Ecclesiasticall custome or lawe onelie or that there is anie such matter as oblation in the celebration of diuine seruice for that they themselues haue it not in their newe Raphsodie For Cassanders authoritie we do not care And yet I can not finde in Mycrologus those wordes which Cassander and Sir Humfrey alledge out of him to wit it can not properlie be called a communion except some besides the Preist doe communicate How be it the same Cassander in the same place doth not condemne priuate Masses for a Sacrilegious action or to be prohibited as Sir Humfrey and the rest of the Nouellists commonlie maintaine But onelie playing the parte of a Pacifyer which he professeth persuades that the auncient custome may be restored Nay and he addes further and that truelie that the Preists say when they celebrate priuatelie they doe not participate of the Sacrament in their owne priuate name but in the name of the Church and people which doubtlesse in reason is sufficient to make it a true communion if otherwise it were not And as for Mycrologus certaine it is that he is no condemner of priuate Masse how soeuer he might esteeme that communion lesse proper according to the Etymon of the worde Vid. Cassander pag. 998. in which more then one doe not actuallie receiue which is all he intendes if anie such saying he hath which notwithstanding is not contrarie to the doctrine or practise of the Romanists Innocentius tertius onelie explicates the ancient custome of the Church touching the communion of the people at euetie Masse and the change of it at seuarall times and by degrees And surelie if we consider that the Nouelists hould this Pope for one of their greatest opposites in doctrine it were madnesses to imagin that he should in anie sorte fauoure their tenets And because I reflected that Innocentius as being a Pope had no reason to finde anie greater fauour at Sir Humfreys hands then other Romanists haue founde vpon vewe of the place I discouered that he had falselie translated some parte of Innocentius wordes which make against him to wit for these wordes quia nec hoc digne potuit obseruari he translates by reason this custome was neglected whereas he should haue put in English Because neither this could be dignely or with due reuerence obserued By which false translation he inuertes the true cause of the altetation of the foresaid custome Hoffmeisterus onelie declares the publicitie of the auncient custome with a desire that endeauours may be vsed for the restitution of it with whome we Romanists all ioyne to our power so this is out of the compasse of our question The allegation of Doctour Harding who speakes much to the same purpose I haue ansered in an other place and showed the deceite of the relatour altho' in this place I finde he rehearses his wordes truelie by reason it had auailed him nothing to haue here abused him Iustinian makes no mention of either priuate or publike Masses but onelie of the participation of one consecrated bread or loafe to signifie more expresselie the vnion of charitie which is not to this purpose as neither is the place of Bellarmin following lib. 2. de missa cap. 9. as afterwardes I will declare But to returne to Doctour Harding it is true I find Sir Humfrey cytes him towardes the end of the same paragraffe out of Iewell which altho' he makes nothing for the proofe of his intent in this place but is onelie brought in vpon the by to enlarge and fournish his discourse as I suppose yet doth he abuse that learned diuine in that he leaueth out one speciall reason which he alledges why the primatiue Catholikes vsed to communicate euerie day with the Preist because sayth he they looking hourelie to be catched put to death by the Panimes I relate the sense not the formall wordes should not departe without the viaticum Which wordes being the verie harte of the authours sentence Sir Humfrey verie slylie omits it as if it were not to the purpose and by that meanes he most deformedlie couples the head and the heeles together which corruption altho' it doth not much auaile him yet it seemes he makes a recreation of that arte and so he will rather playe smale game then sit out Lastelie the wordes of Iustinian taken out of his Commentarie vpon 1. Cor 10. are impertinent for he does not affirme that the Communion directlie was giuen to all that were present as his wordes cited by the knight doe testifie which authour being the laste which he cites and no more to his purpose then the rest let this suffice for the censure of the contents of this whole paragraffe and particularlie for the confutation of that aspersion of Noueltie and corruption with the knight doth indeuore calumniouslie to cast vpon the Roman Creede it nowe being plainelie cleered and iustified by that which hath beene said and he himselfe conuinced of false dealing and forgerie The paragraffe insueing is of the seuen Sacramēts And to be plaine with Sir Humfrey I say that in the verie entrance of his treatie he telleth a plaine lie to his reader affirming the Romanists to relie wholie vpon the Councell of Trent in this pointe For this Councell expresselie hath in the margent of the decree of the septenarie number of Sacraments the Councell of Florence and in the decrees of euerie seuerall Sacrament there is reference to scriptures Councels and Fathers as the margines doe testifie Wherefore thus the knight beginneth and how he will proceed I know not but yet for the most parte an ill beginning makes an ill ending First he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying that the authoritie of the Councell of Trent if there were no other ought to suffice for proofe of the septinarie number of the Sacraments But he might with farre greater reason haue reprehend both his owne temeritie and the presumption of the reformed Churches Which without anie such authoritie as the Councell of Trent hath doe denie the foresaid number of Sacraments Besides that Bellarmins meaning is not that the Coūcell of Trent hath sufficient authoritie to define the same without foundation of the worde of God or without scripture as it seemes Sir Humfrey falselie supposeth but that supposing such a foundation it hath infallible power to declare the same as conformeable to trueth to the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church in former ages and consequentlie as a matter of faith And certainelie that Church which hath not this authoritie is no true Church nor such an one as is described in the scriptures but a meere conuenticle or Scismaticall cōgregation vnsuteable to the worde of God And whereas it seemes straunge to Sir Humfrey that according to Bellarmine one testimonie of a late Councell might suffice for the establishing of an article of faith for that by his owne tenet such an article requires both antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent let him but truelie and sincerelie consider what Bellarmines
meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstāding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was boūd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questiō diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knowē for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all Christiās but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of Trēt and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the Romā Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of
perfection or their want of frequentation in the primatiue ages which is no principall point of controuersie betweene the Reformers Romanists nay none at all And touching Bellarmins confession contained in the first place viz. That we read not expressely but gather by coniectures that the ancients did sacrifice without communion of some person or persons I say it is impertinent in regarde it inuolues no disproofe of priuate Masses as our aduersarie counningly indeuores to persuade his vnaduised reader It being sufficient for the instification of the practise of them that besides the authoritie of the present Church which approues them not anie worde either of scripture or ancient Fathers can be produced in which they ar condemned for vnlawful or repugnant to Christs institution or commaunde And if more then this were required for matters of practise in this nature certaine it is the pretensiue reformers of the Church would neuer be able to iustifie their owne order and prescription of cōmunicating at Easter or some twise or thrise more in the yeare or their newe prohibition of not receiuing their communion euen at the point of death without a competent number of neyther of which they haue not as much as one pore instance or example in the primatiue Church By which it appeares that Bellarmins confession is in this passage preposterously alledged by the knight both in respect of the Roman Doctrine against which it concludeth nothing as alsoe in respect of the inconuenience which by sequele and illation it induceth to his owne whoe yet offers the Cardinal some further abuse by omission of the worde facile in the recytal of his text Tamen id possumus ex cōiecturis facile colligere Bellar. supra Where the reader may yet once more reflect that altho' Bellarmin in his modestie tearmed the examples of antiquitie which he produceth for the practise of priuate Masses at the least in some particular cases no more then coniectures yet if some of them be duely pondered vrged with their circumstances they may iustely passe for solid reasons as that S. Chrysostome diuers tymes reprehending the people most sharpely vehemently for making the Masses priuate by their not communicating in them yet doth he not once either condemne such Masses in them selues or he him selfe euer ceased to celebrate them dayly euen then when he most preached against the negligence of those whoe were present in them without receiuing the sacrament with the preist Which doubtlesse is a morally concluding argument that Masses without communion of the people were vsed and esteemed lawful euen in those more primatiue ancient ages To which may not vnaptely be added for confirmation of the same discourse by way of aduertisment that S. Chrysostome neuer affirmed in these occasions of complainte of the people that Masses in which communicants ar wanting be euill or contrarie to Christs ordinance or precept but the most he said was that the oblation is frustrate when ther be none to participate which wordes of his ar soe farre from reprouing the practise vse of Masses without comunion of the people that they necessarily implye that the sacrifice was in realitie cebebrated notobstanding the people did frustrate the intention of the preist in that by their want of deuotion they receiued not the Communion which he had prepared for them supposing it is absolutely inpossible to conceiue that the Masse or oblation could be frustrated for wante of partakers except it were in it selfe a Masse or oblation truely really performed by the sacrificer Fourthlie it is true that Bellarmin confesseth that in the primatiue Church because the Christians were but fewe they did all sing ansere in the diuine offices But he affirmeth not that either it then was or now is vnlawfull to haue the publike or priuate prayer in an vnknowne tongue which is the onelie point in controuersie the reformers defending touth naile the affirmatiue the Romanists the negatiue Nay Bellarmin is soe farre from confessing the reformers doctrine in this particular that he expresselie affirmeth in the same place that the diuine offices in those primatiue times were celebrated in Greeke which all the people did not vnderstand yet cleareth this whole question so farre that if Sir Humfrey had vsed anie sparke of sinceritie in citing Bellarmins wordes home truelie they would haue taken away all doubt concerning his meaning Whereas by leauing out deceitfullie the latter parte of his clause he caused in his reader a preuidicate opiniō of the true sense touching which and the faithlesse proceeding of our aduersarie about the same the Cardinals owne wordes intirely recited will tell the truth for thus he speakes At obijcies sicut Apostolus c. But saith Bellarmin you will obiect As the Apostle would that the people might subioine Amen so also he was to ordaine that the diuine offices should be celebrated in the vulgar tongue that the people might answer Amen Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 16. I anser by denying the consequence because the diuine offices were performed in the Greeke tongue which manie of the people did vnderstand tho' not all this was sufficient for the Apostles will was not that all should anser Besides this because then the Christians were fewe they all sung together in the Church ansered in the diuine offices but afterwardes the multitude increasing the offices were more diuided it was left to the sole cleargie to acomplish the common prayers Laudes in the Church Thus plainely doth the Cardinall declare himselfe for a ptofessed aduersarie of Sir Humfrey his comperes in this particular euen so farre as to solue their greatest obiection which they vse to frame against the practise of the Roman Church Firstlie touching the allegation of Bellarmins confession of the reformers tenet aboute the Communion in both kyndes it is most false that Bellarmin confesseth it in the point in controuersie Bellarmin l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 16. I meane it is false that he confesseth either Christ to haue commaunded the communion in both Kyndes or that the ancient Church practized the same onelie in both kyndes both which points Bellarmin so expresselie declareth that Sir Humfrey could not possible haue found anie colour to haue alledged his confession for the contrarie if he had not mangled his wordes as he did in truth most shamefullie as may appeare most plainelie to him that will take paines to examen them as they are by him deliuered towardes the end of the chapter cited by the knight where it is euident that the Cardinall proceedeth diametrally contrarie to the reformers doctrine in the principall point of this question according to his owne expresse wordes quoted in this my margen Idcirco quaerendū superest vtrum saltē diuino praecepto positiuo eiusmodi obligatio communicandi sub vtraque specie in Ecclesia sit nos enim negamus illi sectarij asserunt Bellar. lib. 4. de
abuses are decreede to be reformed those same abuses are of necessity supposed to be either in times past present or future and so farre I graunt the testimonies cited by the K. out of the two Councels and other Catholike Authors be of force but to prooue that those abuses be corruptiōs in faith or yet in manners except we meane of the euill faith and māners brought into the Church by Luther his followers or that they being truly knowen to be in the Church yet the Pope will not haue them reformed this I say is a meere calumniation diuised by Sir Humfrey in disgrace of the chiefe Pastour of the Roman Church and cannot possiblie be deduced out of the foresaid testimonies but rather the quite contrary is expressely to be found and lastely in the decrees of the Tridentine Councell as we haue already said Decret de Refor That which Sir Humfrey affirmeth in the beginning of his 20. page is conuinced to be a manifest vntruth to wit that the day of the Roman reformation is not yet come And although the Knight out of the aboundance of his wit is not content onely to saye that the Romanists confesse there are corruptions in their Church onely in manners but alsoe that they confesse the same in doctrine neuerthelesse of the poynt of doctrine he bringeth not any proofe at all eyther out of Romanists or any other waye but insteede of proofes he vttereth diuers vntruths mingled with some impertinences and equiuocations Hee telleth his reader in the 20. page that the Councell of Trent in Paul the thirds time complained of Indulgences but this is most false for the Councell doth not in anie sorte complaine of the Indulgences them selues but onely that the Popes officers in collecting the almes or contribution of the people vppon the graunt and gayning of them gaue scandall to faithfull Christians as appeareth by the very same wordes which he himselfe citeth Vide Con. Trid. sess 21. cap. 9. among which there is not any one repugnant to the doctrine of Indulgences but onely to the abuses of the questours as also the same wordes cited in Sir Humfreys margent in lattin do yet more plainely declare so that this is no lesse then an inexcusable falsitie vttered by the knight for want of an argument as it seemes to prooue corruptions in doctrine in the Roman Church Another vntruth he hath in the 22. pa. where he saith thus neither did those men meaning the Fathers of the Councell of Trent seeke a reformation in manners onely but in the doctrine it selfe Whereas they in that very place by the knight alledged wish onely that the priuate masse might be restored to the auncient custome of the communion of the people together with the priest which as you knowe is no matter of doctrine in cōtrouersie betweene the Romanists and the reformers but onely of practise and consequently it proueth not the knights intent in this place but rather his ignorant mistaking of the true state of the question in that pointe of controuersie about priuate masse Now that which he addeth of the Latin seruice in the Roman Church to wit that the Councell commaunds all Pastours that they at the Masse doe frequently interpret and declare vnto the people the mistery of the Sacrament who doth not see how impertinent it is to the matter of doctrine and how vnapt a medium it is to proue that the Doctours of the Councell either did seeke reformation in the same or to shew how neare the same doctours came to the doctrine of the reformed Churches as he presently addeth affirming them so to doe since the Councell proceedeth not there by way of definition or decree in matter of doctrine but onely by way of ordinance and cōmaund as the wordes by him selfe rehearsed doe plainely specifie yet not so but that the same Councell and in the same place doth either expressely commaund or at the least suppose that the Masse ought to be for the most part celebrated in the lattin tongue Moreouer touching equiuocations certaine it is that he doth equiuocate in his allegation of Pope Alexander out of the Councell of Pisa where he saith that the Pope promised solemnely to intend the reformation of the Church whereas in truth Alexander meaneth not of the faith of the Romā Church as the knight would haue it but of the reformation of manners or of some abuses practized in the Church by particular persons Besides this it is not probable that the Pope would meddle himselfe in matters of doctrine in such a Councell as was assembled purposely for the taking away of a schisme But cōcerning manners I finde that in the laste period of the same Councell of Pisa which Sir Humfrey cites ther is expresse mention both of some reformatiō already made by the Pope Cardinals also of more referred to the next generall Sinod the words of which determination are these Item cum Dominus noster Papa cum consilio Concilij intendere◠reformare Ecclesiam in capite membris iam multa per Dei gratiam sint expedita per ipsum Dominum nostrum Papam moreouer in the same Councell of Senes which the knight also here produceth I finde no mention of corruption in faith except by faith Sir Humfrey will vnderstand the corrupted faith of the wiclefists Hussits or the Grecians the reformation and reduction of all which both the Pope and Councell indeuored so farre to effect and compasse as they declared the first two sectaries to be heretikes and that so earnestly as they threatened all those with excommunication who should any way fauore them euen with as much onely as to giue them salte to their pottage as for reformatiō of manners there is not a word which proueth that the Pope made anie resistance therein but rather expressely laboured for the same tho by accident of impediments incident it was actually hindered at that present Sacrosancta Synodus vniuersalem Eccles representans nuntijs sanctissimi in Christo Patris ac Domini nostri Martini quinti summi Pontif. specialiter deputatis ipsius reformationem intentus incipiens à fidei fundamentō praeter quod nemo potest aliud ponere damnationem haeresum Wiclefistarum Hussitarum suorumque sequacium c. In decret Cōtra Hussitas haereticos Con. Sen. By which it is manifest how great the impudencie of Sir Hunfrey is in alledging these two Councels to proue want of reformation in the Pope or Roman Church they standing both so plainely for the contrary to his positiō or rather impositiō He equiuocateth also in that allegation of Card. Schomberg whom he affirmeth to haue opposed the reformation made in the Councell of Trent Whereas yet he citeth no wordes of the Card. but onely a bare relation taken out of a certaine history of the acts of the Coūcell published in English touching the foresaid Cardinals oppositiō or rather proposition onely in the point of reformation Which fact being related
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
being a matter in this sense either of indifferencie or at the most of greater merit and perfection it might lawfully be altered by an introduction of the contrarie custome or practise of the Church especially the communicating or not communicating of the auditours of euerie Masse being a thing wholelie depending vpon the deuotion of the people themselues Which deuotion although the Church could haue desired it had continued in the same feruour in which it was in those primitiue times neuerthelesse ther was no reason why either she should obledge the people to the same or yet that the Preist for want of deuotion in the people should omitte his owne and cease to exercise so high and profitable a function to the members of the whole Church as is the publique liturgie and common praier of the same And truelie this is a matter so conformable to reason and pietie that if it were not that our aduersaries are quite possessed with a spirit of cōtradiction they would neuer contend so much aboute it as they doe Especially supposing that of all points of controuersie betweene them and vs that is of the least moment and a thing for which they haue the smalest reason to striue as well because they themselues reiect all sorts of Masses as vaine and superstitious whether they be priuate or publique with communion of the people or without as also because euen they themselues after their newe manner celebrate their owne liturgie as they call it oftentimes yea most ordinarily not onely without the comunion of the people but euen with out the comunion of either Priest or clarke as is euident by the most common practise of all the reformed Churches which onely with a drie fothering passe the greater part of the sūdaies of the whole yeere And yet these same Zealous brothers are so Crosse in their proceedinge that they are not ashamed to reprehend in vs the same which they thēselues ordinarily practise in a much worse manner In regard of which preposterous dealing of theirs in my opinion we may not vnaptlie applie vnto them the saying of a certaine ingenious Protestant in his description of a Puritan to wit that they are become so crosse in their teaching that he thinkes verily that if the Roman Church should inioyne the puting on of cleane shirts euery sunday rather then obey her precept they would goe lowsie Ouerb Caract But besides this Sir Humfrey for the proofe of his Irish faith alledgeth scripture out of S. Matth. 26. Marke 14. Luke 22. but the wordes he citeth doe not argue Christs institutiō in both kindes in respect of all sortes of people Accepit Iesus panem benedixit dedit discipulis suis dixit accipite manducate but onely his action manner of administration not his ordination we know as well as the reformers Christ did comunicate his bodie and bloud to all his disciples there present at the institution of the Sacrament euen to the traitour Iudas as many deuines doe hould but we know with all he did not ordeine it so to be administred in all occasions Neither doe we finde one worde of commaund in the whole bible by virtue of which the Priests are inioined to celebrate this misterie alwayes iust in the same manner that Christ did And otherwise if we should be so tied to euery circumstance which Christ himselfe vsed and particularie to giue the communion to all that are present we should be bound to giue it to those also which we know are vnprepared for it nay euen to excommunicated persons and to such traitors as Iudas That which neuerthelesse I persuad myselfe the most pure precisian of them all will scarsely doe though otherwise I hould thē not for very scrupulous in that nature so they know the receiuers to be mēbers of their cōgregation And touching the foresaid citation out of the Euangelists it is to be noted that because Sir Hum. will not haue his reader heare of the consecration of the Sacrament which the reformers neuer vse in their Churches therfore he left out the wordes and he blessed it puting onely the wordes of thākes giuing whereas yet the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both blessing and giuing thankes therefore when our Sauiour multiplied miraculously the fishes Luc. 9. the Euangelist saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he blessed them The knight also citeth a place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. But the Apostle indeed reprehendeth there the fault of the richer Corinthians in that they did exclude or at the least not expect the poorer sorte to eate the vsuall supper with them when they met to gether to receiue the blessed Sacrament but giueth no precept to them that all that are present should euerie time they did meete in the Church actually receiue the communion with the Preist or that the Preist ougth not in anie case to celebrate without a competent number of communicants which is our question in this place but at the most S. Paule there ordaines that when the people comes together to eate either the vsuall and common supper or the bodie and bloude of Christ in the Sacrament they vncharitablie exclude not or preuent one an other but expect and doe it with order and sobrietie and like brethren together without scisme or separation and as Christ himselfe did who imparted his supper most louinglie to his disciples there present without exception of persons to which altho' I admit the same S. Paule in parte alludes in his first verse of this chapter saying be you followers of me as I also of Christ yet not in that sense as if he had persuaded the Corinthians that our Sauiour commaunded that the Eucharist should neuer be celebrated by the Preist alone with our receiuers as our aduersarie foundlie infers for profe of the article he opposeth to the Councell of Trent Neyther is the doctrine of that article in anie sorte fauoured by S. Augustin in his 118. Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey he onelie there affirming at the most that the Apostle speaketh of the Eucharist when he saith those wordes Propter quod fratres cum conuenitis ad manducandum inuicem expectate c. That is in English Therefore my brethren when you come to eate expect one an other c. Which wordes eyther of S. Augustin or those of the Apostle are not contrarie to the celebration of priuate Masses except it be in the imagination of the Nouellists as I haue sufficientlie aboue declared To omit that the greater parte of diuines both auncient moderne expounde not those wordes of S. Paule rather of the Eucharist but of the common supper the trueth of which exposition the text itselfe in my iudgemēt doth plainely conuince Yet not to stand vpon this it is sufficient for the defence of the doctrine of the Councell of Trent in this particular and confutation of the contrarie position that neyther in the cited place of S. Paule nor in anie other place of scripture priuate communion
properlie so called and to be beleeued of all for an article of faith as instituted by Christ The number of which authours being not onelie verie greate in itselfe but also farre greater and of farre more learned men then all those who in the reformed Churches hould the contrarie as I persuade my selfe Sir Humfrey cannot denie it is most euidēt that to saie nothing of those auncient writers which by their proofes of euerie particular Sacrament by Scriptures and Fathes doe plainelie wittnesse the same trueth he had no reason at all for this parte of his greate demaunded And now touching the rest of it I answer first that as it is certaine the reformers themselues if we should demaunde the like of them concerning the number of those Sacramēts which they defēd for truely properly such to be belieued as an article of faith and as instituted by Christ cannot prooue either by scripture or any one authour I doe not say for about a Thousand yeeres as they doe but for a Thousand and foure hundreth yeeres after Christ that they are precisely twoe and no more nor lesse so consequentie they ought not to require of vs that which they themselues are not able to performe in their owne cause and case Neuerthelesse that our aduersarie may plainely see we are not behinde with him but rather farre before him and the rest of his brothers in this particular I answer farther that all those Fathers who by expresse places of scripture proue euerie one of those Sacraments in particular and no other which the Roman Church houldeth for truely properlie such doe thereby also shew at the least tacitly that those and no more nor lesse are beleeued for such by faith For testimonie of which trueth because it would be too tedious in answere of one argument to produce so many of the Fathers as might be alledged I will onely alledge Cal. Instit S. Augustine who beinge euen according to our aduersaries oppinion of him a faithfull witnesse of antiquitie his testimonie may iustly serue for all the rest and because of the Sacramēts of Baptisme and Eucharist there is no controuersie I will onely produce those testimonies which conuince the other fiue Wherefore that confirmation is truely and properlie a Sacrament S. Augustine affirmeth lib. 2. contra lit Pet. cap. 104. where he saith thus The Sacrament of Chrisme in the nature of visible signes Sacrosanctum est is a sacred and holy Sacrament as Baptisme and he hath the like of order lib. 2. cont Epist Parm. cap. 13. sayinh They are both Sacraments and both by a certaine consecration are giuen to man that when he is baptzed this when he is ordered and in the same place he also saith that both of them be Sacraments which no man doubteth Of Pennance he saith lib. 1. de adult coniug cap. 26. 28. eadem est causa Baptismi reconciliations fine quibus Sacramentis homines credunt se mori non debere The same cause or reason is of Baptisme and Reconciliation with out which Sacraments men beleeue they ought not to dye Matrimonie he compareth with Baptisme lib. 1. de nuptijs concup cap. 10. where he saith that the matter of this Sacrament is that man and woman ioyned in mariage may inseperably perseuer together as long as they liue And the like saying he hath of the perpetuall effect of this Sacrament comparing it with the perpetuall effect of Baptisme And in the 14. chapter of his booke de bono coniugali he compareth matrimonie with the Sacrament of Order which order as we haue cited before he compared with Baptisme in another place Finally of Extreame vnction he maketh mention lib. 2. de visit infir cap. 4. and in his 215. Sermon of the saints Where although he doth not in expresse tearmes affirme extreame vnction to to be one of the Sacraments yet he expressely affirmeth there and serm de temp 115. that the ceremonie of vnction which S. Iames mentioneth and the promisse belong vnto the faithfull and are to be practized by the Priests as the Apostle commaundes all which proues plainily that S. Augustin held it for a Sacrament as well as the other six and altho' some doubt may be made whether the booke de visit infir be truelie S. Augustines worke yet certaine it is that the authour of it is both good and auncient And thus much out of S. Augustine for the proofe of euerie one of the seuen Sacraments in particular besides that which he speaketh in generall of them and of the benefit which the Church hath receaued from God by the institution of them in his first sermon vpon the 108. psalme where he saith thus What a greate gift is the office of the administration of the Sacraments in Baptisme Eucharist and in the rest of the holy Sacraments so that we see that S. Augustin stanneth plainely against the doctrine of Sir Humfrey And doth fully answer his question touching the number of the Sacraments defended by the Roman Church And supposing he makes soe speciall mention of these seuen as he doth more then of any other externall signe or ceremonie of the Church to some of which neuertheles he giueth also the name of Sacrament and supposing also he cōpareth or all most of them with those two which the reformers themselues hould for proper and true Sacraments in their effects and sanctitie as also amplifying the benefit which God hath conferred to the Church by the institution of them that which he doth not with the rest of the holie signes and ceremonies which the same Church also vseth supposing all these circumstances I saie it is more then certaine that he speaketh of them as of true and proper Sacramants which for such haue beene recreaued and belieued in the vniuersall Church euen euer since the time of Christ the institutour of them And so let this suffice for an answere of that vast demande of our Thrasoniā knight and to demōstrate that notwithstanding all his circumspection his owne conditionall curse is turned into an absolute and so is fallen vpon him with all it weight and forces as a iust punishment of the temeritie and excesse of that boldnes which he committeth in protesting against a truth confirmed with such authoritie and testimonie as may satisfie the most tender conscience and settle the most wauering minde in the world And yet for confirmation of the foresaid answere we may further adde that supposing the Master of Sentences so manie yeeres past defended the seauen Sacraments with the institution of them by Christ himselfe and their necessitie and profit in the Church of God and supposing the same authour writ nothing but what he found in the auncient Fathers from the collection of whose sentences he tooke his appellation supposing I say all this which his workes doe witnesse it is most apparent in the morall iudgment of anie indifferent man that the doctrine which he deliuered concerning the foresaid number of
make anie question of it in this nature For supposing their extraordinarie affection that way and that single life is so vnsauourie to them that if it lay in their power they would rather suffer the whole quire of virgins to perish then they would make a religious vowe of perpetuall chastitie or liue without a woman supposing this I say in my opinion they ought in all reason sooner to haue honoured matrimonie with the title of a Sacrament then to haue quite depriued it of that which the scripture it selfe doth giue it Yet supposing they be so preposterous that they will rather impugne that which they otherwise loue best then seeme to agree to the Romane doctrine I tell them all and particularilie him with whome I dispute that although mariage was by God himselfe onelie ordayned in paradise as a ciuill contract Neuerthelesse Christe who came not to dissolue the lawe but to eleuate it to a higher degree of perfection amongst other things he pleased to honore the same with the true nature and properties of a Sacrament giuing also tho' not immediatlie by himselfe yet by his Apostle S. Paul the verie name and title of a Sacrament whereas notwithstanding neyther he himselfe nor anie of his Apostles or Euangelists euer gaue that name to anie of the rest of the Sacraments Wherefore to come nearer to the purpose I say that the institution of this Sacrament was by Christe himselfe who in the 19. chapter of S. Mathewe ordayned the coniunction of man wife to be inseperable to the end it so might be a sacred signe of the indissoluble coniunction of Christe and his Church as it is declared by the Apostle Ephes 5. where he expreslie giueth it the name of a great Sacrament in regard of the sacred coniunction partelie by the hypostaticall vnion and partelie by the vnion of charitie betwixt Christe and his spouse the Church which it signifieth Which foresaid coniunction of man and wife explicated by words of the present tense is the element and Christs ordinance and application of the same to the foresaid signification is the institution by virtue of which it also conferreth grace to the receiuers to the end they may liue in that perpetuall vnion of mindes which is required to the representation of the inseperable vnion of Christe and his Church which is all and more then our aduersarie himselfe demaunded of vs before in this particular matter To which if we adde the authoritie of the Church and auncient fathers for the interptetation of those scriptures which we haue produced for proofe of the truth of this and the rest of the foresaid fiue Sacraments which authorities of the fathers if need required and the place did serue for them I could easilie produce it would yet more plainelie appeere with how little reason the pretensiue reformed Congregations doe exclude them out of the number of true and proper Sacraments And so now according to this a verie easie answere may be framed to all that which the knight bringeth against the septenarie number of Sacraments in the rest of this paragraph and particularilie to the testimonies of those Romane authours and Fathers which he produceth in fauour of his cause And first touching the Fathers which hee citeth besides that which hath binne alreadie spoken I further adde that there was not one of them which was of the reformers opinion in this matter as is most apparent in that Sir Humfrey himselfe could not produce so much as one Father that auerreth the onelie duall number of Sacraments Nay they are so farre ftom this that there is not one of them who doth not in one place or other make expresse mention of more then two if professedlie they make mention of anie at all Secondlie I say that as the reformers cannot with anie probabilitie inferre out of those Fathers who affirmed that the two Sacraments Baptisme and the Eucharist haue flowed out of the side of Christe that there are no more nor lesse then two so neyther can they in anie sort thence inferre that the same Fathers taught not the septenarie number of Sacraments And more then this if the reformers stand vpon this so much that the Fathers by the bloud which issued out of our Sauiours side vnderstood the Sacrament of the bloud of Christe then they must consequentlie eyther confesse that the same Fathers held the reall presence of the bloude of Christe in the Eucharist which yet they themselues denie or else at the least that the reformed Churches haue no true Sacrament at all for that according to their confession there is in it neyther bloud nor bone And out of this generall answere to the testimonies of the auncient Fathers we may inferre how falselie Sir Humfrey in the end of his 149. page affirmeth that they did insist sometimes in the number of two and so restrayned the Church to the definite number of two onelie which saying of his is a manifest falsitie and iniurious to those Fathers whome he so chargeth as that which I haue produced out of S. Augustine in this period doth plainelie conuince in these fiue Sacraments which the reformers denie Neyther was he able to produce one testimonie out of anie of them for proofe of his fayned position but so leaueth it vnconfirmed more then with that fame vntruth by which he belyeth most impudentlie the foresaid Fathers all at a clappe Neyther hath that which he further addeth of the same Fathers in the next page anie greater truth or foundation then this where he sayth that had the Fathers beleeued that those fiue Sacraments had binne instituted by Christe they would of necessitie haue concluded them for true and proper Sacraments and haue easilie found in them the number of seuen Thus in effect Sir Humfrey discourseth to which I answere first that doubtles if the Fathers had had but halfe the occasion which the Church hath had since their time and especiallie since the foundation of the reformed Churches they would of necessitie haue treated and spoken expresselie of the septenarie number and haue distinguished as now the Church and diuines doe betwixt proper and improper Sacraments But the occasion fayling they neyther had necessitie nor conueniencie to speake otherwise of them then they haue donne Nay some of them especiallie those who writ against the Gentiles were rather obliged by the course of those times not to mention the secret misteries of our faith at all then to reueale them to the profaners of them more then was preciselie necessarie for the answere of their obiections Vid. Theodoret Dial. 2. which indeed is the true reason why diuerse of the foresaid more auncient Fathers haue spoken so obscurelie and sparinglie euen of some of the cheife misteries of Christian Religion Secondlie I say that howsoeuer the auncient Fathers spoke of the expresse number of the Sacraments certaine it is they eyther expreslie taught or at the least supposed for certaine doctrine of faith that all those which
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
intention of the minister in administration of Sacraments they are so ignorant sotish as I ame ashamed to rehearse them for example when he sayth that if the Preist fayles in his intention at the tyme of solemnization of matrimonie the maried people liue all their dayes in adultrie or fornication which is a most grosse errour in the knight for that the Romanists the reformers agree in this that altho' Matrimonie were no Sacrament consequentlie that the maried people should not receiue it as a Sacrament yet were it sufficient to free them from adulterie in regarde they receiue it at the least as a ciuill contract whatsoeuer the Preists intention bee And if it were not so certainely all sectaries of this time particularilie Sir Humfrey himselfe for one should liue perpetuallie in that damnable state of adulterie which he mentioneth And yet this sequele I am sure it importes him to denie as earnestlie as he can if it be but onelie for the conseruation of his owne his wifes honour And the like foolish false inferences he makes aboute all the rest of the Sacraments as also aboute the succession of the Popes pastours of the Church as if by the confession of Romanists themselues there were no certaintie in anie of them whereas yet he himselfe citeth Bellarmin in this verie place as teaching that in all these things there is at least morall sufficient certaintie of their reall existaÌ„ce truth Certitudine autem moralem humanam quae sufficit vt homo quiescat ex SacrameÌ„tis habemus etiaÌ„si pendiaÌ„t ab intentione alterius Bel. de Sacr in genere li. 1 c. 28. So that all these deductions are voyde of all seÌ„se reason trueth meerlie framed by the knight out of the superfluitie of his braine obtruded vpon his reader as confessions of his aduersaries in a peremptorie odious manner in disgrace of that Church whose doctrine he is not able to impugne in anie more substanciall manner In a semblable fashion doth he also prosecute the like captious kinde of argument against diuers other points of the Roman doctrine as for Example because he findeth in Biel Peter Lombard that they speake not with anie certaintie of the manner how Saints doe vnderstand the prayers of their supplicaÌ„ts he inferreth that the Romanists are vncertaine touching the doctrine of inuocation of Saints it selfe which neuerthelesse is a most false illation for that although there be some vncertaintie in what manner or by what meanes the Saints doe come to knowe our prayers by reason of the diuers opinions of diuines in that particular yet as well those who Sir Humfrey citeth as also all the rest of the Romanists agree and hould for certaine that Saints are piouslie profitablie to be inuocated prayed vnto all without exception teaching inculcating the same expresselie in their bookes writings Gabriel Biel is so plaine for the doctrine of the Roman Church that if the knight had not corrupted him both in wordes sensc he could not haue alledged him with anie coulorable pretense For in the verie precedent lection to that which he cites against vs. Biel resolues the question in our fauor saying Whence it is apparent that our prayers hope of obtaining beatitude by the mediation of the Saints are not voyde in Heauen but by order constituted by God himselfe we ought to recurre to their helpe assistance perpetuallie implore them with due veneration that we may be saued by their merits In which wordes the rest following I am sure there is sufficient to make the author a plaine Papist yea much more then Sir Humfrey desires to heare in fauor of the Roman doctrine so it is cleare he hath corrupted his sense And nowe for his wordes he hath likewise corrupted them most peruerselie by displaceing tranferring them from one purpose to an other For these wordes non est certum per omnia By which Biel ansers onelie to that question whether it pertaines to the accidental Beatitude of the Saints to heare our prayers which question as you see is onelie aboute the manner or qualitie of the Saints vnderstanding our petitions not of the maine substance he respondes Non per omnia certum est It is not altogether certaine And yet Sir Humfrey applyes this as if Biel had said that it is not certaine that the Saints heare our prayers at all Yet further connecting vnto the same those other wordes vnde probabiliter dicitur Which he also soma't Insincerelie Englisheth it may seeme probable rehearsing them in one series or tenor whereas yet they are vttered by their author manie lynes after to an other purpose where ansering to the question before proposed he said thus Vnde probabiliter dicitur c. Whence it is probably said that altho' it doth not necessarilie followe the beatitude of the Saints that they heare our prayers by congruitie yet God almightie reuelles vnto them all that is offered vnto them by men All which particulars concerning the corruption of this place by the guilie knight may more plainelie be perceiued in the author himselfe then I can possible here expresse As for the Master of sentences Scotus in the 45. d. of the fourth booke altho' perchance they seeme to one that reades theÌ„ superficiallie not to speake with certainetie of the inuocation of Saints yet to the anttentiue reader it appeares clearely they both suppose for certaine of which they frame no disputation that the Angels Saints heare our prayers that we lawfullie profitablie praye vnto them of which points it is most vndoubtedlie to be supposed that those two authors could not be ignorant nor maintaine the negatiue parte in regarde the publike letanies in which the inuocation of Saints is expresselie included were vsed in the Church long before their dayes as histories so commonlie testifie that I need not produce them Besides that the writings of the ancient Fathers whose sentences Peter Lombard professedlie collected as much as was for his purpose of which Scotus could not be ignorant are full of the same doctrine as in our Catholike Controuertists may easily appeare to the reader And therefore whereas the Master vses the wordes non est incredibile scotus probabile est they speake not eyther of the absolute inuocation of Saints or of our prayers vnto them of which neyther of them proposes the question but they applye those wordes to the manner onely of their vnderstanding our intercession And therefore the Master puts the title of the question thus Quomodo Sancti glorificati audiunt preâ—es supplicantium Magister in â—it quaest â—… 45. in 4. â—…ent quomodo how or in what manner or by what meanes doe the Saints heare our prayers how they interced for vs vnto our Lord To which he ansers it is not incredible that the Saints which in the secret of the face of God inioye
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
alteration for that to omit other authorities of ancient Fathers of the same nature sainct Chrysostome who liued in the beginning of the fouerth age of Christian religion vseth the same manner of phrase if not playner Com. in c. 2. Epist 2. ad Thes sayeing that it doth appeere that the Apostles did not deliuer all by epistles but manie things without writing but as well these as those deserue the same faith The which is not onelie as much as can be expressed for the authoritie of traditions but also a more playne commendable testimonie then anie Romanist euer vttered concerning the same From whence the reader may deduce that the knight is heere also out of the right way of the primitiue Church in which he runneth forward till the verie end of his section like a man ouer heated breatheth out nothing but abuses of diuerse moderne diuines which he citeth in a cauilling captious sort peruerts their true sense meaning in all or most places by him alleaged Sec. 8. In the eight section he pretends to proue that the traditions of the Roman Church were vnknowne to the Greeke Church that they want vniuersalitie antiquitie succession but on the contrarie that faith which the reformed Churches maintaine at this day is the same in substance which the Apostles published in Greece therefore hath antiquitie vniuersalitie succession And this is the substance of his section if anie substance it hath But in truth he proueth his position with such mediums that I am scarce willing to relate them for losse of time the greatest part of his proofes being but eyther his owne bare false affirmations or onelie friuolous argumēts long since ansered destroyed by Bellarmin and other Romanists partlie also by my selfe in my Censure or else they are onelie authorities drawne from his owne brothers both in religion lyeing as from Illiricus whome Bellarmine doth cleerlie discouer to haue binne most expert in that black art or from other professed enimies of the Roman Church as Nylus other Grecian Scismatikes adding also the resistance or disclame of some Grecians in different occasions heere there a without doubt of his owne citing diuers authors vnfaithfullie for his owne aduantage contrarie to their meaning especiallie Bellarmine whome he abuseth in diuers places partelie by peruerting his sense partlie by mangling his sentences as lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 16. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 30. lib. 1. de Sanct. beatid cap. 19. mingling also some vntruthes as that most of the Greeke Latin Fathers did hould that the faithfull till the resurrection doe not attaine to the beatificall vision of God c. And now let the prudent reader iudge whether Sir Humfrey doth proceed sollidlie or rather not most absurdlie weaklie in that he goeth about to eleuate the antiquitie vniuersalitie succssion of the Roman faith eyther in generall or particular points by virtue of a scattered companie of moderne Grecians who in those matters they dissent from vs contrarie to the doctrine of their most ancient renowned auncestors haue no more authoritie then the pretended reformers themselues nay especiallie considering them to be of a religion which agrees neyther intirelie with ours yet much lesse with theirs what a madnesse is it in the knight to make vse of their authoritie eyther to infringe the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of the Roman doctrine or for confirmation of his owne Dicunt Armeni in Christo Domino vnam naturam esse vnam voluntatem vnamque operationē Aub. Mir. not Episc p. 43. Hodie Aethiopes baptisantur circumciduntur Idem p. 54. Neyther is Sir Humfrey thou ' most repugnant to the knowne truth content to say that the Greeke Church hath continued the truth of his doctrine in all ages but he also addeth further that if we looke beyond Luther we shall easilie discerne that the Muscouites Armenians Egiptians Ethiopians did teach their reformed doctrine euen from the Apostles time till now By which porticulars I doubt not but the reader may perceaue euen without a comentarie how ridiculous he makes himselfe his Religion to what streits this mā was put how impossible it is for him to auoyde the by way in the proofe of his antiquitie vniuersalitie succession who by his owne confession was forced to fetch his faith from such by places deuious regions where yet he hath not found it but remaineth still in his owne vnquoth English by way The nynth section pretendeth to proue that the scriptures are a certayne safe euident way to saluation traditions a by way In which section Sir Humfrey beginneth with a large homelie about the certaintie safetie of scriptures which two wordes because he peraduenture dreamed the night before he writ this that he had seene them in the scripture the one in the firste of S. Luke 4. the other Philip. 3.1 he assured himselfe he had thrust the Papists frō the wall at the first push But alas for pittie his dreame proued so false that when he awaked he found himselfe in the channell for in neyther of those places are those wordes found nay nor yet the sense which he intendeth heere which being no other then that onelie scriptures no tradition is to be followed in anie matter of faith or manners neyther those two places of scripture nor anie other testimonie that he bringeth eyther out of anie scripture or Fathers doth proue his peremptorie position but onelie shewe that all scriptures are profitable to instruct a man in all good workes to the end he may be perfect moreouer that the scriptures be as Bellarmine sayth a most certaine most safe rule of faith yet that they be the sole or onelie certaine safe rule neyther Bellarmine nor anie other Romanist nor yet anie proofe or testimonie which the knight produceth doth eyther teach or testifie It is true Sir Humfrey alleageth diuers authors but all according to his accustomed manner that is neyther much to the purpose nor yet verie faithfullie the testimonies of those eyther impertinētlie produced or alreadie cleared by Bellarmine other Controuertists to containe nothing contrarie to the Roman doctrine in this particular or else such obscure grolles as neyther his predecessors as I thinke did euer cite by reason of their smale authoritie nor are they of that moment that they deserue anie ansere at all as Waltram Fauorinus which at the leaste by reason of the ill vse he maketh of thē serue the knight for nothing more then to leade him out of the common path of the euerduring constant Church as a sure guide which according to the scriptures cannot faile euen by the power of hell into a dangerous diuerticle of scriptures expounded by deductions proceeding from the priuate spirit of particular men which is all he concludes in this his section Sec. 10. From hence
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
not conceiue so basely as once to imagin they will be dangerouslie enamored with his booke but I will cheefelie offer it to the more vulgar ranke of people who by reason of their smaler tallents may more easely be circumuented whom if by conferring the one booke with the other I shall vnderstand they come to be right informed of the trueth I shall hould my selfe sufficientlie rewarded by them as by those whose wauering mindes I onely intend to rectifie by my labors which otherwise for anie matter of substance I finde in the booke I professe I should neuer haue esteemed it worth the paines I haue taken in the confutation of it A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS PERIOD 1. THE proceeding of the Roman Church with the sectaries clered defended from the iniurious impositions of the aduersarie Father Campian other authors ill alledged Where likewise the Romanists are freed from all cause of contention betweene themselues the pretended reformers who are truelie the cause of all dissention in the Church by there Preposterous pretended reformation PERIOD 2. Neyther are there any corruptions in either faith or generally approued manners in the Roman Church Nor anie want of care zeale in the Popes in procuring all necessarie reformation in the Church But the aduersaries abuse of the Councels of Trent Pisa his lyes equiuocations discouered His calumniations against Purgatorie indulgences prayer to Saints reproued PERIOD 3. No true Romanist euer renounced Poperie either in his life or at his death yet some formerly Romanists for desire of licentious libertie other temporal motiues haue apostated from the Catholike Roman Church Witnes Luther Caluin other founders of the misreformed Churches to omit those of smaler note Some cited for Romanists which are not such with abuse of some other authors PERIOD 4. An idle calumnious discourse of the aduersarie foolishly affirming that the Roman Church is hinderd frō reformation by bumane Police reproued PERIOD 5. The irrefragable argument of Catholikes that the pretensiue Reformers cannot assigne a time in which anie one point of the Roman faith was by anie publike authoritie before the dayes of Luther condemned for erroneous maintained fortified against the friuolous euasions of the aduersarie Some Romanists by him impertinently alledged others cited for Romanists which are not such PERIOD 6. The Catholike Roman doctrine cleared in it succession from all touche of heresie But contrarily the pedegree of the misreformers much stained with the same where diuers ancient Fathers are abused corrupted at the least in sense meaning PERIOD 7. The pretensiue reformed doctrine is not proued eytherby testimonie of Romanists or otherwise to haue eyther vniuersalitie or antiquite but conuinced to be quyte voyde of them both And the aduersarie promissing to proue the antiquitie vniuersallitie of his faith by testimonies of Romanists onelie produceth two or three in two or three onely points yet those impertinentlie PERIOD 8. Neyther iustification by faith nor the deniall of the reall presence or transubstantiation or priuate Masse not the dual number of Sacraments not anie vnlawfulnes of communion in one kynde of prayer or seruice in an vnknowne langue of due honor of images or Indulgences proued by testimony of Romanists or by anie other apparent argument but all the aduersarie alledgeth is discouered to be faultie friuolous or forged PERIOD 9. Not one testimonie of Romanists for the certaintie of the pseudo-reformed faith or vncertaintie of the Roman as the aduersarie idlely pretended But diuers of them abused detorted PERIOD 10. No safetie comfort or benefit for the soule but much for the bodie in the pretensiue reformed faith neyther did anie Romanists euer confesse more then this second parte of saftie comforte or benefit to be in the new Religion Where diuers authors are depraued abused by the false aduersarie PERIOD 11. It is conuinced to be absolutelie false calumnious that the Romanists eyther elude or reiect the ancient Fathers but contrarilie esteeme much more of them then anie of the misreformers euer did Where diuers authors are falsely accused abused PERIOD 12. No true recordes euer razed by the Romanists but manie by the false reformers partelie razed partely exauthorized or destroyed With discouerie of some false dealing in the aduersarie PERIOD 13. It is a miere calumnious accusation of our malitious aduersarie to affirme that the Romanists blasphemie the scripture where it is conuinced that the Romanists vse the scriptures with much more reuerence then the Nouellists doe And diuers Catholikes are traduced corrupted touching this matter PERIOD 14. It is miere phrensie to imagin that Bellarmine testifies the trueth of the misreformed doctrine eyther in ihe principal points of controuersie or in anie other point of their newe tenets And the same Cardinal is much abused by the aduersarie in this passage PERIOD 15. Ancient martyrs not pretended but defended to haue shed their blood not for defense of the newe pretended reformation but in defense of the ancient Catholike present Roman faith And the weakenes and folie of the aduersarie discouered in his proceeding PERIOD 16. The Romanists haue no need to drawe any argument for proofe of their Religion from the confession of the sectaries And to treate of this was impertinent to the aduersaries proiect PERIOD 17. It is demonstrated to be plainely false that the aduersarie hath proued by confessions of Romanists that his Religion is safer then theirs And this is founded onely in his owne crasie iudgement fayling miscarying in the verie foundation of his worke APPROBATIO VIso testimonio cuiusdam viri docti mihique de fide doctrina probè cogniti quo testatur hanc Censuram cuiusdam libelli qui inscribitur Viatuta nihil continere fidei vel bonismoribus aduersum sed multa Catholicae religionis dogmata subtiliter explicata orthodoxorumque scripta vindicata diligenter Dignam censui quam ego approbarem Duaci 28. Nouembr 1632. GEORGIVS COLVENERIVS c. Correction of faultes supplie of omissions PAge 60. line 13. reade Church Apostacie p. 114. l. 18. for them reade it p. 116. for be reade were for there formers reade the Reformers p 127. omit real presence l. 134. for sainte reade smarte p. 142. for to dissent reade not to consent p. 154. for to such contrarie reade contratie to such in the same page l. 23. for which is true reade which in his opinion is true p. 155. touching the same matter l. 15. for none of which is contrarie reade none of which abstracting from the institution is contrarie p. 145. for but hath reade but since it the rest were there included hath pag. 156. line 2. for the manner reade the whole intire manner p. 158. for declaredly vniuersally reade so declaredly vniuersally page 226. for the worde of God reade either the vnwritten worde of God in the same p. l. 14. adde althou ' there were no
aut domi concubinam foueat tammetsi graui sacrilegio sese obstingat grauiùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimonium c. Costerus Enchir. cap. 17. de caelib prop. 9. then he who keepeth a concubine at home as Costerus though incompletlie cited and vniustlie taxed by the knigth doth most truelie affirme And this is a certaine knowen trueth among diuines consequent to the prohibition of Priests marriage which prohibition once supposed he that should marrie should not onelie committe a scandalous sinne of the flesh as that Priest doth who should be a Concubinarie but also he should in that case comit a Speciall irreuerence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of it selfe a more grieuous sinne then is the keepinge of a concubine as all men Aug. de bono vide cap. 11. except the reformed brothers doe easilie apprehend conformable to which S. Aug. saith that mariage after a vowe of continencie is worse then adulterie Planè non dubitauerim dicere lapsus ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae nouetur Deo adulterijs esse peâ—ores ibidem To omit that for a Preist to marrie in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it includes also the scandall of Concubinate it selfe But now Sir Humfrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the poynt of merits Lastly saith hee how many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainetie of their owne workes doe relie wholie vpon the merits of Christ Iesus shewe me that learned man that liueth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sounde Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith Thus the knigth who as you may easilie perceiue by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to perswade his reader that all the learned Romanists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man iustified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdome of heauen by the good workes he doth by vertue of the grace of God and merits of Iesus Christ because forsooth many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncertainelie of their owne workes at their death doe relie wholie on the merits of their Sauiour whereas indeede these are two farre different poynts of doctrine the first that is the trueth of mans merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church the second which is the confidence in merits being none the one being about the substance of merits the other onelie about the qualitie the one about the absolute acknowledgment of merits the other onely about the ouergreate confidence or presumption in them And so he that renounceth the first renounceth Poperie indeede but he that renounceth the second doth not neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would haue him to be for the onelie deniall of confidence in merits as in it selfe it is most manifest By all which because Sir HuÌ„frey with all his diuinitie had not iudgement to distinguish he proueth nothing but doth onelie hallucinate betweene trueth and falsehood Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he alledgeth anie whit auaile his cause for suppose that be true which he affirmeth of him to wit that in his sicknes he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt Gods Iudgment his owne sinnes yet caÌ„not he thence inferre that therefore the Bishop renounced the trueth of the doctrine of merits in generall nay nor his owne merits in particular but onelie the presumption of them or the confidence in them by reason of the vncertainetie of them as I haue alreadie declared Besides that this which he is affirmed to say of himselfe being but onelie a relation of Fox we may iustlie doubt of the trueth of it For he hath bene long since hunted to his hole by a learned Catholike and his vnright Reuerence manifestlie conuinced to be a Father of lyes Wherefore he is of no credit with vs neither can his testimonie preuaile against vs. We care not for him his acts and monuments are of no moment among vs his testimonie is not the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of a Romanist which is that our aduersary promised in the title of his booke and we expect he should performe and to omit the smale credit which I and all Catholikes giue to the relations of Master Fox yet I fynde that he who hath dealt so falsely with others hath now founde one of his owne profession who dealt not verie sincerelie with him in recounting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardiner at his death for whereas Sir Humfrey will needs proue by the testimonie of Fox that this Bishop renounced Poperie at his death in the pointe of merits yet Fox in his 2622. page onelie saith thus That according to the reporte of one whome he will not name perhaps he could not when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to conforte him great comfort I warant you with wordes of Gods promisse and free iustification in the blood of Christ our Sauiour repeating the scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my lord quoth he will you open that gap now then farewell altogether to mee and such other in my case you may speake it but if you open this window vnto the people then farewell all And now according to this speech of B. Gardiner let the iudicious reader imagin if he can how Sir Humfrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrarie to wit that altho ' dayes wordes might be vttered to him others of learning and vnderstanding without danger of peruersion but not perhaps to the coÌ„mon people who by their ignorance and frayletie might easilie misinterpret them as he did that vttered them and so easilie receiue harme by them not withstaÌ„ding that they of themselues in a founde fense include nothing but truth The knight also citeth to the same purpose yet to no purpose Bellarmine in his sixte booke of Iustif 7. chap. and his testament or last will Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholy on the merits of Christ Iesus But this according to that which hath bene already said of this matter is at the most but onelie a renuntiation of presumption or ouermuch confidence in our owne vncertaine merits as is most apparent out of Bellarmines owne doctrine euen in the verie same chapter where the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey are found thoug much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwardes I will declare Now in the second place the wordes are these I beseech him that is God saith Bellar that he would admitte me into the companie of his Saints and elect not as a valluer of merits but as a giuer of mercie which wordes if the knigth had not bene ouermuch distracted he
and Emperours being so much more powerfull as they are knowen to bee then the Pope and Clergie should condescend to a matter of such indignitie as the knight would haue it and so much to their cost if they did not otherwise assure themselues both of the integrity of those who meete in those assemblies and also of the trueth of the doctrine in it selfe Besides that the same is manifestlie conuinced of falsitie for that prayer for the deade and consequentlie Purgatorie was knowen in the world before eyther Pope or Councells were extant as appeareth by the historie of the second booke of the Macchabies the 12. chapter which our aduersaries themselues cannot denie to be a true historie though they impudentlie denie it to be Canonicall Scripture against the plaine testimonie of S. Augustine who affirmeth the Church to hould it for such though the Iewes hold the contrarie Libros Machabeorum non Iudaei sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet Aug. l. 18. de Cuit Dei cap. 39. So that this is but an odious fiction of Sir Humfrey and his companion sectaries inuented by them in disgrace of the chiefe pastour of the Church and the rest of the Priests without eyther authoritie reason or sence accusing them as hinderers of reformation who labour most for it onelie because they refuse to admitte a reformation of their fashioning which indeede is no reformatiō but a deformatiō or defacing of the aunciēt Church an introductiō of a certaine new fantasticall Church most disfigured and vglie vniformiter difformiter deformis voyde of all luster beauty both internall and externall nor euer knowne or heard of before the dayes of Luther His second vntruth it in the end of the 39. page where he affirmeth that the Romanists in the psalters leaue out the second cōmaundemēt This secōd vntruth of the knight inuolueth a double vntruth the first is in that he saith the Romanists leaue out the foresaid commaūdement in their psalters whereas it is well knowne that in the whole Psalter the second cōmaundemēt is not to be foūd at the least formally as it is one of the ten But this vntruth because I perceiue it proceedes rather of ignorāce thē malice I am cōtent to pardon Yet because when he said the Romanists lefte it out of their psalters he either meant they lefte it out of the text of Scripture or that they left it out of their catechismes onely I āswer that whethersoeuer he meant he cānot be excused for telling an vntruth first because he falsely supposeth for certaine that to be the second commaundement which indeede is but an explication of the first in the opinion both of S. Augustine and either all or almost all other diuines of later yeares Secondly because those same authours who hould those same wordes Thou shalt not make to this selfe any grauen image to be the second commandemēt doe not hould that the Images of Christ and his saints and due honour of thē are prohibited by that precept among Christians but onely a gentilicall or idolatrous vse of pictures or grauen images of false Gods and other such abuses as be repugnant to the due honour of the true and onely God Lastly it is also false that all Catechismes leaue out that precept if precept it be as appeareth by the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent and of Canisius and some others So that you see now that the knight is euery way conuinced of an vntruth And although it is true that in diuerse of their Catechismes the Romanists leaue out all the rest of the first commaundement as they lie in the text of the 20. of Exodus excepting those Thou shall haue no other Gods but me Yet they doe not so with any sinister intention as the reformers vniunstly accuse them to doe in regard it is well knowne that those who vse to instruct children in their Catechisme notwithstanding they vse not to fill childrens heads with such proclamations against grauē Images as the reformers doe yet they neuer omitte to declare and explicate exactly the whole tenour of the words of the commaundement inculcating most diligently the true sense of the same and teaching them how farre it is true that images and the worshippe of them in prohibited by that precept the difference betweene the vse of Christian images and those which according to the practice of those times were vnlawfull But the true reason why Romanists most commonly omitte those wordes Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing and the rest is because Catechismes being onely a short summe of Religion it is fitting they be most briefe and compendious as being so more easy to learne and more conformable to the capacity of children then if they were large and prolixe in wordes especially considering that that which wanteth in wordes may farre more easily be added by the master by may of cxplication then many lines can be cōmitted to memory by weake and vnapt schollers Neither doe the Romanists make catechismes for Iewes and Gentiles but for Christians and Catholiks and so it were both superfluous and impertitinent to put in all the wordes of the text or more as the reformers doe some of which doe belong rather to the law of moyses then to the Ghospell of Iesus Christ and therefore for the verie same reason the Romanists leaue out of their Catechismes diuerse words of the precept of the Sabaoth as iudging them vnnecessarie for the instruction of Christian children As also because according to the doctrine of S. Augustin in his question vpon this commaundement those onely words Vide illum infra in fine op Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me are the whole substance of the first commaundement and the same in sense with the other which immediatly follow in the text to wit thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing by which grauen thing S. Augustin in the same place vnderstandeth an idol not any grauen image as the reformers doe corruptedly vse to translate and commonly put it so in their Catechismes for the false instruction of their children And hence it plainely appeareth that the Romanists leaue not out of any of their bookes of Christian doctrine anie of the ten commandements but rather that the reformed brothers put in one more then either according to Scripture or the doctrine of S. Augustin they ought to doe as by the true diuision and number of them at the end of this worke shall the be more manifestly declared Thirdly it is vntrue which he affirmeth though by way of insinuatiō onely that the Romanists doe adore a piece of bread For it is well knowne they adore not the bread but that which christ himselfe affirmed to be his body for which adoration besides the scripture we say with S. Augustin nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit Aug. in ps 98. and so this though Sir Humfrey as it seemes was ashamed to vtter it plainely yet it
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
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
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
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
finde the truth they would not caste their eyes so farre but onelie layed handes vpon that which came nearest in their waye I meane vpon some of the congruences onelie and yet purposelie omitting the cheefe which that pious diuine makes vse of more for explication then for proofe of the doctrine And thus these ill occupied Pedants trifle with him who had more learning and grauitie without comparison then they and their whole Congregation nor yet had they both wit to cite the place they alledged trulie but quoted the second booke for the fourth Iuste according to this manner of proceeding the knight also dealeth with S. Thomas the Councell of Trent and Bellarmin and others as if they had beene so destitute of arguments of scripture and Fathers for their proofes of the seuen Sacraments that they were glad to refuge to figures and similitudes of seuen virtues seuen capitall vices seuen planets seuen defects proceeding from Originall sinne seuen dayes of vnleauened bread the offering of seuen Rams seuen lauers of naaman seuen candlestickes seuen seales seuen bookes and the like whereas in truth these mysticall numbers are applied to the seuen Sacraments by the foresaid authours whereby to confirme and declare the matter more plainelie ouer and aboue their other most pregnant and authenticall proofes of the same as in them all and particularlie in S. Thomas and bellarmin is too plainelie to be seene in their workes to be brought in question by anie one of reading and vnderstanding S. Thomas hauing seuen seuerallie distinct questions of the seuen Sacraments a parte besides that he hath of them in generall and the like I say of Bellarmin And as for the Councell of Trent it either produceth proofes of scripture and Fathers actuallie for euerie particular Sacrament or remittes the reader to other former Councells and decrees which haue them And so wee see by this that Sir Humfrey doth but cogge and trifle for wante of solid subiect Touching the citation of Caietan vpon the 5. cap. of S. Iames it is true I finde the same which Sir Humfrey relates at the least in sense and so I cannot accuse him in this place of the ordinarie imperfection which he vseth in citing authours Neuerthelesse he might easilie haue knowne that the same Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the 65. question of the 3. parte of S. Thomas art 1. doth agree with him in the septenarie number of Sacraments and therefore in his glosse vpon the second article of that same question he numbers Extreme Vnction for one of the seuen saying In titulo intellige per ordinem praedictum ordinem quo numerata sunt Sacramenta in praecedenti articulo videlieet Baptisma Confirmatio Eucharistia Paenitentia Extrema Vnctio Ordo Matrimonium By which it is manifest that Caietan defended with his master S. Thomas Extreme Vnction to be a Sacrament and consequentlie he is no fauourer of Sir Humfrey in this point of which now we treat And the same I saye of the same Caietan alledged by the knight as saying that the reader cannot inferre out of the wordes of S. Paule Sacramentum hoc magnum est that matrimonie is a Sacrament because sainct Paule saith not Sacramentum hoc magnum est sed mysterium hoc magnum est But what soeuer out of the predominating subtiltie of his wit Caietan held of the interpretation of this place of sainct Paule in which as also in the exposition of some other scriptures he is noted and notorious to haue beene more subtil then solid yet certaine it is that he absolutelie defended Matrimonie to be one of the seuen Sacraments of the Church as both his wordes aboue cited doe manifestlie conuince and also the great pūctuality with which he is knowne to haue obserued and followed his much respected and reuerenced Patron sainct Thomas in all points of doctrine swearing in a manner euerie where in the wordes of his master so that the knight cannot haue as much as anie conlorable reason to imagin that Caietan standes for him in this matter and against the Romanists As neither he hath to conceiue the like of Canus whome he in the same manner cites as if we were a denier of matrimonie to be a Sacrament or at the least a testifier that other diuines pronounce doubtfullie of the same whereas in reallitie Canus in defence of his owne priuate opinion that matrimonie is not a Sacrament nor conferreth grace except when it is administred by a Preist doth onelie name some diuines which varie in their opinions concerning the determinate matter forme of matrimonie and touching the māner how or whē it giues grace yet both he and the rest constantlie expressely teaching that absolutelie it hath both matter and forme and giues graces in one sorte or other and numbering it among the rest of the seuen Sacraments as their writings doe testifie So that it was great preposterousnesse in Sir Humfrey to vse the testimonie of Canus against the truth of the Sacrament of Matrimonie since neither he nor those other diuines which he names viz. Lombard Scotus sainct Thom. Ricard Palud Durand Vid. Magistrum in 4. vid. S. Th. in 3 part q. Except they be detorted from their true sense and meaning can possiblie be imagined to haue beene others then professed Patrons and assertours of the whole septenarie number of Sacraments as by all or most of their owne wordes cited by me in other places may euidentlie appeare to the reader And these being all the authors which the knigth cites is this paragraffe or at the least all that deserue anser we may plainelie see that not obstanding all the arte and skill which he hath vsed to make them seeme his owne yet the. Roman faith touching the seuen Sacraments of the Churche standes still firmelie auncient vniuersall and visible which is that he intended to destroy and I maintaine Whence we may inferre for the cōclusion censure thereof that all which our aduersarie bringeth in it to proue that there is neither antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in the Fathers nor consent in the schoolemen as he speaketh sufficient to shew the seuen Sacraments to be instituted by Christ is meare Sophistrie founded vpon his owne misinterpretations falsifications and corruptions of the authours he citeth and that consequentlie his owne conditionall curse is absolutelie fallen vpon him in which we must of necessitie leaue him till such time as by humble recantation of his errours he shall desire absolution And now hence I passe to the next Paragraffe which is of the Communion vnder one kinde In which the knight by a speciall parenthesis which he makes in his 172. page peruersely persuades his reader that the foresaid manner of Communion in one kinde was decreed as it were in dispite of God and man by the Coūcell of Constance that from the time of that Coūcell the Cōmunion vnder both kindes was adiudged heresie which is not so for the Roman Church doth not teach that the communion
esse quia regitur Spiritis Sancto Syluester in sum verbo Indult Bell de Indul l. 2. c. 1. Lastely touching Bellarmine Valētia I saye they are neyther of them cited by Sir Humfrey either with any great sinceretie or to any great purpose For altho' Bellarmin doth insinuate that there are not manie of the more auncient authors which make mention of Indulgences yet he doth not affirme that there is want of antiquitie consent in the Fathers in this matter as Sir Humfrey doth falselie deduce out of his wordes but onelie insinuateth that the defect of number of the more auncient Fathers which mention Indulgēces is sufficientlie supplyed by the vse custome of the Church without writing by reason saith he that manie things are retayned in the Church by that meanes onelie And as for Valentia who as he is cited by the knight relates out of S. Thomas the opinion of some who called Indulgences a pious fraude to allure men to the performance of those pious workes which are requyred in the forme of the Indulgence graunted it is true there was such a tenet in those dayes but as it is true that S. Thomas relates it so is it also true that he condēnes the same for verie dangerous that which our aduersarie if he had dealt honestlie ought not to haue omitted And yet not obstanding he could not but see that position censured by S. Thomas in the verie place cited by Valentia as also he censureth another little better to wit that by virtue of the Indulgence itselfe no punishment neither in the iudgement of God nor the Church could be remitted notwithstanding all this I saye yet Sir Humfrey subtillie let it passe making by that meanes his reader beleeue that the foresaid tenet was long before the dayes or Luther according to the relation of Aquinas as he saith an vncondemned opinion of some diuines reiected as erroneous by Valentia alone who neuerthelesse expresselie affirmeth it to haue beene an opinion hised at by all Orthodox writers opinio ab Orthodoxis omnibus explosa Nay which is yet more grosse Sir Humfrey leaueth quite out some parte of the wordes of the foresaid opinion as it is rehearsed by Valentia to wit those which mention satisfaction made to God by reason of the deuotion of the gainer of the Indulgence value of the pious workes in ioyned him for the obtaining of the same all which because it sounded contrarie to the doctrine of the pretensiue reformed Churches it struct Sir Humfrey deafe one that eare so he left it out I omit diuers particulars which our aduersarie vtters here there in the progresse of his Paragraffe Because they either consiste of some inauthenticall relations aboute the vse or rather aboute the abuse of some particular graunts of Indulgences as that out of the office of Saram out of Guitcherdin or els they cōsiste in his owne plaine calūnious vntruthes as that Indulgences are graunted onelie to drawe money frome the grainers that the Romanists pretēd vniuersalitie of Fathers for euerie point of faith that the article of Indulgences wantes authoritie of scripture of all this I saye I need to make no further discussion in regarde the apparent falsitie of it doth sufficientlie confute it selfe shewes that it proceeds rather frome a man malitiouslie affected ignorant of the state of the question more disposed to cauille then carefull to attaine to the truth of the doctrine For suppose the abuses were neuer so true which as in all other things so in this I confesse there haue ben some especiallie in the questors or inferior administrators of Indulgences may be more neuerthelesse these abuses of particular men doe not impeach the power authoritie lawfull vse of the same which onelie is that which my aduersarie I haue now in question And so now for conclusion of this matter we may hence inferre how impiouslie the sectaries proceed in the denyall impugnation of the Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church which altho' they had no other vtilitie or profit in them then to induce people to the exercise of such pious workes as are requyred in the tenor of them that is fasting prayer almes so heighly commended in the scriptures receiuing of the Sacraments yet in common reason ought they not to be reiected but rather maintained sought for with great zeale deuotion And so now let this suffice for the intyre discussion of this paragraffe in which I haue founde nothing to the excuse the author frome the same censure I haue layd vpon him in the precedent matters THE IX PERIOD VVE are now come to the 10. section of the booke in which Sir Humfrey produceth the testimonies of the Romanists touching the infallible certaintie of the Protestant faith the vncertaintie of the Romish this is his designe but I ame verily persuaded he will fayle of his purpose I will examen particulars that the truth may appeare But before this I must aduertise the reader that in this section ther is litle substance to be founde it consists cheefly in a large recapitulation of the supposed confessions of the Romanists as that they haue confessed that iustificatiō is by faith onely that the conuersion of the bread in to Christs bodie was not generally receiued by the Fathers that the certaine definite number of Sacraments was vnknowne to scripture Fathers that the Indulgences now vsed haue no authoritie from scripture or Fathers the like all which particulars we haue allreadie disproued in their seuerall places In substance a great parte of it is but an idle repetition of those falsities which the kingh hath vttered before with some newe additions to make the number of his lyes more ample complete this he performeth with great abundance of wordes of amplification thinking to make all sure calleth to witnesse both men Angels And thus for space of a leafe or two he bringeth nothing but verbal discourses which with the very breath of any iudicious reader presently vanish away so they need no other confutation Afterwardes he comes to some particulars which I haue not yet touched of these I will make a breefe examen And to omitte those points which I haue before discussed in his page 242. he indeuoreth to proue out of Bellarmin that the Church of Rome hath ouerthrowne in one tenet all certaintie of true faith he performeth it very solidly because for sooth Bellarmin affirmeth that none can be certaine by certaintie of faith that he receiueth a Sacrament by reason of the vncertainty of the intention of the minister without which the Sacrament can not be made And the argument the kinght framed of the doctrine of the Cardinall is this It is a positiue grounde of the Romā Religiō that a Sacrament can not be made without the intention of the minister but the intentiō of the minister can not be knowne by faith
therfore the Church of Rome hath ouerthrowne in one tenet all certaintie of true faith I ansere first that altho' this is the forme which Sir Hūfreys argument must be reduced vnto if anie it cā haue neuerthelesse if we should examen it according to the rules of logique ther will scarcely be founde either forme or figure in it yet least the knight should hould himselfe too rigorously delt with as not making profession of that arte I am content to let that passe and answere secondly that I graunt the maior in this sense viz. That whensoeuer the Preist doth administer a Sacrament it is required that he intends at the least in generall to doe that which the true Church vseth to doe in that action I meane either formally or virtually this is defined by the Councell of Trent as a certaine trueth But in the minor there lyeth secretly a certaine false supposition which is this That to the faith of a Sacramēt is necessarilie required that the intention of the minister in particular cases be knowne by faith which is not true nor defined by the Councell because to the faith of a Sacrament is sufficient that faith by which a Christian beleeueth that euery one of those visible signes which the Church proposeth to the people to be beleeued receiued as Sacraments of the new lawe are instituted by Christ to conferre grace to the receiuers that to euery one of them is required a sincere intention to administer or performe that particular action as is was instituted or as the Tridentine decreeth intentione saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia that is at the least with intention to hoe that which the Church doth that seriously not in mockrie but notwithstanding it is not necessary that either he that performeth that ceremonie or he that receiues the same haue certaine knowledge of faith that this or that indiuidual Sacramēt hath ben instituted with the forsaid intention but to this a morall certaintie doth suffice both in the minister in the receiuer the reason is because to know whether one hath receiued or doth truely receiue a Sacrament or not falleth not vpon the essence or making or marring of a Sacrament as a thing necessarily precedent vnto the constitution of it but it is onely a thing consequent or following the same as seruing onely to rectify quiete the consciences of those that either administer it or receiue it to the which as being but a morall matter morall certainty onely is required And surely if all true faith should therefore be ouerthrowne as Sir Humfrey infereth because of wāt of certainty of faith in the receiuers that they receiue true Sacraments euerie time they reciue thē then should it followe by an argument ad hominem that the faith of the reformers were also ouerthrowne for that they themselues neither haue nor can haue any such certaintie of faith or if they say ther is no faith of any such intention of the minister in their religion so doe we say the same of ours for altho' it is a matter of faith in the Roman Church that the intention of the Preist is necessary in generall to the constitution of a Sacrament yet that intention is not necessarily knowne by faith in euerie particular case in this consisteth the equiuocation of the whole argument if the knight had distinguished between the intention the faith of the intention he might easilie haue perceiued that his discourse was founded vpon a false foundation To say nothing of the conclusion which although the premises were neuer so true yet had they not ben able to inferre such à vast consequence as is the ouerthrowe of all certaintie of true faith precisely in respect of the supposed want of faith of intention aboute the Sacraments And now by this generall ansere may be solued what soeuer Sir Humfrey saith afterwardes of the intention required to the Sacraments in particular To which I alson adde that if certaintie of faith were required in the receiuers of the Sacraments that as often as they receiue them the receiue true Sacraments hic nunc that as often as they want that faith they ouerthrow all certaintie of true faith then the reformers themselues were in a more pitifull case then the Romanists in regarde that it is vnpossible for them to knowne more then either by their owne seight or by relation of others that the true matter forme of the Sacraments be truelie applyed vnto them yet certaine it is that vpon neither of these two knowledges anie supernaturall faith can be founded but onely either a kynde of naturall cognitiō or knowledge at the most taken from the senses or a certaine morall certitude proceeding from the relation of their parents or others all which is farre inferior to the knowledge of faith as no man can denie That which may by a speciall reason be yet more plainelie vrged against the receiuers of the Sacraments in the reformed Churches in regarde they are so farre from certaintie of faith of the trueth of their Sacraments in particular that they cannot possible haue as much as a morall certaintie of the same nay nor morall probabilitie I meane such an one as may iustlie moue a prudent man to giue credit by reason they haue no certaintie nor yet probabilitie of the trueth of the vocation ordination of their ministers without certaintie of which two conditions it is well knowne on both sides that no certaine knowledge of the truth of indiuiduall Sacraments can possiblie he had And so we see that whereas Sir Humfrey thought he had framed a stong argument against the doctrine of Bellarmin he onelie heapeth coles vpon his owne head And from hence also we may gather an easie solution to that which he addeth against the necessitie of the Preists intention in some of the Sacraments which he specifieth as baptisme Order Matrimonie Touching which matter I desire the iudicious reader consider whether it is not much more conformable to reason to the dignity of the Sacraments to the honour of Christ who instituted them to the confort securitie of the receiuers that a sincere intention of the Preist Gods substitute be required to the truth due administration of them as the Roman Church doth teach ordaine or onely so that if the receiuers take them in the name of God as the reformers speake it is sufficient for the minister to performe that externall actiō which Christ did institude tho' he doeth it in iest or morkery as Luther teacheth or animo illusorio that is with an intention or meaning to delude as kemnitius affirmeth or to haue no intention necessarily required as Sir Humfrey here professeth this I say I leaue to the iudgement of any indifferent man to discerne whether the Romanists or the reformers proceed more safely religiously And as for the illations which the knight deduceth out of the necessity of the
partiallity of the rule of faith where yet nothing is to be found in that sense which the knight fraudulently framed to his owne purpose And now from hence I passe to the Epistle dedicatory on which I had scarce cast myne eyes when presently I discouered two or three slanderous lyes vttered by the author the firste is that the pretended Catholike Church as he phraseth her is made the whole rule of faith by the Romanists the second that the Romane Catholikes are tought to eate their God kill their King the third that the Pope at this day alloweth of the Iewes Talmud inhibiteth the bookes of Protestants And those vntruthes I haue noted onely not for that I could not haue marked out others but because they seemed the most obuious grosse palpable I omit also to specify diuers places of Bellarmine cited by Sir Humfrey both heere in many other partes of his worke which well examined can serue him for no other purpose thē to coulore his cousinage And as for the rest of his preface I can assure the reader it is little more then an idle tedious repetition of the same matters which he handled in his firste booke and whosoeuer will take the paines to read both his pamphlets will find so frequent rehersall of the same things that his eares will tingle to heere them nay some whole chapters of this booke there bee which excepting the title haue little other matter then the same which is found in the other as will appeere in particular to him who shall conferre the two last sections of it with the tenth eleuenth sections of the safe way In so much that I thinke I may not vnfitly say of the workes of Sir Humfrey that which a certaine pleasant wit sayd once of the writings of Luther Tolle contradictiones calumnias mendacia dicteria ac schommata scurillia in Catholicos Romanos inanes digressiones ambages atque inutiles verborum multiplicationes duo eius volumina in vnum haud magnum libellulum redigi posse non dubito that is take way Sir Humfreys contradictions calumniations lyes take away his scoffes ieastes against the Romane Catholikes his idle vaine digressions multiplication of wordes or repetition of matter with his friuolous circumlocutions I doe not doubt but both his volumes may be easily reduced to the bulke of one small pāphlet And thus much concerning the Preface the booke in generall from whence I passe to particulars THE DISCVSSION OF THE SEVERAL sections in their order Sec. 1. In his first section I thinke I may trulie say Sir Humfrey telleth but one vntruth but it is so lardge a lye that it reaches from end to end I meane but one totall lye for partiall lyes there are diuers This totall vntruth is in that he affirmeth in his second page that the difference betwixt vs them is such as was betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists which is manifestly conuinced to be false euen by those same words which he himself cites out of that holy doctor Aug. de vnit Eccl. cap. 2. who directly sayth that the question betweene him them was vbi sit Ecclesia where the Church is And yet the question is not betwixt the Romanists the Reformers where the true Church is but which is the true Church that is whether the Romane church all the rest of the particular Churches in the world adhering to obeying that Church as the cheife mother Church be that true Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed commended in the scriptures or the reformed Church or Churches wheresoeuer they be which the reader may plainly perceaue to be a farre different question from that of which S. Augustine speaketh in the place cited by the kinght Secondly the whole discourse of this section runneth vpon a false supposition to witt that the Romanists refuse to proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onelie as S. Augustine did saith the kinght against the donatists but this is not true for the Romanists are so farre for reprouing that course in this point that they scarce vse any other proofes then those same scriptures which the same S. Augustin ordinarily vseth for that purpose as may be seene in the workes of both ancient moderne diuines Thirdly neuertheles when the Romanists say they proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onely they doe not therfore meane so that they exclude the interpretation of them according to the ancient tradition of the same Catholike Church for so neither S. Augustine eyther against the Donatists or any other hereticks in the like case alleaged the scriptures but as the same Saint Augustine saith thou ' partly in different wordes to another purpose De vnit Eccles c. 19. vt non nisi verum sensum Catholicum teneamus not so but that we doe followe the true Catholike sense of the same scriptures And in fewe wordes that which the Romanists meane is that they doe not vse the scriptures for proofe of their Church in the sense of the pretensiue reformed Churches but ouerly in that sense which anciently hath binne imbraced by the most vniuersally floryshing Church in all or most ages according to the diuersity of tymes And thus we see cleerlie that Sir Humfrey in diuerse respects hath grosselie ignorantlie mistaken the state of the question both betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists also betwixt himselfe the Romanists And consequentlie those authorities which he produdeth eyther out of S. Augustine or other ancient Fathers are impertinent of no force against the faith of the Romane Church but on the contrarie by his false dealing he hath fallen into that by path which in his erroneous imagination he hath prepared for his aduersaries in which neuerthelesse he himselfe if he proceed in this manner is like to walke euen to the end of his iorney I meane throu ' all the sections of his booke Sec. 2. In his second section he pretends to ansere to the pretences as he termeth them taken by the Romanists from the obscuritie of scripture from the inconueniences which he saith his aduersaries alleage for the restraint of the lay peoples reading them yet he is so farre from performing his taske in this behalfe that he doth not so much as relate completelie those reasons which moue the Romā Church to ordayne the said restraint but onelie catching at one or two of the lesse important causes alleaged by Bellarmin to that purpose giuing a verie sleight superficiall ansere vnto them he spends a great part of his time in forging a new cause which he falselie conceiueth to haue binne the onelie or cheife motiue which the Roman Church had to prohibite the reading of the Bible to wit for feare as he sayth their Trent doctrine new articles should be discouered And also in breathing out an odious relation of the speaches of some particular