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
Fathers agree euer actually with her in euery point as it is most cleare in the auncient Father Sainct Cyprian and yet more cleere in Tertullian and origen who by reason of some points of doctrine which either were not in their time sufficiently and expresselie determined by the Church or of which they had not occasion to treate may seeme in some sorte to dissent from the present Church euen in such doctrine as now is knowne and beleeued for matter of faith euen by the nouelists themselues as appeares in the point of rebaptization defended by S. Cyprian his adherēts in those times Which if it were not so its euident that the reformers were yet in farre worse case then either the Romanists should be vpon that supposition or then now they are if in worse they can be imagined to be whoe neither haue nor euer can haue any kinde of vniuersalitie or ātiquity of Fathers either metaphisicall or morall on their side And now this being all in substance are rather more then those three cited authours affirme it hence appeereth how smale reason Sir Hum. had to cite them in his fauour especiallie considering that one of them that is Alfonsus a Castro doth onely say that there is seldome mention made of transubstantiation in the Fathers not denying as it is manifest their agreement in that point but rather insinuating their consent therein tho' not so frequentlie expressed Furthermore the knigth addeth for the conclusion of this pointe that many writers and schoole men in their owne Church are so farre from graūt of antiquity vniuersalitie to this doctrine that they professe the tenet of transubstantiation was latelie receaued in the Church for a point of faith And for this he citeth Scotus as affirming that before the councell of Lateran transubstantiation was not beleeued as a point of faith and that the doctrine of it is not verie auncient in the Church Thus Sir Humfrey Tho which I answer that all tho' Bellarmin affirmes that Scotus sayde transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the councell of Lateran yet I finde he speakes not so absolutely but at the most he saith it was not solēnly declared as an article of faith before that Coūcell not denying but that it minght be also declared in other particular coūcels as in deed it was declared by the Roman coūcell vnder Nicolas the secōd aboue a hundreth fifty yeeres before and more expressely in another Roman councell vnder Gregorie the seuenth yea and maintained in the Church time out of minde Neuerthelesse by way of argument I am content to graūt to the aduersaries that which Bellarmin affirmes of Scotus Et tunc ad tertium vbi stat vis dicendum quod Ecclesia declarauit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo simbolo edito sub In. 3. in Consilio Later vbi ponitur veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quam habeantur in simboloo rum vel Atha vel Nyceni breuiter quicquid ibi dicitur esse credēdum tenendum est esse de Substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationē solemnem factam ab Ecclesia Paulo post Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectū à Deo traditum Ecclesia declarauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 in resp ad arg yet not withstanding this liberall graunt I doe affirme with all that our Church wanteth neither antiquitie nor vniuersality either in this or any other point of her doctrine and the reason is because allthough some points of her faith were not in all ages and times knowen expresselie for articles of faith yet were they in themselues such indeede and for such beleeued with an implicite faith at the least that is with such a faith as all conteined in the worde of God is belieued by all true Catholikes as an infalible trueth altho' no one particular were knowne vnto them For as it is most certaine that euery faithfull Christian which cannot reade beleeueth many things conteined in scrpture with be knoweth not in regard that altho' he is ignorant of them in particular yet in that he belieueth all that they include he allso belieueth truely euen those particular trueths which he knoweth not so allso it is certaine that euery faithfull Christian beleeuing vniuersally all that which the word of God conteines hath an vniuersall faith of whatsoeuer points of doctrine either was is or shall be declared for matters of faith by the most vniuersall Church in any difference of time and consequently he hath as ancient and vniuersall a faith of those particular points so declared as he hath of those which euen both in the Apostles time in all succeding ages were expressely knowne for articles of faith to all the Christian world And let this suffice to declare that noe point of doctrine definde by the most vniuersall Church as matter of faith conteined in the worde of God can truely be tearmed new but hath as much antiquity and vniuersality as the greatest mysterie of the Christiā faith also that if any noueltie it hath it is onely in the declaration of it quoad nos that is in respect of that new or expresse knowledge which we receiue of it by the proposition of the holy Church Which infalible manner of arriuing to a new knowledge of matters of faith because the sectaries neither haue it nor admitte it it necessarily followes that whatsoeuer doctrine they discouer in these later times must of necessity want both the foresaid properties of antiquitie and vniuersality as we haue declared in regarde they can not show as much as an implicite perpetuallie succeeding faith in the articles they haue newly broched Sir Hūfrey further more citeth allso Hostiensis and Gaufridus out of Durand in 4. d. 10. q. 1. n. 23. whoe as he affirmeth saith there were others in those daies whoe taught that the substance of bread remaines and that their opinion was not to be reiected so the knight relateth But how false and corrupted this relation is I know out of Durand himselfe for that I finde in his 10. d. of the 4. of sent q. 1. n. 15. that this passage cited by him is neither Durandes owne doctrine nor yet theirs whome he cites aboute it but onely related by them and taken out of them by Durand to frame his obiection in the begining of his question as he vseth to doe which he afterwardes solues in plaine termes saying in his 25. number Quod ante inducitur de Glossatoribus Gaufrido Hostiense super decreta dicendum quod licet recitent tres opiniones nullam tamen approbant vt veram nisi illam quod corpus Christi sit in altari per transsubstantiationem panis vim si expresse non dicunt aliquam aliam erroneam non propter hoc non est erronea non
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
I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authours true sense in which I was forced to inlarge my selfe more then the substance of the matter required the more plainelie to discouer vnto him the fraude of the aduerfarie both in detorting the sense and mangling the tenor or continuation of the text of this most Catholike and renowned Prelate Moreouer Sir Hūfrey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par q. 75. ar 7. as also the Romā Cathecisme at randome as affirming that the substance of the bread remaines till the last worde of the consecration be vttered But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long souer the substance of the bread remaines if at lenght it ceaseth as they both confesse they both agree with vs Romanists and not with the nouellists in the faith of transsubstantiation so professedly that it was more then ordinarie impudencie and madnes once to mentione them for the contrarie Now for cōclusion of the secōd paragraffe of his 9. section Sir Humfrey affirmes in his 115. p. out of Bell and suauez that manie writers in our Roman Church professe the tenet of transsubstantiatien was lately receiued for a point of faith Which affirmation neuerthelesse is not iustifiable but false and calumnious to the authours he cyteth for it videlicet Scotus Durand Tunstal Ostiensis and Gaufridus Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce supposing Erasmus whome he likewise alledgeth is no Romanist in much of his doctrine in what faith soeuer he ended his life of which I am not able to iudge yet none of these Romanists I say euer affirmed the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be no point of faith as I haue aboue sufficiently declared in my answer to euerie one of their testimonies in particular And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alledged by our aduersarie as affirming Scotus to haue said that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not dogmafidei a decree of faith before the Councell of Lateran the other as aduising to haue him and those other schoolemen corrected who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not verie auncient I professe I haue diligentlie read Scotus in this matter and I sinde he onelie saith that what soeuer is auerred to be beleeued in the Councel of the Lateran capite firmiter is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemne declaration yet he in no place hath this negatiue transsubstantiation was not a point of faith before that Councel not obstanding our aduersaries allegation to the contrarie out of the Cardinal who if he conceiued right of his whole discourse could not iudge Scotus to haue absolutelie denyed transubstantiation to haue beene a point of faith in it selfe as Sir Humfrey will haue it but at the most quoad nos or in respect of our expresse and publike faith of the same For that some of Scotus his owne wordes plainelie importe that trāssubstantiatiō is included in the institution of the Eucharist howe be it it was not explicitly or expresselie declared for such in all ages before the solemne declaration as he termeth it made in the Generall Councel of Lateran The wordes of Scotus to this sense and purpose are these Scot. d. 11. q. 3. ad ar Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis That is For it was not in the power of the Church to make this the point of transsubstantiation true or not true but of God the institutour And according to the vnderstanding deliuered by God the Church did explicate it directed as it is beleeued by the spirit of trueth By which ratiocination or discourse of Scotus it is most cleare and apparent that the point of transsubstantiation was in it selfe a matter of faith euer since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ in regarde that it being now a point of faith it must of necessitie in substance haue beene ordained for such by God himselfe for that it is not in the power of the Church to make but onelie to declare and propose to beleeuers the articles of Religion And according to this I say that suarez sauing the due respect I owe vnto them both had yet lesse reason then Bellarmin had concerning Scotus to taxe the same Scotus and some other diuines as if they had tought that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is not verie auncient For neyther Scotus as his wordes which I haue related doe testifie nor anie other approued diuine of the Roman Church doe vse anie such manner of speech or at the least haue no such sense in their wordes as euen by all those their seuerall passages which our aduersarie could alledge doth manifestlie appeare How be it some of them haue not omitted to say that the worde transsubstantiation hath not beene auncientlie vsed in the Church but eyther inuented by the Fathers of the Lateran Councel or not long before or at the most that there haue beene some in the world of a contrarie opinion to the trueth of transsubstantiation in itselfe which altho' we Romanists should graunt to be true yet doth it not argue anie noueltie in the doctrine but rather the nouellitie of some fewe extrauagant wits as heretiks or corrigible Catholikes in opposing the same which otherwise was generallie maintained by the rest of the Orthodox diuines in all succeeding ages the antiquitie of which doctrine euen those same authorities which the same Scotus himselfe professeth to be produced by him out of S. Ambrose Scot. d. 11. quest 3. §. quāt ergo to the number of 11. doe euidentlie conuince yet further adding that manie others are alledged cap. de consecrat and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better haue spared to passe their censures in that manner vpon anie Catholike diuines supposing such reprehensions serue for little or no other vse then to aforde our aduersaries the nouelists newe occasion and matter of contention without eyther necessitie or conueniencie of which the present fact of Sir Humfrey lind euen in this place doth alreadie yealde vs some experience In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might haue saued the labour for that the Romanists hould him absolutely for none of theirs as in like manner neither doe they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which neuertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though onely by waye of omission howbeit in this particular Erasmus onely affirmeth that it was late before the Church definde it which is not contrarie to the certainetie of the doctrine in it selfe but onely a superficiall relation of the time when it was declared expressely for a matter of faith or infalible trueth in
meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstāding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was boūd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questiō diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knowē for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all Christiās but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of Trēt and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the Romā Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of
the Romane Church now holdeth for true and proper Sacraments doe giue diuine grace to the receiuers as it is apparent out of those places which I cited before out of Saint Augustine for the proofe of euerie seuerall Sacrament and their seuerall effects and consequentlie they held implicitelie at the least and if either necessitie or iuste occasion had required they would haue concluded expresselie the septenarie number of Sacraments and that they were instituted by Christe for such truely and properly And now for the more moderne diuines who wrote since the time of P. Lumbard of which Sir Humfrey citeth to the number of twelue or thirteene there is not one of them who holdeth onely two proper Sacraments as the reformers doe nay there is not one of them that doth not expreslie defende the septenarie number of true and proper Sacraments excepting perhaps Alexander Hales and Durand may seeme to opinate otherwise to the incircūspect reader of which two authours neuerthelesse I say first that Hales doth not denie all those seauen nor anie one of them in particular which the Romane Church defendes to be trulie and properlie Sacraments but he onely is of opinion that onelie fower of them are to be called Sacraments of the new lawe for that as he imagined the other three to wit Pennance Order and Matrimonie had their beginning before True it is Hales cannot be excused from errour in that he affirmeth Confirmation to haue binne instituted by the Councell of Melda except he meaneth onelie that there it was declared to be properlie a Sacrament as I am persuaded he doth but neuerthelesse supposing this his singular opinion yet notwithstanding it being with all certayne that he holdeth the same Sacrament to be one of the seauen no lesse then he doth Pennance which yet he held as it seemeth to some later writers to haue binne instituted by the Apostles Iuxta numerum malorum spiritualiū debet sumi numerus Sacramētorum septem sunt differentiae morborū Hal. 4. part q. 8. mem 7. act 2. notwithstanding all this I say he is impertinentlie alleaged by the knight as an impugner of the Romane doctrine in the septenarie number of Sacraments which notwithstanding his other allucinations he as expresselie maintaines as other diuines doe as his owne wordes plainelie testifie saying thus in his 4. parte and eight question According to the number of spirituall diseases the number of Sacraments is to be taken there are seauen differences of diseases What therefore can be more manithē that this authour tought the compleat number of seuen Sacraments And as for Durand certaine it is that he doth not denie Matrimonie to be a Sacrament absolutelie as the reformers doe but he at the most onely affirmeth that it is not properly and vniuocallie a Sacrament conferring grace in the same manner the other six doe which opinion of his altho' as it sounds it can not stand firme with the doctrine of the Church yet this not our question and in case it were yet is there no reason why one mans priuate tenet nay nor the priuate tenet or errour of more then one or two should preiudicate the common doctrine of the Church both before and after him nor diminish her antiquitie and vniuersalitie in anie point of doctrine especiallie where there is no obstinacie in the authour as in these there was not neyther can the aduersaries drawe anie argument of force against the same in anie case out of one onelie authour or more if more there were contrarie to the torrent of all the rest To omit that as vasques noteth the same Durand in the same place expreslie affirmeth that it is an heresie to denie that Matrimonie is a Sacrament which doubtlesse is a cōcluding argumēt that when Durād affirmed Matrimonie not to be vniuocallie or iuste as the rest be a Sacramēt he did not absolutely deny it to be one of those seuē which the church did both then hold now houldeth to betrue Sacramēts but at the most he onely denied the truth propertie of it in that strict vniuocall manner of conferring iustificāt grace as he and other diuines affirme of the rest which being so then cannot the Reformers haue anie colour to alledge this testimonie either against the absolute truth of that Sacrament or against the Septenarie number of it with the other Nay more then this hauing now exactelie examined the matter I finde that Durand besides that he expresselie defendes the total number of seuen Sacraments disputing seuerallie of the nature of euerie one of them he doth in particular affirme of Matrimonie euen in his resolution or direct anser to the question absolutelie that it is a Sacrament and puts it in the last place for one of the seuen And these are his wordes in their seuerall places noted in the margent Tenendū est absolute quod matrimonium est Sacramētum Quia hoc determinauit Eccle. in 4. d. 26. q. 3. Et ita sunt invniuerso septē Sacramenta Idem d. 2. q. 2. n. 6. To which if we adde that which Capreolus doth testifie of the same durand all doubt of his true meaning in this point will quite vanish away Coactus fuit in vltimo opere cautius loqui vt scilicet confiteretur matrimonium esse vere proprie Sacramētum sed non vniuoce cum alijs nouae legis Sacramentis c. Capreolus in 4. sent d. 26. q. 1. §. For Capreolus saith that in his last worke or edition he was constrained to speake more cautelously soe that he confessed matoimonie to be truely and properly a Sacrament but not vniuocally By which and that also which I haue said before touching Alexander Hales the learned reader may perceiue that both the one and the other are against truth and reason alledged against the septenarie number of Sacraments and against the vniuersalitie of the doctrine of the Roman Church in that point supposing they differ not from the rest of the Romanists as their owne wordes witnesse Except it be in the manner of defending that same number yet both agreeing in the substance of the Controuersie here proposed by the knight our aduersarie Quantum ad tertium durandi and absolutelie affirming that there are truelie seuen Sacraments in the Catholike Church Moreouer in the citation of the other moderne diuines Sir Humfrey vseth much fraud and cosenage and remitting the rest till afterwardes which I will examen in their due places as they are quoted by the knight I will first produce those two whose bookes I had at the first and both of whome he egregiouslie abuseth Bellarmin is corrupted by him in three seuerall places cited in this one paragraph And first he is corrupted in his Second booke of the effect of Sacraments chap 24. where the Cardinall saying onelie that the aduersaries ought not to require of the Romanists that they shewe the name of the Septenarie number of the Sacraments either out of scripture or
the authours them selues with attention care And as for Theodoretus Iames Gordon in his fourth Controuersie of transsubstantiation noteth that if he be trulie translated according to the force of the Greeke wordes all difficultie touching his true meaning doth presentlie cease And thus much for Theodoretus who is no way eluded by Valentia but truelie sincerelie expounded As for Bellarmin whome when he answereth to the testimonie of S. Cyprian aboute traditiōs the knight seemeth to taxe for attributing error vnto him It is not true that Bellar. sayth that he doth not maruell that S. Cypriā erred in reasoning as Sir Humfrey affirmeth but the Cardinall onlie sayth of S. Cyprian ideo non mirum si more errantium ratiocinaretur therefore it was no maruell if he should argue after the manner of those that erre because he writ that passage to which Bellarmin doth ansere in the place cited by the knight when he defended his errour aboute rebaptization against S. Augustin But withall Bellarmin addeth that S. Cyprian reiected not all traditions as the reformers commonlie doe at the least in faith manners but onelie he disalowed that tradition in particular which S. Augustin alledged against his error onelie for that reason because he conceiued it to be cotrarie to scriptures which yet afterwardes appeared not to be so by the definition of the Church not to be So that Bellarmin is both here falselie accused to haue absolutelie affirmed S. Cyprian to haue erred in reasoning also it is false that his testimonie touching traditiōs in generall is by him eluded which is that Sir Humfrey ought to proue if he speakes according to his owne purpose in this place And not much vnlike to this is the same Bellarmin falselie accused by the knight to haue affirmed that S. Chrisostome exceeded the trueth when he sayd It is better not to be present at the sacrifice then to be present not comunicate for Bellarmin sayd not that sainct Chrysostome exceeded the truth but onelie that he spoake by excesse per excessum ita esse locutum or amplificandi gratia as he sayth afterwardes which is not to exceede the truth but to vse a tropicall speech by which the trueth is as farre extended as may be possible within her boundes but no further And more ouer Bellarmin addeth so much besides to this ansere to Saint Chrysostomes wordes Vide Bell. l. 2. de Missa cap. 10. § Porro Chrysost as takes all difficultie quite away touching his meaning in the point of Priuate Masse Neyther is Sir Hūfreys complainte against Bellarmin lesse vniuste where he sayth yet not specifiing aboute what matter that the Cardinall affirmes Prudentius to playe the poet for why should anie man be reprehended for attributing to a Poet that which is proper to all those of his profession that is to speake by way of fiction or to vse poeticall licence The trueth is I can finde no such wordes of Bellarmin as Sir Humfrey citeth but suppose he speaketh in that manner of Prudentius yet I hould it to be no greater an extenuation of his authoritie then it were an extenuation of Sir Humfreys honour to say he vseth his weapons dexterouslie or plaieth the Champion couragiouslie But yet worse then this doth Sir Humfrey deale with Bellarmin aboute his ansere to a certaine testimonie of Tertullian For whereas he onelie sayth that Tertullians authoritie is of no great accounte when he contradicts other Fathers when as S. Hierome speaketh he was no man of the Church the knight to saue labor but not to saue his honestie leaueth out that speeche of S. Hierome putteth the whole censure of Tertullian vpon Bellarmin onelie notobstanding it appeares plainelie that the greater parte of it is taken out of S. Hierome so consequentlie if anie proofe or recorde were eluded in Tertullian Sir Humfrey might more iustelie haue accused him then the Cardinall But it seemes the knight proceeded in this as those that in cases of reuenge either for want of wit or valour still strike their next fellowe whether he be in faulte or no. In conclusion Sir Humfrey had no reason to stand vpon Bellarmin's ansere to those two authours I meane Prudentius Tertullian for that neither of them in the places cited speaketh of anie point of doctrine defined by the Church but of other matters in which as it was free for them to speake what they pleased so was it also free for Bellarmin to ansere what he pleased especiallie supposing that Tertullian speakes but doubfullie in the matter for which he is taxed by the Cardinall that is in the manner of Christs penetration of his mothers wombe if he held he was borne according to the course of nature he contradicteth the rest of the Fathers in which case no one Father hath the credit of an absolute testimonie amongest the Romanists neyther can he or anie for him iustelie complaine if he be disesteemed in such a case Now for the censure which Riuera giueth of Origen to wit that he was full of errours which the Church hath alwayes detested it is so manifestlie true that no man that will not dogmatize with him can denie the same And the truth is that the reformers make as little yea much lesse account either of him or anie other ancient writers then the Romanists doe as the world knoweth especially when they finde them contrarie to their positions And not of one two or three dissenting from the rest but euen of the torrent of their consent of which ouer plaine testimonie is extant in Luther Caluin Kemnitius Chamier Vid. Luth. de capt Babyl c. 1. Calu. 4. Instit c. 18 Kem. pag. 798. Cham. de descens Chr. ad Inf. And yet for all this the knight could produce nothing in particular in which he could accuse the Romanists to haue reiected the recordes of the foresaid authours at the least in matter of faith As for S. Hierome whome Canus affirmeth to be no rule of faith I would knowe what reformer will maintaine the contrarie And if they hould him to be a rule of faith then a dieu their all-sufficiencie of scripture Besides Canus yealdes a pregnant reason why S. Hierome was not to be followed in that particular of which he speakes in that place to wit in the assignation of the Canon of the old testament because sayth Canus he followed Ioseph the Iewe but S. Austin followed the Christians in that point of doctrine which reason of Canus Sir Humfrey ought not to haue omitted if he had dealt sincerelie As impertinent as this also is the taxation of Bellarmins answere to Iustin Ireneus Epiphanius Oecumenius who seeme to haue held that the diuells are not to be tormēted with the paines of hell before the day of Iudgement For this is so absurde a position that I thinke fewe or none of the misreformed Churches defend it so I see not why Bellarmin can iustelie be reprehended for
that text which hath ben at the least since the tyme of S. Augustin commonlie vsed in the Church as appeareth by the Rhemes Testamēt which because it is founde to haue ben rightlie translated is not arraigned by the Pope but exposed to be read euen by the laitie at the least by licence aduise of their Confessors Further more in regarde of the foresayd corruptions manie other which for breuitie I omitted made by heretikes in the holie scriptures those moderne authours which Sir Humfrey citeth if they be trulie cited haue ben induced to vtter some such speeches concerning the same as if they be not trulie piouslie interpreted may giue occasion of offence to the reader for example when they affirme as he sayth the scriptures to be dead caracters a dead killing letter c. such phrases neuerthelesse as it manifestlie appeareth by the rest of their doctrine discourse in those places are not vsed by those authours with an intent in anie sorte to disgrace or diminish the dignitie of the true worde of God but onelie by those comparatiue speaches to declare how subiect the scriptures are to be corrupted detorted to the defence of heresies errours if they be considered preciselie as they are the externall written letter interpreted otherwise then by the authoritie of the visible Church in all ages the ancient Councells Fathers they haue ben vhderstood Wherefore those Romanists which the knight citeth as if they had spoken irreuerentlie blasphemonlie of the holie scriptures doe no more iniurie vnto them then S. Paule did when 2. Cor. 3. he sayth of them litera occidit the letter killeth Lib. de Synodis or then did S. Hilarie when he teacheth that manie heresies haue their origin from scriptures ill vnderstood or then Martin Luther who called the Bible liber haereticorum the booke of heretikes None of which speeches as I suppose Sir Humfrey will dare to condemne either of blasphemie or irreuerence nay if he haue his senses aboute him he will easilie perceiue that those other such like phrases are not meant actiuelie of the worde of God but onelie passiuelie that is that throu ' the malice of the false interpreter it is so irreuerentlie detorted abused as if indeed it were as flexible as a nose of waxe And according to this we see that none of that which our aduersarie produceth here out of the Romanists is anie argument of irreuerence against the trueth inuiolabilitie of Gods worde but a calumnious accusatiō quite contrarie to the sense meaning of the foresaid authours who had not anie intention to taxe the scriptures but the corrupters false interpreters of them such as you pseudoreformers are your selues And now altho' by this which I haue sayd in generall touching this point of blasphemie against scripture supposed to be perpetrated by the Romanists the authors by the knight cyted remaine sufficientlie cleared from the imputation which he layes vpon them in that nature neuerthelesse because by the particular examen of the places cyted I haue discouered that either all or most of their wordes be either corruptedlie rehearsed or their sense detorted abused therefore I will seuerallie repeate their passages declare in what respects our aduersarie hath deceitfullie traduced them And to begin with Lindanus his stromata in deed I could not haue but I haue read the place cited out of his Panoplia where I finde that when he names the scripture a dead killing letter he onelie alludes to the wordes of S. Paule 2. Cor 3. for the letter killeth but the spirit giue liues Sicut illud eiusdē authoris dogma in mortuas imo ceidentes adeo literas relatum Panop lib. 1. c. 44. Neither speaking nor meaning worse of the same scripture then the Apostle himselfe affirming at the most that the bare letter of the worde of God ill interpreted doth kill the soule but reight expounded according to the tradition of the Church it doth reuiue nourish it brings it to eternall lyfe yea hauing better pondered his wordes in the end of the chapter quoted by Sir Humfrey I perceiue the doth not absolutelie call the scriptures a dead killing letter but onelie that the doctrine of that author meaning the holie Ghost as I conceiue is put in to dead killing letters As his wordes quoted in Latin in the margen declare And in this same sense I may iustelie truelie suppose the same authour speakes in the place quoted out of his other worke if any such saying he hath in regarde that a graue learned man as he is knowne to haue ben is euer iudged to be sutable to himselfe in all times places Which learned diuine is yet further cōuinced neuer to haue spoakē otherwise then reuerentlie of the scriptures in that in euerie seueral place cited by our aduersarie he stileth them sacrae litterae sacred letters And in like manner I conceiue of Charon who as being of the same faith religion he neither did nor dared to speake otherwise then with the same due respect which the Romā Church commaundes the Romanists to vse towardes the holie written worde of God Canus in his 3. chapter of his second booke is abused by the knight Nec esse eas volunt cereum quendā nasum in sensum omnem flexibiles sed potius esse per se expositas in promptu cuique sine magistro docente patere Canus lib. 3. ca. 7. f. 176 edit Louan by his imposing vpon the Romanists that which Canus speakes of the Lutherans saying that they will not haue the scriptures to be like a nose of waxe subiect to diuers senses but rather plaine for euerie one to vnderstand without a master or teacher thus the preposterous kniht doth positiuelie affirmatiuelie impute that to the Romanists which Canus onely relates to be negatiuely asserted of the scriptures by the Lutherans Turrianus agregiously abused in that he is accused to call the scriptures a Delphick sword the riddles of Sphinx and the like for he doth not absolutely say they are such but onely saith that if Christ had left in his Church that rule onely which the pretended reformers receiued from Luther to wit that scriptures are easie to be interpreted and vnderstanded and according as they haue hitherto expounded them in their owne sense then saith Turrian what els should we haue of them then a Delphick sworde In which wordes you see he doth not affirme absolutely that the scriptures are such a sworde but onely that according as the sectories handle them in their false manner of expounding they may be so compared and for this cause he puts for his marginall note how to interpret scriptures according to ones owne proper sense is as to haue a Delphick sworde so by this the authors wordes which I quote in the margen in Latin his meaning is sufficiently declared together with
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
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
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
quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant To which might be added the Councels of Lateran sub Inno. 3. cap. firmiter the florent decreto de Purgatorio and the late Councell of Trent Which all teach the same doctrine of merits as our aduersaries cannot denie to which also might be ioyned all those are testimonies of aūcient Fathers who teach that faith onely doth not iustifie nor is sufficient to saluation by all which its manifestly conuinced that the doctrine of iustificatiō could not be openly protested against both before and after the Conquest by the Preists and professours of England except Sir Humfrey will persuade vs that the faith of England in those times was different from the faith of all the world beside and euen of those who directly sent preachers for the conuersion of it from gentilisme and superstition all which being wholely incredible so by necessary consequence is the whole discourse grounded thereupon Secondly I answer that its manifest out of the words cited by the knight out of the booke of the forme of administration of Sacraments vsed in those times supposing the booke is authenticall which neuerthelesse may be suspected as being being onely produced by Cassander a suspected authour there is not any word sentence or sillable which excludes from saluation those merits which the Roman Church defendeth but onely such merits as either exclude pressely exclude the merits of the passion of Christ and therefore the question which according to the order of that directory the Priest maketh to the sick person runneth in this tennour Doest thou belieue to come to glorie not by thine owne merits but by the virtue and merits of the Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ which interrogation as you see manifestly containeth an opposition betwene the merits of the infirme man and those of Christ and for that cause he calleth them his owne as being wholy wrought by his owne naturall power without the concourse of the merits of our Sauiour consequently in that sense of no force or vertue for the obtaining of saluation That which is yet more manifest by the like question insuing made also by the Preist to the same person in this manner Doest thou belieue that our Sauiour Iesus Christ did die for our saluation And that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his passion where you see the opposition still runneth and especially heare more clearely betwixt mans owne merits or other meanes which proceed not frō Christs Passion but from some other cause not including or depending vpon them as the principall agent of all meritorious operations And verily I am persuaded that the reason why in those daies in those occasions the formes and speach where somewhat different in the matter of merit from the formes vsed in our times is no thing els but the differences of errours reigning in the worlde in those times and those that are now at this present defended by the nouellists For the Pelagian heresie which did attribute ouer much virtue to the merits of man hauing once beene and perhaps some requikes of it yet remaining verie rife in Englād whē the foresaid directory was vsed if any such there were or at the least not lōge before it was necessary that in all occasions humane merits should be as much extenuated as could possible be without preiudice of faith in that point But contrarilie in these our daies since the publication of the errours of Luther and other sectaries in this matters it was conuenient if not necessary to extoll the same merits as much as could be without preiudice to the merits of Christ Now touching that which is added in the second parte of the knigts assertion videlicet that the Preists of former times preached saluation through Christ alone it is most plainely equiuocall and in one sense it is true and conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church in all ages but in another sense it is false and disagreable to the same it is true that Christ alone is the authour of saluation and that no other then he can saue vs according to that of the Apostle Sainct Peter Act. 4. non est in alio aliquo salus Nec enim aliud nomen est sub Caelo datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos saluos fieri Neither is there any other name vnder heauen giuen to men wherein we must be saued and in this sense and no otherwise the Preists of England in more auncient times preached saluation by Christ alone yet notwithstanding all this it is false that those Preists preached saluation with an exclusion or deniall of the merits of man wrought by the grace of Christ and by virtue of his death and Passion neither was such doctrine euer taught either in England or any other place before the time of Luther except it were by some more aūcient heretikes Moreouer that which the knight putteth in the second parte of his foresaid assertion to wit that the Preists of those times published and administred the same Sacraments in the same faith and trueth which they meaning the reformers teach administer this day this I say is partelie equiuocall in that he saith they publike professed administred the same Sacramēts For tho' it were true that two of the Sacraments which those Preists administred videlicet Baptisme the Eucharist be the same which there formers administer at this day yet it is false that the foresaid Priests did the vse in their time either to professe or administer two onelie as may appeare by the same rituall out of which S. Hūfrey draweth this testimonie in which all the seauen Sacraments are contained and appointed to be administred if the booke be perfectly published without corruption Partelie also that same parte of the assertion is false for that it is manifest the foresaid Preists did not receiue those two which the reformers hould for Sacraments in the same faith which they doe for as much as the Priests mentioned receiued those two in the faith of fiue other Sacramēts which also they beleiue to be such as well as the rest supposing that the number of all the seuen Sacraments were then in beleefe and practice as much as now they bee as both the rituall cited if it be not corrupted and also the histories of those times can testifie of which fiue Sacraments neuerthelesse the reformers haue no such faith as they thēselues cōfesse To say nothing of the faith of those same Preists in other points of religion which as it is certaine by the relation of historiographes was farre different from the faith of the reformers and practice of their Churches and consequentlie it cannot with truth be said to be the same And as for the rest of the words which the knight citeth out of the same rituall they proue nothing against merit it selfe but onelie against confidēce in proper merits as appeares by those wordes in particular place
thy whole confidence in his death onelie haue confidence in no other thing that which is so farre from the deniall of merits as that it is counselled aduised euen by those who are most professed defendours of the Roman doctrine in that point as out of Bellarmine and other diuines we haue showed before Period 4. Nay and besides this it is most plaine in my iudgment that the foresaid rituall in certaine other words following in the same place did neuer intend to exclude all kinde of merit from the workes of man performed by Gods grace and assistance for that it expressely saith in the person of that sick man I offer his merits that is the merits of Christ in steede of the merits I ought to haue for if he ought to haue merits as he affirmeth euen vpon his death bed though he haue thē not euident it is that he denied not the same but plainelie supposed the truth of them And thus we see that the words of the order of baptizing benigniouslie interpreted make nothing for S. Hūfreyes position nor against the Romā doctrine of merits How be it the same was iustelie corrected by the Inquisitors both because the manner of phrase which it vseth might easily giue occasiō of errour especially in these our dayes as also because it is iustelie suspected to be Apochryphall in regarde it containes certaine ill sounding sentēces not onely in the doctrine of the Roman Church but also according to the tenets of the Reformers As where it saith thus These protestations of such as lye a dying were reuailed to a certaine religious man And those wordes he that shall protest such things as followe from his harte cannot be damned c. All which propositions and some othgers are commaunded by the authours of the Index to be blotted as well as the wordes which Sir Humfrey here cites And yet more ouer it is to be aduertised that there is not a worde in all that which our aduersarie produceth against merits which doth proue iustification by faith onelie which is that which he intendes to proue in this place as the title of his paragraph doth declare And so by this meanes he hath quite fled from his text And so this may suffice to demonstrate the falsitie of the knights assertion and the nullitie of the proofe thereof by the testimonies of his aduersaries seeing plainelie that he doth no thing therein but partlie by vntrueths and partlie by equiuocations deludes his reader not citing anie one authour either Romanist or reformer in all this paragraffe more then the wordes rehearsed out of the foresaid Rituall which neuerthelesse hauing bene as suspected of corruption chasticed by the Inquisitours the vncensured coppies which doubtlesse he and his fellowes onelie vse haue no authoritie nor credit in the Roman Church or at the most verie little and consequentlie he proceedeth most weakelie in produceing for a testimonie of his aduersarie that which they doe not acknowledge for theirs especiallie considering he alledgeth nothing els for the proofe of his tenet The second paragraffe is of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation As concerning the Sacraments of the Lords supper saith the knight In the dayes of Alfrick about the yeare 996. There was a Homilie publikelie to be read to the people one Easter day wherein the same doctrine which saith hee our Church now professeth was publikelie taught and receaued and the doctrine of the reall presence which in that time had gotte some footing in the Church was plainelie cōfuted and reiected The wordes which he citeth are these There is a greate difference betwixt the bodie wherein Christ suffered and the bodie which is receaued of the faithfull the bodie that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of marie with bloud and with bone with skinne and with sinewes in human lims with a reasonable soule liuing and his spirituall bodie which nourisheth the faithfull spirituallie is gathered of manie cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodilie but spirituallie c. Thus farre out of the homilie And this doctrine faith the knight was deliuered in those times not by one onely Bishop but by diuerse in their Synods and by them commended to the Clergie who were commaunded to reade it publikelie to the people one Easter day for their better preparation and instruction in the Sacrament and for the same cause translated into the saxon language by Alfrick and to the same purpose the Knight also citeth two other writinges or Epistles as published and translated also into the vulgar tongue by the same Alfric But to this I answer first that whatsoeuer doctrine is conteynd in the Hom. Epistles cited the Romanists are not boūd to beleeue it because the knight onely citeth them out of his owne authours and as printed by the members of his owne Church to wit out of B. Vsher and Doctour Iames and so it is both absurd and impertinent to produce thē as testimonies of his aduersaries as he professeth to doe in the title of his section especially supposing that he hath not aledged any one author of the Romanists religion where by to proue them authenticall nor yet any other indifferent witnesse but onely those two reformers whom we haue named whoe by the Romanists may iustly be suspected of partiallity in fauour of their owne cause especially if we consider that Sir Humfrey himselfe graunteth that the Latin epistle written by Alfric is to be seene mangled and razed in a manuscript in Benet colledg in Cambridge And certainely the English coppies being found not to aggree with the Latin manuscript which is either the Originall it selfe or at the least cometh much neerer the time in which the authour of it liued then any other coppie the knight could possible haue there is farre greater euidence that the latter translations and impressions are corrupted by the reformers then that either the Index expurgatorius or any other Romanist hath made any alteration or chaunge in the originall coppies or first authenticall manuscripts or in any other except it were onely to restore them to their prime innocenty and originall trueth cheefely supposing that the inquisitors in their expurgation of bookes intend no other thing more then to reduce such as be corrupted to the former purity of their originalls Thirdly I answer that admitte the editions which are published in England be true and sincerely translated and printed which neuerthelesse may iustly be suspected by reason of the manifould corruptions found to haue bene vsed in that nature by diuerse of the reformed profession as by the expurgatory Index doth plainely appeare the authours of which Index haue discouered diuers workes Fathered partely by auncient and partely by moderne sectaries vpō those who neuer writ them which was the cause as I suppose why Antonius posseuinus in the preamble to his select Bibliotheke saith that Sixtus Bellarmine and others haue manifested very maine pestilent bookes
attributed by heretikes to ancient and good authours among which we may number one cited by Sir Humfrey in some parte of his worke intitled de fiducia misericordia Dei which Bell. in his booke de Scrip. Eccles declares to be counterfait and suppositious and none of Bishop Fishers on whom it is imposed Neuerthelesse how so euer the matter standes touching the truth of the foresaid homilie and admit it be neuer soe true and authenticall yet I am confidently assured that the wordes by Sir Humfrey cited out of it against the reall presence are not so obscure but that they admitte such a comodious exposition as doth not in any sort fouour the denyall thereof but rather impugne and it confute it First for that there is not one worde which includeth a denyall of the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the wordes onelie showe a differēce betwene the body in which Christ suffered and the bodie which the faithfull receiue which difference is not reallie in the substance of the bodie it selfe it being one and the same in nature in euery place where it existeth but onely in the properties and manner of existence or being in place it hauing beene in the passion visible mortall and with it entire locall extension but in the Sacrament inuisible impassible and vnextended in which sense allso it may rightly be called spirituall yea and not altogether improperly especially taking it with a relation or respect vnto the same body perfectly extended in the manner aboue declared it may be said to be without bloud bone sinn woe limbe or soule that is without extensiō or motion of these partes as the cited wordes doe signifie which by reason of the foresaid maner of being of Christs body in the Sacrament doe call it his spirituall bodie from thence as it were inferring concluding that noething is to be vnderstood there bodily but spiritually all which is noething contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point but rather most agreeable to the same which teacheth that Christs body though it be truelie in the Sacrament yet without extension and not in a Corporall but in a spirituall manner yea and very cōformable to the doctrine of S. Paul who speaking of the resurrectiō of the flesh douteth not to call one the same humane bodie both corruptible spirituall 1. Cor. 15. Seminatur corpus animale surget corpus spirituale and that not for the difference of the bodie in it nature and substance which it hath not but onelie by reason of the accidentall difference which it hath in it properties and māner of existence which the same bodie receiueth in the resurrection not hauing had them in this mortall life True it is ther is one passage in the homilie which in my opinion hath more difficulty showe of repugnance to the reall presence transsubstantiation then the former wordes to wit where the authour makes a comparison betwixt the manna and water which flowed from the rocke in the desert both which he affirmes to haue beene figures of Christ bodie and bloud as the Eucharist also is Neuerthelesse he hath consequenter an other passage or two which plainely declare that similitude to be nothing contrarie either to the reall presence or transsubstantiation For so he addes The Apostle Paul saith that the Israelists did eate the same gostely meake and drinke the same gostely drinke because that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeares and shat water which frome the stome did follow had signification of Christs bodie his bloud that now be offered daylie in Gods Church it was the same saith he which we offer not bodily but gostely But which wordes it is euident that Alfric puts a maine difference betwixt that spirituall meate and drinke of the Iewes the spirituall foode which Catholike Christians receiue in the Sacrament that being but a signification as the authour of the Homilie expressely affirmeth of Christs body bloud it being the same not bodilie but onely spiritually or figuratiuelie with that bodie and bloud of Christ which he auerreth Preists to offer daylie and of which he also teacheth the foresaid water to be a representation not the bodie and bloud themselues which as being euerie day sacrificed in the altar euen according to common sense they must of necessitie be reallie and truelie in the Eucharist And altho' the authour of the Homilie calleth if a figure of Christs bodie bloud yet doth he not say it is a figure of thē absent as the water flowing out of the rock was but truelie and reallie present as those his wordes in which he saith and diuers time repeateth that Christs bodie and bloud are offered in the same Eucharist by Preists in sacrifice doe euidently conuince supposing it is impossible to conceiue the authour of the homilie should affirme that Christs bodie and bloud be offered in the altar and yet not beleeue the same to be reallie truelie and substantially present in the Eucharist Moreouer the same Homilie saith in plaine termes the wine which in the supper by the Preist is hallowed shewe one thing without to humane vnderstanding and another thing with in to beleeuing minds without they seeme bread and wine both in figure and tast and they be truely after their hallowing Christs bodie and his blood throu ' gostelie misterie And afterwardes these wordes doe followe we said vnto you that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housell before his suffering and said this his my bodie and my bloud yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned trou ' in visible might the bred to his owne hodie the wine to his bloud which wordes how plaine they be for the reall presence and transsubstantiation anie one that is not violently partiall in his owne cause may easilie perceiue considering that for Christ to turne by inuisible might the bread and wine into his bodie and bloud is nothing els but that which both the definitions of the Roman Church and Catholike diuines call by the names of reall presence and transsubantiation Thirdlie it is manifest that the foresaid testimonie cannot in reason be alledged in fauour of the reformers doctrine in this particular for that they denie the bodie of Christ either to exist or to be receaued really in the Eucharist otherwise then by faith figure neither of which neuertelesse is denied by the words aboue cited but contrarilie they expressely and absolutelie auerre that the bodie of Christ is receaued by the faithfull and altho' they call it his spirituall bodie yet doubtlesse they doe it onelie for the reason alledged as also for that it nourisheth the receiuers spirituallie yet they neuer denie it to be a true bodie or to be trulie present in the Sacrament or affirme it to be receiued by faith onelie as the reformers commonlie doe and Sir Humfrey in particular most expresselie in diuerse places of his booke Fourtlie the wordes alledged call
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
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
meaning of this authour both the title of his chapter out of which our aduersarie taketh the wordes he cites which is this Of the interpretation of scripture by Fathers And the whole tenor of his discourse doe sufficiently declare so that if the matter comes to scanning the fraude will easily appeare with shame enuffe to this our professed aduersarie of truth who not content with this hath also like a cheating gramster to mende his ill game dropt a carde I meane the worde nostra which he hath left out in his translation but this but a pore trick and so let it passe And perhaps it was onely the negligence of the printer But for the readers better instruction I will punctually rehearse the authors wordes concerning his true meaning as well those which Sir Humfrey hath omitted for his owne aduantage as the rest Thus he saith Doceamus quod citra Patrum interpretationem vsum ab eisdem nobis traditum nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis Euangelij verhis sacerdotum quempiam his temporibus verum Christi Corpus Sanguinem consecrare non quod res haec ambigua fit sed quod eius certitudo non tam haheatur ex Euangelij verbis quam ex Patrum interpretatione vsu tanti temporis quem illi posteris reliquerunt That is let vs teach that without the interpretation of the Fathers and the practise by thē deliuered vnto vs noman can proue by the bare wordes of the Gospell them selues that anie man in these our times doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ not because this thing is doubtfull but because the certainetie of it can not be had so much by the wordes of the Euangell as by the interpretation of Fathers and the practise of so long time which they left to posteritie By which wordes it is voyde of all doubt and tergiuersation that the authour of them neuer made question but that true Catholike Prests as he him selfe was truly consecrate and make present the uerie bodie and bloud of Christ the contrarie of which our aduersarie pretendes to proue onely intending by this pasage and others to declare against his aduersarie Martin Luther that scriptures alone without the expositiō of the Fathers and practise of the Church are not sufficient to conuince the trueth expecially when the wordes are obscure and subiet to diuers senses And therefore in his page 172. giuing the reason of this he saith Hoc idcirco dixerim ne quis ipsis Euangelij verbis pertinacius adhaereat spreta patrum interpretatione quemadmodum Lutherus fecit vsum interpretationem a patribus traditam nihili pendens nuditati verborum infistens quae non sufficiunt ad id quod velint conuincendum Therefore quoth B. Fistier I said these thinhs least anie one should ouer obstinately adhere to the wordes of the Gospell themselues as Luther did not esteeming the vse and interpretation deliuered by the Fathers and insisting in the nakednes of the wordes which are not sufficient to conuince that which they desire And in the insuing page he concludeth in this manner Therefore that is manifest which afore we promised to sbow to wit that long continuing custome and concording exposition of Fathers none dissenting doth yeald more solid certainetie how anie obscure place of the Ghospell must be vnderstood then the bare wordes which may be varioufly detorted by contentious people at their pleasure By all which wordes it is more then certaine and manifest that this authour neuer intended to show that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can not be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse as our false aduersarie doth endeuore to persuade his reader for he onely affirmes that this can not be conuinced by the bare text of scripture without the exposition of Fathers if anie contensious person should obstinately denie it as his wordes aboue cited euidently declare And as for those wordes which Sir Humfrey quotest in his margent which in English are these Neither is there anie worde put there by which the verie presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ may be proued in our Masse I say that he dealeth not honestlie in the recitall of them in regarde he omittes the next wordes following not obstanding they belong to te integritie of the same discourse and also are a plaine explication of the former as the reader of the whole discourse may more clearely vnderstand the wordes being these For altho' saith he Christ made his flesh of the bread and his bloud of rhe wine it doth not therfore follow by virtue of anie worde here set downe that we as often as we attempt the same doe effect it In which as the reader may plainely perceiue the authour absolutelie affirmeth not that Preists doe not effect that which Christ effected concerning the reall presence of his bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely saith there that is among the wordes of the institution of the Sacrament as they are related by S. Math. and in which those wordes doe this in remembrance of me are not contained there is not anie worde by virtue of which the same can be concluded of Preists which is ther affirmed of Christ our Sauiour yet not denying but expresselie auerring that by other wordes of the scripture and particularlie by those wordes rehearsed by S. Luke and S. Paule doe this in remembrance of me interpreted according to the exposition and practise of the auncient Fathers the making of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrement is firmelie proued and established And hence it is that after he had vttered those wordes which Sir Hūfrey also citeth tho' not intirely to wit non potest igitur probari per vllam scripturam it can not therfore be proued by anie scripture that either laie man or Priest as often at he shall make triall of the busines shall in like manner make the bodie and bloud of Christ of bread and wine as he him selfe did since that neither this is contained in the scripture immetiatelie after this I say he subionines for conclusion of his discourse this insuing clause By these things I thinke no man will be ignorant that the certaintie of this matter the faith of consecration as the note in his margen doth declare doth not so much depende vpon the Ghospell as vpon the vse and custome which for the space of so manie ages is commended vnto vs by the first Fathers themselues For it seemed to them the holie Ghost teaching so to interpret this parte of the Euangell and iudged it was so to be vsed in their times that whosoeuer now would introduce either an other sense or an other vse he should vtterlie resist the holie Ghost by whose instinct the former Fathers did deliuer this rite and ceremonie in the consecration of the Eucharist Thus plainelie doth Bishop Fisher explicate his owne meaning in that which he had before deliuered somat more obscurelie so that now
Fathers Primo notandū non debere aduersarios petere vt ostendamus in scripturis aut Patribus nomē septenarij Sacramētorum nā nec ipsi possunt ostendere nomē Binarij vel ternarij c. Bellar. l. 2. de effect Sacr. c. 24. yet honest Sir Humfrey translates out of the Latin quoted in his owne margent the number of seuen for the name of the number of seuen repeating the same twise for fayling and so daceiues his ignorant reader persuading him there by that euen by Bellarmins confession the number of the seuen Sacraments is not to be found either in scriptures or Fathers whereas neuerthelesse Bellarmin saith no such thing but onelie that the name of the foresaid number is not to be required in that manner supposing that the substance of a thing is oftentimes found both in scriptures and Fathers and yet not the name it selfe as appeares in the worde Trinitie of persons and in the name of the number of two Sacraments neither of which is extant in scriptures Secondlie Bellarmin is corrupted in his booke of Extreme Vnction cap. 2. Non omnes cōueniunt an cum Apostoli vngebant olto infirmos Marci 6. curabant illa fuerit vnctio sacramentalis an solū fuerit figura quaedam c. Bellar. lib. de Sacr. Extrem Vnct. c. 2. Where the false knight makes his reader beleeue that Bellarmin was one of those who disagreed from the doctrine of other diuines in the doctrine of the fiue Sacraments which he and his companions denie to be truelie and properlie Sacraments and yet the Cardinall onelie affirmes with some other authours that that vnction which the Apostles vsed aboute the sick and restored them to health the 6. of S. Marke was not the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction but rather a figure or obumbration of it Which as you see is a farre different matter from the deniall of Extreme Vnction as it is vsed in the Church to be properlie a Sacrament or one of the fiue reiected by the pretensiue reformed Congregations Thirdlie the knight corrupteth Bellarmin whome he cites in the nynth chapter of his first booke of the Sacraments where he peruertes both the translation of the wordes and sense The wordes in that he Englisheth these non est ita notum it is not so certaine whereas he ought to haue translated it is not so knowne The sense he corrupteth in that he persuades his reader that Bellarmin confesseth that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution from christ immediatelie whereas he speakes not a worde of the institurion but affirmes onelie that the sacred things which the Sacraments signifie are three iustifying grace the passiō of Christ and eternall life all which that Baptisme and Eucharrst doe fignifie saith he res notissima est it is most notorious de alijs Sacramentis non est ita notum of the rest of the Sacraments it is not so notorious or knowne Yet further adding that it is certaine that euen these fiue Sacraments which the reformers reiect signifie all those three things at the least implicitlie But to saie that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution immediatelie from Christ neuer entred in to Bellarmins thoughts tamen certum est saltem implicite ea omnia significare c. Bellar. loco cit And so if the knight had dealt playnelie and sincerelie in the citation of that place of the Cardinall he could haue found nothing for his purpose but rather the contrarie Furthermore Sir Humfrey also corrupteth vasquez most shamefullie in the 3. parte d. 2. cap. 5. n. 3. de Sacram. Matr. Where he impudentlie belyeth him affirming that Vasquez knewe well that neither moderne diuines nor auncient Fathers did conclude Matrimonie for a true Sacrament of the Church And yet the knight could not be ignorant that the same authour professedlie defendes the same to be trulie and properlie a Sacrament in the third chapter of the verie same disputation which he himselfe cites and in his 4. chap. Vasquez proueth it by the testimonies of diuers Fathers putting for parte of the title of the same chap. that the Vasquez de Mat. definition of the Church touching the truth of this Sacrament had foundation in the testimonies of the Fathers and who will please to read vasquez will finde it so In so much that Sir Humfrey in this particular is wholelie inexcusable especiallie considering that out of the place cited nothing can possiblie be collected or inferred wherebie it may in anie sorte be imagined that vasquez euer dreamed that either auncient Fathers or moderne diuines excepting durand and perhaps the Master of Sentences of whome he speakes doubtfullie not daring to affirme him absolutelie to haue beene of the same opinion with Durand as in truth he is not did conclude matrimonie not to be a true and proper Sacrament but onelie affirmes that none of the places which diuines alledge out of S. Augustin to proue the truth and propertie of that Sacrament conuince the same in the sense in which saith Vasquez we now dispute Which imagination of Vasquez tho' it were true as in my iudgement apparentlie it is not yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent in disprouing the septenarie number of Sacraments Especiallie supposing as the same Vasquez affirmes Cō Carth. 4. that the fourth Councell of Carthage in which S. Augustin was present as a great member of the same makes mētion of the Benediction of the Preist vsed in mariage as in a holie and sacred thing Graunt I say that Vasquez opinion were true yet would it not serue the knights turne either for the poofe of his intent or for the excuse of his false and craftie dealing Next after Vasquez I will put Suarez althou ' according to the order of Sir Humfrey he is the first man he belies in this Poragraph in 3. part d. 12. sec 1. where he charges him to saye that the councell of Florence did insinuate the number of 7. Sacraments Propter quod tandem haec veritas definita est in Con. Flor. in decreto Eugenij quā Graeci Armeni facile cum Latinis suceperūt Suar. loc cit and the councell of Trent did expresselie decree it for an article of faith yet suarez sayes in plaine termes that the same was defyned in the councell of Florence So that here is false dealing with suarez and with the truth to make the point of the septenarie number of Sacraments seeme newe as ther is also in the wordes following in which the same Sir Humfrey affirmes that the Romanists relie wholely vpon the Tridentine councell Ambrose Austin Chrysostome and Bede be impertinently alleged For they none of them denie that the Sacraments are no more nor lesse then seuen And of S. Isidore it is falsely affirmed by Sir Humfrey that he accounteth but of 3. Sacraments for altho' in the place quoted by him he speakes onely of three which yet is more then the knight will
will turne Iewes or Turkes they ought not to take those wordes in that rigorous sense which they doe for so by consequence if they tye themselues so strictlie to the letter of the text they must doe the same in the commaundement of the Sabaoth and so they will be come Sabatizing Iewes indeed Wherefore except Sir Humfrey will turne plaine Talmudist he can proue nothing against Christians out of the foresayd wordes Now touching authorities of auncient Fathers he confesseth that hee for beareth to cite anie in particular and what soeuer he falselie pretendeth the true reason was because he founde none to cite except hee had produced such places as they vse onelie against the idolatrie of Gentils and Ethnikes as Chamier lib. 21. de imag Daniell Chamier and others of the reformed Doctours commonlie doe which places neuer the lesse secluding their owne glosses vpon them doe not in anie sorte fauore their cause And so Sir HuÌ„frey insteede of Fathers hee cites Iewes and Gentils in whose doctrine touching this point hee showeth himselfe to be more conuersant then in Christian writers as finding more for his purpose in them then in these and therefore also as I imagin hee vseth no other answere to Bellarmin affirming that the making of images is not absolutelie prohibited by the lawe of God because God commaunded images to be made the knight I say vseth no other anser then the anser of the Iewes to wit that God did laye a generall commaunde vpon them and not vpon himselfe and so I say no more of it but leaue to the reader to iudge howsolid and good such an ansere may be and whether it sauoreth not much more of Iudaisme then of Christian religion True it is hee cites diuers authours which haue writ since the Councel of Francford but some of theÌ„ as Agrippa Erasmus Cassander Chemnitius are of no authority with vs others are suspected of corruptioÌ„ I meane to haue ben corrupted by malignant publishers as Polidor Virgil and Agobardus Others are impertineÌ„tlie alledged in regarde they eyther speake onelie of the image of God himselfe as Philo Iudeus and S. Augustin or of the manner of worship not of the substance of the honor as Peresius Bellarmin Wicelius Hincmarus for that they eyther onelie condemne the adoration of pictures takeing the word adoration for that kinde of honour which is due vnto God onelie or els they speake onelie of the priuate errous of some simple people of which sorte is Polidor Biel when they reprehend the abuses and superstitions of some simple people who out of ignorance giue more honour to images then eyther they ought to doe or the Church alloweth yet doth Polidor expresselie approue of due honour of the same as his owne wordes declare euen in those places where he vseth that reprehension for thus he saith after he had made relation of diuers images of Christ and his Apostles mentioned by Eusebius and others euen in the most primatiue yeares of the Church Hinc igitur natum vt merito tam ipsi Saluari quaÌ„ eiâ—diuis statuas in templis poni venerationi haberi consueuerit Polid lib. 6. cap. 5. Hence therefore grewe the vse of putting in Churches and honoring as well the statues of our Sauiour as his Saincts And he adds Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tamque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitne dubitare seu aliter somniare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe Sanctissimorum Patrum decreto constitutum By which wordes it is manifestly conuinced that is other wordes razed by order of the Index haue either beene foisted in by the new sectaries to wit those which auerre that till the time of S. Hierome all the auncient Fathers reiected worship of images for feare of idolatrie or els he meanes onelie that they durst not practice the same least their action might seeme idolatrous either to the ignorant Gentils or to such as were then latelie conuerted from Gentilisme and as yet but infirme in faith and easilie scandalized in this nature All which neuerthelesse cannot possible preiudice the doctrine and practice of the Church it selfe in generall So that neither anie of these authours seuerallie nor all of them together proue that absolutelie to honore the images of Christ and his saints is wicked or blasphemous which is the assertion the knight here maintaines and yet he is not ashamed to call their testimonies the confession of his aduersaries among which also that his impudencie might more clearelie appeare he foysteth in to that rancke Bellarmin and Vasquez which authours if the reader be not ouer grosselie ignorant he will easilie perceiue at the least by the rest of their workes that they cannot truelie fauore Sir Humfreys tenets in this point of Controuersie they hauing both writ professedly of it against the reformers doctrine and in defense of the practise of the Roman Church touching the vse and honour of images And as for the Emperours Valens and Theodosius whome he citeth out of Crinitus saying they made proclamation to all Christians against the images of Christ It is false that those two Emperours euer published anie decree against the images of Christ but expresselie in honour of of the same by establishing by lawe that the image of the Crosse of Christ should not be framed vpon the ground as vpon the stones of sepulchers or graues where it might easilie be prophaned by the feet of those that passed ouer them and that this is the trueth of that passage of those two Emperours or at the least of Theodosius Crinitus his verie wordes would haue plainelie declared if they had not shrunke in the wetting I meane if they had ben intirelie related by the knight who is not the first that hath corrupted the tenour of Theodosius his lawe by leauing out the worde humi vpon the grounde for the wordes of the foresaid lawe being thes let not the Crosse of Christ be painted vpon the grounde or some such like by leauing out the wordes vpon the grounde the sense as you see cometh to be quite contrarie that is the sense falleth out to be this let not the Crosse of Christ be painted which trick of the sectaries was discouered long since by Alanus Copus in his 4. Dialogue the 11. chap. to their vtter shame and discredit And yet besides this I maruell greatelie that either Sir Humfrey or his predecessours offer to make vse of the foresaid wordes of the lawe which as they are cited by him are so generall that they quite coÌ„demne the practice of the reformed brothers themselues none or verie few of them being as yet mounted to that degree of puritie as expresselie to proclame a generall lawe against the pictures of Christ as not to be painted or grauen at all and so I conclude that either those wordes of the two Emperours are to be read as the Romanists doe vse to read them and
Wherfore qui legit intelligat he that shall read Bellarmine in the place cited by the knight that is de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Will easilie preceiue him to be so farre frome the confessing all sufficiency of scripture in that sense in which the reformers take it that the verie title of his booke which is of the vnwritten worde doth manifestlie conuince the contrarie And as for the wordes which Sir Humfrey cited altho' we take them in that mangled manner in which he hath rehearsed them yet if they had ben reight vnderstood by him I ame persuaded he could haue founde no iuste coulor to produce them in fauour of himselfe For that it is manifest by those two limitations necessarie for all men preached generally to all men that the Cardinalls meaning could not be that absolutelie all things which are necessarie for euerie person or state of persons in particular or as the logitians speake necessarie either pro singulis generum or pro generibus singulorum are written in the scriptures but onely Bellarmin meant that altho' all those things are written which all men both in generall in particular must necessarilie knowe haue for the obteining of saluation yet that there are some other things necessarie to some particular persons or to some particular states of persons included in that generall number of all men which are not written as namelie aboute the Gouernment of the Church administration of the Sacraments in particular the Baptizme of children the rites of the same that the beptizme of Heretikes is valid All which Bellarmin doth so plainelie specify that it is imposible for him that reades vnderstands him to doubt of this his meaning And yet not vnlike to this doth Sir Humfrey proceed with the same Bellarmin whome he citeth to the same purpose in his first booke of the worde of God wher out of these his wordes the scripture is a most certaine most safe rule of beleeuing the kinght concludeth that it is a safer way to rely wholely vpon the worde of God which can not erre then vpon the Pope or Church which is the authoritie of man sayth hee may erre Which conclusion neuerthelesse is most false captious as well in regarde that according to Sir Humfreys owne confession Bellarmin houldeth the scripture to be but a partiall rule of faith â—age 258. as also cheeflie because when Bellarmin calleth the scripture a most certaine most safe rule he doth not exclude the authoritie of the Church or diuine tradition but expresselie includeth them both as the other parte of the totall rule of faith which scripture also so onelie not otherwise he calleth with great reason regula credendi certissima tutissima knowing neuerthelesse on the contrarie supposing for certaine that with out the authoritie of the Church traditions the scripture can neither be knowne to be true Scripture not in what sense it is to be vnderstood consequentlie as Sir Humfrey taketh it it is not either an all sufficient certaine or safe rule by an other consequence it can much lesse be imagined to be a safer way to relie wholelie vpon the written worde as the reformers doe then to rely vpon both the scriptures the authoritie of the Church diuine traditions as doe the Romanists taking God for their Father in the writteÌ„ worde the visible Church for their mother in the knowledge interpretation sense of the same And thus wee see by this discourse that Sir Humfrey proueth nothing but his owne dishonest dealing with Bellar. whom besides that which I haue alreadie showed he doth more then impudenlie belie in that he affirmeth him to allowe the worde of God to be but a pertiall rule of faith which Bellarmin doth not say but onelie that the scripture is a partiall rule Page 258. not denying but the worde of God in all it latitude js a totall rule of all the Christian Catholike faith but yet supposing for certaine that the scriptures are not totallie conuertible with the worde of God but that they are distinct things the one from the other as ta parte is from the whole which any man of common iudgement may easilie perceiue And if these be the trickes shifts by which Sir Humfrey meaneth to make Bellarmin a confesser of his reformed religion in steed of gaining him he will loose his owne faith credit The knight still passeth on his way tells his reader it is a safer way to adore Christ Iesus sitting on the reight hand of God the Father then to adore the Sactamentall bread which depends vpon the intentioÌ„ of the Preist But I tell him againe that the safest way of all is to adore Christ both in Heauen whersoeuer els he is And he himselfe hath tould vs his bodie blood are in the Sacrament wheâ— if wee will not be accounted infidels wee most constantlie beleeue he is And so we say with that most auncient vanerable Father Saint Cyrill of Ierusalem Hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus Math. 26. Mark Luc. 22. since that Christ himselfe affirmeth so saith of the bread this is my bodie who dareth here after to doubt of it he also confirming saying this is my bloud who can doubte say it is not his bloud And supposing this his reall presence which we Romanists trulie beleeue with auncient S. Cyrill the rest of the Fethers the safest way is to adore him in the Sacrament not as sitting at the reight hand of his Father onelie But as for you reformers as it can not be safe for you to denie Christs reall presence in the Eucharist so neither is it safe for you to refuse to adore him there where in the true Sacrament he is truelie present I knowe Sir kinght you make your comparison betweene the adoration of Christ in Heauen the adoration of the Sacramentall bread but it proceds vpon a false supposition for the Romanists adore not the bread but Christ vnder the forme of bread whose existence there doth not so much depend vpon the intention of the Preist but that sufficieÌ„t certaintie may be had of the same at the least much more then you can haue that you receiue a true Sacrament whe you take the bread at the ministers hand who if he hath no intention to doe it as Christ did when he gaue it to his disciples then may you receiue as much at your owne table as at the communion table But the trueth is that all this is nothing but captious cogging in Sir Humfrey for proofe of which he most impertinentlie produceth S. Aug. de bono pers lib. 13. cap. 6. Wher he hath not a worde to this purpose but onelie treateth there of the supernaturall actions of man saying that to the end our confession may be humble lowlie it is a
foundation vpon which the altitude of the Ecclesiastici structure ariseth And by this S. Augustins faith of S. Peters soueranitie in the gouerment of the Church most clearilie appeares so that no other peculiar opinion of his cōcerning the sense of those wordes super hanc Petram could possible preiudicate his owne constant doctrine in the substance of this matter in it selfe as neither could stapleton or anie other Catholike diuine by their taxation of him And yet neither did S. Augustin in deed reproue the common opinion of diuines in expounding that place of S. Mathewe of the person of S. Peter but expresselie remittes the choyse of the one or the other to the iudgement or affection of the reader as is manifest by his owne wordes vpon this same subiect in his retractions concluding his discourse aboute the two seuerall opinions in this manner Lib. 1. retract c. 21. Harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector Of these two opinions let the reader make choise of which is more probable And so this allegation is nothing to the purpose of Sir Humfreys malitious indeuors in prouing the euident testimonies of ancient Fathers to be eluded by Romanists as being neither anie euident testimonie in it selfe as I haue declared nor yet within the sphere of faith or including the point of controuersie in the matter proposed by our aduersarie in this passage as he falselie supposeth out of which compasse euerie one may lawfullie abounde in his owne sense as well the Fathers in the deliuerie of their priuate opinions as also the moderne diuines in passing their censures of the same as occasion serues So it be performed with discretion modestie as here it was by learned Stapleton as his wordes doe shewe And besides this altho' we should admitte the foresayd wordes of the Euangelist may diuerselie be expounded either of our Sauiour or of sainct Peter or both neuerthelesse the Popes supremacie cannot suffer therby anie preiudice as being sufficientlie established both by other wordes of the same passage by other places of scripture particularlie by that of S. Iohn 21. pasce oues meas c. Feede my sheepe Which wordes are so forcible for the proofe of saint Peters supreme authoritie ouer all Christs flocke that they alone with the circumstances of the text were sufficient to conuicte anie reasonable persons iudgement Thirdlie concerning the communion of the Cup he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying in his answere to the wordes of S. Ignatius one cup is distributed to all that in the latin bookes is not founde distributed to all but for all But first I say that why should Bellarmin be produced for an eluder of the Fathers recordes for telling the trueth or for reporting that which he did see with his eyes perhaps without spectacles And if it be founde by eye witnesses to be otherwise in the Latin copies then in the Greeke as truelie it is as also it is founde that the Greeke copies are not sound in diuers other particulars in which they are discouered not to agree with the citations of S. Athanasius Theodoret What sinne did Bellarmin commit in vttering the same But howsoeuer it bee good Sir Humfrey doth Bellarmin relie onelie vpon that anser nay doth he not giue two other more cheefe ansers then that both which you dissemble And yet more then this you haue shamefullie corrupted that one ansere which you cite For Bellarmin sayth not that S. Ignatius hath the wordes distributed for all but one chalis of the whole Church vnus calix totius Ecclesiae meaning that there is one common chalice because it is offered to God for all Nay besides this Bellarmin yet further addeth that the Magdeburgers read those wordes of S. Ignatius as the Romanists doe of which also craftie Sir Humfrey taketh no notice so that the reader may see that Bellarmin is here diuerslie abused by the false knight yet is he no more guiltie of eluding of the Fathers recordes in this particular then the foresayd Lutherans them selues that is nothing at all Fourthlie he taxeth Sixtus Senensis for saying he suspecteth Origen to haue ben corrupted by the heretikes where he sayth Thus much be spoken of the typicall symbolicall bodie But what if Senensis vtter his opinion in that manner of that place of Origen For doth not eyther he or at the least a number of other diuines giue other solid ansers to the same as may be seene in Bellarmin others As that it is not certaine that workes is trulie Origens that those wordes are not spoaken of the Eucharist but of the bread of the Cathecumes which we commonlie call holie bread that Origen tearmes the bodie of Christ Sybolical Typical because it is present in the Sacrament as a type or signe of the same bodie of Christ as it is vnited to the diuine worde in the mysterie of the Incarnation in a visible māner For in that place Origen compares the bodie of Christ as it is in the Sacrament with the same as it is in it proper existence And so in like manner sanders and Baronius for diuers reasons hould the wordes cited by Caluin out of the epistle of Epiphanius to Iohn of Hierusalem touching the cutting of a vayle with an image of Christ or some other man which he founde at the entrance of a Church for suppositious as being added after the whole epistle was ended And yet notobstanding they relie not intirelie vpon this answere but yeald others also which supposing the foresayd addition were truelie the wordes of that holie Father yet those same authors abundantly cleare the difficultie declare the trueth of his meaning in the controuersie of honour of images As also doth Valentia aboute the wordes of Theodoret touching transsubstantiation who sayth that the substance of bread wine ceased not in the Sacrament To which both Valentia other diuines notobstanding they kewe by that which passed in the Councell of Ephesus Theodoretus authoritie not to be great or at the least not to be so great as that hee alone could or ought to preponderate the rest of the Fathers Vid. Greg. de Val. l. 2. de transub c. 7. Suarez de Eucha D. 46. sec 4. I haue giuen other solide answeres to his wordes besides this which is related by the knight as that he calleth the accidents of the Eucharist by the name of the substāce of bread wine attributing to the naturall properties of nature or substance the name of nature or substance it selfe as both the scriptures other Fathers in the like occasions vse to doe Gelas ep particularlie Gelasius whome the reformers vse to cite against the trueth of transsubstantiation he onelie taking the worde substance which is ambiguous signifieth both the interior substance itselfe the externall signes of the same for the second not for the first all which may be easilie perceiued by him who shall read
Humfrey it plainelie appeares by the examen of witnesses which I will make presentlie and in the meane time let but the reader reflect vpon that which hath hitherto ben sayd he will easilie perceiue that Sir Hūfrey himselfe is conuinced not onelie of a bad cause an ill conscience but also of such grosse proceedings as is not able either to the partes or su credit of a Caualier But now to particulars His first charge is layde vpon the inquisitors for blotting out a certaine note made in the margen of the Bible of Robertus Stephanus vpon the 4. chapter of the deuter That God prohibiteth grauen images to be made But what razing of recordes is this Is a newe note made by some one moderne vnknowne authour not sutable to the true sense of the text in such an edition of the bible as cannot be of anie long standing to be accounted one of your recordes And if it be yours how came it into the Bible what doth it there hath not the Inquitor as much authoritie to put it out as some obscure brother of yours had to put it in the true meaning of the scripture neither in the place of that note nor anie other is that God did prohibit absolutelie all grauen images as one of the greatest diuines you haue doth ingenuouslie confesse Daniel Chamierus Panstrat l 21. de imag c. 8. n. 1. but onelie he did forbid them to be made to the end to adore them as Gods or at the least to adore them with danger of idolatrie and yet the foresayd wise annotation maketh the scripture to forbid all grauen images absolutelie Wherefore it s nothing but a false recorde ordayned to deceiue the reader by abusing the true sense of Gods worde so the Inquisitor when he branded it with a deleatur he did but execute iustice vpon a falsifier of the Kings letters which in him neither argueth bad cause nor ill conscience but sheweth both of them to be in the authour of the counterfet recorde which he foysted in to the sacred bible To omit that it being no note of anie Roman authour as it manifestlie sheweth it selfe not to be yet the knight leap'd quite out of the quire when he cited it for a record of his owne except he supposeth al the writings of the pretended reformed Doctors of what sect soeuer they be to be recordes for his Church against the Roman doctrine which is both most ridiculous in itselfe nor yet was anie such razing of the reformers recordes euer intended eyther by the Inquisitors or by anie other censurer of bookes in the Church of Rome His second charge is aboute a certaine glosse vpon Gratian which glosse affirmeth according to Sir Humfreyes relation that the Preist cannot say significatiuelie of the bread this is my bodie without telling a lye This glosse saith hee is condemned by the inquisitor to be blotted out It is true the Inquisitor did so but what then did he therefore doe it wit an ill conscience I denie the consequence And in your conscience Sir Humfrey is it not an idle glosse indeed Doe not your ministers themselues when they deliuer the communion call it the bodie blood of Christ And if the Preist lyeth when he sayth so not of the bread as the false glosse sayth if so it saith but of that which is contained vnder the forme of bread surelie your ministers tell a farre greater lye when they say significatiuelie of the bare bread that it is the bodie of Christ truelie reallie as Master Caluin affirmeth Instit l. 4. cap. 17. And so I conclude this point that Sir Humfrey had no reason at all to accuse the Inquisitor of an ill conscience in razing onelie such a recorde as is no lesse repugnant to the doctrine of the reformed Churches then to the Roman faith if anie matter of faith it were which indeed it is not so by consequence it is also impertinent to the matter here in question Thirdlie Sir Humfrey chargeth the Inquisitor for blotting out Cassanders whole tract of the Cōmunion in both kynds But what worse conscience sheweth the Inquisitor in this fact then the Inquisitors of the reformed Churches doe who are not content with a simple doleatur but daylie condemne whole Catholike volumes to the vnmercifull Vulcan And as for the recordes which you take out of Cassander we make no more accounte of them then we doe of those which you take out of Luther or Caluin so you may take them make your selfe merrie Fourthlie Caietans opinion that the wordes this is my bodie doe not sufficientlie proue transubstantiation is no recorde for you as you falselie suppose for he doth not denie transsubstantiation as you doe but expresselie defended it as his owne wordes declare which I afterwardes recitie nay he doth not affirme absolutelle as suarez wordes quoted by your selfe in your owne margent expressely declare that the foresaid wordes doe not sufficientlie proue transsubstantiation as you corruptedlie relate but onelie sayth at the most that secluding the Churches authoritie they doe not proue it which not as contrarie to faith but as a singular extrauagant opinion of that authour Pope Pius did if perhaps he did piouslie blot it out not preciselie because it fauoreth the reformers as in trueth it doth not to anie purpose but because it sm'at disfauored the truth which is that transsubstantiation is indeed plainelie enough contayned in those wordes of Christ this is my bodie Howbeit I must needs aduertice the reader that I neyther finde those wordes supposed to be Caietans blotted in anie Index that I haue seene nor yet can I finde them in anie edition of Caietan in the place cited by Suarez that is vpon the 75. q. art 1. But onelie these Conuersio non habetur explicite in Euangelio these Quod Euangelium non explicauit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus Nay more then this I finde other wordes in the same place which conuince that Caietan held transsubstantiation to be sufficientlie contained in those wordes this is my bodie for so he argues Sacramenta nouae legis efficiunt quod significant ac per hoc verba Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scilicet conuersionis continentiae vt expresse dicta sacri Concilij authoritas testatur consequens est vt cadem Christi verba significent vtramque nouitatem Wherefore supposing Caietan said not that the wordes this is my bodie conteine not sufficientlie transsubstantiation but onelie not expresselie I cannot conceiue what foundation Suarez might haue for this his relation except peraduenture Pius quintus founde that edition alone of Caietan to haue ben corrupted by heretikes therefore caused it to be corrected in that passage as indeed an other place of the same Caietan 2. 2. q. 122. is discouered by the authors of the prohibitiue Index to haue ben in that same fashion fraudulentlie depraued as the same Index expresselie
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
Dieu du quel ne sorte rien qui ne soit tel Parquoy tout ce que Du Plessis dict scauoir est qu'elle est perfecte suffisante a salut que IESV son autheur est la perfection c'st en vain car cela a este enseigne par nous deuan luy ne fut iamais dict par les Catholiques chose au contraire quant a l'obscurité doubte ambiguite nous n'en parlons pas de tout si cruement mais nous disons bien franc hement deux choses l'auons asses dict monstré cy dessus que l'scriture est fort difficile a entendre qu'elle est prisé employee de touts indifferemment bons mauuais en caution defense de toutes opinions a la ruine de plusieurs Thes ar Charons expresse wordes which I english in this māner Let vs come to particulars wich they make vs speake althou ' they propose thē wrong and otherwise thē we vtter thē to make vs odious first that we saye the scriptures ar imperfect on the contrarie wee beleeue confesse and preache them to be perfect compleat and entire sufficient as being the worke of God from whome nothing proceeds which is not such for which cause al that which Plessis saith viz. that the scripture is peafect sufficient to saluation that Iesus the author of it is perfection it selfe is in vaine For that hath ben taught by vs before him neither was anie thing to the contrarie euer spoken by the Catholiques For as much as concernes obscuritie doubtfulnes ambiguitie we doe not spaeke altogither soe crudely or rawly yet we say freely twoe things of which we haue sufficiently said and demonstrated them before that the scripture is verie hard or difficult to vnderstand that it is taken and applyed by euerie one indifferently good and bad in caution and defence of all apinions and to the ruine of manie This is that I finde in this author to this purpose which how repugnant it is to our aduersaries purpose the reader can not be ignorant except he be affectedly ignorant as the knight seemes to be euen in this particular onely this excuse I conceiue he may haue if it be as I persuade my selfe to wit that trusting to that pitt of corruption Plessis he deliuered this passage to vs by retaile as he receiued it from him which if he did I shall not besorie for that I desire not to charge my opposites more then I must of necessitie neither is ther anie need of amplification in that nature where the matter is soe copious and aboundante Touching Christophorus de cap. fontiū alledged by Sir Humfrey in the 108. page of his safe way for a denyer of transsubstantiation althou ' I haue said something alreadie in the place cited it selfe yet hauing since had a seight of that authors worke against the sacramentaries I haue further discouered he is falsely and with manifest iniurie to his person produced by our aduersarie supposing he is soe farre from vttering anie doctrine against either the reall presence or transsubstantiation that he professedly defendeth them both in his foresaid treatise in which particularly touching transsubstantiation I finde these plaine wordes in the 58. chapter of his fourth Action Transsubstantiationis articulum verbi Dei authoritate probaturi illud in primis tanquam basim ac fundumentum immobile ponimus haec Christi verba hoc est corpus meum in literali sensu esse verissima proinde supernacaneum ne dicam impium esse haec ita deprauare detorquere mutare vt corpus in corporis figuram verbum est in significat conuertatur quasi haec sententia alioquin vera esse sibique nisi ad hunc modum mutata constare non possit dicimus igitur singulae dominicae sententiae verba in sua naturali significatione sumenda esse Hoc ita cōstituto vt verborum Christi veritas constet primum necessariò consequens esse dico vt panis essentia conuertatur mutetur We being saith Christophorus to proue the article of transsubstantiation by authoritie of the diuine worde Jn primis we put it were for an immoueable foundation or graunde worke that thefe wordes of Christ this is my bodie are most true in a literall sense for which cause it is I will not say impious but at the least superfluous soe to detorte depraue and change them that the worde bodie be changed into a figure of his bodie and the verbe is into signifye as if this sentence could not other wayes be true and hang togither vnlesse it be altered in this manner Wherfore we say that euerie worde of our lordes sentence is to be taken in their naturall signification This being thus established to the end that the trueth of Christs wordes may stand firme J say first that it is necessarily consequent that the essence of bread be conuerted and changed c. Thus clearely speaketh the Archbishop which if perhaps it be not sufficient to conuince our aduersarie that this author was noe denyer of transsubstantiation let him but take a breefe view of his booke and he will be sure to finde both that point and the reall presence most exactely and copiously proued by such a multitude of testimonies both of scriptures and ancient Fathers as I knowe he will not be able to look vpon them without confusion It is true I must confesse this author in his first Action of this worke hath broached an extrauagant opinion touching the wordes of consecration for which cause principally as I suppose the expurgatorie Index prohibiteth his booke till it be corrected for in his 264. and 265. pages he endeuoreth to proue that preists doe not consecrate by virtue of those wordes hoc est corpus meum but by virtue of those hoc facete in meam commemerationem In confirmation of which his opinion althou ' he discourseth in an vnaccustomed manner among deuines both ancient and moderne yet hauing diligently conferred one of is passages with an other and duely pondered the whole sense and meaning of them I perceiue his intention was onely to dispute against and disproue those whoe hould that by the virtue and operation of these wordes hoc est corpus meum onely materially and literally accepted pronounced the consecration is performed he him selfe earnestly contending that those wordes haue their virtute force from the precept Christ hoc facite in meam commemorationem And therfore in his page 263. where he stateth his question he hath these wordes fellowing permulti sunt qui horum verborum hoc est corpus meum materialiter pronunciatorum operatione ac virtute consecrationem fieri putant Vnde nonnullos equidem vidi qui cum ad consecrationem peruentum esset miris modis halitum suum cum dictis iam verbis super panem vinum conijcerent non secus ac si in quantum nuda tantumiuodo verba sunt nihil aliud in ipsis considerando
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
to passe saith he that the number of the faithfull are so few that at all times they cannot easily be discerned His ansere is because it was foretold in the 18. of sainct Luke that when the sonne of man commeth he shall not finde faith vpon the earth marke the wisdome of this great Salomon admire it S. Luke as his wordes doe plainelie testifie speakes prophesies of the time of the comming of our Sauiour to iudge the world at the day of the generall iudgment yet Sir Humfrey most absurdlie abusedlie falselie applyes them to that vast Caos or large space of time which hath passed since the time of the Apostles to the dayes of Luther yea as it seemes by his discourse euen to the time of Christs comming to iudgment in the end of the world as if according to his reformed Logike this were a good consequence when the sonne of man commeth he shall not finde faith vpon the earth therefore the number of the faithfull is so smale that at all times they cannot easily be discerned ô acute subtile Logician in my opiniō much fitter for the carte thē the schoole of Dialect Another example I giue the reader in two places cited by the knight the one out of the 2. of Peter 2. chap. the other out of the 18. of the Reuel 3. verse which he applyeth to Indulgences pardons saying in his page 671. how comes it to passe that Indulgences pardons are graunted for monie made the treasure of their Church Because sayth he it was foretold there shall be false teachers among you by whome the way of truth shall be ill spoken of throu ' couetousnes shall with fayned wordes make marchandise of you Now it is true the place out of sainct Peter thou ' falselie fondlie applyed might farre more fitly be accommodated to the pretensiue reformed Puritanicall Nouellists whose greatest part of schollership si to rayle at the Pope Roman Church yet it is not vntrulie rehearsed but in the place quoted out of the Apocalips there is not one title to this purpose excepting that the Apostle once nameth the word merchants which neuerthelesse according to the true sense of the text maketh no more to the matter in hand then if he had named the word minister The rest of the places of scripture which he cites according to the common current exposition of the Roman Church euen at this present are vnderstood partly of the precursors of Antichrist which are the heretikes persecutors in generall of all ages partly of that great Antichriste properly so called whose comming all true Catholikes haue euer expected onely about the end or consummation of the world howbeit if a man were delighted in trifles trickes he might much more commodiously applie those same places to Luther his sequaces as hauing their pedigree discent from seuerall heretikes of former times then eyther to the Pope or Church of Rome as may also plainly appeere by the 39. articles of the new Creed of England of which excepting those fewe that agree with the doctrine of the Catholike Church there is scarce any that haue not binne defended by other heretikes ef more ancient standing as diuers learned Romanists haue demonstrated in their seuerall treatises By all which it doth appeere that althou ' Sir Humfrey hath vsed no other proofes in this section then the pure text of scripture yet hath he made so bad vse of it that all the world may cleerly perceiue that he is entred much further into his by-way then he was before Sec. 26. The 26. followeing is the conclusion of the treatise in which the author laboreth to showe the safety certainty of his owne way the vncertainty of the Romish way This is the whole drift scope not of this section onely but of the whole worke as being a breife summe of the same I confesse that if the Romanists were bound to giue credit to Sir Humfrey linds bare word in matters of faith maners then they ought of necessity to yeald him the safe way content themselues with the by but they are otherwise taught instructed they knowe that for the space of aboue 14. hundred yeeres togeather they had vnquestionable possession of the safe way to saluation may iustly say with ancient Tertullian Nos prius possedimus we had firste possession why then should we yeald vnto you take the by-way which you haue framed inuented of later yeeres nay why should we not rather with the same Tertullian boldly demaund of you who are according to the sayeing of another ancient father prodigiously borne of your selues Quiestis vos vnde quando venistis vbi tamdiu latuistis who are you from whence when did you come where haue you layne hid so long time with S. Hierome Quisquis es assector nouorum dogmatum queso vt parcas Romanis auribus parcas fidei quae apostolico ore laudata est who soeuer thou art that art a defender of new doctrine I beseech the spare the Roman eares spare that faith which is commended by the Apostles owne mouth in another place Cur post 400. annos docere nos niteris quod ante nesciuimus why after 400. yeeres I may say after 1400. yeeres doe you goe about to teach vs that which before we knew not with optatus vestrae Cathedrae originem ostendite qui vobis vultis sanctam Ecclesiam vendicare Shew the origen of your chaire you that callenge to your selues the holie Church wherfore if you vnder pretence of a reformation will enter into possessiō of the safe way if you will claime the truth leaue falsehood for vs it is not sufficient for you with a plausible flourish of speech as you vse heere Sir Humfrey to say so it is but you most firste proue your claime conuince your title that not by accusation of vs that which you haue onely performed through both your bookes for si accusasse sufficiat quis erit innocens if to accuse be sufficient who will be innocent but by positiue proofes of your owne which as yet neyther you nor any of your copemates haue euer performed You pretend sole scripture for your euidence but in place of Gods word you obtrude vnto vs your owne glosses captious illations sophiticall inferences or deductions you for your part Sir Humfrey you knowe you are ingaged by promise to ansere the Iesuites challenge which is not as you affirme hoping so to scape the brunt of the battell to proue out of some good authors that the Protestant Church so you please to call it for matter of state althou ' yours as I suppose is not truly the Protestant but the Puritan Church was all waies visible which althou ' I knowe I haue made manifest that as yet you haue not performed that taske neyther I am confident euer will be able to performe
Concedimus quod oramus Sanctos proprie ipsi orant pro nobis proprie vt cum dicimus sancte Petre ora pro nobis c. Wee graunt saith Antisiodore that wee praye to the saincts properly that they pray for vs properly as when we say Sainct Peter pray for vs. And now loe here how faithlessely the knight hath proceeded in his allegation of the testimonies of these twoe authors whoe both soe plainely conspire against him let the reader alsoe consider how little reason our aduersarie had to conclude that inuocation of saincts hath neither antiquitie vniuersalitie nor succession supposing that he can conclude no other safetie out of these and the like premisses then such as proceeds frome his owne forgerie deceite And altho' Gabriel cites an opinion of manie others that graunt the Saints doe praye onely improperly for vs by mediation of their merits yet doe they not exclude all prayer to saincts as Sir Humfrey the rest of his pretensiue reformed brothers doe whoe if they would but graunt the same the Roman Church would not soe much complaine of them neither is the difference of those Romanists frome others in the substance of this question in controuersie which is whether the saincts intercede praye for faithfull Christians liuing in this world whether we may praye vnto them inuocate them in both which partes of doctrine all Romanists agree but these diuines mentioned by Biel doe dissent from the rest onely aboute the maner of intercession which saints doe vse making a question whether they performe that charitable acte by formall prayer made vnto God for vs or by interposition of their merits by that meanes to moue his diuine maiestie to graunt our requests which manner of mediation as it is not the cheefe question betwixt our aduersarie of these tymes vs soe neither is it an argument of defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or succession in the Roman doctrine nor anie proofe of the same notes to concurre in the tenets of the moderne sectaries as Sir Humfrey doth falsely suppose proueth not but onely equiuocateth in the state of the question or rather by affected ignorance transuersteth the meaning of the foresaid diuines touching this point taking the maner for the substance of the matter soe either throu ' affected ignorance or plaine malice diludes his reader To let passe that altho' the foresaid authors doe not graunte that the saints vse anie formall or proper forme of prayer to God for vs yet doe they not deuie our in vocation vnto them Nay supposing these diuines of whose doctrine the kinght would faine take hould as if it were contrarie to the vniuersalitie of the Roman faith supposing I say as Sir Humfrey him selfe relates out of Gabriel they defend the mediation of saints by their merits at the least if he had had is senses in readinesse he might easily haue either inferred that those same authors in like māner hould that we may inuocate pray vnto them euen peoperly formally or at the least it is plaine he neither ought nor could deduce the non inuocation of saints frome the foresaid mediation as erroneously he doth consequently he greatly abuseth the maintainers of that opinion in that he produceth them against the vniuersalitie antiquitie and continuall succession of the Roman doctrine in this particular seeing they differ not a iot frome other Catholique diuines in it touching the substance of faith yea they are soe farre from this that they expressely consent with them both in the doctrine of mediation merits both which points neuerthelesse the Nouellists doe obstinately impugne soe that it appeareth as a manifest trueth that Sir Humfrey can not possible with all his arte deuises scrape anie thing out of them for the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of his pretensiue reformed congregation but rather that which doth quite destroye it if he had his dyes aboute him to perceiue it To the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey page 263. concerning images Biel subioyneth these Nec tamen propter haec imagines proijciendae sunt aut de oratorijs eliminandae occasione idololatriae deuitandae aut peregrinationes ad certas imagines vel certa loca praesertim consecrata vel etiam consecranda penitus reprehendenda non enim vsque quaque negandū est quin in certis locis singulariter reluceant beneficia maiora crebrius quam in alijs vel propter imagines sanctorum reliquias ibi conditas uel occulta ministeria alias mysteria futuris temporibus ibi celebranda aut celebrata vel alias causas nobis occultas propter quas Deus vnum locum elegit suo cultui non alium Thus much Biel in can missae sec 49. Which wordes neuerthelesse are slylie omitted by Fir Humfrey his freind Cassander which other wise are soe plaine for the Catholique practice in this matter euen at this day that they confounde them both And this is their false plot which they vsed to make this most Catholique author seeme to fauore their ill cause wheras in reallitie he is plainely against them Page 152. of the by-way Canus is cited by Sir Humfrey lib. 3. cap. 3. And falsely alledged as if he gaue a reason wherfore traditions are aboue scriptures For he onely affitmes that they are of greater force to conuince haeretikes then scriptures that which in substance was taught long since by ancient Tertullian is no blemish vnto the written worde of God which in other respects both the same Canus all other Romanists at the least equalize yea prefer before the vnwritten doctrine of the Church in generall In his citation of Canus page 399. of his by way Sir Humfrey puts the obiection as if it were the doctrine of the author whoe propoundeth ansereth the same in his last chapter of the first booke sharpely reprehending Pighius out of whose opinion the obiection is framed by Canus reproued Altho' he insinuates with all that the error of Pighius Is not in matter of faith doctrine necessatie to saluation which is that onely which Canus professeth to maintaine in the defense of the authoritie of Councels Nos enim in dogmate fidei deeretis ad salutem fidelium necessarijs Conciliorum authoritatem asserimus in rerum gestarum iudicio ordine non asserimus Canus de locis lib. 5. cap. vlt. ad sep argumentum When Costerus pag. 44. of his Enchir. prefers traditions before the word of God he takes tradition as it is writen in carnall tables of the harte by the finger of the holy spirit on the contrarie he takes the written worde of God precisely as it consists in letters caracters which may perish or be corrupted by the false construction of heretikes or otherwise And therfore Costerus calles the first internall the secōd externall scriptures in the margen of the same page 44. And when the same costerus citcd by Sir Humfrey page 149. of his Deuia in the
chapter of the third booke of Bellarmin de verbo Dei pag. 15. And of his owne by way page 503. And secondly in the same Gretzers defense of the first chapter of the first booke of Bellarmine verbo Dei In the first place he abuseth that author in that he produceth him to proue that the Church is finally resolued in to the Pope as head bodie of the same And yet in the verie same chapter page 1456. next leafe Gretzer plainely teacheth that our faith is lastely resolued in to diuine reuelatiō or in to God reueiling or that which is the same in to the prime veritie in which our faith is founded His wordes are these in latin Nam sides nostra vltima resoluitur in reuelationem diuinam seu in Deum reuelantem seu quod idem est in primam veritatem qua nititur fides nostra tanquam fundamento paimario tametsi non inficior fidem quoque resolui in Ecclesiam seu Ecclesiae propositionem altho I doe nor denye that faith is resolued in to the Church or the proposition of the Church c. Immediately after this he saith Sed haec resolutio non est omniuo vltima in principium plane substantiale essentiale sed tantum vt in fundamentum secundarium seu vt in conditionem sine qua fides neque recipitur neque retinetur And euen in these wordes by the knight the Pope alone is not put by Gretzerus for the whole Church but he doth onely say he denyeth not that the Romanists vnderstand by the Pope the Church in one acception not absolutely Which is manifest out of his wordes in the precedent page where he saith Intelligimus etiam nomine Ecclesiae Pontificem pro tempore viuentem quod ipse congregare conuocare potest Concilium hunc summi Pastoris aliorum Praesulum caetum dicimus esse immediatum ordinarium visibilem omnium Controuersiarum quae de religione existunt Iudicem By which wordes it is apparent that Gretzerus doth not take the Popes person alone for the head bodie of the Church but for the head of the bodie of the Church How be it I doe not denye but that the Pope as head cheefe parte of the whole Church may by a senecdoche be taken for the whole Church as he is accepted both by Gretzer and other diuines but yet this acception will nothing profit Sir Humfrey whose wise designe in this place is to persuade his simple reader that the Romanists take the Pope alone without a generall Councell truely and properly for the whole Roman Catholique Church which is his owne phamtasticall dreame not our doctrine In the other place Sir Humfrey plainely falsifyeth this author for wheras Gretzerus onely redargueth his aduersaries whoe falsely affirmes that what soeuer the deuill suggesteth to this or that Pope in particular euen against manifest scripture the Romanists receiue it for Gods worde saying that these things be crepitacula nugantium Praedicantium the clappers of prating preachers that in truth wee Romanists onely receiue reuerence for the worde of God that which the cheefe Bishop doth by Cathedrall definition propose vnto vs as the supreme master Iudge of controuersies Sir Humfrey by fraudulent displaceing of the worde onely putting it before the worde of God quyte peruertes the sense making his reader beleaue that Gretzer affirmes that onely to be the worde of God which the Pope proposeth and as if they held not the scripture it selfe to be Gods worde the contrarie of which neuerthelesse the Iesuit deliuers immediately before in expresse termes saying that it meaning the scripture is had reuerenced by the Pontificians for the worde of God which is soe well knowne that the impudencie of the Predicants can not denye it And thus much touching the corruption abuse of Gretzere by the calumnious knight Moreouer wheras Sir Humfrey cites Castro in his 12. booke as affirming the denyall of Purgatorie to be a most notorious knowne error of the Greciās Armeniās that author is abused by him for he meanes onely of the moderne Grecians not of the ancient Grecian Fathers as the knight giues his reader to vnderstand falsely applying Canus wordes page 181. to the Greek Church of the first ages soe that here is plaine forgerie In like fashion in his 536. page of the Deuia he falsifyes the same author lib. 1. cap. 9. For where Castro saith quamuis enim teneamur ex fide credere verum Petri successorem esse supremum totius Ecclesiae pastorem for those wordes quamuis teneamur that is altho' we are bound Sir Humfrey translates admit we are bounde to beleeue that point as if Castro had doubted of it of which neuerthelesse he makes not anie question but onely saith men are not obledged to beleeue by faith that this or that particular person is true Pope Neither yet doth he denye that euerie Pope hath infallibilitie in a reight line of succession frō S. Peter as the knight doth falsely taxe him but he affirmes onely that it is not a matter of faith soe to beleeue of euerie Pope in particular And therfore he addeth that altho' he were not to be accounted an heretike that should denye obediēce vnto this or that particular Pope to wit Clemēt or Leo yet should he not for doubt of his election sustract him selfe from his obedience And soe we see that here his no other argument then of want of honest dealing in our aduersarie And yet in his 21. section of the deuia page 551. he traduceth the same Alfonsus as if he had scoffed at the Dominicans in generall for that thay were wonte to brag before the people that he that hath once receiued their habit can not erre or fayle in fairh Wher it is true that Castro reprehends sharpely not without reason some particular religious men that vsed such speeches but he is soe farre from saying they are Dominicans that he expressely addes that least he should seeme to taxe the whole order he purposely conceiled the name Ne hoc toti ordini ac societati impressisse videar nomen ordinis ex industria subticui this he did of Charitie But Sir Humfrey contrarily is soe farre from the exercise of that great virtue that he will needs make Castro to impose that vpon a whole order which he meant onely of some particular person of persons Which is a trick of a iuggler thou ' a verie pore one Neither can I conceiue except it were by reuelation howe Sir Humfrey came to know that Castro spake of the Dominicans more then of anie other religious order but let that passe for one of his great miracles Touching the mariage of priests cassander is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey in the 23. art of his consult p. 990. where for antiquae consuetudinis immutandae he puteth in English the change of the lawe and soe leauing out the worde ancient as alsoe the wordes
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
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