not spend time in examination of it but leaue to the iudicious reader to censure of it as he pleaseth onely I cannot omitte to take notice how he concludeth this his idle discourse with another place of Scripture out of the 20. of S. Math. where our Sauiour saith to his disciples whosoeuer will be greate amonght you let him be your minister whosoeuer will be chiefe among you let him be your seruant by which words it is most appareÌ„t agreed vpon by all interpreters except the nouellists that our Sauiour intended nothing els but to giue his disciples a lession of humility not so that they ought not in any case to haue superiority and dominion in that nature one ouer an other which were to destroy the Hierarchy gouernment of the Church which he himselfe ordained but that those who were to haue it should not abuse it by dominiering tiraÌ„nically ouer their subiects or subordinates And yet Sir HuÌ„frey I know not by what rule of Alchimie will needs extract out of this place that his and his fellowes doctrine touching the supremacy is receaued from Christ himselfe But in trueth with all my Logike I cannot vnderstand how he inferreth any thing hence for his purpose except he will deduce ex quolibet quodlibet and make a nose of way of the holy Scripture as indeed he doth very frequently framing such a sense to the wordes as maketh for his position and thence deduceing arguments for proofe of the same And if one were disposed to make vse of Scripture in that maÌ„ner he might-aswell inferre out of this place a kinde of supremacie for the ministrie especially if we write the word minister with a greate M. as Sir HuÌ„frey doth And indeede I must confesse that your ministers are greate among you in diuerse respects For some of theÌ„ haue greate Bishoprikes others greate benefices and allmost all greare wiues and greate store of children And if the King would be pleased to suffer them theÌ„ why might they not come to obtaine the supremacie euery one is his turne by succession in that case they might doubtlesse make farre better vse of the cited places of Scripture in fauour of themselues then they doe in applying them against the Romanists And according to his false dealing in applying the Scripture so doth he falsely affirme that the Popes supremacy was first graunted by Phocas falsely applying the testimony of Vrspergensis to that same fol. 149. for Valentinian the Emperour who liued aboue 100. yeares before Phocas in his epist to Theodosius which is extant in the preambles of the Councell of Calced sayth of the Bishop of Rome to whoÌ„ all antiquity gaue the principalitie of preisthood aboue all c. And as for Vispergensis altho' the authoritie of his booke may iustely be suspected as hauing ben published by the reformers or rather deformers of Basill yet doth he not say as Sir Humfrey affirmes that Phocas first granted the supremacie to the Bishop of Constantinople but rather the quite contrarie for thus he sayth Post Gregrorium Bonifacius sedit cuius rogatu Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum cum antea Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam omnium After Gregorie saith Vrspergensis Bonifacius did sit at vhose request Phocas constituted the seat of the Roman and Apostolicall Church head of all Churches for before the Church of Constantinople writ her selfe first of all Churches So that as the reader may plainely knowe Sir H. hath falsified Vrspergensis relating that to be said by him of the Church of Constantinople which he directly speakes of the Church of Rome which neuerthelesse is so little to his purpose that howsoeuer he takes it being not a gift of the Emperour as not being in his power since that nemo dat quod non habet but onely a declaratiue constitution I cannot conceiue why our aduersarie should haue corrupted this authour except it were to exercise his haÌ„d Especially supposing it is a thing vnpossible to appreheÌ„d how either Phocas or anie other maÌ„ or Angell could giue the Pope of Rome his supremacie which is that in this passage he intendeth to proue by coÌ„ferring the same according to our aduersaries relation vpon the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople And so I leaue this for one of S. HuÌ„freyes vnintelligible mysteries of his reformed faith For worship of Images S. HuÌ„frey deduceth the Pedegree of the Romanists froÌ„ the Basilidians and Carpocrationes But his deduction is false for it he falsely citeth S. Ireneus who saith indeede those fellowes were heretikes for worshipping of images but in another kinde farre differeÌ„t from the honour which the Romanists vse towards pictures Vtuntur auteÌ„ imaginibus incantarionibus reliqua vniuersa pererga Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 23. And he expressely condeÌ„neth Carpocrates as plainely appeareth by his wordes Imagines depictas quasdam de reliqua materia habent fabricaâ—as dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo in teÌ„porequo fuit Iesus cum hominibus has coronant ponunt eas cum imaginibus muÌ„di PhilosophoruÌ„ videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae Platonis Aristotelis reliquem reliquoruÌ„ obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt Iren. eod l. cap. 24. because he put the
Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers and because also he put a croune vpon it and worshipped it in an Ethnicall manner and not according to the custome of Christians but as S. Epihanius heres 27. explicateth those heretikes Gentilium ministeria perficiebant they sacrified vnto all those images to wit of Pithagoras Aristotle together with Christs image after the manner of the Gentiles and so this parte of the Pedegree containes an errour in in heraldry and proueth no true descent In the next passage which is aboute the CommunioÌ„ in both kinds Pope Leo tells vs saith the Knight that the Manicheis a sorte of heretikes in his time vsed the Sacrament in one kinde videlicet in bread onely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam Videlicet Manichei nostris audeaÌ„t inesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt tutius lateaÌ„t Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae omnino haurire declinant Leo ser 4. in quad It is true S. Leo saith so but he doth not condemne them for heretikes for that reason but be cause they abstained froÌ„ wine as from an vncleane creature and because they did not beleeue that Christ had bloud in in his body and so that which Pope Leo did when he gaue commaunde that those should be diligeÌ„tly obserued who vsually receiued but in one kind was done purposely for discouerie of the Manicheis who crastily to conceile their heresie touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholikes dissemblingly the Custome of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kinde and in both as now the Grecians practise and therefore that holy Pope did discretely commaunde those should be diligently obserued who in all occasions did vse to receiue vnder the forme of bread onely houlding that for an euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t of their aborring of the bloud of Christ By which it is euident that euen that same time the communioÌ„ was lawfully vsed by some in one kinde otherwise S. Leo needed not to haue vsed any great diligence for the dicouerie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had bene obledged to coÌ„municate in both the Manicheis who frequented the Communion would haue beene discouered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell toutouching a proofe of his taken from the example of the Nazarites as if he had deriued wholy or chiefly the communion of one species or kinde from the practise of their communion whereas he doth not so but hauing by other arguments of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons sufficieÌ„tly established the doctrine of the Church in that particular he bringeth that of the Nazarites onely as a confirmation of the same Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those wordes of S. Luke drinke you all of this whereby he would proue that the communion in both kindes came from Christ and so it did indeede but not by precept giuen to all in generall but onelie to those then present and to those whome they represented as to be their successours that is the Apostles and all Priests after them but not to anie Puritan or Puritannicall minister as not hauing from them anie true succession After these passages Sir Humfrey proceeds to inuocation of Saints and Aungels the founders of which he affirmeth to haue bene the heretikes called Angelici and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretikes not for the inuocation of Angells but either for that they held them to haue bene creatours of the world or in regard they vsed to boast of their owne Angelicall manner of life or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels Erant in Angelorum cultum inclinati quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur Aug. haeres 29. that they did vse to worship them with latria or diuine honour all which kinde of adoration the Romanists with the same Saint Augustin giue to one onelie God And so the knight doth peruert the trueth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. vpon the Genes explicating that passage of Apocalips 19. in which the Angell prohibited S. Iohn to adore him saith neither let it moue the that in a certaine place of scripture the Angell doth prohibite a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God for the Angell did so appeere that he might haue adored him for God and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin teacheth that the Angelici were heretikes because they were inclined to adore Angels he meanes because they adored them with diuine honour and not because they gaue that due inferiour worship vnto them which the Romanists vse For workes of merit and supererogation hee produceth for authours the heretikes named Cathari and Puritans but the heresies of these sectaries were farre different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points Nay they were neuer defenders of either merit or workes of supererogation that euer I read but that for which they were condemned by the Catholike Church was chiefelie for their defence of the errours of Nouatus and particularelie for denying remission of sinnes and the authoririe of the keyes in the Church and for that they affirmed their owne pretended puritie to be aboue the doctrine of the Apostles as not conteyned in it but farre exceeding it and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones Cathari qui seipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant Secundas nuptias non admittunt paenitentiam denegant NouatuÌ„ sectantes haereticum vnde etiam nouatiani appellantur S. Aug. haeres 38. And S. Isidor in the verie place cited by Sir Humfrey saith of them That they named them selfes Cathari for their puritie for glorying saith hee in their merits they denie pennance c. And so it appeares by this that the knight belyes Saint Isidor in two respects Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres Christian as if he did testifie that these heretikes were the first authours of doctrine of merit and workes of supererogation Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other Nor yet makes anie mention in that place of workes of superogation And so according to this lette our Puritans of England and Sir Humfrey him selfe as none of the least of them examen their consciences well and doubtles they will finde themselues to haue farre more affinitie with the foresaid fellowes then the Romanists who both graâ—nt remission of sinnes by vertue of the Ecclesiasticall keyes and allso denie and renounce all such puritie of Spirit as the Puritans pretended He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to haue bene the heresie of the Collyridians Quaedam mulieres currum quendam siue sellam quadratam
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius And thus the busines being well examined I say no more but that I ame sorie the worthy knight should be so vnfortunate as to stumble vpon the obiection in lue of the doctrine of the author himselfe How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion that I doe not much admire the case The same Durand is alsoe abused by the knight in regarde he produces him to proue that the Roman diuines are diuided in their opinions touching transsubstantiation which neuerthelesse I haue showed by his owne words how plainelie he maintaines it And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirme of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is hereticall touching the maine point of transsubstantiation but onely because by a singular opiniō he houldes that onely the forme of bread and wine and not the matter is conuerted in to the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which altho' it be false yet doth not the author therfore make anie doubt of transsubstantiation it selfe and so this is an other of Sir Hūfreyes trickes by which he cousens his reader and iniureth both these diuines at once But put the case Durand were truely cyted yet I say as I said before that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquitie or vniuersalitie either of the doctrine of transsubstantiation or any other point of faith And if the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humfrey will haue it it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their cappes at it for any such they should euer be able to finde in their reformed congregations it being now euident out of the examen and censure of the former sections that to speake within compasse they haue not I doe not say the tenth parte in number of the auncient Fathers for the proose of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of their whole Creede which the Romanists haue for theirs but not so much as one onely authour before Luther which truely cited and vnderstood doth defend their doctrine in all and euery particular pointe And according to this I answer also to the testimonie of B. Tunstall whom the kinght citeth as houlding the point of transubstantiation to haue bene a matter of indifferencie and not an article of faith within lesse then fiue hundreth yeeres To which I replye first that Sir Humfrey dealeth heere according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie first because he produceth this authours testimonie as if he had bene of opinion that perhaps it had bene better to haue left the doctrine of Transubstantiation vndetermined and free for euery one to vse his owne coniecture as in his Phansie it was before the Councell of Lateran which is most false for that the Bishop doth onely relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not his resolution being in that pointe farre differēt as his booke testifieth in that same place Secondly he dealeth insincerely in that he taketh hould of that onely which maketh for his purpose in some sort but leaueth out not onely that which maketh expressely against him and for the reall presence quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Ecclesiae fides which was the faith of the Church from the beginning but also he leaueth out the very resolution it selfe of the authour in this same pointe of transubstantiation where after the wordes by the knight cited he saith expressely he houldeth it iust for that the Church is a pillar of trueth that her iudgment is to be obserued as throughly firme Adding further that those who contend that that manner of transubstantiation ought to be reiected meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth because the worde is not found in scripture nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt Quasi vero saith hee Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset cuius omnipotentiae spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione videntur By which plaine wordes of this learned Bishop the reader may plainely see how deceiptfullie he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight Secondly I answer that how indifferent soeuer the doctrine of transubstantiation might seeme to our aduersarie to haue beene before the Councell of Latran neuertelesse both this authour and all others truely Catholikes both since and before that councell haold it not for a matter indifferent but for a certaine trueth and verity as appeareth planely by that which hath beene said allready in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which haue in this paragraffe beene produced for the contrary Lastly I answer that there was neuer such indifferēcy in the Romā Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatiō but that so manie authours in all ages folowed the affirmatiue that the reformed flock shall neuer be able to show anie for the negatiue no not one classicall authour He makes vse also of the testimonies of the other Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct Theol. Scholast cap. 11. alib who seeme to say that Christ did not consecrate with those wordes this is my bodie but by his benediction But to these authours I say first that whatsoeuer they held in this particular they all agree in that point which is here in controuersie betwixt Sir Humfrey and the Romanists that is they all accorde and teach the reall presence and transubstantiation and so they are all impertinentlie alledged Secondlie I say that these authours dispute in the places cited onelie by what wordes or action Christ himselfe did consecrate and not of the wordes of Consecration by which the Preists vse to consecrate And altho' they propose a question of this also yet they agree in that the Preists doe consecrate by no other wordes but those This is my bodie That which in durand at the least is most plainelie expressed when in his page 166. he saith Cum ad prolationem verborum istorum hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat d. 11. credibile iudicatur quod Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit By which wordes it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate wordes by which Preists doe consecrate nor yet was of opinion that Christ himselfe did vse anie other how be it he relates an opiniō of some others which thinke that Christ did not consecrate with those same wordes but he saith in the opinion rather of others then himselfe that virtute diuina nobis occulta confecit that he did it by diuine virtue or power himselfe and afterwardes expressed the forme sub
qua posteri benedicunt by which the succeeding Preists doe blesse or consecrate Now Sir Humfrey in his citation of this authour lefe out the latter parte of his text which doth plainelie declaire his minde to wit the wordes scilicet hoc est corpus meum which durand includes in the benediction or cōsecration of Christ chimericallie ioyning to some of the authours former wordes others which belonge to another opinion related by durand which houldes that Christ repeated the wordes twise first to giue them power and vertue of confection or consecration and afterwardes to teach the Apostles the forme of consecration by which the reader may easily perceiue that the knight insteed of making durand his owne he both lost him his owne reputation by either most ignorant or malitious peruerting of that Catholike authours wordes and sense The like to which proceeding he vseth also in the testimonie of Odo whome he cites to proue that Christs bodie is made in the Sacrament by his benediction and not by the wordes this is my bodie For he neither sincerelie relates nor trulie construes them And first whereas that authour by may of exposition of that worde benedixit saith benedixit corpus suum fecit meaning that Christ blessed the bread that is to say made it is bodie Sir Humfrey doth English the wordes both with a false interpretation of them and a false separation so Math. 26. and then made that his bodie adding the worde then of his owne stampe Secondlie he makes a false construction of Odos wordes in that whereas Odo vnderstands by benediction consecration as diuers other diuines doe and as it manifestlie appeares by his owne wordes vttered presentlie after to wit those which Sir Humfrey cytes saying virtute sermonis Christi factum est corpus sanguis Christi that is by virtue of Christs speech the bodie bloud of Christ are made the ignorant knight imagined that because he affirmed before that Christ by benediction made his bodie therefore he made it without those wordes this is my bodie which neuerthelesse are the verie wordes of benediction or consecration which Christ himselfe vsed True it is Odo speakes some thing intricatelie and obscurelie by reason of his breuitie yet those plaine wordes which followe in the same place and matter videlicet virtute sermonis Christi fiunt corpus sanguis Christi doe sufficientlie explaine the authours mynde and serue for a cleare exposition of the rest as the iudicious reader of his whole text will easilie perceiue Concerning the citation of Christopher De capite fontium I suspect there is some legerdemaine vsed in it because it seemes not to me a thing credible that anie man of learning and iudgement as he is held to be should be so farre out of temper as peremptorilic to conclude for an infallible truth to which scriptures Councels and all antiquitite yeald an vndeniable testimonie and consent that the wordes this is my bodie are not the wordes of consecration how be it the might say with the opinion of some others that those are not the wordes by which Christ himselfe consecrated which point as it is not yet declared by the Church as a matter of faith so neither is it pertinent to the matter we here treat if so it were as being no denyall of transubstantiation which onelie is here in question and not the wordes of consecration and consequentlie if that authour whome I could not haue whereby to examen the truth if I say he speakes in that sense onelie then his testimonie was cyted in vaine As also I may not rashelie auouch that especiallie if he meanes in the other sense and as according to their rehearsall of our aduersarie the wordes doe sounde That surelie he had tasted of a wrong fountaine when he spoake in such an exorbitant manner if so he euer spoake I haue exactelie examined Card. Aliaco and finde he speakes in those wordes cyted by Sir Hūfrey onely of the possibility of the coexistēce or presence of the substance of the bread the bodie of Christ vnder the same accidēts which possibilitie he affirmes neither to repugne to reason nor to the bible no more then that two quantities or qualities may possiblie stande together vnder one matter videlicet de potentia absoluta that is by the absolute power of God which is true in regarde that no text of scripture can be found to such contrarie possibility nor implicatiō of contradictiō in reason But all this how true soeuer it is yet is it out of the purpose and state of our question which is not about the possibilitie but aboute the fact of transsubstantiation in which point the resolution of this authour is plainelie for vs saying that altho' it doth not euidentlie followe of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth absolutelie cease to be nor yet as it seemes to me of the determination of the Church neuerthelesse because saith he it doth more fauore the determination of the Church and the common opinion of the holie Fathers and Doctours therefore I hould it And this same is that which the Councell of Trēt declares to which doctrine if Sir Hūfrey would consent as farre as Aliaco this disputation were at an end for that here is nothingels required either of him or any other of his profession but that they obey the authoritie of the Church in her definition Ses 15 c. 4 Secundum hanc viam dico quod panis transsubstātiatur in corpus Christi ad sensum expositum in descriptione transubstantiationis Alic in 4. q. 6. art 2. In his 111. page the knight proceedes most sophisticallie in this same matter where vpon a false if or conditionallie false supposition that neither according to the doctrine of S. Thomas the Roman Cathechisme and the Masse-Preists as he pleaseth to terme them the consecrated bread is transubstantiated by Christs benediction before those wordes this is my bodie be vttered nor by the same wordes vttered after benediction as saith he the Archbishop of Cefarea and others doe affirme he presentlie thence inferres that absolutelie there are no wordes at all in the scripture to proue transubstantiation for an article of faith which collection of his neuerthelesse is no other then to deduce for conclusion of his discourse an absolute proposition from a conditionall and this also grounded vpon a meere equiuocation for admit it is true that the foresaid authours doe not agree whether determinately transubstantiation be made by the benediction or by the wordes of consecration yet they all accorde most constantlie and conformablie in this that by one of the two to wit either by benediction or consecration or at the least by both the one and the other the transubstantiation is vndoubtedlie effected and consequentlie they agree vnanimouslie against the position of Sir Humfrey affirming that there be no words of scripture to proue the same And the trueth is that Sir Humfreys captious ratiocinatiō proues no more
Ecclesiasticall custome or lawe onelie or that there is anie such matter as oblation in the celebration of diuine seruice for that they themselues haue it not in their newe Raphsodie For Cassanders authoritie we do not care And yet I can not finde in Mycrologus those wordes which Cassander and Sir Humfrey alledge out of him to wit it can not properlie be called a communion except some besides the Preist doe communicate How be it the same Cassander in the same place doth not condemne priuate Masses for a Sacrilegious action or to be prohibited as Sir Humfrey and the rest of the Nouellists commonlie maintaine But onelie playing the parte of a Pacifyer which he professeth persuades that the auncient custome may be restored Nay and he addes further and that truelie that the Preists say when they celebrate priuatelie they doe not participate of the Sacrament in their owne priuate name but in the name of the Church and people which doubtlesse in reason is sufficient to make it a true communion if otherwise it were not And as for Mycrologus certaine it is that he is no condemner of priuate Masse how soeuer he might esteeme that communion lesse proper according to the Etymon of the worde Vid. Cassander pag. 998. in which more then one doe not actuallie receiue which is all he intendes if anie such saying he hath which notwithstanding is not contrarie to the doctrine or practise of the Romanists Innocentius tertius onelie explicates the ancient custome of the Church touching the communion of the people at euetie Masse and the change of it at seuarall times and by degrees And surelie if we consider that the Nouelists hould this Pope for one of their greatest opposites in doctrine it were madnesses to imagin that he should in anie sorte fauoure their tenets And because I reflected that Innocentius as being a Pope had no reason to finde anie greater fauour at Sir Humfreys hands then other Romanists haue founde vpon vewe of the place I discouered that he had falselie translated some parte of Innocentius wordes which make against him to wit for these wordes quia nec hoc digne potuit obseruari he translates by reason this custome was neglected whereas he should haue put in English Because neither this could be dignely or with due reuerence obserued By which false translation he inuertes the true cause of the altetation of the foresaid custome Hoffmeisterus onelie declares the publicitie of the auncient custome with a desire that endeauours may be vsed for the restitution of it with whome we Romanists all ioyne to our power so this is out of the compasse of our question The allegation of Doctour Harding who speakes much to the same purpose I haue ansered in an other place and showed the deceite of the relatour altho' in this place I finde he rehearses his wordes truelie by reason it had auailed him nothing to haue here abused him Iustinian makes no mention of either priuate or publike Masses but onelie of the participation of one consecrated bread or loafe to signifie more expresselie the vnion of charitie which is not to this purpose as neither is the place of Bellarmin following lib. 2. de missa cap. 9. as afterwardes I will declare But to returne to Doctour Harding it is true I find Sir Humfrey cytes him towardes the end of the same paragraffe out of Iewell which altho' he makes nothing for the proofe of his intent in this place but is onelie brought in vpon the by to enlarge and fournish his discourse as I suppose yet doth he abuse that learned diuine in that he leaueth out one speciall reason which he alledges why the primatiue Catholikes vsed to communicate euerie day with the Preist because sayth he they looking hourelie to be catched put to death by the Panimes I relate the sense not the formall wordes should not departe without the viaticum Which wordes being the verie harte of the authours sentence Sir Humfrey verie slylie omits it as if it were not to the purpose and by that meanes he most deformedlie couples the head and the heeles together which corruption altho' it doth not much auaile him yet it seemes he makes a recreation of that arte and so he will rather playe smale game then sit out Lastelie the wordes of Iustinian taken out of his Commentarie vpon 1. Cor 10. are impertinent for he does not affirme that the Communion directlie was giuen to all that were present as his wordes cited by the knight doe testifie which authour being the laste which he cites and no more to his purpose then the rest let this suffice for the censure of the contents of this whole paragraffe and particularlie for the confutation of that aspersion of Noueltie and corruption with the knight doth indeuore calumniouslie to cast vpon the Roman Creede it nowe being plainelie cleered and iustified by that which hath beene said and he himselfe conuinced of false dealing and forgerie The paragraffe insueing is of the seuen Sacramēts And to be plaine with Sir Humfrey I say that in the verie entrance of his treatie he telleth a plaine lie to his reader affirming the Romanists to relie wholie vpon the Councell of Trent in this pointe For this Councell expresselie hath in the margent of the decree of the septenarie number of Sacraments the Councell of Florence and in the decrees of euerie seuerall Sacrament there is reference to scriptures Councels and Fathers as the margines doe testifie Wherefore thus the knight beginneth and how he will proceed I know not but yet for the most parte an ill beginning makes an ill ending First he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying that the authoritie of the Councell of Trent if there were no other ought to suffice for proofe of the septinarie number of the Sacraments But he might with farre greater reason haue reprehend both his owne temeritie and the presumption of the reformed Churches Which without anie such authoritie as the Councell of Trent hath doe denie the foresaid number of Sacraments Besides that Bellarmins meaning is not that the Coūcell of Trent hath sufficient authoritie to define the same without foundation of the worde of God or without scripture as it seemes Sir Humfrey falselie supposeth but that supposing such a foundation it hath infallible power to declare the same as conformeable to trueth to the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church in former ages and consequentlie as a matter of faith And certainelie that Church which hath not this authoritie is no true Church nor such an one as is described in the scriptures but a meere conuenticle or Scismaticall cōgregation vnsuteable to the worde of God And whereas it seemes straunge to Sir Humfrey that according to Bellarmine one testimonie of a late Councell might suffice for the establishing of an article of faith for that by his owne tenet such an article requires both antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent let him but truelie and sincerelie consider what Bellarmines
meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstāding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was boūd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questiō diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knowē for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all Christiās but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of Trēt and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the Romā Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of
the temporall punishment due to sinnes which is that we call the power of Indulgences of which generall power graunted to Preists we haue diuers testimonies of Fathers and particularlie of S. Aug. who vpon those wordes iudicium datum est Apoc. 20. Sayth Non hoc putandum est de vltimo Iudicio dici sed sedes Praepositorum est ipsi Praepositi intelligendi sunt per quos Ecclesia nunc gubernatur Iudicium autem datum nullum melius accipiendum videtur quam id quod dictum est quae ligaueritis in terra ligata erunt in Caelo quae solueritis in terra soluta erunt in Caelo â—ug lib. 2. â—e Ciuit. c. â—9 idem â—…act 49. â—… Ioan. â—…d tract â—… Vide etiaÌ„â—il can â—8 math â—… Hier. in â—…p 18. â—ath The like he hath vpon the Gosp of S. Ioh. Ideo cum processisset mortuus adhuc ligatus confitens adhucreus vt soluerentur peccata eius ministris hoc dixit Dominus soluite illum sinite abire quid est soluite sinite abire Quae solueritis in terra soluta sunt in caelis S. Ambrose also speaking of the same power l. 1. de Paenit c. 2. saith Deus distinctionem non facit qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus relaxandi licentiam Sacerdotibus suis fine vlla exceptione concessit God saith S. Ambrose makes no distinstion who promised his mercie to all gaue to his Preists licence to release without anie exception Neyther can anie reason be assigned why the pastours of the Church should haue power to applie the merits of the passion of Christ for remission of the guilt of the sinnes themselues with the eternall paine and yet not haue power to applie the same for the remission of the temporall punishment as due vnto them after the remission according to the order of Gods iustice as the eternall punishment was due before it especiallie considering that the temporall paine as being farre inferiour in nature and qualitie to the sinne itselfe it requires much lesse power and fewer conditions for its remission then doth the guilt of the sinne and eternall paine to the guilt annexed The other place of scripture is not onelie for the proofe of the power to graunt Indulgences but also of the practice of the same by S. Paule himselfe the 2. chapter of the second epistle to the Corinth where speaking to the same Corinthians he sayth of himselfe And whome you haue pardoned anie thing I also For my selfe also that which I pardoned if I pardoned anie thing for you in the person of Christ that we be not circumuented of Satam Which wordes altho' they be obscure in the Gramaticall construction yet doe they sufficientlie declare those partes and conditions which are found in such Indulgences as are now practiced in the Roman Church that is to say power in the collator or giuer pietie in the cause and grace in the receiuer S. Paule sheweth his authoritie in that he affirmeth he gaue perdon to the incestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ that is by authoritie from him receiued he sheweth the cause to haue beene the common profit of the Corinthians themselues to wit least they should be circumuented by the deuill so that they in the like occasion might fall in to desperation by ouer much rigour as the incestuous man might haue done if he had not beene pardoned in the performance of some parte of the punishment due to his offense Lastelie he in the precedent wordes sheweth the receiuer to haue beene in the state of grace in that he signifieth his sorowe and pennance to haue beene so great that he was readie to haue beene swalowed vp by the excesse of it And so by this we may perceiue howe deceitfullie Sir Humfrey proceedeth in his 220. page where he insinuateth that S. Paule in the place now cited did onelie release the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication whereas indeede the Apostle did not onelie that but also did absolue him from that temporall punishment affliction in which if he had pleased he might haue constreined him to continue longer and so supplyed by his authoritatiue and suffragatorie pardon that parte of satisfaction which otherwise remained to haue beene performed by the continuation of the punishment imposed and due to the penitent according to the exaction of Gods iustice he supplyed it I saie by application of the merits or satisfactions of Christ which application also and not onelie the authoritie by which sainct Paule did it is included in those wordes in the person of Christ Theod. in 2. Cor. 2. That which by the comentarie of Theodoret vpon this passage doth plainelie appeere who discreetlie noteth that saint Paul is said here to pardone the incestuous Corinthians sinne because it was greater then his pennance And S. Ambrose lib. 2. de Paenit cap. 2. speaking of the same matter saith of S. Paule Donauit Corintho peccatum per paenitentiam And a little after Etenim qui de remittenda praedicauit paenitentia debuit de ijs qui iterandum putant Baptismum non silere By which testimonies of these two most famous and auncient authours Sir Humfreys euasion saying that the Apostle did onelie free the incestuous Corinthian from the bond of Excommunication doth euidentlie appeare to be false friuolous And thus we see that not onelie the relaxation of a punishment enioyned as the knight would haue it but also the same or very like forme of pardon which the RomaÌ„ Church vseth at this present tyme was practiced by S. Paule himselfe in the foresayd case And in trueth supposing at the least certaine receiued maximes of diuinitie which might easily be demoÌ„strated by scriptures if the place did serue for it to wit that after the guilt of sinne is remitted some temporall punishment remaineth which according to the exigence of iustice must be remoueed before the soule can attaine to perfect blessednesse either by iust indurance or mercifull remission and more ouer that the same temporall affliction which many suffer in this life euen after their sinnes be intirelie remitted is not for correction and commination onely as the sectaries doe friuolouslie contend as appeareth plainelie in the example of Dauid who altho' he knewe from the mouth of a Prophet that the guilt of his adultry was pardoned yet vnderstanding neuerthelesse by the same Prophet that ther remained no smale punishment behinde to wit no lesse then the death of his dearest child and that as the scripture it selfe testifieth neither for correction nor commination onely but because by his scandalous actioÌ„ he had caused the enimies of God to blaspheme his name and as the text declareth in the 2. Booke of the Kings the 12. chapter propter verbum hoc that is for this thy fact taking word for action as it is most frequently taken in the scriptures and yet besides all this the same Dauid did voluntarie pennance composing
cites yet hath he others in the same place which doe sufficientlie declare his meaning in that manner of speech for he presentlie addes that S. Gregorie is sayde to haue graunted Indulgences they saye saith he that there was some most auncient vse of them among the Romans which the stations of the Citie giue vs to vnderstand And hence it is that the same Bishop in the same place turning his speach to Luther his aduersarie sayth vnto him wherefore thou art a meere imposter or deceiuer of the people not the Popes to whome in this point of Indulgences both the Gospell fauoreth and a generall Councell subscribes also the vniuersal companie of moderne interpreters vpon those wordes of Christ math 16. whatsoeuer you shall bynde in earth shall be bounde in heauen whatsoeuer you shall loose in earth shall be loosed in heauē thus hee So that it is plaine that Bishop Fisher neuer duobted of the power of Indulgēces or that the vse of them is not lawfull or profitable as neither doth he bring in question whether the auncient Fathers diuines did denie or not acknowledge these particulars but as I saide before he onelie treates of the antiquitie of the vse of the same as manifestlie appeares euen by the same wordes which the knight cites where he sayth that Indulgences began not till a while after the sainte or tremble of Purgatotie By which also it doth further appeare that in his passage that renowned Prelate who not onelie with his pen but also with his sacred bloud defended the Roman faith as well in this as all other points is not sincerelie dealt with nor pertinentlie alledged to the true state of the question proposed by our aduersarie Now other authours which Sir Humfrey cities onely affirme that much can not be said of Indulgences of certaintie as vndoubtedly true seeing scriptures speake not of them expresselie as Durand affirmes to which purpose also Antoninus speakes yet neither of them say that nothing can be spoken with certainetie of them Which is not contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists who altho' they beleeue there is sufficient grounde of the power truth of them in the Bible yet they willingly graunte with all that diuers particulars concerning them are disputable among diuines And it is cleare that Durand S. Antoninus as they say onely that pauca fewe things can be sayde with certainetie of pardons or Indulgences that the scripture doth not speake expressely of them so by the same reason euident it is that the same authours graunte that both some things may be pronounced certainly of them also that at the least ther is implicit vnexpressed mention or containement of them in the scripture to wit of power of the Church to graunt vse them which a lone is sufficient to shewe that they consequētly maintaine the vniuersalite antiquitie of the Roman doctrine in this point impugne the contrarie position of the false reformers who absolutelie obstinatelie denie such power to reside in the Church of God And as for that which Durand affirmes that diuers of the auncient Fathers make no mention of Indulgences yet he doth not say that it doth thence followe that they did reiect the power or vse of them in the Church much lesse doth Durand affirme that other auncient Fathers did not mention them yea if he had affirmed this yet he him selfe kewe well enuffe that this being but a negatiue argument at the most it proueth nothing But that which followes of those auncient Fathers silēce in this matter is that they had not occasion to speake of them as others had or at the most that Indulgences were not much in vse in their tymes which doth not contradict the Romanists who doe not stand vpon defense of the frequent vse of them in the Primatiue Church but of the power which they maintaine to be as auncient as the spirituall power of binding loosing giuen by Christ him selfe to the Pastors of his Church in most generall and ample manner Mat. 16. And to this I adde that which Sir Humfrey for his owne aduantage omitted in the citation of both Durand Antoninus to wit that they both alledge the testimonie of S. Gregorie for the vse actuall graunte of Indulgēces Gregorius tamen loquitur qu◠etiam Indulgentias Rom◠iustituit instationibus vt dicitur Durand id 4. sent d. 20. q. 3. which Pope say they is reported to haue instituted the Roman stations which wordes of Durand the like of S. Antoninus if the knight had rehearsed as he ought to haue done according to the lawes of plaine dealing the vse of Indulgences would haue appeared not to be so newe as he indeuores to persuade his reader Touching the citation of Caietan Sir Humfrey proceedes no lesse insincerely for in the same place which is his 15. Opuscle Ex his hābetur textibus non solum quod Indulgentiarū gratia antiqua est in Christi Ecclesia non noua inuētio sed habentur clarè quatuor c. Caiet Opusc 15. c. 1. he addes that in the fourth of the sentences it is alledged by S. Thomas that S. Gregorie did institute the stations of Indulgences producing manie other testimonies out of the Ecclesiasticall decrees he concludes thus Out of those texts it is had that the graunte of Indulgences is not onely auncient but c. Where also the reader is to be aduertised that Caietan is corrupted by Sir Humfreys translation of the worde hunc or hanc them which the author referres to the begining or certaintie of their begining not to the Indulgences themselues or power to graunte them And doubtlesse siluester Prierias had the same meaning where he sayde if so he sayde that Pardōs are not knowne vnto vs by the authoritie of the scripture but by the authoritie of the Church of Roman for the sense is that they are not expressely declared deliuered vnto vs by the text of the scripture in plaine wordes but by the Church whose office it is to propose such doctrine in particular to the faithfull as she findes not so plainely deliuered in the scripture as they themselues can without her directions come to due knowledge of it And surely this athour is so farre frome denying the Antiquitie of the power vse of perdons that he professedly defended the same against his professed aduersarie Luther And the same I saye of Eckius Tecelius who as Sir Humfrey can not be ignorant were also Luthers Antagonists euē in this particular to omit that he cites those two authors onely vpō relation of the Councel of Trents historie in English to which as I haue alreader noted we giue no credit Nay since I writ this at first I finde that Prierias Eckius Tecelius are falsely charged by the same false historie of Trent to haue layde for their grounde of Indulgēces the Popes authoritie in their impugnation
the authours them selues with attention care And as for Theodoretus Iames Gordon in his fourth Controuersie of transsubstantiation noteth that if he be trulie translated according to the force of the Greeke wordes all difficultie touching his true meaning doth presentlie cease And thus much for Theodoretus who is no way eluded by Valentia but truelie sincerelie expounded As for Bellarmin whome when he answereth to the testimonie of S. Cyprian aboute traditiōs the knight seemeth to taxe for attributing error vnto him It is not true that Bellar. sayth that he doth not maruell that S. Cypriā erred in reasoning as Sir Humfrey affirmeth but the Cardinall onlie sayth of S. Cyprian ideo non mirum si more errantium ratiocinaretur therefore it was no maruell if he should argue after the manner of those that erre because he writ that passage to which Bellarmin doth ansere in the place cited by the knight when he defended his errour aboute rebaptization against S. Augustin But withall Bellarmin addeth that S. Cyprian reiected not all traditions as the reformers commonlie doe at the least in faith manners but onelie he disalowed that tradition in particular which S. Augustin alledged against his error onelie for that reason because he conceiued it to be cotrarie to scriptures which yet afterwardes appeared not to be so by the definition of the Church not to be So that Bellarmin is both here falselie accused to haue absolutelie affirmed S. Cyprian to haue erred in reasoning also it is false that his testimonie touching traditiōs in generall is by him eluded which is that Sir Humfrey ought to proue if he speakes according to his owne purpose in this place And not much vnlike to this is the same Bellarmin falselie accused by the knight to haue affirmed that S. Chrisostome exceeded the trueth when he sayd It is better not to be present at the sacrifice then to be present not comunicate for Bellarmin sayd not that sainct Chrysostome exceeded the truth but onelie that he spoake by excesse per excessum ita esse locutum or amplificandi gratia as he sayth afterwardes which is not to exceede the truth but to vse a tropicall speech by which the trueth is as farre extended as may be possible within her boundes but no further And more ouer Bellarmin addeth so much besides to this ansere to Saint Chrysostomes wordes Vide Bell. l. 2. de Missa cap. 10. § Porro Chrysost as takes all difficultie quite away touching his meaning in the point of Priuate Masse Neyther is Sir Hūfreys complainte against Bellarmin lesse vniuste where he sayth yet not specifiing aboute what matter that the Cardinall affirmes Prudentius to playe the poet for why should anie man be reprehended for attributing to a Poet that which is proper to all those of his profession that is to speake by way of fiction or to vse poeticall licence The trueth is I can finde no such wordes of Bellarmin as Sir Humfrey citeth but suppose he speaketh in that manner of Prudentius yet I hould it to be no greater an extenuation of his authoritie then it were an extenuation of Sir Humfreys honour to say he vseth his weapons dexterouslie or plaieth the Champion couragiouslie But yet worse then this doth Sir Humfrey deale with Bellarmin aboute his ansere to a certaine testimonie of Tertullian For whereas he onelie sayth that Tertullians authoritie is of no great accounte when he contradicts other Fathers when as S. Hierome speaketh he was no man of the Church the knight to saue labor but not to saue his honestie leaueth out that speeche of S. Hierome putteth the whole censure of Tertullian vpon Bellarmin onelie notobstanding it appeares plainelie that the greater parte of it is taken out of S. Hierome so consequentlie if anie proofe or recorde were eluded in Tertullian Sir Humfrey might more iustelie haue accused him then the Cardinall But it seemes the knight proceeded in this as those that in cases of reuenge either for want of wit or valour still strike their next fellowe whether he be in faulte or no. In conclusion Sir Humfrey had no reason to stand vpon Bellarmin's ansere to those two authours I meane Prudentius Tertullian for that neither of them in the places cited speaketh of anie point of doctrine defined by the Church but of other matters in which as it was free for them to speake what they pleased so was it also free for Bellarmin to ansere what he pleased especiallie supposing that Tertullian speakes but doubfullie in the matter for which he is taxed by the Cardinall that is in the manner of Christs penetration of his mothers wombe if he held he was borne according to the course of nature he contradicteth the rest of the Fathers in which case no one Father hath the credit of an absolute testimonie amongest the Romanists neyther can he or anie for him iustelie complaine if he be disesteemed in such a case Now for the censure which Riuera giueth of Origen to wit that he was full of errours which the Church hath alwayes detested it is so manifestlie true that no man that will not dogmatize with him can denie the same And the truth is that the reformers make as little yea much lesse account either of him or anie other ancient writers then the Romanists doe as the world knoweth especially when they finde them contrarie to their positions And not of one two or three dissenting from the rest but euen of the torrent of their consent of which ouer plaine testimonie is extant in Luther Caluin Kemnitius Chamier Vid. Luth. de capt Babyl c. 1. Calu. 4. Instit c. 18 Kem. pag. 798. Cham. de descens Chr. ad Inf. And yet for all this the knight could produce nothing in particular in which he could accuse the Romanists to haue reiected the recordes of the foresaid authours at the least in matter of faith As for S. Hierome whome Canus affirmeth to be no rule of faith I would knowe what reformer will maintaine the contrarie And if they hould him to be a rule of faith then a dieu their all-sufficiencie of scripture Besides Canus yealdes a pregnant reason why S. Hierome was not to be followed in that particular of which he speakes in that place to wit in the assignation of the Canon of the old testament because sayth Canus he followed Ioseph the Iewe but S. Austin followed the Christians in that point of doctrine which reason of Canus Sir Humfrey ought not to haue omitted if he had dealt sincerelie As impertinent as this also is the taxation of Bellarmins answere to Iustin Ireneus Epiphanius Oecumenius who seeme to haue held that the diuells are not to be tormēted with the paines of hell before the day of Iudgement For this is so absurde a position that I thinke fewe or none of the misreformed Churches defend it so I see not why Bellarmin can iustelie be reprehended for
no authoritie But suppose Cephas did indeed not signifie the head yet what great recorde I praye can that be for Sir Humfreys Church And so whether Cephas signifie the head or the feet whether ridiculum est be in or out of the bookes it auayles him nothing but some smale matter to quarell aboute yet the truth is that the most authenticall edition of Anwerpe 1585. hath the same wordes which Sir Humfreyes cites out of the Roman print in such sorte as one may rather much more suspect those wordes it is ridiculous to be falselie added in the Moguntin edition then detracted in the others Finallie whether the wordes of the Councell of Laodicea be that wee ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells as Sir Humfrey will haue it also some Catholike copies haue or whether in steed of the worde Angells wee reade angles or corners as some other editions haue the matter is not great so the decree be reight vnderstood that is so that the sense bee this we ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells superstitiouslie as some did in those tymes For this being the true meaning of the Councell as it appeareth by the subsequent wordes which are those and make congregations of abominable idolatrie to the Angells it is more then plaine that no recorde can there be founde for the doctrine of the reformed Churches But onelie it serues Sir Humfrey to make a plausible florish to the simple reader to the end that by working vpon his weaknesse by falselie taxing his aduersaries hee may make his owne impostures saleable which otherwise would putrifie spoile for want of vtterance Lastelie for proofe of his accusation Sir Humfrey after all this sturre he hath made produceth onelie one witnesse that a false one and altho' for the greater credit of his cause he held it expedient to giue him the decree of a diuinitie reader professor Deane of Louaine yet hauing examined the matter I founde by better information then Sir Humfrey can haue that Boxhorne before his reuolte had onelie the place a certaine of obscure Deanrie which function altho' it be a place of some credit yet it is farre inferiour to the dignitie either of a Deane of a Capitall Church or of a publike professour of diuinitie in the vniuersitie of Louaine both in learning honour profit And yet this man as I receiued by authenticall relation of the Deane of S. Gudula Church in Brussels others after some extraordinary familiarity which out of his ouer amorous nature he vsed to a domestike maide seruant of his owne out of an vnsetlednesse of his lubrik mynde began at first to defend that it was not necessarie for the Preist to prononce the wordes of consecration orally but onelie to speake them mentallie afterwardes as nemo repente fit malus Boxorno once a pettie-master by degrees falling into plaine heresie founde oportunitie to passe into the land of libertie I meane into Holand with bag bagage I meane with his Sacrilegious spouse the sacred spoiles of his Church Where from the place of a fugitiue Pedant he is preferred to the dignitie of a new Euangelist is become a blostering trumpeter in the pulpits of the misreformed congregations And this is the onely man which Sir Humfrey could bring for a witnesse against the practice of the Roman Church in her manner of censuring bookes or correcting the same or approuing them according to the order decree of the Councell of Trent which collapsed Deane being so infamous in his life as by this which I haue specified and more which I could relate doth appeare and being also now a professed enimy and Apostata from his mother Church let the reader iudge whether in reason his testimony ought to be admitted against her and let him withall be pleased to consider that Sir Humfrey in lue of conuincing his aduersaries of ill conscience he hath by his owne bad proceeding in this section conuinced his owne to be the worst of all so is fallē in to the same pit he prepared for his enimies incidit in foueam quam fecit by forgeing of false recordes hath incurred a farre deeper dungeon of cēsure then hitherto he did in which he must remaine either till he hath payde a double fine or put in suretie for the amendment of his manners THE XIII PERIOD IN His fourteeneth section Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to conuince his aduersaries of the defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions as he calleth them against the scriptures by which we see that as his booke increaseth in number of leaues so he increaseth in multiplication of his malicious and false accusations and these being the cardes he playeth with let vs examen his gaime He continueth confidently his allegation of his false Deane of Louaine for a witnesse against the Romanists whose worde notwithstanding ought not either in reason or according to the course of lawe to be admitted for recorde against those from whose religion he hath reuolted And so whereas he accuseth the Romā Church of poyson in religion tiranny in the common welth it is to be taken as proceeding from a poysonous minde which being once corrupted hateth the truth as much as an ill stomake loathes dainty meates As for the scriptures it is false slaunderous to affirme that the Romanists refuse to be tryed by them so they be taken together with the authoritie of the Church which the same scriptures commende as Saint Augustin speaketh against his aduersaries and in a true sense without which as one of the auncient Fathers saith verbum Dei male intellectum non est verbum Dei that is the worde of God ill vnderstanded is not the word of God Quamuis certum de scripturis non proferatur exēplum tamē earundem scripturarū à nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus quod vniuersae placet Ecclesia quam ipsarum scripturarum commēdat authoritas Aug. lib. 1. cōtra Cres c. 33. And according to this not that sacred Bible which was in the Apostles till the dayes of Luther without alteration is as you calumniously affirme ranked by the Inquisitors inter libros prohibitos among the prohibited bookes but your execrated Bible I meane your execrable translations and annotations mutilations of the most holy Bible are those that are registred in the censure where whether it haue as you affirme I knowe not certainely but I am sure it deserueth the first place because as the Philosopher saith corruptio optimi pessima and so as your Bible-corruption is in the highest degree of badnesse so ought it in reason to be ranked in the highest station of such false wares as that Catalogue condemnes And of the censure of your owne abuses I graunt you may with shame enough to your selues be eye witnesses but if you meane you are eye witnesses of the censure of the true scriptures
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
string that the Roman Church houlds the scriptures to be imperfect but I knowe none that makes them so imperfect as the misreformed Churches by cutting of diuers partes of them and condemning them for Apochripha in their consistoriall sessions by corrupting the text by false translations erroneous interpretations as I haue aboue declared And touching the Roman Church I haue alreadie tould him that he belyeth her For neither she here selfe nor anie of her members euer defended that tenet absolutelie that the scriptures are imperfect But onelie some Romanists affirme the scriptures alone to be no perfect rule of faith yet they neuer say they are imperfect For one thing it is to be perfect in them selues an other thing to be perfect as they be a rule of faith The first is absolutelie true maintained by all Romanists the second is but true secundum quid with restriction as before hath ben declared or as it is but one parte yet the cheefest the farre more perfect noble Wherefore the Romanists as the reader may perceiue hould both the scriptures Fathers for perfect campleit absolutelie speaking wher as the reformers whatsoeuer they say in wordes yet indeeds they doe mangle martyrize them most cruellie as a booke published by a reformed minister called the censure of the Fathers doth giue ouer plaine testimonie Censura Patrum And thus handled by thim I graunt the reformers may chalenge them for theirs but taking them in their compleit perfect latitude puritie the Romanists my iustelie say all myne in which action notwithstanding there is no police vsed to deceiue the ignorant as the reformers vse to doe but plaine dealing for their true instruction And to say the Romanists silence scriptures it is so manifest an vntruth as it needs no other confutation But by the lye Neyther doe they otherwise purge either them or anie learned writers but onelie or at the least cheefelie from such darnell as you enimies to the Crop of Christ vse to sowe by night in the feild of faith According to the sentence of the authour of the Impect Commentarie of S. Mathewe hom 44. speaking of hereticall Preists whose wordes altho' the knight world faine applie them against the Romanists yet they can not possible be so trulie fitlie accommodated to anie as to his owne ministers Bishops whose common knowne practice is by seueritie of lawes all fortes of punishment not by their bookes writings to musle the Romanists mouthes because to vse the wordes of the foresaid author they knowe that if the truth be once layd opē their Church shall be forsaken they from their Pontificall dignitie shall be brought downe to the basenesse of the people And now we see by the examen of this whole sectiō howe false Sir Humfreyes cardes haue proued how plainelie he hath lost the game notwithstanding all his iudling tricks counterfeit shuffling of which sleights there are such great store in this section that there is no place for anie matter of substance but onelie verball florishes to giue colour countenance to his fained calumnious accusations THE XIV PERIOD SIR Humfrey tells vs that in this section following there are contained allegations collected out of Bellarmin for testification of the truth of the reformed doctrine in the cheefe points of controuersie I haue alreadie declared that the Romanists reiect not either true scriptures or Fathers nor yet anie other authours of the Roman Church but onelie as either corrupted by heretikes or els onelie where we finde them to haue some singular opinion or tenet against the vniforme doctrine of the rest in matters of faith manners or Ecclesiasticall practice or discipline or els in some particular points not then sufficientlie declared determined by the Church when they did so vtter their opinions of which sorte of writers neuerthelesse there neuer were anie such either in number or qualitie of doctrine as could either make or marre the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Church in that nature And as for Bellarmin whome Sir Humfrey citeth in this section we are so farre from taking exceptions at anie thing that he euer writ published that we all hould him for a most faithfull diligent defender not onelie of the principall points of our faith but also of euerie one of them in particular of the whole Roman doctrine in so much that I accounte it no lesse then plaine madnesse in that man whoe shall offer to make vse of his testimonie for the contrarie knowing for certaine that if he be sincerelie alledged rightlie vnderstāded nothing can be founde in him for the aduerse parte And to the end that this may more plainely appeare I will breeflie examen those particular places which Sir Humfrey produceth for the contrarie First therefore he citeth Bellarmin as confessing the vncertainty of all the Trēt Sacramēts as the knight termeth thē because forsooth in his third booke of Iustification the 8. chap. he graunteth that none can be certaine by the certaintie of faith that he receiueth a true Sacrament in regard in depends vpon the intention of the minister But this testimonie I haue alreadie shewed to be delusorie it is wholie impertinent to the purpose for that the question aboute the necessitie of the knowledge of the intention of the minister by faith is no principall controuersie betwixt vs but rather meerelie incident Neyther yet can the reformers finde the contrarie position in anie place of scripture by that meanes to make it a point of faith for themselues Secondlie he induceth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. touching the reformers denyall of transsubstantiation To which place I haue also ansered before it is not for this purpose in regarde there is no mention of anie denyall of the trueth of trassubstantiation or confession of the Reformers tenet in that point but onelie of an other incident question viz. whether transsubstantiation can be proued by expresse wordes of scripture And at least touching the maine point to omit the other as impertinent disagreable to the title of our aduersaries questiō which is of principal points of controuersie it is too cleare that Bellarmin defended the affirmatiue in terminis in plaine tearmes And so this is no such confession as Sir Humfrey seekes for in this place Besides that all Bellarmins confession is but one pore non est improbabile Thirdlie he citeth Bellarmins confession against priuate Masse lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. 10. But the latter place I haue examined before founde it corrupted by Sir Humfrey both in wordes sense neyther are the wordes sincerelie recited by omission of omnino sine declaratione Ecclesiae transposition of the text And here I further adde that neyther of the places is to this purpose because they proue no vnlawfulnesse or absolute imperfection in priuate Masses but onelie at the most their lesse lawfulnes their lesse
partiallity of the rule of faith where yet nothing is to be found in that sense which the knight fraudulently framed to his owne purpose And now from hence I passe to the Epistle dedicatory on which I had scarce cast myne eyes when presently I discouered two or three slanderous lyes vttered by the author the firste is that the pretended Catholike Church as he phraseth her is made the whole rule of faith by the Romanists the second that the Romane Catholikes are tought to eate their God kill their King the third that the Pope at this day alloweth of the Iewes Talmud inhibiteth the bookes of Protestants And those vntruthes I haue noted onely not for that I could not haue marked out others but because they seemed the most obuious grosse palpable I omit also to specify diuers places of Bellarmine cited by Sir Humfrey both heere in many other partes of his worke which well examined can serue him for no other purpose thē to coulore his cousinage And as for the rest of his preface I can assure the reader it is little more then an idle tedious repetition of the same matters which he handled in his firste booke and whosoeuer will take the paines to read both his pamphlets will find so frequent rehersall of the same things that his eares will tingle to heere them nay some whole chapters of this booke there bee which excepting the title haue little other matter then the same which is found in the other as will appeere in particular to him who shall conferre the two last sections of it with the tenth eleuenth sections of the safe way In so much that I thinke I may not vnfitly say of the workes of Sir Humfrey that which a certaine pleasant wit sayd once of the writings of Luther Tolle contradictiones calumnias mendacia dicteria ac schommata scurillia in Catholicos Romanos inanes digressiones ambages atque inutiles verborum multiplicationes duo eius volumina in vnum haud magnum libellulum redigi posse non dubito that is take way Sir Humfreys contradictions calumniations lyes take away his scoffes ieastes against the Romane Catholikes his idle vaine digressions multiplication of wordes or repetition of matter with his friuolous circumlocutions I doe not doubt but both his volumes may be easily reduced to the bulke of one small pāphlet And thus much concerning the Preface the booke in generall from whence I passe to particulars THE DISCVSSION OF THE SEVERAL sections in their order Sec. 1. In his first section I thinke I may trulie say Sir Humfrey telleth but one vntruth but it is so lardge a lye that it reaches from end to end I meane but one totall lye for partiall lyes there are diuers This totall vntruth is in that he affirmeth in his second page that the difference betwixt vs them is such as was betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists which is manifestly conuinced to be false euen by those same words which he himself cites out of that holy doctor Aug. de vnit Eccl. cap. 2. who directly sayth that the question betweene him them was vbi sit Ecclesia where the Church is And yet the question is not betwixt the Romanists the Reformers where the true Church is but which is the true Church that is whether the Romane church all the rest of the particular Churches in the world adhering to obeying that Church as the cheife mother Church be that true Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed commended in the scriptures or the reformed Church or Churches wheresoeuer they be which the reader may plainly perceaue to be a farre different question from that of which S. Augustine speaketh in the place cited by the kinght Secondly the whole discourse of this section runneth vpon a false supposition to witt that the Romanists refuse to proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onelie as S. Augustine did saith the kinght against the donatists but this is not true for the Romanists are so farre for reprouing that course in this point that they scarce vse any other proofes then those same scriptures which the same S. Augustin ordinarily vseth for that purpose as may be seene in the workes of both ancient moderne diuines Thirdly neuertheles when the Romanists say they proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onely they doe not therfore meane so that they exclude the interpretation of them according to the ancient tradition of the same Catholike Church for so neither S. Augustine eyther against the Donatists or any other hereticks in the like case alleaged the scriptures but as the same Saint Augustine saith thou ' partly in different wordes to another purpose De vnit Eccles c. 19. vt non nisi verum sensum Catholicum teneamus not so but that we doe followe the true Catholike sense of the same scriptures And in fewe wordes that which the Romanists meane is that they doe not vse the scriptures for proofe of their Church in the sense of the pretensiue reformed Churches but ouerly in that sense which anciently hath binne imbraced by the most vniuersally floryshing Church in all or most ages according to the diuersity of tymes And thus we see cleerlie that Sir Humfrey in diuerse respects hath grosselie ignorantlie mistaken the state of the question both betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists also betwixt himselfe the Romanists And consequentlie those authorities which he produdeth eyther out of S. Augustine or other ancient Fathers are impertinent of no force against the faith of the Romane Church but on the contrarie by his false dealing he hath fallen into that by path which in his erroneous imagination he hath prepared for his aduersaries in which neuerthelesse he himselfe if he proceed in this manner is like to walke euen to the end of his iorney I meane throu ' all the sections of his booke Sec. 2. In his second section he pretends to ansere to the pretences as he termeth them taken by the Romanists from the obscuritie of scripture from the inconueniences which he saith his aduersaries alleage for the restraint of the lay peoples reading them yet he is so farre from performing his taske in this behalfe that he doth not so much as relate completelie those reasons which moue the Romā Church to ordayne the said restraint but onelie catching at one or two of the lesse important causes alleaged by Bellarmin to that purpose giuing a verie sleight superficiall ansere vnto them he spends a great part of his time in forging a new cause which he falselie conceiueth to haue binne the onelie or cheife motiue which the Roman Church had to prohibite the reading of the Bible to wit for feare as he sayth their Trent doctrine new articles should be discouered And also in breathing out an odious relation of the speaches of some particular
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
which I haue made the reader may plainely viewe the great difference ther is betweene the desired reformation of Gerson and that of the pretended Innouators of our tymes the one being almost quite opposite to the other the one intending onely to redresse the Church in some particular accessorie defects the other indeuoring violētly to destroye the whole frame and foundatiō of the visible Church and to build a newe one and finaly the one being a reformation either wholely or cheefly in the life and maners of some corrupted persons the other cheefly in faith doctrine and not regarding reformation of life but rather giuing more scope and libertie to licentiousnesse then euer was heard of in the Christian world And altho' Gerson doth insinuate the necessitie of reformation euen in matters of faith and religion yet doth he not meane of the faith and teligion maintained approued and practized by the Roman Church but he speaketh onely of the errours of heretikes some abuses of other particular persons cropen into the exercise of the true religiō in which he desired reformation to the end the state of the Church may remaine and cōtinue firme in her former puritie without staine of erroneous doctrine or corrupted manners In all which he wished the slownesse of the prelates might be hastened by the power of the secular authoritie of kings and Princes rather then lye vnamended with danger of the Roman faith and preiudice to the saluation of soules Which pious zeale of that renowned chanceler was highly to be commended as farre different from the proceedings of the authors of our newe pretended reformation who to acquire them selues a name of famous men vnder the colour of reforming the Church made a preye of the same with infinit losse of Christian soules and generall domage to virtue and religious life More ouer I am to aduertice the reader that in the citation of this author Sir Humfrey hath cōmirted twoe notable fraudes The first is in that he reherses a great parte of his wordes as if he had founde them allogether in one continuated order or text wheras the author hath them in diuers places to diuers purposes For example Sir Humfrey ioyneth that which Gerson saith of remission of sinnes by so mainie Pater nosters which he hath in his treatie of Indulgences with that other passage of preferring the particular obseruations of some countries before the lawe of God which he hath not in the same place but in an other treatise intituled de directione cordis Secondly I finde those wordes of Gerson which all or most of them being spoaken by him onely of correction of manners the kinght applyeth thē to matters of faith to persuade his reader that ther were corruptions in the Church euen in matters of faith and that the chancelor procured reformation of them An exemple of this fraude you haue in the 650. page of the deuia where the knight sayth Gersō wished at the least a restoring of the ancient faith of the Fathers tyme citing for this his treatice intituled de Coucilio Generali vnius obedientiae and quoting these wordes in the margin Ecclesia sinon ad statum Christi Apostolorum Saltem ad statum Syluestri restituenda Which wordes neuerthelesse Gerson speaketh not of matters of faith but onely of the prouision and collation of benefices as both his whole discourse and especially his precedent wordes doe most clearely demonstrate Which are these Sed longe aliter imprimatiua dolatione donatione distribuebantur bona talia quam postmodum tempore praelatorum qui caeperunt paulatim refrigescere a sanctitate priorum tandem abusi sunt collationibus bene ficiorum ciusmodi administratione quod Papae ad se paulatim multa reuocauerunt vsque adeo quod finaliter datis occasionibus acceptis quas non est hic opus recitare quasi tota iurisdictio collatio talis paenes Papam eius curiam remanebant And after theses wordes Gerson vttered those other at which Sir Humfrey catched yet according to his inueterated custome related not syncerily which if otherwise he had truely reheharsed they would haue presently discouered the truth and of what matter they were deliuered for Gerson saith vel redeundum esset ad statum Ecclesiae tempore syluestri Gregorij quando quilibet Praelatus dimittebatur in sua iurisdictione sollidudinis parte nowe let the reader confer all these wordes of Gerson with the citation of Sir humfrey in the page aboue noted he will presently perceiue howe he hath corrupted thē both in tenor and sense and how he hath foysted in the worde Ecclesia wher it is not to be founde in the text of the author As alsoe in the place taken out of Gersons in his consolatorie tract of rectifyind the hart he transposeth and mangleth his wordes leauing out the worde particular and for the wordes in aliquibus religionibus translating in manie conuents puting manie in steede of some And where the same Gerson in an other place complaining of the imperfections and vices of the regular and secular Cleargie doth explicate him selfe not to meane of all but of some particular persons Sir Humfrey guilefully omits his wordes which are these Sed nunquid hodie omnes Domini Paelati in intedictis post dicendis culpabiles sunt malis absit reliquit enim Dominus sibi in Israell septem millia virorum quorum genua non sunt curuata ante Baal and where the author speaking of disorders of the monasteries of nunnes and fryres vseth the worde quasi to giue the reader aduertisement that he speaketh not absolutely but onely by way of comparison In cōsolat the malitious knight leaues it out as if it were not to the purpose as he omits alsoe the worde nōnunqnam when the author speakes of the dāger which some tymes happeneth among the simple sorte by reason of the multiplicitie of such things as he ther mentioneth In like manner in an other tract in wheras the Chancelor at the first making some doubt of the obtaining of a certaine Indulgence by saying soe manie Pater nosters before an image of the Crucifix yet afterwardes doth moderate his owne speeches soe that it plainely apppeares he doth not condemne the same the fraudulent knight soe relateth the passage as if Gerson had not onely taxed that forme of indulgēce in particular but alsoe had absolutely renoūced the Romā doctrine touching the lawfullnes of Indulgēces in generall his wordes are these Circa haec itaque similia multum caute procedendum est prouidendum ne opponatur firma vel pertinax credulitas propter erroris periculum neque etiam oportet eiusmodi omnino pertinaciter dissentire nec etiam penitus contemnere improbare est igitur ambulandum in his via media c. by which and other the like submissiue temperate wordes which he hath afterwardes in the same place the reader may see Gerson was as farre from
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
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