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
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
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
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
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
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
the knights calumnious proceeding against him Vos enim sicut a Luthero didicistis scripturas sanctas faciles ad intelligendum interpretaÌ„dum esse putatis sic eas hactenus vestro sensis intellexistis interpretati estis At si hanc solam regulam fidei Christus in Ecclesia reliquisset quid aliud quam gladium delphicum haberemê° c. Quomodo interpretari scripturas ad libidineÌ„ proprij sensus sit vt habere DelphicuÌ„ gladium coÌ„tr Sad. p. 99. Lessius is ill cited for in his 11. reason he hath none of those wordes quoted by Sir Humfrey yet in his table he hath those Scriptura quâ ratione nasus cereus regula lesbia c. nuncupetur Cyting for this his owne page 130. of his consult Where yet he hath not those formall wordes which Sir Humfrey cites but onely some others to that sense yet the truth is he doth not applye either the words or the sense to the Romanists but to the nouelists saying of them and their interpretation of scriptures by their priuate spirit Scripturam autem quisque pro suo captu iudicio intelligit vnde cum se putant scripturam habere regulam credendi loco scripturae habent imaginationem propriam c. So that here we finde no blasphemie in Lessius but imposture in Sir Humfrey It is true Lessius in his disputation of Antichrist hath those formall words cyted by Sir Humfrey in his page of the same number wher he saith the scripture is called by Catholikes a nose of Wax a Lesbious rule c. but he presently explicates in what sense to wit when it is taken for the bare wordes or letter onely secluding the sense of the Church the interpretation of Fathers as saith he it is taken by heretikes So that it is plaine that Lessius doth not say that Catholikes calle the true scripture together with the true sense a nose of Wax but onely the naked text as it is abused by corrupters Lessius demonstr 15. p. 131. An non regula illis Lesbia quam omnibus suis imaginationibus quantumuis absurdis accommodant seruire faciunt qui per AntichristuÌ„ designari volunt non vnum hominem sed plurimorum seriem c. And presently Apud Catholicos non est regula Lesbia quia est animata vero nimirum sensu qui contrarijs placitis aptari nequit Among Catholikes saith Lessius the scripture is not a lesbie rule because it is animated with true sense which cannot be applyed to contrarie opinions By which wordes it is euident that this author is mightely wronged being he hath the verye negatiue proposition to that is imposed vpon him In the citation of Pighius Sir Humfrey ought to haue continued his rehearsal from the beginning of his wordes to the end of the period of the authors whole passage then it would haue appeared plainelie howe falselie he is accused For so he discourseth But because saith he no place of scripture is so plaine or open as it can defend itselte from the iniurie of the heretikes who adulterate depraue detort it to their owne sense for they as one no lesse truelie then merrilie hath sayd are euen as a nose of wax which doth easilie suffer it selfe to be fashioned drawne this way that way which way thou wilst like a certaine leaden rule vsed in the buildings of Lesbos which is not harde to be accomodated to what you will there must be a line ioyned vnto it such a one as is not as flexible as it selfe but firme stiffe I say that pillar that firmament of Catholike trueth that is the common sense sentence of the Church then wee shall be certaine sure of the true vnderstanding of the scriptures if it be consonant in all things to her which as she giues Canonicall authoritie to the scriptures so is she truly the Lydius Lapis or touche stone of the true Orthodox interpretation of the same c. Pighius l. 3. Hierarc c. 3. Thus farre Pighius Where he puts also for his marginall note Scriptures ab haereticorum vi iniuria se prorsus vindicare non posse That is the scriptures can not vendicate or free them selues from the violence iniurie of heretikes By which note alone if his wordes in the text were not so plaine as they bee yet is it clearer then the leight that the comparisons which Pighius vseth be not applyed by him to the scriptures absolutelie but onelie as considered according to their bare caracters letter as they are subiect to be corrupted by false interpretations neither is he who vsed such speeches onelie with relation to the abusers of scripture more guiltie of iniurious proceeding against the scriptures them selues as truelie they are the worde of God then those are esteemed to be iniurious to the writings of S. Thomas Aristotle who by reason they are expounded in coÌ„trarie senses occasioned by their obscuritie affirme their expositors make them a nose of wax or compare them to some such other flexible matter mierly in that respect And conformable to this also which wee haue said because the Romanists know by experience how falselie the misreformers vse to deale in their citations as partelie hath been conuinced in diuers places of this censure therefore not for anie other cause doe they some tymes if they cite the Fathers iustelie reiect them as by them corrupted or falselie cited And so if they cite Berengarius the waldenses they iustelie reiect them as heretikes If they cite reformers for Romanists they iustely reiect them for none of theirs If they cite Catholike authours impertinentlie corruptedlie or in a false sense they iustelie reiected them as abused by them so remit them to the Censurers purgatorie If they cite scriptures either falselie translated by addition or detraction or falselie interpreted or falsified they iustelie reiect them as imperfect as made by them a couerture for theeues an officine or shop of heretikes And yet notobstanding all this it is manifest both by an expresse decree which the Councell of Trent made in the fourth ses against the profaners of the sacred scriptures Decret de edit vsu sacrorum l. vers fin as also by some ceremonies of the Masse it selfe that the Romanists giue farre greater reuerence euerie way vnto them without comparison then the Reformers And the same I say of the ancient Fathers whoÌ„ the Romanists as it is well knowne respect so much that they accounte it plaine temeritie in anie writer to teach anie doctrine contrarie to the common consent of them Whereas one the contrarie there is nothing more ordinarie among the writers of the misreformed Churches theÌ„ to reiect the authoritie of the ancient Fathers or at the least to vilifie them speake contemptuouslie of them as diuers of their workes doe testifie But for all this Sir Humfrey is still harping vpon that
string that the Roman Church houlds the scriptures to be imperfect but I knowe none that makes them so imperfect as the misreformed Churches by cutting of diuers partes of them and condemning them for Apochripha in their consistoriall sessions by corrupting the text by false translations erroneous interpretations as I haue aboue declared And touching the Roman Church I haue alreadie tould him that he belyeth her For neither she here selfe nor anie of her members euer defended that tenet absolutelie that the scriptures are imperfect But onelie some Romanists affirme the scriptures alone to be no perfect rule of faith yet they neuer say they are imperfect For one thing it is to be perfect in them selues an other thing to be perfect as they be a rule of faith The first is absolutelie true maintained by all Romanists the second is but true secundum quid with restriction as before hath ben declared or as it is but one parte yet the cheefest the farre more perfect noble Wherefore the Romanists as the reader may perceiue hould both the scriptures Fathers for perfect campleit absolutelie speaking wher as the reformers whatsoeuer they say in wordes yet indeeds they doe mangle martyrize them most cruellie as a booke published by a reformed minister called the censure of the Fathers doth giue ouer plaine testimonie Censura Patrum And thus handled by thim I graunt the reformers may chalenge them for theirs but taking them in their compleit perfect latitude puritie the Romanists my iustelie say all myne in which action notwithstanding there is no police vsed to deceiue the ignorant as the reformers vse to doe but plaine dealing for their true instruction And to say the Romanists silence scriptures it is so manifest an vntruth as it needs no other confutation But by the lye Neyther doe they otherwise purge either them or anie learned writers but onelie or at the least cheefelie from such darnell as you enimies to the Crop of Christ vse to sowe by night in the feild of faith According to the sentence of the authour of the Impect Commentarie of S. Mathewe hom 44. speaking of hereticall Preists whose wordes altho' the knight world faine applie them against the Romanists yet they can not possible be so trulie fitlie accommodated to anie as to his owne ministers Bishops whose common knowne practice is by seueritie of lawes all fortes of punishment not by their bookes writings to musle the Romanists mouthes because to vse the wordes of the foresaid author they knowe that if the truth be once layd opē their Church shall be forsaken they from their Pontificall dignitie shall be brought downe to the basenesse of the people And now we see by the examen of this whole sectiō howe false Sir Humfreyes cardes haue proued how plainelie he hath lost the game notwithstanding all his iudling tricks counterfeit shuffling of which sleights there are such great store in this section that there is no place for anie matter of substance but onelie verball florishes to giue colour countenance to his fained calumnious accusations THE XIV PERIOD SIR Humfrey tells vs that in this section following there are contained allegations collected out of Bellarmin for testification of the truth of the reformed doctrine in the cheefe points of controuersie I haue alreadie declared that the Romanists reiect not either true scriptures or Fathers nor yet anie other authours of the Roman Church but onelie as either corrupted by heretikes or els onelie where we finde them to haue some singular opinion or tenet against the vniforme doctrine of the rest in matters of faith manners or Ecclesiasticall practice or discipline or els in some particular points not then sufficientlie declared determined by the Church when they did so vtter their opinions of which sorte of writers neuerthelesse there neuer were anie such either in number or qualitie of doctrine as could either make or marre the antiquitie vniuersalitie of the Church in that nature And as for Bellarmin whome Sir Humfrey citeth in this section we are so farre from taking exceptions at anie thing that he euer writ published that we all hould him for a most faithfull diligent defender not onelie of the principall points of our faith but also of euerie one of them in particular of the whole Roman doctrine in so much that I accounte it no lesse then plaine madnesse in that man whoe shall offer to make vse of his testimonie for the contrarie knowing for certaine that if he be sincerelie alledged rightlie vnderstāded nothing can be founde in him for the aduerse parte And to the end that this may more plainely appeare I will breeflie examen those particular places which Sir Humfrey produceth for the contrarie First therefore he citeth Bellarmin as confessing the vncertainty of all the Trēt Sacramēts as the knight termeth thē because forsooth in his third booke of Iustification the 8. chap. he graunteth that none can be certaine by the certaintie of faith that he receiueth a true Sacrament in regard in depends vpon the intention of the minister But this testimonie I haue alreadie shewed to be delusorie it is wholie impertinent to the purpose for that the question aboute the necessitie of the knowledge of the intention of the minister by faith is no principall controuersie betwixt vs but rather meerelie incident Neyther yet can the reformers finde the contrarie position in anie place of scripture by that meanes to make it a point of faith for themselues Secondlie he induceth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. touching the reformers denyall of transsubstantiation To which place I haue also ansered before it is not for this purpose in regarde there is no mention of anie denyall of the trueth of trassubstantiation or confession of the Reformers tenet in that point but onelie of an other incident question viz. whether transsubstantiation can be proued by expresse wordes of scripture And at least touching the maine point to omit the other as impertinent disagreable to the title of our aduersaries questiō which is of principal points of controuersie it is too cleare that Bellarmin defended the affirmatiue in terminis in plaine tearmes And so this is no such confession as Sir Humfrey seekes for in this place Besides that all Bellarmins confession is but one pore non est improbabile Thirdlie he citeth Bellarmins confession against priuate Masse lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. 10. But the latter place I haue examined before founde it corrupted by Sir Humfrey both in wordes sense neyther are the wordes sincerelie recited by omission of omnino sine declaratione Ecclesiae transposition of the text And here I further adde that neyther of the places is to this purpose because they proue no vnlawfulnesse or absolute imperfection in priuate Masses but onelie at the most their lesse lawfulnes their lesse
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
Eucha c. 24. Sixtlie touching the confession of Bellarmin aboute the duall number of proper Sacraments we haue alreadie shewed him to be quite opposite to the reformers doctrine also haue examined the same place which Sir Humfrey citeth here and founde the sense of the Cardinall to haue ben egregiouslie by him transuerted corrupted so here is no confession of anie principall point of controuersie made by him in fauour of his aduersaries but a new repetition of an old imposture of the knights owne making Lastelie the knight citeth two places of Bellarmin The first out of his 3. booke of Iustification the 6. chapter is touching the reformers faith good workes which he affirmeth Bellarmin to confesse But what a ridiculous allegation is this For it is true Bellarmin confesseth in the place cited that the reformers hould faith repentance are requisite to iustification that without them no man can be iustified but this is no principall point of controuersie nay no question at all betwene the Romanists the reformers but onelie a point of doctrine which the reformers doe commonlie teach the Romanists doe not denie So that this is impertinentlie alledged out of Bellarmin for faith good workes since that in the wordes cited out of him there is not one sillable of good workes but onelie of faith repentance as the reader sees But yet that which is most absurde of all is that Sir Humfrey haueing here cited Bellarmins confession that the reformers hould both faith repentance to be required to iustification yet presentlie after he citeth the same Bellarmin as concluding with the reformed Churches iustification by faith onely so that within the compasse of one page the knight out of the profunditie of his great head peace resolueth in fauour of his owne cause out of Bellarmin both that without a liuely faith an ernest repentance no man is iustified also that according to the doctrine of the reformed Churches mans iustification is by faith onelie Let the reader if he be able couple these two together but if he can not let him hould for certaine that Sir Humfrey line was farre out of quare when he vttered such disparates Now the second place of the two laste is touching iustification by faith onelie But this hath ben examined before founde to containe no confession of iustification by faith onelie as the knight will haue it vnaduisedly contradicting himselfe out of an inordinate desire to make Bellarmin seeme to stand for the doctrine of his Church but onelie that Bellarmin speaketh there of confidence in merits according to the sense aboue declared And thus Sir Humfrey hauing cited all he can which all neuerthelesse is iuste nothing he addeth for all this that he wondreth why the Romanists should send out such Anathemas curses against all or anie of those that denie their doctrine But I wonder more that he who hath produced nothing either in this chapter or in the rest of his booke out of Catholike authours which in his sense meaning doth not rather deserue to be hissed at then to be admitted for anie proofe of his doctrine yet should not be ashamed to affirme that the best learned of the Romanists confesse that manie principall points of their owne religion manie articles of their faith are neither ancient safe nor Catholike And suerlie I can not conceiue but that both he who soeuer els should vse so much false dealing as he hath done in propugning their owne tenets especiallie in matters of religion deserue the Anathema in the highest degree that curse being the proper brande of the defenders of erroneous hereticall or scysmaticall doctrine And indeed it seemes Sir Humfrey had not verie great conference in the industrie which he hath vsed in this his worke For notobstanding it appeareth manifestlie that he putteth the greatest streingth of his proofes through out his whole booke in the multitude of authours especiallie Romanists whome by way of emendication or begerie he alledgeth as confessers of his faith yet he here flyeth to the little flock to the paucitie of beleeuers to the simplicitie of babes as to speciall caracters of the true Church vtterlie disclaming from humane wisdome power nobilitie a pore refuge after so manie great boasts bragges of the victorie obteined as he imagineth but falselie by meere authoritie multiplicitie of testimonies piled vp both in text margin now to plead paucitie simplicitie want of power wisdome And as for your paucitie in number Sir Humfrey I will not stick to graunt in regard that how great a shewe soeuer you haue made to the contrarie yet I knowe you to be most pore beggerlie in that nature but yet I denie that to be a speciall infallible marke of the true Church as you insinuate no more then the paucitie of Manicheans or Donatists was a marke of the truth of their Churches And the same I say of the want of might wisdome nobilitie I meane of true power wisdome nobilitie for of power wisdome nobilitie of the flesh you must needs haue much more then the Romanists in regarde it is well knowne you both handle eate farre greater quantitie then they doe witnesse your little abstinence the rest which modestie causeth mee to passe in silence And touching your simplicitie except by simplicitie you meane plaine ignorance you haue no colour here to bragge of it for that there was neuer flock in the world in my opinion so full of all sortes of duplicitie as your owne Neither hath anie man greater reight to be a sheepe of that fould then the noble knight Sir Humfrey who out of the abundance of his double dealing euen in this place to say nothing of that which is paste hath made choise of as false fallacious markes of his owne Church as he hath calumniouslie fained markes for ours to wit counterfeit miracles which neuerthelesse wee disclame from detest more then he and all his consortes And if they will needs medle of these matters let them reflect vpon their Master Caluin how faine he would haue confirmed his newe Gospell with a forged resuscitation of a pore man who by his instructions fained death but the false Prophet fayling of his purpose committed a murder in steed of a miracle The knight saith further that we beleeue lyes But I say that he doth not onely beleeue them but makes them as appeares by this his pamphlet in which as we see ther is great store In Deut. 14. We doe not deny with Lira but that some times in the Church there may be great deception of the people among the Preists in fained miracles but these miracles if anie such ther be are in the Church in the Preists onely as Lira discretely insinuate not approued by the Church the Preists or their companions for lucre as the false knight iniuriously affirmes most corruptedly omitting in his
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
particular points that in no matter of faith to wit aboute the manner of the introduction of communion vnder one kinde and priuate Masse into the Church as their owne wordes declare And as for Pope Adrian his owne wordes truely and compleatly cyted showe him to speake onely of the conditionall adoration of Christ in the Eucharist in case the hoste should not be consecrated and so he is here produced by the knight both most falsely and most ridiculously to proue for sooth that the Romanists excuse their absolute adoration of Christ in the Sacrament by that conditionall I adore theif thou be Christ which manner of adoration neuerthelesse they neuer vse but onely in speciall cases of doubt whether the Preist performed his office according to Christ◠institution The Popes words are these in Latin Concilium Constantiense excusat simplices adorantes hostiam nō consecratam quia facite implicatur condition si consecration sit recte facta c. And now let the reader iudge how conueniently they be applyed to S. Hūfreys purpose of prouing absolutely that the Romanists excuse their adoration of Christ in that manner Further more Sir Humfrey doth not adduce any reason at all for the proofe of his antiquitie and vniuersality but onely vseth his owne conceiptes cōsisting mearely in iffes an andes or conditionall asseueratiōs thus quite throu ' the rest of his section he rides poste like a man that caries newes of a false victorie now and then dropping a lye by the way for the haste he maketh to come to the end of his iourney which is nothing els but his owne discredit which because it hath beene already sufficiently manifested I neede not goe to particulars for more proofe of the same especially for that I know I shall haue occasion hereafter to handle more largely all those seuerall points which our aduersary cōgesteth in this place rather by way of recrimination then of treaty as that Costerus Harding excuse the cōmunion and priuate Masse the one by saying that the cup was not taken away by the commaundement of the Bishops but that it crept in the Bishops conniuing ther at which he attributeth to Costerus the other that it is throu the negligence of the lay people that they cōmunicate not at euerie Masse which he ascribes to D. Harding All which is imposed by the knight vpon those two Catholike authours cōtrarie to their true sense and meaning for that as it is apparent by their owne wordes which I will rehearse in an other place they say not those things by way of excuse in regarde they know ther is no need of excuse wher no faulte is founde nor acknowledged it being certaine to them and all other Romanists that how soeuer priuate Masse and single communion were at first introduced yet they are both lawfully practized And so I conclude this section of his inroling il with the former censures or rather I may with greate reason frame a more rigorous censure for it in regard that the knight hauing promised more then before yet he hath performed lesse and hauing vnder the name and punishment due to heresie vndertaken to showe by the testimonies confession of his aduersaries the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith that his way euen by the confession of the Romanists is more certaine then their owne yet he hath performed nothing but spent his whole discourse in equiuocations and iuggeling tricks and so he cannot possible escape the same sentence which his owne execration called vpon him THE VIII PERIOD THIS Period shall conteine the ninth section of S. Hūfreys booke with though by reason of the largenes of it he diuideth it in to seuerall paragraffes yet because they haue but small substance in them as he handleth them though otherwise they be in themselues matters of importance as alsoe for that his doctrine in te same points hath beene already in parte examined cōfuted therefore I will not stand to make so many seuerall distinctions in the treaty of them as he doth but reduce them all to one onely period briefely examining how farre those testimonies of Romanists which he promiseth to produce as witnesses of the antiquity of his owne doctrine and the nouelty of theirs doe reach in the particular points of the same He beginneth therefore with iustification by faith onely Page 85. I saith he will make it appeare that before and after the conquest the priests and professours of those tymes protested openly against the doctrine of Romish merits preaching saluation by Christ alone and with all publikely professed and administred the same sacraments in the same faith and truth which we teach and administer to this day Thus he proceedeth by way of assertion with a promise to make it appeare which assertion neuerthelesse contayning two partes yet neither of them is true but both either false or equiuocall or rather partely false and partely equiuocall The first parte is cleerely false in of it affirmeth that the priests and professours both before and after the conquest protested openly against Romish merits That this is false it is manifestly conuinced first because all the workes of learned men and histories both of England and other contries that write of that matter doe testifye that from the tyme of S. Gregories mission of S. Augustin into England to preach and establish the Roman faith to omit more auncient times both the Kings priests and people as well before as since the conquest haue continually professed the same Roman doctrine which then they receiued vntill the time of Henry the eight at the least and among the rest the very same doctrine of merits which now the Church of Rome defendeth As is diligently proued by the authour of the protestants apollogie in the first section of his first treaty the 63. page euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues And what S. Gregories owne doctrine was in this particular he himselfe testifieth in his booke of moralls the 42. chap. saying that because in this life there is diuersitie of workes among vs therefore with out doubt there will be in that diuersitie of dignities to the end that as heare one doth surpasse another in merit so there one may transcend another in the retribution Thus Sainct Gregorie to whose testimonie as I could if neede were ioyne the expresse authorities of Fathers of precedent ages for witnesses of the doctrine of merits as of S. Augustin Hierome Ambrose Hilarie Cyp. Tertull. and other Grecian Doctours euen till the time of the priuatiue Church so may the consent of those who succeeded the the same S. Gregory be added for the confirmation of it S. Bernard to omit other places alledged by me in an other occasion in his 8. serm vpon the Cantic saith Omne quod feceris bonum malumne quod quidem non facere liberum sit meritò ad meritum deputatur Concilio Aran. can 18. debetur merces bonis operibus si fiant sed gratia
thy whole confidence in his death onelie haue confidence in no other thing that which is so farre from the deniall of merits as that it is counselled aduised euen by those who are most professed defendours of the Roman doctrine in that point as out of Bellarmine and other diuines we haue showed before Period 4. Nay and besides this it is most plaine in my iudgment that the foresaid rituall in certaine other words following in the same place did neuer intend to exclude all kinde of merit from the workes of man performed by Gods grace and assistance for that it expressely saith in the person of that sick man I offer his merits that is the merits of Christ in steede of the merits I ought to haue for if he ought to haue merits as he affirmeth euen vpon his death bed though he haue thē not euident it is that he denied not the same but plainelie supposed the truth of them And thus we see that the words of the order of baptizing benigniouslie interpreted make nothing for S. Hūfreyes position nor against the Romā doctrine of merits How be it the same was iustelie corrected by the Inquisitors both because the manner of phrase which it vseth might easily giue occasiō of errour especially in these our dayes as also because it is iustelie suspected to be Apochryphall in regarde it containes certaine ill sounding sentēces not onely in the doctrine of the Roman Church but also according to the tenets of the Reformers As where it saith thus These protestations of such as lye a dying were reuailed to a certaine religious man And those wordes he that shall protest such things as followe from his harte cannot be damned c. All which propositions and some othgers are commaunded by the authours of the Index to be blotted as well as the wordes which Sir Humfrey here cites And yet more ouer it is to be aduertised that there is not a worde in all that which our aduersarie produceth against merits which doth proue iustification by faith onelie which is that which he intendes to proue in this place as the title of his paragraph doth declare And so by this meanes he hath quite fled from his text And so this may suffice to demonstrate the falsitie of the knights assertion and the nullitie of the proofe thereof by the testimonies of his aduersaries seeing plainelie that he doth no thing therein but partlie by vntrueths and partlie by equiuocations deludes his reader not citing anie one authour either Romanist or reformer in all this paragraffe more then the wordes rehearsed out of the foresaid Rituall which neuerthelesse hauing bene as suspected of corruption chasticed by the Inquisitours the vncensured coppies which doubtlesse he and his fellowes onelie vse haue no authoritie nor credit in the Roman Church or at the most verie little and consequentlie he proceedeth most weakelie in produceing for a testimonie of his aduersarie that which they doe not acknowledge for theirs especiallie considering he alledgeth nothing els for the proofe of his tenet The second paragraffe is of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation As concerning the Sacraments of the Lords supper saith the knight In the dayes of Alfrick about the yeare 996. There was a Homilie publikelie to be read to the people one Easter day wherein the same doctrine which saith hee our Church now professeth was publikelie taught and receaued and the doctrine of the reall presence which in that time had gotte some footing in the Church was plainelie cōfuted and reiected The wordes which he citeth are these There is a greate difference betwixt the bodie wherein Christ suffered and the bodie which is receaued of the faithfull the bodie that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of marie with bloud and with bone with skinne and with sinewes in human lims with a reasonable soule liuing and his spirituall bodie which nourisheth the faithfull spirituallie is gathered of manie cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodilie but spirituallie c. Thus farre out of the homilie And this doctrine faith the knight was deliuered in those times not by one onely Bishop but by diuerse in their Synods and by them commended to the Clergie who were commaunded to reade it publikelie to the people one Easter day for their better preparation and instruction in the Sacrament and for the same cause translated into the saxon language by Alfrick and to the same purpose the Knight also citeth two other writinges or Epistles as published and translated also into the vulgar tongue by the same Alfric But to this I answer first that whatsoeuer doctrine is conteynd in the Hom. Epistles cited the Romanists are not boūd to beleeue it because the knight onely citeth them out of his owne authours and as printed by the members of his owne Church to wit out of B. Vsher and Doctour Iames and so it is both absurd and impertinent to produce thē as testimonies of his aduersaries as he professeth to doe in the title of his section especially supposing that he hath not aledged any one author of the Romanists religion where by to proue them authenticall nor yet any other indifferent witnesse but onely those two reformers whom we haue named whoe by the Romanists may iustly be suspected of partiallity in fauour of their owne cause especially if we consider that Sir Humfrey himselfe graunteth that the Latin epistle written by Alfric is to be seene mangled and razed in a manuscript in Benet colledg in Cambridge And certainely the English coppies being found not to aggree with the Latin manuscript which is either the Originall it selfe or at the least cometh much neerer the time in which the authour of it liued then any other coppie the knight could possible haue there is farre greater euidence that the latter translations and impressions are corrupted by the reformers then that either the Index expurgatorius or any other Romanist hath made any alteration or chaunge in the originall coppies or first authenticall manuscripts or in any other except it were onely to restore them to their prime innocenty and originall trueth cheefely supposing that the inquisitors in their expurgation of bookes intend no other thing more then to reduce such as be corrupted to the former purity of their originalls Thirdly I answer that admitte the editions which are published in England be true and sincerely translated and printed which neuerthelesse may iustly be suspected by reason of the manifould corruptions found to haue bene vsed in that nature by diuerse of the reformed profession as by the expurgatory Index doth plainely appeare the authours of which Index haue discouered diuers workes Fathered partely by auncient and partely by moderne sectaries vpō those who neuer writ them which was the cause as I suppose why Antonius posseuinus in the preamble to his select Bibliotheke saith that Sixtus Bellarmine and others haue manifested very maine pestilent bookes
attributed by heretikes to ancient and good authours among which we may number one cited by Sir Humfrey in some parte of his worke intitled de fiducia misericordia Dei which Bell. in his booke de Scrip. Eccles declares to be counterfait and suppositious and none of Bishop Fishers on whom it is imposed Neuerthelesse how so euer the matter standes touching the truth of the foresaid homilie and admit it be neuer soe true and authenticall yet I am confidently assured that the wordes by Sir Humfrey cited out of it against the reall presence are not so obscure but that they admitte such a comodious exposition as doth not in any sort fouour the denyall thereof but rather impugne and it confute it First for that there is not one worde which includeth a denyall of the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist but the wordes onelie showe a differēce betwene the body in which Christ suffered and the bodie which the faithfull receiue which difference is not reallie in the substance of the bodie it selfe it being one and the same in nature in euery place where it existeth but onely in the properties and manner of existence or being in place it hauing beene in the passion visible mortall and with it entire locall extension but in the Sacrament inuisible impassible and vnextended in which sense allso it may rightly be called spirituall yea and not altogether improperly especially taking it with a relation or respect vnto the same body perfectly extended in the manner aboue declared it may be said to be without bloud bone sinn woe limbe or soule that is without extensiō or motion of these partes as the cited wordes doe signifie which by reason of the foresaid maner of being of Christs body in the Sacrament doe call it his spirituall bodie from thence as it were inferring concluding that noething is to be vnderstood there bodily but spiritually all which is noething contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point but rather most agreeable to the same which teacheth that Christs body though it be truelie in the Sacrament yet without extension and not in a Corporall but in a spirituall manner yea and very cōformable to the doctrine of S. Paul who speaking of the resurrectiō of the flesh douteth not to call one the same humane bodie both corruptible spirituall 1. Cor. 15. Seminatur corpus animale surget corpus spirituale and that not for the difference of the bodie in it nature and substance which it hath not but onelie by reason of the accidentall difference which it hath in it properties and māner of existence which the same bodie receiueth in the resurrection not hauing had them in this mortall life True it is ther is one passage in the homilie which in my opinion hath more difficulty showe of repugnance to the reall presence transsubstantiation then the former wordes to wit where the authour makes a comparison betwixt the manna and water which flowed from the rocke in the desert both which he affirmes to haue beene figures of Christ bodie and bloud as the Eucharist also is Neuerthelesse he hath consequenter an other passage or two which plainely declare that similitude to be nothing contrarie either to the reall presence or transsubstantiation For so he addes The Apostle Paul saith that the Israelists did eate the same gostely meake and drinke the same gostely drinke because that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeares and shat water which frome the stome did follow had signification of Christs bodie his bloud that now be offered daylie in Gods Church it was the same saith he which we offer not bodily but gostely But which wordes it is euident that Alfric puts a maine difference betwixt that spirituall meate and drinke of the Iewes the spirituall foode which Catholike Christians receiue in the Sacrament that being but a signification as the authour of the Homilie expressely affirmeth of Christs body bloud it being the same not bodilie but onely spiritually or figuratiuelie with that bodie and bloud of Christ which he auerreth Preists to offer daylie and of which he also teacheth the foresaid water to be a representation not the bodie and bloud themselues which as being euerie day sacrificed in the altar euen according to common sense they must of necessitie be reallie and truelie in the Eucharist And altho' the authour of the Homilie calleth if a figure of Christs bodie bloud yet doth he not say it is a figure of thē absent as the water flowing out of the rock was but truelie and reallie present as those his wordes in which he saith and diuers time repeateth that Christs bodie and bloud are offered in the same Eucharist by Preists in sacrifice doe euidently conuince supposing it is impossible to conceiue the authour of the homilie should affirme that Christs bodie and bloud be offered in the altar and yet not beleeue the same to be reallie truelie and substantially present in the Eucharist Moreouer the same Homilie saith in plaine termes the wine which in the supper by the Preist is hallowed shewe one thing without to humane vnderstanding and another thing with in to beleeuing minds without they seeme bread and wine both in figure and tast and they be truely after their hallowing Christs bodie and his blood throu ' gostelie misterie And afterwardes these wordes doe followe we said vnto you that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housell before his suffering and said this his my bodie and my bloud yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned trou ' in visible might the bred to his owne hodie the wine to his bloud which wordes how plaine they be for the reall presence and transsubstantiation anie one that is not violently partiall in his owne cause may easilie perceiue considering that for Christ to turne by inuisible might the bread and wine into his bodie and bloud is nothing els but that which both the definitions of the Roman Church and Catholike diuines call by the names of reall presence and transsubantiation Thirdlie it is manifest that the foresaid testimonie cannot in reason be alledged in fauour of the reformers doctrine in this particular for that they denie the bodie of Christ either to exist or to be receaued really in the Eucharist otherwise then by faith figure neither of which neuertelesse is denied by the words aboue cited but contrarilie they expressely and absolutelie auerre that the bodie of Christ is receaued by the faithfull and altho' they call it his spirituall bodie yet doubtlesse they doe it onelie for the reason alledged as also for that it nourisheth the receiuers spirituallie yet they neuer denie it to be a true bodie or to be trulie present in the Sacrament or affirme it to be receiued by faith onelie as the reformers commonlie doe and Sir Humfrey in particular most expresselie in diuerse places of his booke Fourtlie the wordes alledged call
the bodie which the faithfull receiue in the Eucharist a bodie gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without lim without soule But the reformers professe to receiue no such bodie in the Sacrament but the verie same bodie which sitteth on the right hād of God in heauē indued with all the properties and dimensions of a true bodie though by faith onelie and so there being such small affinitie betweene both the words and sense of the foresaid place and the reformers doctrine in this point neither S. Humfrey nor those from whom he receiued it had any reason to produce it as a testimonie wherebie to proue their Church to haue bene visiblie extant and their faith publikelie professed before the daies of Luther And from hence we may further deduce how vaine a flourish the knight maketh in the end of his 97. page were by way of conclusion he affirmes that the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie published not in pryuate corners but in publike libraries not in obscure assemblyes But in open Churches and generall congregations of our owne countrye in the darkest ages long before Luthers dayes All which deduction is most friuolous and idle first for that suppose it were most true and certaine that the denyall of the reall presence were contained in the foresaid writings the contrarie to which I haue made most manifest yet is it a most vaine and false brag of the knight to saye that therefore the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie professed in his countrie longe before the dayes of Luther it being manifest that with all the Arethmatik he can vse The deniall of the reall presence and transubstantiation confessed by Sir H. to be the most substantiall points of his religion the whole some of substantiall points of his religion falselie pretended to be sounde by him in the foresaide epistles and homilie doe not passe the number of two whereas yet on the contrarie ther are truelie and vnfainedlie aboue twise as manie against him and for the Romanists as masse prayers in Latin water mixed to the wine in the chalis offering of the same sacrifice the pronouncing of Agnus Dei in the masse the signe of the Crosse As also because there are no certaine premisses out of which anie such illation of the knights can be collected but the quite contrarie as hath beene alreadie showed and so for Sir Humfrey to say the most substantiall points of his faith haue beene generallie published not in priuate corners but in publike libraries before the dayes of Luther grounding his saying onelie vpon the foresaid writings is most absurde and voyde of truth To omit that if as the knight affirmes there is a copie of the foresaid Epistle mangled in the foresaid librarie a man may doubt how the pretēsiue reformers could come by anie more true manuscript then that razed copie out of which they could by comparing the one with the other discouer that that which was so blotted defaced did containe anie doctrine contrarie to the reall presense or transubstantiation or agreeing with their owne copies now of late translated in to English and printed by them And also we may further suspect that the copie which Sir Humfrey mentioneth as mangled and razed is the onelie true originall and that the transsumpts of Alfrickes sermon now published in English are altered and changed from the puritie of their first copies all which I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader and my owne further examen of the matter as opportunitie shall serue And yet besides this I cannot conceiue how this businesse hangs together to wit that Sir Humfrey produces the foresaid homilie against transubstantiation and yet the same Sir Humfrey page 98. affirmes that they I knowe not who haue in that same homilie suggested transubstantiation by two faigned miracles Now if in that homilie there be two miracles to proue transubstantiation as indeed there bee howe can it then be truly produced by the knight against the same So that here must of necessitie be some iuggling in the matter And more for my parte I cannot possible imagin howe that ould mustie copie of the homilie being in the saxon language could make two such monsterous iumpes as first to leape out of ould saxon in to English and then out of exiter into Oxon euen iuste at that present time when M. Fox had need of them for the fornishing of his moulie monumēts Certainelie I hould this for one of the greatest miracles that anie of the reformed brothers euer committed Besides this in my opinion it sauoures rancke of forgerie to say that the wordes razed in the Latin copie of Alfricks Epistle to Wolstan Archbishop of yorke were supplied by the saxon copie of Exiter as some of our aduersaries doe affirme not-obstanding others say they had the supplie from worcester And I demaunde further whether it is not much more probable that the sentence which he mentioneth if anie such there were in that Epistle was neuer taken away in the Latin but rather added by Swinglius Oecolampadius or Bucer or some other greater Doctour of that potatorie Confraternitie More D. Iames saith that the Latin Epistle so razed is intituled De consuetudine monachorum and yet the same Doctour out of Fox relates it to be against the bodilie presence Quibus speramus nos quibusdam prodesse ad correctionem quamuis sciamus aliis minime placuisse sed non est nobis consultum semper si lere non aperire subiectis eloquia diuina quia si praeco tacet quis Iudicem venturum enuntiet D. Iames detect part 2. pag. 55. Now what connexion the bodilie or vnbodilie presence of Christ in the sacrament hath with the custome of monks I am persuaded that excepting these two great Doctours all the world beside can not imagin Especiallie considering that in the wordes related by Iames there is no mētion at all of the bodie of Christ but of correction of some certaine persons And surelie Alfrick being an Abbat himselfe it is to be iudged farre more proper to him to haue writ of things appertaining to the profession of religious persons thē of the Eucharist or transubstātiation or as they will haue it against the same Finallie Fox referres the translation and publishing of the Homilie and Epistles to the yeare 996. Yet Iames affirmes that the Archbishop wolstan to whome Alfrick writte his Epistle concerning that businesse was a boute the yeare 1054. which yeare differeth much from the other Wherefore let Sir Humfrey be assured that till he cleares these difficulties this his new-founde writing caries no authoritie against the Romanists And so for conclusion of this matter I say that till Sir Humfrey or some of his companions can produce some authenticall authour before Luther who without their owne glosses or illations doth teach plainelie these negatiues Christs bodie and bloud are not reallie present in the Eucharist
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
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
purpose and couninglie left out that which makes against him Postquam vero satis in fide Christiani imbuti satis cōfirmati fuerunt saluberrima rursus ratione visū est illud statutum debere aboleri per generalē decretū est Synodū imagines atque picturas in Ecclesijs fieri quae á laicis simplicibus pro libris haberētur Clemang de nouis celeber non inst for also that author affirmes that the vniuersall Church induced by iust occasion did decree in the Primatiue Church that no Images should be placed in Churches in regarde of those who were cōuerted from Gentilisme to Christian faith which how true or false it is importeth not much for the present dispute yet the same Clemangis presently after affirmes also that the same Church did alter that lawe and ordaine that Images should be vsed in Churches for the instruction of the vulgar sorte and for memorie of Christ and his saints and yet further adding that he brings this but for an example to showe that this being but an Ecclesiasticall lawe it may be chāged at the Churches pleasure so that if Sir Humfrey had cited this author home he could haue founde nothing to proue his position to wit that the doctrine of Image-honor is a blasphemous opinion but rather the contrarie is expressed sufficiently by Clemangis for that to set Images in a holie place that is in the temple of God as he expressely affirmes the same Church did for most holesome reasones is one of the greatest acts of honour that the Romanists exhibite vnto them And by this we se that our aduersarie hath neither dealt sincerelie in the alledging of this author nor in the rehearsall of his wordes in which he passeth in silence the cheefe parte of them viz those in which he shewes that prohibition of the primitiue Church which he mentiones touching the placing of pictures in Churches to haue beene onely an Ecclesiasticall precept and changeable yea and de facto changed by a generall Councell as his wordes related in the margen declare That which Cassander also doth plainely insinuate when in his consultation of the vse of images he saith tho falsely the Fathers in the beginning of the Church did abhorre all veneration of images yet afterwardes in the same treatise he graūtes conuenient and due honor vnto them as in another place I will shewe by relation of his owne formall wordes So now this being all which I need to speake of this matter seeing that by this I haue saide it will manifestly appeare that Sir Humfrey hath fayled both in the authenticall proofe of the antiquitie or vniuersalitie of his owne position touching the vse of images and in the disproofe of ours I passe to the next paragraph in the which doctrine of Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church is impugned by him most couragiously by virtue of an old chalenge made in Martin Luthers dayes but as yet neuer performed therefore let vs see howe our newe Champion Sir Humfrey vseth his armes First he relates the decree of the Tridentine Councell Sess 25. yet in a some thing different manner then it runneth there But the true tenour of it is this in substance that whereas by Christ the power of Indulgēces was graūted to the Church that shee hath vsed that power deliuered vnto her by diuine ordinance euen in the most auncient times the sacred Synod doth teach and commaunde that the vse of them as verie prositable to Christian people approued by the authoritie of sacred Councells ought to be retayned and doth condemne those with a curse who either affirme them to be vnlawfull or denie that there is in the Church authoritie to graunt them this is the true tenour of the decree which Sir Humfrey hath not so sincerelie rehearsed as he ought to haue done which whether he did it to aduantage his cause or onelie out of an ill custome he hath gotte by his frequent exercise of such trickes in diuers places of his booke I knowe not onelie of this I ame sure that he produceth nothing of anie force for the impugnation of it in all his paragraffe notwithstanding he bouldlie auerreth that it will be founde I knowe not where that neither Christ nor the primatiue Fathers euer knew much lesse euer exercised such pardons as are nowe daylie practized in the Church of Rome this he affirmeth most stronglie but proueth his affirmation so weakely that its hard to iudge whether his temeritie in affirming or his defectiuenesse in prouing that which he affirmeth be more excessiue how be it most certaine it is that neither the one nor the other can be iustified for that if he had vsed the least circumspection in the world he might haue founde not onelie in Bellarmin and other diuines but also in the Councell of Trent which he citeth mention both of scripture Fathers copiouslie cited quoted for the proofe both of the power and vse of Indulgences in the Church from time to time of which as it seemes he durst not take anie notice but passed it ouer in silence to the ende his greate wordes which he vttered in the beginning might carie a fairer colour of trueth which other wise would presentlie haue discouered themselues to be false True it is he describeth one kinde of mitigation or relaxation of punisshment imposed vpon offenders for denyall of their faith or sacrificing to idols which he graunteth to haue beene called by the name of pardon or Indulgence and to haue beene deriued from sainct Paule who released the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication all which tho' it be true in itselfe yet is it but an euasion which he vseth to the end he may with greater colour reiect those pardons which are truelie and properlie Indulgences that is a relaxation from a temporall punishment due vnto a penitent sinner according to Gods iustice for satisfaction of the paine of his offenses alreadie remitted touching the guilt and eternall punishment of the same by vertue of the keyes that is by the power of bynding and loosing sinnes which Christ gaue to his Church and in her particularlie to the cheefe visible pastour thereof Of the power and practize of which Kynde of pardon if Sir Humfrey had not beene disposed to cogge he might haue found good store of testimonies both out of scriptures Councells and Fathers alledged for the same by Roman diuines And as for scriptures there are two places especiallie which doe plainelie enuffe conuince the foresaid truth of Indulgences if they be reight vnderstanded according to the interpretation of the auncient Fathers The one is that generall sentence of our Sauiour Math. 18. in which he giueth an illimitated power to his Apostles and in them to their lawfull successours for binding and loosing without anie restriction either to this or that one matter or to this or that manner of remission and consequentlie in that most generall power is included the authoritie of remitting
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
S. Cyrill with all his fellow Bishops assembled in Ephesus what Greece with them what Egipt and what S. Hierome him self whoe published the liues of the holye Fathers in latin And therfore not obstanding some erre in this by ignorance neuerthebesse as yet ther is none that openly contradictes that which the whole world doth beleeue confesse Thus Pascasius a learned and venerable and virtuous Abbat testifyeth the faith of the vniuersall Church in his dayes touching the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist Whoe altho' he was not English nor liued iuste in the tyme of Alfric yet he liued within the compasse of the same age in which Alfric was Bishop of wilton and Archbishop of Canterburie that is the yeare 900. yea it may be Pascasius was yet aliue whē Alfric was Abbat and consequently when he is supposed by our aduersaries to haue writ those epistles which they produce in his name concerning this matter Soe that by this testimonie of Pascasius a forcible argument is made that the contrarie doctrine of the reall presence cauld not possible haue ben soe publick and common in anie parte of the Christian world in soe shorte a space of tyme as passed if anie passed betwixt Pascasius and the writing of the homilie and Epistles attributed to Alfric if he did euer write them And how beit is may appeare by the writings of Pascasius that ther were some in or aboute his tyme whoe argued writ in an vnacustomed and new manner touching the doctrine of the presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Sacrament as particularly Ioannes Scotus Bertrame and Frudegarde yet as much as I can perceiue by reading Pascasius Fulbertus Stephanus Eduēsis others whoe writ of this matter the broachers of this question did neuer absolutely auerre and maintaine anie assertion directly repugnant to the true and reall existence of Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely made a schoole question of it arguing the matter pro and contra and that not determinately of the reall presence but whether the same bodie bloud of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie was crucifyed vpon the Crosse was contained vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament not rather some other kynd of Christs bodie and bloud yet truely his and truely present in the Eucharist thou in a figuratiue and tropicall manner And that neither the named authors nor anie other in or aboute Pascasius tyme did plainely or of set purpose impugne the reall presence it plainely appeares by his wordes aboue cited affirming that not obstanding some erred by ignorance yet that none did openly contradict that which the whole world did beleeue and confesse That which is yet further confirmed for we read not that either Scotus Frudegard or Bertrame were euer condemned by the Church in their persons in anie Councell or otherwise which is an euidēt signe they were not obstinate in defence of their opinions but onely deliuered their doubts by way of proposition as at the least in Frudegard in particular doth manifestly appeare by the responsion of Pascasius to his Epistle saying thus Quaeris enim de re ex qua multi dubitant You inquire of a thing of which manie doubt And for conclusion of his owne Epistle Pascasius saith to Frudegard Tu autem velim relegas libellum nostrum de hoc opere For I would haue you read my booke of this matter which you say you haue read in tymes past And if you reprehend or doubt of anie thing in it let it not be tedious vnto you to reuiewe it And finally towardes the end of his exposition of the wordes of the institution of the Eucharist he speaketh to Frudegard in this manner Quapropter charissime Wherfore most dearely beloued doe not doubt of this Mysterie which Christ the truth it self hath of him self bestowed vpon vs. For altho' he sits in heauen at the reight hand of his Father yet doth he not disdaine to be Sacrifyced dayly by the preist in the Sacrament as a true hoaste Now that the same Frudegardus doubt was onely whether the bodie of Christ contained in the Sacrament was the same bodie which he assumed of the Virgin Marie is plaine by Pascasius anser saying thus almost in the beginning of his Epistle Ergo cum ait Wherfore when he saith this is my bodie or my flesh or this is my bloud I think he intimated no other flesh then his owne propter bodie which was borne of the Virgin Marie and hanged en the Crosse Nor anie other bloud then that which was spilt vpon the Crosse and which then was in his bodie No man therfore which is soundly wise doth beleeue that Iesus had anie other flesh or bloud then that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and suffered vpon the Crosse And for conclusion of his foresaid exposition he saith thus to the same Frudegard Ad vltimum quaeso te Lastely I praye fallow not the fooleries of the tripartite or triple bodie of Christ. Doe not mingle salt nor hunnie in it as some would doe not adde nor substracte anie thing but beleeue and vnderstand it all as Christ instituted c. As for Scotus and Bertrame althou ' their bookes haue hen reproued yet it doth not fallow that their authors did directly and absolutely impugne the reall presence or transsubstantiation but they onely deliuered their myndes in a doubtfull obscure and ill sounding manner for which cause and for auoyding of danger they were iustely prohibited the onely the Councell of vercelles the other by the purgatorie Index Howbe it I find nothing in Bertram which with a pious interpretation might not passe among the learned sorte of people And thus much may suffice for proofe that in Pascasius tyme ther had ben no plaine denyall of the reall presence or transsubstantiation in the Christian world but onely some incident doubts made by some particular persons and that in a discussiue manner not as obstinate maintainers of such Doctrine And now by this same and the rest which I haue aboue produced out of the same Pascasius Lanfrāc and others the false Archbishop and Primate of Ireland is conuinced of an apparent falsitie for that in the 79. page of his anser to a Iesuits chalenge he had the face to affirme that til the dayes of Lanfranc this question of the reall presence continued still in debate and that it was as free for anie man to followe the Doctrine of Bertram he calles him Ratrannus or Ioannes Scotus as that of Pascasius This audatious affirmation of vsher I say is clearly condemned of falsitie by the same Pascasius whome he citeth and whoe as I haue alledged testifyes that the doctrine of the reall presence in his tyme was not as yet contradicted by anie except those whoe denye Christ but beleeued and professed by the whole world althou some saith he did erre in the same by ignorance And this onely
Sir Humfrey passeth to another matter that is to the testimonies of the ancient fathers where he chargeth the Romanists that they eyther openly reiect them or secretly decline their authority by euasions in particular pointes This is the tenth section a great part of which is repeated out of his firste booke ansered by me in my censure He makes a large preamble touching the clayme the Romanists make to the ancient fathers as patrons of their doctrine as if they did arrogate that which is not their owne but the discourse is very idle mutatis mudandis may be verie iustely verified of the knight his predecessors especiallie Iewell Plessis who both of them were the greatest braggars in that kind that euer were yet none so shamelesse in corrupting the Fathers workes abusing their sense as themselues The rest of this section is verie meane stuffe consisting of captious constructions of the sayeings of some Romanists contorting them to this matter as if they did disesteeme or reiect the ancient Fathers authoritie which is impossible to be true as is manifestlie conuinced by the continuall vse they make of them much more then the Nouellists as it is well knowne to the world And the truth is that the Romanists onelie modestlie confesse especiallie when they are vrged to it by the clamours of the sectaries that some of the Fathers in their single opinions or in such cases as they did not all consent together did sometimes perhapps fall into some erroneous point of doctrine that they are not alwayes in euerie point to be followed in their expositions of scriptures or otherwise in matters nothing concerning the controuersies of these tymes But onelie when they all agree in matters of faith or by graunting that in pointes of practise for example about the Communion in one kinde or priuate Masse they are not all in all matters expreslie for them How beit they knowe they neither are against them all things considered Which if it be duelie pondered is no inconuenience at all in regard that these things such others be mutable according to the diuersitie of times persons consequentlie might be otherwise thē by practised thē by vs. Neyther doe the Romanists when they affirme the Fathers to be for them teach as the knight doth falselie deceitfullie suppose that all the Fathers in euerie point of faith be it transubstantiation or anie other are positiuelie for them but onelie that the whole streame nay nor anie part of them is positiuelie against them in anie such doctrine that in the most pointes they are expresselie wholie for them against the reformers in all Pag. 290. Out of which the reader may collect how impudently the kinght doth belye the foresaid Romanists when he affirmeth that they are reputed no good Catholikes by their owne tenets that teach not contrary to the vniforme consent of Fathers especiallie considering that he himselfe hath already related how the same Romanists take an expresse oath to follow that consent Sect. 4. init And by this it may in like fashion be easilye perceaued how little credit this man deserues when he accuseth his aduersaries of citation of counterfeit authors wheras he himselfe doth deale so vniustly in that nature especially with Bellarmine that he doth not onely mutilate his wordes but also citeth that which is not to be found as by way of example you may see page 290. where he affirmes Bellarmine to professe that they are not to be numbred among Catholiques that thinke the Virgin Mary was conceiued in originall sinne for hauing deligently passed ouer two seuerall times the 15. chap. of the 4. booke de amiss grat which is that same Sir Humfrey citeth I find no such sentence nor words in it but rather the quite contrary doctrine as by his owne words in my margen related clerely appeares Neque desunt qui impudenter affirment ab Ecclesia Romanae defendi cōceptionem immaculatam Virginis Mariae tanquam articulum fidei Bell. loco cit neither is it lesse plainly false which he affirmeth for the conclusion of this section to wit that Bellarmine the Romanists in generall some times condemne the Fathers as counterfeit some times they purge them as if they were full of corruptions that according to seuerall occasions they haue their seuerall deuices to produce them or auoyd them at their pleasure yea that they cōfessing thē to be counterfeit yet produce them for their doctrine all which particulars are so farre from truth that they cry shame on the author so much the more in regard that he his brothers are not a little guiltie in this busines but doe daily offend in the same kinde as by many instances might be proued particularly in that one for example of the Imperfect which passing vnder the name of S. Chrisostome is conuinced by Bellarmine others not to be his in regard it houldeth the Homousians for heretikes yet is it commonly cited by our aduersaries euen by Sir Humfrey himself in diuers places of his workes in which they verifie most fitly that of the Apostle Rom. 2.21 in that while they preach to others that they must not steale they steale themselues Neyther yet doe any of the testimonyes which the kinght produceth for his accusation of Bellarmine in this nature proue his intent nor any thing more then that both Bellarmine other Romanists doe indeed some times produce such authors in fauour of their doctrine as are not by all Romanists held to be of certaine vndoubted authority or at the least not certainly iudged to be the workes of those authors whose names they beare thou ' otherwise althose who cite them hold them for workes of ancient standing not counterfeit at least in the substance of theie authority as the knight doth counterfeitly indeuore to perswade his reader nay Bellarmine whome the knight particularly taxeth in this behalf showeth himself so iust sincere in this point that he is not content eyther alwayes or for the most parte to aduertise the reader when he cites doubtfull authors in his tomes of controuersies but also to take away all occasion of scruple in himself of calumniation in others he hath made a particular censure of such authors as are in anie sort held for doubtfull or Apochriphal or otherwise called in question And so to conclude this the reader may see by what indirect courses Sir Humfrey huddles vp this parte of his by-way for himself freinds to spend their tyme in Sec. 11. In his eleauenth section he indeuoureth to proue that the substantiall pointes of the Romane faith as they are now receiued taught by the Church of Rome were neuer taught by the primitiue Church nor receiued by the ancient Fathers these are the contents of the section but it containes so little substance that we may trulie say it stands onelie for a
to passe saith he that the number of the faithfull are so few that at all times they cannot easily be discerned His ansere is because it was foretold in the 18. of sainct Luke that when the sonne of man commeth he shall not finde faith vpon the earth marke the wisdome of this great Salomon admire it S. Luke as his wordes doe plainelie testifie speakes prophesies of the time of the comming of our Sauiour to iudge the world at the day of the generall iudgment yet Sir Humfrey most absurdlie abusedlie falselie applyes them to that vast Caos or large space of time which hath passed since the time of the Apostles to the dayes of Luther yea as it seemes by his discourse euen to the time of Christs comming to iudgment in the end of the world as if according to his reformed Logike this were a good consequence when the sonne of man commeth he shall not finde faith vpon the earth therefore the number of the faithfull is so smale that at all times they cannot easily be discerned ô acute subtile Logician in my opiniō much fitter for the carte thē the schoole of Dialect Another example I giue the reader in two places cited by the knight the one out of the 2. of Peter 2. chap. the other out of the 18. of the Reuel 3. verse which he applyeth to Indulgences pardons saying in his page 671. how comes it to passe that Indulgences pardons are graunted for monie made the treasure of their Church Because sayth he it was foretold there shall be false teachers among you by whome the way of truth shall be ill spoken of throu ' couetousnes shall with fayned wordes make marchandise of you Now it is true the place out of sainct Peter thou ' falselie fondlie applyed might farre more fitly be accommodated to the pretensiue reformed Puritanicall Nouellists whose greatest part of schollership si to rayle at the Pope Roman Church yet it is not vntrulie rehearsed but in the place quoted out of the Apocalips there is not one title to this purpose excepting that the Apostle once nameth the word merchants which neuerthelesse according to the true sense of the text maketh no more to the matter in hand then if he had named the word minister The rest of the places of scripture which he cites according to the common current exposition of the Roman Church euen at this present are vnderstood partly of the precursors of Antichrist which are the heretikes persecutors in generall of all ages partly of that great Antichriste properly so called whose comming all true Catholikes haue euer expected onely about the end or consummation of the world howbeit if a man were delighted in trifles trickes he might much more commodiously applie those same places to Luther his sequaces as hauing their pedigree discent from seuerall heretikes of former times then eyther to the Pope or Church of Rome as may also plainly appeere by the 39. articles of the new Creed of England of which excepting those fewe that agree with the doctrine of the Catholike Church there is scarce any that haue not binne defended by other heretikes ef more ancient standing as diuers learned Romanists haue demonstrated in their seuerall treatises By all which it doth appeere that althou ' Sir Humfrey hath vsed no other proofes in this section then the pure text of scripture yet hath he made so bad vse of it that all the world may cleerly perceiue that he is entred much further into his by-way then he was before Sec. 26. The 26. followeing is the conclusion of the treatise in which the author laboreth to showe the safety certainty of his owne way the vncertainty of the Romish way This is the whole drift scope not of this section onely but of the whole worke as being a breife summe of the same I confesse that if the Romanists were bound to giue credit to Sir Humfrey linds bare word in matters of faith maners then they ought of necessity to yeald him the safe way content themselues with the by but they are otherwise taught instructed they knowe that for the space of aboue 14. hundred yeeres togeather they had vnquestionable possession of the safe way to saluation may iustly say with ancient Tertullian Nos prius possedimus we had firste possession why then should we yeald vnto you take the by-way which you haue framed inuented of later yeeres nay why should we not rather with the same Tertullian boldly demaund of you who are according to the sayeing of another ancient father prodigiously borne of your selues Quiestis vos vnde quando venistis vbi tamdiu latuistis who are you from whence when did you come where haue you layne hid so long time with S. Hierome Quisquis es assector nouorum dogmatum queso vt parcas Romanis auribus parcas fidei quae apostolico ore laudata est who soeuer thou art that art a defender of new doctrine I beseech the spare the Roman eares spare that faith which is commended by the Apostles owne mouth in another place Cur post 400. annos docere nos niteris quod ante nesciuimus why after 400. yeeres I may say after 1400. yeeres doe you goe about to teach vs that which before we knew not with optatus vestrae Cathedrae originem ostendite qui vobis vultis sanctam Ecclesiam vendicare Shew the origen of your chaire you that callenge to your selues the holie Church wherfore if you vnder pretence of a reformation will enter into possessiō of the safe way if you will claime the truth leaue falsehood for vs it is not sufficient for you with a plausible flourish of speech as you vse heere Sir Humfrey to say so it is but you most firste proue your claime conuince your title that not by accusation of vs that which you haue onely performed through both your bookes for si accusasse sufficiat quis erit innocens if to accuse be sufficient who will be innocent but by positiue proofes of your owne which as yet neyther you nor any of your copemates haue euer performed You pretend sole scripture for your euidence but in place of Gods word you obtrude vnto vs your owne glosses captious illations sophiticall inferences or deductions you for your part Sir Humfrey you knowe you are ingaged by promise to ansere the Iesuites challenge which is not as you affirme hoping so to scape the brunt of the battell to proue out of some good authors that the Protestant Church so you please to call it for matter of state althou ' yours as I suppose is not truly the Protestant but the Puritan Church was all waies visible which althou ' I knowe I haue made manifest that as yet you haue not performed that taske neyther I am confident euer will be able to performe
appeared to him in his agonie Peter denyed Christ and other such like truthes Yet this how true soeuer it bee it is nothing to the purpose which here we treate nor afordeth anie grounde or foundation for the prenominated distinction of our aduersaries in regarde that althou ' ther be neuer soe great difference among those and other points of Religion in the dignitie of the material obiects by reason of which in some sorte the one may be named fundamental the other not fundamental neuerthelesse because the faith of the one is no lesse necessarie to saluatiō then the faith of the other thēce it is that absolutely the one is as much fundamental as the other and consequently ther ar no not fundamentals in matters of faith as the distinction of out aduersaries doth falsely suppose And hence in like manner it farther insueth that if the Church should erre but onely in the definitiō or proposition euen of those matters of lesse qualitie the error would be directly against diuine faith and consequently the Church in this case should truely be said to haue erred eued in fundamental points of faith and in matters necessarie to saluation fundamental points as I haue declared and often repeated being no other then all those reuailed truethes the faith of which is necessarie in the members of the Church for the obtaining of eternal life not obstanding anie difference which otherwise may apppeare in the nature of the seueral obiects or matters supposing no one parte but the whole intyre faith of Christ and euerie parte and partiall of those verities which he hath reuailed to his Church is the foundation of true Christian and Catholique Religion it being as necessarie to saluation for euerie true Christian to beleeue truely and syncerely if it be proposed vnto him by the Church that the cocke crowed at the tyme of S Peters denyal of Christ or that a souldier lanced our sauiors side with a speare as that he dyed vpon the Crosse for our redemption and risse againe for our iustification But Finally If peraduēture our aduersaries should say that within the compasse of true faith some things be necessarie to saluation and others not necessarie and that consequently some things be fundamental but others not To this instance I replye it is founded in a manifest equiuocation For althou ' it is true that their be some things within the compasse of saith which ar not necessarie for euerie member of the Church to knowe them expressely yet is it necessarie to saluation for euerie faithfull Christian thou ' neuer soe simple or ignorant to beleeue euerie parte and partiall of those obiects or matters which God hath reuailed if for such by the Church they be proposed vnto him otherwise he should incurre the censure of that strict and fearefull sentence of the most iuste and equal iudge Christ our Sauior qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur and soe the faith euen of all those things which euerie one by reason of his state or condition of life or for want of vnderstanding is not obledged to knowe is necessarie to saluation and consequently all kinde of faith of what matter soeuer it be that God hath reuailed is as much fūdamētall as is faith of the greatest matter or mysterie of the whole Christiā beleefe whēce it is that as S. Gregorie Nazianzen treating of the vnitie and integritie of faith in his 39. oratiō aboute the ende declareth by example or similitude that faith is like vnto a goulden chaine connected and compounded of diuers linkes from which if you take anie one away you loose your saluation as S. Ambrose in the ende of hir sixt kooke vpon the Euangell of S. Luke declares By which it is manifeste that faith of euerie point or matter within the compasse of faith is necessarie to saluation and therfore fundamental absolutely whether the obiect be great or little and no faith not fundamētal as the new distinction of the Nouellists most falsely affirmes which ther distinction doubtnesse was inuented by them to the ende they might haue a more plausible coulor to accuse the Roman Church of errors comitted in faith as alsoe for excuse of ther owne their malice and irreligion being so great that like vnconscionable taylers they chose rather to cutte out a Church for Christ of such corrupted stuffe as this then to liue or dye vnreuenged of the Catholique Roman Church And for conclusion I adde that since I haue made manifest by these my reasons that the faith euen of those points of Religion which our aduersaries terme not fundamental is absolutely required to the saluation of euerie Christian soule if euen in rhese particulars onely the Church could erre none could assuredly be persuaded that by makeing them selues members of it they ar in the certaine infallible way to the obteining of eternal blessednes but still should remaine in the like dangerous desperate state they did before they were in the Church of Christ cōsequently by reason of this vncertaintie perill a generall neglect of procuring to enter in to the true Church of Christ would be caused in the mindes of men which inconuenience in regarde it proceedes by inauoiable cōsequence from this distinction broached vsed by our aduersaries it plainely appeeres the doctrine of it is in diuers respect most pernicious damnable as not tending in anie sorte to the reformatiō of the Church as is by them pretended but directely to the ruine destruction of it Deuia sec 3. pag. 45. S. Augustin in the 23. chap. of the 13. booke of his cōfessions affirming that spiritual men must not iudge of the scripture is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey for he meaneth not that spiritual men must not in anie case iudge of the true sense of scripture for that were both false yea repugnant to the doctrine practise euen of the pretensiue reformers them selues who as they can not denye whether they be spiritual or not spirituall vse to read interpret scriptures much more comonly then the Romanists doe yea giue libertie therin euen to those of the feminine sexe or gender But the true obuious sense of that diuine doctor in the cited place onely is that spiritual men must not iudge anie thing contained in the scripture as presently he subioines non rite veraciterque dictum esse that is not to be ritely truelly spoken but submit their vnderstanding etiamsi quid ibi non lucet altou ' some thing be not cleare or perspicuous in it This is the pure syncere sense of S. Augustin as his verie wordes declare And nowe let the impartial reader decide whether it doth not rather militate or warre against the manner of dealing with scriptures which the Nouelists practise then againsts the Romanists how be it I syncerely confesse it directly makes neither against the one nor the other but precisely against such as iudge those passages of scripture to be false or not ritely deliuered