had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
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
fathers of the primatiue Church so the knight by which discourse you may easilie perceiue euen by his owne wordes and the if which he maketh that all which he hath hitherto said hath no greater warrant then his owne suretie which although his authoritie and credit were farre greater then either we haue found it to be or it can be in it selfe yet were it not safe for anie man to relie vpon it but rather to hould it for verie vncertaine and fayleable Especiallie considering that all which he hath produced in proofe of the same are either meere trifles or at the most verie poore arguments grounded vpon false suppositions yea and vpon plaine vntrueths falsifications and corruptions both of scripture and fathers and so partlie through ignorance and partlie through malice he hath shewed himselfe a most partiall and false Herold And now altho' this might suffice for the censure of the section insuing because it pertaineth to the same subiect yet least the knigth should grūble I will a forde it a Period a parte THE VII PERIOD IN his eight section therefore Sir Humfrey promiseth to produce testimonies of his aduersaries touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the Protestant faith in generall So he proceedeth in the title To which he addeth by way of asseueration that if the Roman Church doth not confesse that the reformers are both in the more certaine and Safer waye in the Protestant Church I will saith he neither refuse the name nor the punishment due to heresie Heere we see the knight is as free in his promises as euer he was let vs therefore examen how he performeth them for if he doth not he cannot escape either the name of an heretike or at the least the desert of punishment itselfe euen in this mortall life Hee beginneth thus He that shall question vs where our Church was before Luther let him looke back to the Primatiue Church nay let him but looke into the bosome of the present Roman Church and he shall finde that if euer antiquitie and vniuersallitie were markes of the true Church of right and necessitie they must belong to ours So Sir Humfrey In which wordes as it were by way of generall assertion he briefelie declareth the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his Church to be found both in the Primatiue Church and also in the present Roman Church in which assertion there being two partes and that no small ones the first he endeauoureth to proue by shewing a conformitie betwene the doctrine of the Church of England with that of the Primatiue Church and descending to particulars he tells vs that his Church teacheth and beleeueth the same three Creedes which were instituted by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primatiue Church and not created by Luther as also two of the seauen Sacraments which were saith he by the confession of our aduersaries instituted by Christ The same he affirmeth of 22. bookes of Canonicall Scripture which he saith were vniuersallie receiued in all ages Likewise of the seuen generall Councells he affirmeth that foure of them were ratified by the Cannons of the Church of England and confirmed by act of parliament and thus he runneth through the points of doctrine and faith in which they and we agree adding to them the confession of his aduersaries And yet in all his large rehearsall of points of faith he maketh no mention of eyther those in which the Romanists and reformers disagree nor of those new articles of the English Creede which dissent from the doctrine of the Primatiue Church and which indeede are those that make the reformers guiltie of heresie as its the doctrine of Iustification by faith onelie the deniall of the reall presence and such like But craftilie leauing them out as if they were not to the purpose he treateth whereas in trueth by reason of these new errours obstinatelie defended by them there can be no vniuersalitie nor antiquitie in their Church notwithstanding they had neuer so great conformitie both to the auncient primatiue and moderne Roman Church in all the rest of their beleefe Especiallie supposing that anie one errour in matter of faith obstinatelie defended is sufficient to take away all true antiquitie and vniuersallitie of anie Church or congregation whatsoeuer as euen the reformers themselues as I suppose cannot denie for that as the scripture affirmeth that he who offends in one thing is made guiltie of all the rest so he that in one onelie poynt of faith houldeth contrarie to the most vniuersall and auncient Church maketh himselfe presentlie guiltie of want or defect both of vniuersalitie and antiquitie in his beleefe For as Saint Nazianzene saith to this purpose in his 37. oration towards the end the articles of faith are like to a gould chaine from which if you take away anie one link as Saint Ambrose saith Ad cap. 9. Lucae lib. 6. in fine you take away your saluation vnum horum saith he si detraxeris tetraxisti salutem tuam And so we see that the knight by reason he omitteth in his discourse that part vpon which the verie medium of his argument chiefelie or at the least greatelie depended his proofe of antiquitie and vniuersality in his Church falleth to the groūd But besides this defect he fayleth also in that he saith he beleeueth the three Creedes instituted by the Apostles and Primatiue Fathers of the Church For either he meanes that those three Creedes do sufficientlie conteyne all that he is bound to beleeue or no. If the first he meaneth then what will become of his solifidian iustification and of the 39. articles of the English faith the greater parte of which is not to be found in those Creedes If he meanes the second then doth he ill in leauing those particulars out in the rehearsall of his faith Nay more then this for if matters were well examined I doubt not but the knight notwithstanding the protestatiō of his faith of the three Creeds yet he would be founde holting in the true generally receiued or Catholike sēse of diuers of the same as that of the perpetuall virginity of the mother of God in that of the descēt of Christ in to hell of the Catholike Church the cōmunion of Saincts remission of sinnes and the like I say of the doctrine of the 4. first Generall Councels and of the Sacraments in which particulars our aduersaries vnderpresēce of reformatiō maintaine diuers deformed errours specified and confuted by diuines of the Roman Church Moreouer the knight is also defectiue in the proofe of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith and doth egregiously equiuocate in that he saith that two of the Sacraments which the Church of Rome houldeth are professed by the reformers and confessed by their aduersaries to haue beene instituted by Christ not broached by Luther This I say is equiuocall and doth not prooue his intent for although it neither is nor can be denied but ingenuously confessed by the Roman Church that there are two
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
enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius And thus the busines being well examined I say no more but that I ame sorie the worthy knight should be so vnfortunate as to stumble vpon the obiection in lue of the doctrine of the author himselfe How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion that I doe not much admire the case The same Durand is alsoe abused by the knight in regarde he produces him to proue that the Roman diuines are diuided in their opinions touching transsubstantiation which neuerthelesse I haue showed by his owne words how plainelie he maintaines it And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirme of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is hereticall touching the maine point of transsubstantiation but onely because by a singular opiniō he houldes that onely the forme of bread and wine and not the matter is conuerted in to the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which altho' it be false yet doth not the author therfore make anie doubt of transsubstantiation it selfe and so this is an other of Sir Hūfreyes trickes by which he cousens his reader and iniureth both these diuines at once But put the case Durand were truely cyted yet I say as I said before that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquitie or vniuersalitie either of the doctrine of transsubstantiation or any other point of faith And if the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humfrey will haue it it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their cappes at it for any such they should euer be able to finde in their reformed congregations it being now euident out of the examen and censure of the former sections that to speake within compasse they haue not I doe not say the tenth parte in number of the auncient Fathers for the proose of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of their whole Creede which the Romanists haue for theirs but not so much as one onely authour before Luther which truely cited and vnderstood doth defend their doctrine in all and euery particular pointe And according to this I answer also to the testimonie of B. Tunstall whom the kinght citeth as houlding the point of transubstantiation to haue bene a matter of indifferencie and not an article of faith within lesse then fiue hundreth yeeres To which I replye first that Sir Humfrey dealeth heere according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie first because he produceth this authours testimonie as if he had bene of opinion that perhaps it had bene better to haue left the doctrine of Transubstantiation vndetermined and free for euery one to vse his owne coniecture as in his Phansie it was before the Councell of Lateran which is most false for that the Bishop doth onely relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not his resolution being in that pointe farre differēt as his booke testifieth in that same place Secondly he dealeth insincerely in that he taketh hould of that onely which maketh for his purpose in some sort but leaueth out not onely that which maketh expressely against him and for the reall presence quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Ecclesiae fides which was the faith of the Church from the beginning but also he leaueth out the very resolution it selfe of the authour in this same pointe of transubstantiation where after the wordes by the knight cited he saith expressely he houldeth it iust for that the Church is a pillar of trueth that her iudgment is to be obserued as throughly firme Adding further that those who contend that that manner of transubstantiation ought to be reiected meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth because the worde is not found in scripture nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt Quasi vero saith hee Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset cuius omnipotentiae spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione videntur By which plaine wordes of this learned Bishop the reader may plainely see how deceiptfullie he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight Secondly I answer that how indifferent soeuer the doctrine of transubstantiation might seeme to our aduersarie to haue beene before the Councell of Latran neuertelesse both this authour and all others truely Catholikes both since and before that councell haold it not for a matter indifferent but for a certaine trueth and verity as appeareth planely by that which hath beene said allready in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which haue in this paragraffe beene produced for the contrary Lastly I answer that there was neuer such indifferēcy in the Romā Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatiō but that so manie authours in all ages folowed the affirmatiue that the reformed flock shall neuer be able to show anie for the negatiue no not one classicall authour He makes vse also of the testimonies of the other Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct Theol. Scholast cap. 11. alib who seeme to say that Christ did not consecrate with those wordes this is my bodie but by his benediction But to these authours I say first that whatsoeuer they held in this particular they all agree in that point which is here in controuersie betwixt Sir Humfrey and the Romanists that is they all accorde and teach the reall presence and transubstantiation and so they are all impertinentlie alledged Secondlie I say that these authours dispute in the places cited onelie by what wordes or action Christ himselfe did consecrate and not of the wordes of Consecration by which the Preists vse to consecrate And altho' they propose a question of this also yet they agree in that the Preists doe consecrate by no other wordes but those This is my bodie That which in durand at the least is most plainelie expressed when in his page 166. he saith Cum ad prolationem verborum istorum hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat d. 11. credibile iudicatur quod Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit By which wordes it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate wordes by which Preists doe consecrate nor yet was of opinion that Christ himselfe did vse anie other how be it he relates an opiniō of some others which thinke that Christ did not consecrate with those same wordes but he saith in the opinion rather of others then himselfe that virtute diuina nobis occulta confecit that he did it by diuine virtue or power himselfe and afterwardes expressed the forme sub
I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authours true sense in which I was forced to inlarge my selfe more then the substance of the matter required the more plainelie to discouer vnto him the fraude of the aduerfarie both in detorting the sense and mangling the tenor or continuation of the text of this most Catholike and renowned Prelate Moreouer Sir Hūfrey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par q. 75. ar 7. as also the Romā Cathecisme at randome as affirming that the substance of the bread remaines till the last worde of the consecration be vttered But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long souer the substance of the bread remaines if at lenght it ceaseth as they both confesse they both agree with vs Romanists and not with the nouellists in the faith of transsubstantiation so professedly that it was more then ordinarie impudencie and madnes once to mentione them for the contrarie Now for cōclusion of the secōd paragraffe of his 9. section Sir Humfrey affirmes in his 115. p. out of Bell and suauez that manie writers in our Roman Church professe the tenet of transsubstantiatien was lately receiued for a point of faith Which affirmation neuerthelesse is not iustifiable but false and calumnious to the authours he cyteth for it videlicet Scotus Durand Tunstal Ostiensis and Gaufridus Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce supposing Erasmus whome he likewise alledgeth is no Romanist in much of his doctrine in what faith soeuer he ended his life of which I am not able to iudge yet none of these Romanists I say euer affirmed the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be no point of faith as I haue aboue sufficiently declared in my answer to euerie one of their testimonies in particular And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alledged by our aduersarie as affirming Scotus to haue said that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not dogmafidei a decree of faith before the Councell of Lateran the other as aduising to haue him and those other schoolemen corrected who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not verie auncient I professe I haue diligentlie read Scotus in this matter and I sinde he onelie saith that what soeuer is auerred to be beleeued in the Councel of the Lateran capite firmiter is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemne declaration yet he in no place hath this negatiue transsubstantiation was not a point of faith before that Councel not obstanding our aduersaries allegation to the contrarie out of the Cardinal who if he conceiued right of his whole discourse could not iudge Scotus to haue absolutelie denyed transubstantiation to haue beene a point of faith in it selfe as Sir Humfrey will haue it but at the most quoad nos or in respect of our expresse and publike faith of the same For that some of Scotus his owne wordes plainelie importe that trāssubstantiatiō is included in the institution of the Eucharist howe be it it was not explicitly or expresselie declared for such in all ages before the solemne declaration as he termeth it made in the Generall Councel of Lateran The wordes of Scotus to this sense and purpose are these Scot. d. 11. q. 3. ad ar Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis Et secundum intellectum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur spiritu veritatis That is For it was not in the power of the Church to make this the point of transsubstantiation true or not true but of God the institutour And according to the vnderstanding deliuered by God the Church did explicate it directed as it is beleeued by the spirit of trueth By which ratiocination or discourse of Scotus it is most cleare and apparent that the point of transsubstantiation was in it selfe a matter of faith euer since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ in regarde that it being now a point of faith it must of necessitie in substance haue beene ordained for such by God himselfe for that it is not in the power of the Church to make but onelie to declare and propose to beleeuers the articles of Religion And according to this I say that suarez sauing the due respect I owe vnto them both had yet lesse reason then Bellarmin had concerning Scotus to taxe the same Scotus and some other diuines as if they had tought that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is not verie auncient For neyther Scotus as his wordes which I haue related doe testifie nor anie other approued diuine of the Roman Church doe vse anie such manner of speech or at the least haue no such sense in their wordes as euen by all those their seuerall passages which our aduersarie could alledge doth manifestlie appeare How be it some of them haue not omitted to say that the worde transsubstantiation hath not beene auncientlie vsed in the Church but eyther inuented by the Fathers of the Lateran Councel or not long before or at the most that there haue beene some in the world of a contrarie opinion to the trueth of transsubstantiation in itselfe which altho' we Romanists should graunt to be true yet doth it not argue anie noueltie in the doctrine but rather the nouellitie of some fewe extrauagant wits as heretiks or corrigible Catholikes in opposing the same which otherwise was generallie maintained by the rest of the Orthodox diuines in all succeeding ages the antiquitie of which doctrine euen those same authorities which the same Scotus himselfe professeth to be produced by him out of S. Ambrose Scot. d. 11. quest 3. §. quāt ergo to the number of 11. doe euidentlie conuince yet further adding that manie others are alledged cap. de consecrat and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better haue spared to passe their censures in that manner vpon anie Catholike diuines supposing such reprehensions serue for little or no other vse then to aforde our aduersaries the nouelists newe occasion and matter of contention without eyther necessitie or conueniencie of which the present fact of Sir Humfrey lind euen in this place doth alreadie yealde vs some experience In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might haue saued the labour for that the Romanists hould him absolutely for none of theirs as in like manner neither doe they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which neuertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though onely by waye of omission howbeit in this particular Erasmus onely affirmeth that it was late before the Church definde it which is not contrarie to the certainetie of the doctrine in it selfe but onely a superficiall relation of the time when it was declared expressely for a matter of faith or infalible trueth in
meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstāding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was boūd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questiō diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knowē for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all Christiās but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of Trēt and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the Romā Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of
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
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
Humfrey it plainelie appeares by the examen of witnesses which I will make presentlie and in the meane time let but the reader reflect vpon that which hath hitherto ben sayd he will easilie perceiue that Sir Hūfrey himselfe is conuinced not onelie of a bad cause an ill conscience but also of such grosse proceedings as is not able either to the partes or su credit of a Caualier But now to particulars His first charge is layde vpon the inquisitors for blotting out a certaine note made in the margen of the Bible of Robertus Stephanus vpon the 4. chapter of the deuter That God prohibiteth grauen images to be made But what razing of recordes is this Is a newe note made by some one moderne vnknowne authour not sutable to the true sense of the text in such an edition of the bible as cannot be of anie long standing to be accounted one of your recordes And if it be yours how came it into the Bible what doth it there hath not the Inquitor as much authoritie to put it out as some obscure brother of yours had to put it in the true meaning of the scripture neither in the place of that note nor anie other is that God did prohibit absolutelie all grauen images as one of the greatest diuines you haue doth ingenuouslie confesse Daniel Chamierus Panstrat l 21. de imag c. 8. n. 1. but onelie he did forbid them to be made to the end to adore them as Gods or at the least to adore them with danger of idolatrie and yet the foresayd wise annotation maketh the scripture to forbid all grauen images absolutelie Wherefore it s nothing but a false recorde ordayned to deceiue the reader by abusing the true sense of Gods worde so the Inquisitor when he branded it with a deleatur he did but execute iustice vpon a falsifier of the Kings letters which in him neither argueth bad cause nor ill conscience but sheweth both of them to be in the authour of the counterfet recorde which he foysted in to the sacred bible To omit that it being no note of anie Roman authour as it manifestlie sheweth it selfe not to be yet the knight leap'd quite out of the quire when he cited it for a record of his owne except he supposeth al the writings of the pretended reformed Doctors of what sect soeuer they be to be recordes for his Church against the Roman doctrine which is both most ridiculous in itselfe nor yet was anie such razing of the reformers recordes euer intended eyther by the Inquisitors or by anie other censurer of bookes in the Church of Rome His second charge is aboute a certaine glosse vpon Gratian which glosse affirmeth according to Sir Humfreyes relation that the Preist cannot say significatiuelie of the bread this is my bodie without telling a lye This glosse saith hee is condemned by the inquisitor to be blotted out It is true the Inquisitor did so but what then did he therefore doe it wit an ill conscience I denie the consequence And in your conscience Sir Humfrey is it not an idle glosse indeed Doe not your ministers themselues when they deliuer the communion call it the bodie blood of Christ And if the Preist lyeth when he sayth so not of the bread as the false glosse sayth if so it saith but of that which is contained vnder the forme of bread surelie your ministers tell a farre greater lye when they say significatiuelie of the bare bread that it is the bodie of Christ truelie reallie as Master Caluin affirmeth Instit l. 4. cap. 17. And so I conclude this point that Sir Humfrey had no reason at all to accuse the Inquisitor of an ill conscience in razing onelie such a recorde as is no lesse repugnant to the doctrine of the reformed Churches then to the Roman faith if anie matter of faith it were which indeed it is not so by consequence it is also impertinent to the matter here in question Thirdlie Sir Humfrey chargeth the Inquisitor for blotting out Cassanders whole tract of the Cōmunion in both kynds But what worse conscience sheweth the Inquisitor in this fact then the Inquisitors of the reformed Churches doe who are not content with a simple doleatur but daylie condemne whole Catholike volumes to the vnmercifull Vulcan And as for the recordes which you take out of Cassander we make no more accounte of them then we doe of those which you take out of Luther or Caluin so you may take them make your selfe merrie Fourthlie Caietans opinion that the wordes this is my bodie doe not sufficientlie proue transubstantiation is no recorde for you as you falselie suppose for he doth not denie transsubstantiation as you doe but expresselie defended it as his owne wordes declare which I afterwardes recitie nay he doth not affirme absolutelle as suarez wordes quoted by your selfe in your owne margent expressely declare that the foresaid wordes doe not sufficientlie proue transsubstantiation as you corruptedlie relate but onelie sayth at the most that secluding the Churches authoritie they doe not proue it which not as contrarie to faith but as a singular extrauagant opinion of that authour Pope Pius did if perhaps he did piouslie blot it out not preciselie because it fauoreth the reformers as in trueth it doth not to anie purpose but because it sm'at disfauored the truth which is that transsubstantiation is indeed plainelie enough contayned in those wordes of Christ this is my bodie Howbeit I must needs aduertice the reader that I neyther finde those wordes supposed to be Caietans blotted in anie Index that I haue seene nor yet can I finde them in anie edition of Caietan in the place cited by Suarez that is vpon the 75. q. art 1. But onelie these Conuersio non habetur explicite in Euangelio these Quod Euangelium non explicauit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus Nay more then this I finde other wordes in the same place which conuince that Caietan held transsubstantiation to be sufficientlie contained in those wordes this is my bodie for so he argues Sacramenta nouae legis efficiunt quod significant ac per hoc verba Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scilicet conuersionis continentiae vt expresse dicta sacri Concilij authoritas testatur consequens est vt cadem Christi verba significent vtramque nouitatem Wherefore supposing Caietan said not that the wordes this is my bodie conteine not sufficientlie transsubstantiation but onelie not expresselie I cannot conceiue what foundation Suarez might haue for this his relation except peraduenture Pius quintus founde that edition alone of Caietan to haue ben corrupted by heretikes therefore caused it to be corrected in that passage as indeed an other place of the same Caietan 2. 2. q. 122. is discouered by the authors of the prohibitiue Index to haue ben in that same fashion fraudulentlie depraued as the same Index expresselie
alteration for that to omit other authorities of ancient Fathers of the same nature sainct Chrysostome who liued in the beginning of the fouerth age of Christian religion vseth the same manner of phrase if not playner Com. in c. 2. Epist 2. ad Thes sayeing that it doth appeere that the Apostles did not deliuer all by epistles but manie things without writing but as well these as those deserue the same faith The which is not onelie as much as can be expressed for the authoritie of traditions but also a more playne commendable testimonie then anie Romanist euer vttered concerning the same From whence the reader may deduce that the knight is heere also out of the right way of the primitiue Church in which he runneth forward till the verie end of his section like a man ouer heated breatheth out nothing but abuses of diuerse moderne diuines which he citeth in a cauilling captious sort peruerts their true sense meaning in all or most places by him alleaged Sec. 8. In the eight section he pretends to proue that the traditions of the Roman Church were vnknowne to the Greeke Church that they want vniuersalitie antiquitie succession but on the contrarie that faith which the reformed Churches maintaine at this day is the same in substance which the Apostles published in Greece therefore hath antiquitie vniuersalitie succession And this is the substance of his section if anie substance it hath But in truth he proueth his position with such mediums that I am scarce willing to relate them for losse of time the greatest part of his proofes being but eyther his owne bare false affirmations or onelie friuolous argumēts long since ansered destroyed by Bellarmin and other Romanists partlie also by my selfe in my Censure or else they are onelie authorities drawne from his owne brothers both in religion lyeing as from Illiricus whome Bellarmine doth cleerlie discouer to haue binne most expert in that black art or from other professed enimies of the Roman Church as Nylus other Grecian Scismatikes adding also the resistance or disclame of some Grecians in different occasions heere there a without doubt of his owne citing diuers authors vnfaithfullie for his owne aduantage contrarie to their meaning especiallie Bellarmine whome he abuseth in diuers places partelie by peruerting his sense partlie by mangling his sentences as lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 16. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 30. lib. 1. de Sanct. beatid cap. 19. mingling also some vntruthes as that most of the Greeke Latin Fathers did hould that the faithfull till the resurrection doe not attaine to the beatificall vision of God c. And now let the prudent reader iudge whether Sir Humfrey doth proceed sollidlie or rather not most absurdlie weaklie in that he goeth about to eleuate the antiquitie vniuersalitie succssion of the Roman faith eyther in generall or particular points by virtue of a scattered companie of moderne Grecians who in those matters they dissent from vs contrarie to the doctrine of their most ancient renowned auncestors haue no more authoritie then the pretended reformers themselues nay especiallie considering them to be of a religion which agrees neyther intirelie with ours yet much lesse with theirs what a madnesse is it in the knight to make vse of their authoritie eyther to infringe the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of the Roman doctrine or for confirmation of his owne Dicunt Armeni in Christo Domino vnam naturam esse vnam voluntatem vnamque operationē Aub. Mir. not Episc p. 43. Hodie Aethiopes baptisantur circumciduntur Idem p. 54. Neyther is Sir Humfrey thou ' most repugnant to the knowne truth content to say that the Greeke Church hath continued the truth of his doctrine in all ages but he also addeth further that if we looke beyond Luther we shall easilie discerne that the Muscouites Armenians Egiptians Ethiopians did teach their reformed doctrine euen from the Apostles time till now By which porticulars I doubt not but the reader may perceaue euen without a comentarie how ridiculous he makes himselfe his Religion to what streits this mā was put how impossible it is for him to auoyde the by way in the proofe of his antiquitie vniuersalitie succession who by his owne confession was forced to fetch his faith from such by places deuious regions where yet he hath not found it but remaineth still in his owne vnquoth English by way The nynth section pretendeth to proue that the scriptures are a certayne safe euident way to saluation traditions a by way In which section Sir Humfrey beginneth with a large homelie about the certaintie safetie of scriptures which two wordes because he peraduenture dreamed the night before he writ this that he had seene them in the scripture the one in the firste of S. Luke 4. the other Philip. 3.1 he assured himselfe he had thrust the Papists frō the wall at the first push But alas for pittie his dreame proued so false that when he awaked he found himselfe in the channell for in neyther of those places are those wordes found nay nor yet the sense which he intendeth heere which being no other then that onelie scriptures no tradition is to be followed in anie matter of faith or manners neyther those two places of scripture nor anie other testimonie that he bringeth eyther out of anie scripture or Fathers doth proue his peremptorie position but onelie shewe that all scriptures are profitable to instruct a man in all good workes to the end he may be perfect moreouer that the scriptures be as Bellarmine sayth a most certaine most safe rule of faith yet that they be the sole or onelie certaine safe rule neyther Bellarmine nor anie other Romanist nor yet anie proofe or testimonie which the knight produceth doth eyther teach or testifie It is true Sir Humfrey alleageth diuers authors but all according to his accustomed manner that is neyther much to the purpose nor yet verie faithfullie the testimonies of those eyther impertinētlie produced or alreadie cleared by Bellarmine other Controuertists to containe nothing contrarie to the Roman doctrine in this particular or else such obscure grolles as neyther his predecessors as I thinke did euer cite by reason of their smale authoritie nor are they of that moment that they deserue anie ansere at all as Waltram Fauorinus which at the leaste by reason of the ill vse he maketh of thē serue the knight for nothing more then to leade him out of the common path of the euerduring constant Church as a sure guide which according to the scriptures cannot faile euen by the power of hell into a dangerous diuerticle of scriptures expounded by deductions proceeding from the priuate spirit of particular men which is all he concludes in this his section Sec. 10. From hence
first chapter of his Euchyr saith these wordes praestantia huius scripturae c. the excellencie of this scripture doth surpasse the scriptures multis partibus in manie respects or by manie degrees those scriptures which the Apostles left vs in partchement he doth not speake of the vnwritten tradition of the Church but of that scripture which as afterwardes he declareth Spiritus sanctus in cordibus imprimere dignatus est that is which the holie spirit doth digne or voutsafe to imprinte in our hartes Which as he speakes before in the same chapter is nothing els but the spirit of consent of the Catholike Church in faith and the concording doctrine of all faithfull Christians not of those onely which now liue in the whole world but those alsoe whoe by continuall succession haue propagated the faith of Christ from the tyme of the Apostles which is that Scripture which the Apostle saith 2. cor 3. is read by all men and the vnction quaest 2. Io. 2. docet nos de omnibus c. which teaches vs all things which as he further addeth afterwardes hath all truth in it selfe and containeth all faith and mysteries of Christian religion and resolues all doubtes which may aryse in matter of faith and soe costerus compareth not the vnwritten worde with the written precisely but the internall with the externall which internall scripture is iustely preferred by him before the bare written worde or caracter because as he takes it here it includes the true sense of both the one and the other by which it appeares that the exceptions which Sir Humfrey takes at this authors wordes ar captious and voyde of reason Vrspergensis is produced by Sir Humfrey page 400. of his deuia as a witnesse that the second councel of Nyce or seuēth generall synod assembled in the yeare 788. was reiected in the councell of Francford as vtterly voyde and not to be named the seuenth And yet hauing examined this passage in that author I fynde he speakes not a worde of the Nycene councell but of a cettaine councell of Constantinople which he affirmes to haue ben called the seuenth synod general by the Emperatrice Irene and her sonne Constantine his wordes are these Sinodus etiam qua ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli congregata sub Irene Constantino filio eius septima vniuersalis ab ipsis appellata est vt nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacua ab omnibus nimirum patribus Concilij Francfordiensis abdicata est Vrsperg pag. 176. in which wordes of what soeuer Councell vrpergensis intended to speake yet none of them mention the Councell of Nyce as all those whoe vnderstand latin may easily perceiue And if Sir Hunfrey will replye and say that tho' that author doth not mention the Nycene Councell in wordes yet doth he sufficiently declare his meaning to be of no other Councell then the seeond Nycene Synod in regarde he affirmes it to haue ben vnder Irenne and her sonne and the same which was condemned in the Councell of Francford I anser that by reason this author doth vtter twoe things which seeme to implye contradictiō to wit that this Councell was assembled at Constantinople and yet that it is the same which was reiected by the Councell of Francford it euidently followeth that no certaine argument can be drawne frō his wordes whatsoeuer his meaning was and this is sufficient to shewe that he is cited in vaine by the knight Secondly I say not obstanding vspergensis hallucination and suppose he did truely meane that the Councell of Nyce concerning the adoration of images was reproued by the Synod of Francford as some other authors admit in their disputatiōs with the sectaries of our tymes yet doth this nothing auaile our aduersaries cause both in respect the Synod of Francford is not accepted by the Romanists for an authenticall Councell in this particular as alsoe for that as some opinate it proceeded vpon false information and persuasion that the foresaid Synod of Nyce had decreed that images were to be adored with diuine honor and by this meanes the Fathers and doctors ther assembled were deceiued and committed an error of fact Which error neuerthelesse neither can nor ought to preiudice that doctrine which was before established by an authenticall generall Councell as was the secōd Synod consisting of a happie cōiunction of both the latin Grecian Church as of sune and moone And the reader may see that Sir Humfrey hath both dealt some thing insincere in the allegatiō of Vspergensis and alsoe hath proceeded preposterously in that he indeuored to infringe the authoritie of the greater Councell by the vncertaine proceeding of the lesse Page 261. of the same deuia he detortes the S. Irenaeus wordes contrarie to his meaning against Apostolicall traditions And yet S. Irenaeus euen in the wordes which are cited by him speakes onely against those who denyed absolutely that the trueth is deliuered by the Scriptures but onely by tradition and soe made them selues or their onwe traditions the rule of faith Of which number of hererikes saith he were Valentinus Marcion Cerinthus Basilides of whome he vttered the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey as affirming that the truth could not be founde by Scriptures by those whoe were ignorant of traditions for say they the truth was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth yet notobstanding this the same Irenaeus afterwardes speakes against others whoe doe not denye scriptures or rather against such as follow scriptures onely and reiect traditions receiued from the Apostles by succession of preists and conserued or obserued in the Church saying that they haue founde the pure truth as the pretended reformers nowe commonly babble of whome he saith that They neither consent to scriptures nor tradition and against whome saith the saint we ought euerie way to resist Soe that it is cleare that he disputes here onely against such heretikes as neither yealde to scriptures nor traditions and therfore he putteth for the litle of his chapter in this place quod neque scripturis neque traditionibus obsequantur haretici that heretiques neither obey scriptures nor traditions both which S. Irenaeus doth expressely imbrace And by this lett the reader iudge how intempestiuely the knigh doth produce this testimonie against those I meane the Romanists who neither reiect the scriptures nor approued traditions but like twoe indiuided companions receiue them both and let him alsoe consider whether the doctrine of holye Irenaeus in this place be not farre more contrarie to the tenet of the pretēded reformers then to the doctrine of the Roman Church whoe make onely scriptures expounded according to their owne sense the sole rule of faith Especially considering that the same ancient Father in the next ensuing chapter doth expressely receiue Apostolicall traditions saying in the verie first wordes traditionem itaque Apostolicam in toto mundo manifestam in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera volunt audire habemus
his mynde lesse clearcly in one place occasion yet did he amēd the same in another more exact worke of his owne hand industrie of his owne accorde how be it althou ' our aduersarie takes him at the greatest aduantage he can yet reightly vnlierstanded alledged he doth not a iot aduantage his cause In his citation of the Rhemes Testament in the annotation vpon the 6. of the Epistle the Hebrewes v. 16. the knight relateth wordes in which the author of the notes affirmes that God should be iniust if he rēdered not heauen for meritorious workes But to make the matter more odious he craftely omittes the wordes of S. Hierome there cited for proofe of the same lib. 2. contra Iouinianum cap. 2. saying that in deed great were Gods iniustice if he would onely punish sinnes and would not receiue good workes And if that cōditionall of the Rhemists be not iustifyable then may our aduersarie more iustely taxe S. Augustin who lib. de nat and Grat cap. 2. And lib. 4. contra Iulianum cap. 3. gaue then examples of that forme of speech Saying in the first place non est iniustus Deus qui instos fraudet mercede iustitiae and in the second per quod vera iustitia per hoc regnum Dei Deus namque ipse quod absit erit iniustus si ad eius regnum non admittitur iustus Wherfore except Sir Humfrey will ioyne in his accusation those two renound ancient Fathers he can not in reason accuse those learned doctors Althou I conceiue it may seeme vnseasonable to my present purpose distinctly to treate of anie matter of doctrine in this place and occasion yet in regarde I haue lately reflected that Sir Humfrey professes him selfe an enimie to implicit or vnexpressed faith therfore I esteemed conuenient for the accomplishing of my worke to insert a compendious discourse touching that point And to come to the purpose I can not conceiue or inuente anie other motiue in our aduersaries for their soe obstinate denyall of vnexpressed faith except it is because euerie one of them confidently presumes to knowe the expresse contents of Scriptures as well as him who made them yet on the contrarie I am assuredly persuaded that in reallitie a verie great parte if not all their congregatiō inioyes not this great extrauagant priuilege what soeuer they imagin or conceiue of them selues For altho' it is true that the illuminate brothers generally vse to brag they are docibiles Dei and admit noe other schoolemaster in this matter then God almightie him selfe yet is it certainely knowne that some of them be soe ignorant that they knowe not as much as their Abcedarie or Christ crosse rowe And now of these whoe can not read the Bible I question our aduersaries thus either these ignorants beleeue althings cōtained in the whole scripture or no If they doe not then they ar heretikes for refusing to beleeue the whole worde of God If they doe beleeue all and euerie particular contained in the Scripture then necessarily they must haue an implicit faith in regarde manie particular truethes be there included which they can not possibly knowe by reason they can neither haue them selues nor receiue a perfect knowlege from anie other of euerie seuerall trueth therin contained and consequently if anie faith they haue of those particular verities contained in the Scripture which they knowe not it is onely an implicit vnexpressed or implied faith supposing this consists in nothing esse but a generall faith euen of those particulars of which the beleeuers haue no expresse knowledge except onely in a certaine cōfuse or generall manner or as they ar contained in other generall propositions or matters which expressely and seuelally they know to be reueiled in the worde of God and of which they haue an explicit expresse or disinuolued faith For as he who eypressely graunteth or assents to anie general Principle or proposition for example that all Angels ar incorporall or without bodies or that all men ar reasonable creatures doth by necessarie consequens assent implicitly to all the particulars there included viz that S. Michael S. Gabriel and euerie other particular Angel is incorporal and that S. Peter and Paule and euerie other particular man is a reasonable creature altho' he neuer had anie particular knowledge of them Soe in the verie same manner those whoe with an expresse act of faith beleeue al the Church proposeth vnto them in that kynde or all the scripture conteines doe likewise necessarily beleeue with an implicit or tacit faith euerie seuerall matter included in those general tearmes And this kynde of implicit faith our aduersaries must either graunt or else necessarily confesse that euerie Mecanike hath as much knowlege in the Scripture as the most learned Minister and euerie sheep as much as his pastor which neuerthelesse euerie rude rustick is able to iudge for most absurde and voyde of trueth Soe thus we see that of the denyal of an implicit faith eyther the ignorant and vnlearned sorte of people in the pretensiue reformed Churches knowe as much in the Scripture as their greatest doctors or that they ar plaine heretikes because they beleeue no more in the Bible but that onely which they expressely knowe And the same I say with proportion euen of the learned sorte them selues in regade they seldome or neuer ar soe conuersant in Scriptures that they explessely knowe euerie seueral proposition or particular truth conteined in the text and consequētly euen they who ar the greatest Rabbies in their reformed flock haue no explicit or expresse faith consisting in an assent to all they expressely knowe in the text of scripture but they must as well as theire brothers be content with an implicit faith of those particulars they expressely knowe not or else they ar to be accounted heretikes for not beleeuing them as I said before of the ruder sorte In respect of both which sortes of people I meane both the learned and vnlearned beleeuers in the pretensiue reformed Churches this same argumēt may yet farther be vrged euen according to their owne receiued doctrine by which they cōfesse they haue not all their faith expressely in the scriptures but parte of it drawne by their owne consequences or deductions from the text of scripture of all which illations or inferences of theirs it is manifest they could not possible haue anie other faith of them then implicit or vnexpressed before they made them in regare that those supposed verities or truethes which they soe deduce were not otherwise contained in the text or deliuered to the Church then in that inclusiue or hidden manner as it most apparent in regarde that if otherwise they had ben contained in the scripture that is clearely or expressely then no illation or deduction had ben necessarie for beleeuers for the bnowledge and establishing of their faith in those particulars as both natural reason and euen common sense conuince and consequently either the pretensiue reformers
proceeds in this his first section which is the introduction to the rest in regarde that by indeuouring to reprooue his aduersarie he doth vnaduisedly prooue his owne imperfections and so doubtlesse he had better beene idle thē so ill occupyed And I verily persuade my selfe that if the Archflamen had duely examined the contents of this section he doubtlesse would haue marked it with a non imprimatur In his second section S. Humfrey pretends to prooue the cause of contention betwixt the Reman Church and his owne originally to haue proceeded from the Romanists by their owne confession Thus much he promiseth in the title but performeth nothing For he cytes but three onely authours that is Cassander Camdē and Cesenas in fauor of his position and yet none of them are acknowledged by vs for sounde Romanists at the least if we respect their writings here produced And of Cassander both the inquisitors in their Index and Bellarmin in his Controuersies sufficiently declare the vnsoundnes of his doctrine and religion Camden I hope is well knowe Now for Cesenas notwithstanding S. Humfrey stiles him Generall of the Franciscans as indeed once he was though afterwards deposed by his owne order and excommunicated by Pope Iohn the 2◠for his pertinacie and malapert manner of defending that the Fryes of his order could haue no rents or possessions yet if he writ against the Tyrannie of the Pope as he is quoted by the kinght it is most manifest he could not be a perfect Romanist or at least that worke could not be his as in truch I am persuaded it was not but falsely fathered vpon him through the iniquitie of him who malitiously composed the mysterie of iniquitie against the Pope and Roman Church And hauing now examined the matter I perceiue that which Cesenas writ or Ockam for him was not against the Popes in generall but he writ onely an epistle or treatise if anie thing he writ him selfe against the errors as he termes them of Pope Iohn in particular with whome he was much disgusted by reason of the foresaid busines and excommunications And as for the wordes which S. Humfrey cites touching two Churches one good and an other euill I fynde none such nor anie others to that sense in Cesenas And if euer he vttered anie such wordes which according to his whole discourse is wholely improbable yet doubtlesse he could not meane that the euill Church was the Roman Church intirely and absolutely in regarde his owne wordes in his foresaide worke doe euidently declare that he subiected him selfe to the same euen in this same busines saying in his letters to the Generall Chapter of his Order 〈…〉 Ad Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam publicè solemniter appellaui me mihi adhaerentes dicta nostra supposui correctioni emendationi protectioni defensioni sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Et sum semper protestatus me illam fidem tenere seruare velle perpetuo quam tenet seruat sanctae Romana Ecclesia quae est omnium Ecclesiaram mater magistra So that this passage is a manifest imposture either of S. Humfrey or Plessis choose them whether who out of an vnsatiable desire they haue to fynde out some track or step though neuer so obscure of their imaginarie Church before the dayes of Luther care not what they forge or faine And yet more then this touching the smale authoritie which Cesenas ought to haue if he had done or spoken anie thing against the Roman Church if S. Humfrey had looked well aboute him or had beene carefull to knowe the truth he migst easily haue founde him registred in the expurgatorie Index euen in the first Classe for a prohibited authour And so a man may iustely demaunde of our aduersarie with what face then he can affirme his position to be confessed by the Romanists Or what truth or sinceritie can anie one imagin to be in him and what credit can prudently be giuen by the Reader to the rest of the allegations of his whole booke who deales in this manner euen in the frontispice of his worke And in truth I wonder that at the least in humane policie he was no more circumspect then to prostitute his reputation so lauishly euen then when he ought in reason to be most carefull of it And now this may suffice for the censure of this second section as conteyning nothing in particular wich deserueth rehersall or which may any wise redound eyther to the authours credit or serue for the confirmation of his tenets specified in the former section the proofe as you see being heere as weake and sillie as the matter calumnious before and consequently deseruing no milder sentence of condemnation then the contents of the former section THE II. PERIOD NOw I will passe to a view of the third sectiō of Sir Humfreys booke which is in effect a continuation of the same matter treated in the two first sections his chiefe drift being to shew the Pope and Roman Church to be in fault for refusing reformation 〈…〉 And because he persisteth in the same manner of proofe videlicet by the confession of the members of the Roman Church I will examine briefly how exactly he prosecuteth the same and whether he recouereth in this section the credit which he lost in the former He laboureth to shew corruption both of faith and manners in the Church of Rome and that by confession of Roman Authours and for the proofe of this confession he produceth Pope Alexander the fift out of the Councell of Pisa ses 20. the Councell of Senes the Councell of Trent in diuerse places Moulin the 21. chap. of his Eucharist Agrippa de vanit Scient chap. 17. the Bull of Pius the 4. Philippus Mornaeus Card. Caraph Consill de emendanda Ecclesia Paulus Vergerius in opusculis de Idolo Lauret hist of the Councell of Trent in English These are all the writers he alledgeth which are ten in number And although he citheth them all as if they were Romanists for that he rehearseth them all to the same purpose and in one tenour or sequele of words neuerthelesse it is well knowen that fiue of the ten are so farre from being Romanists as three of them are professed enemies to the Roman Church to wit Moulin Vergerius and Mornaeus and the other two that is Agrippa and the Tridentine history in English are of no authority nor credit amongst the Romanists as being either plaine heretikes or suspected of heresie And as for the other fiue Catholike testimonies they containe not one word whereby it may be proued that either the Pope or the rest of the Roman Church did refuse to admite of due reformation as Sir Humfrey affirmeth but the contrary is most manifest out of the Councell of Trent it selfe euen in the same places which he citeth where speciall decrees of diuerse particular abuses to be reformed by the Pastors of the Church are extant True it is that where
abuses are decreede to be reformed those same abuses are of necessity supposed to be either in times past present or future and so farre I graunt the testimonies cited by the K. out of the two Councels and other Catholike Authors be of force but to prooue that those abuses be corruptiōs in faith or yet in manners except we meane of the euill faith and māners brought into the Church by Luther his followers or that they being truly knowen to be in the Church yet the Pope will not haue them reformed this I say is a meere calumniation diuised by Sir Humfrey in disgrace of the chiefe Pastour of the Roman Church and cannot possiblie be deduced out of the foresaid testimonies but rather the quite contrary is expressely to be found and lastely in the decrees of the Tridentine Councell as we haue already said Decret de Refor That which Sir Humfrey affirmeth in the beginning of his 20. page is conuinced to be a manifest vntruth to wit that the day of the Roman reformation is not yet come And although the Knight out of the aboundance of his wit is not content onely to saye that the Romanists confesse there are corruptions in their Church onely in manners but alsoe that they confesse the same in doctrine neuerthelesse of the poynt of doctrine he bringeth not any proofe at all eyther out of Romanists or any other waye but insteede of proofes he vttereth diuers vntruths mingled with some impertinences and equiuocations Hee telleth his reader in the 20. page that the Councell of Trent in Paul the thirds time complained of Indulgences but this is most false for the Councell doth not in anie sorte complaine of the Indulgences them selues but onely that the Popes officers in collecting the almes or contribution of the people vppon the graunt and gayning of them gaue scandall to faithfull Christians as appeareth by the very same wordes which he himselfe citeth Vide Con. Trid. sess 21. cap. 9. among which there is not any one repugnant to the doctrine of Indulgences but onely to the abuses of the questours as also the same wordes cited in Sir Humfreys margent in lattin do yet more plainely declare so that this is no lesse then an inexcusable falsitie vttered by the knight for want of an argument as it seemes to prooue corruptions in doctrine in the Roman Church Another vntruth he hath in the 22. pa. where he saith thus neither did those men meaning the Fathers of the Councell of Trent seeke a reformation in manners onely but in the doctrine it selfe Whereas they in that very place by the knight alledged wish onely that the priuate masse might be restored to the auncient custome of the communion of the people together with the priest which as you knowe is no matter of doctrine in cōtrouersie betweene the Romanists and the reformers but onely of practise and consequently it proueth not the knights intent in this place but rather his ignorant mistaking of the true state of the question in that pointe of controuersie about priuate masse Now that which he addeth of the Latin seruice in the Roman Church to wit that the Councell commaunds all Pastours that they at the Masse doe frequently interpret and declare vnto the people the mistery of the Sacrament who doth not see how impertinent it is to the matter of doctrine and how vnapt a medium it is to proue that the Doctours of the Councell either did seeke reformation in the same or to shew how neare the same doctours came to the doctrine of the reformed Churches as he presently addeth affirming them so to doe since the Councell proceedeth not there by way of definition or decree in matter of doctrine but onely by way of ordinance and cōmaund as the wordes by him selfe rehearsed doe plainely specifie yet not so but that the same Councell and in the same place doth either expressely commaund or at the least suppose that the Masse ought to be for the most part celebrated in the lattin tongue Moreouer touching equiuocations certaine it is that he doth equiuocate in his allegation of Pope Alexander out of the Councell of Pisa where he saith that the Pope promised solemnely to intend the reformation of the Church whereas in truth Alexander meaneth not of the faith of the Romā Church as the knight would haue it but of the reformation of manners or of some abuses practized in the Church by particular persons Besides this it is not probable that the Pope would meddle himselfe in matters of doctrine in such a Councell as was assembled purposely for the taking away of a schisme But cōcerning manners I finde that in the laste period of the same Councell of Pisa which Sir Humfrey cites ther is expresse mention both of some reformatiō already made by the Pope Cardinals also of more referred to the next generall Sinod the words of which determination are these Item cum Dominus noster Papa cum consilio Concilij intendere◠reformare Ecclesiam in capite membris iam multa per Dei gratiam sint expedita per ipsum Dominum nostrum Papam moreouer in the same Councell of Senes which the knight also here produceth I finde no mention of corruption in faith except by faith Sir Humfrey will vnderstand the corrupted faith of the wiclefists Hussits or the Grecians the reformation and reduction of all which both the Pope and Councell indeuored so farre to effect and compasse as they declared the first two sectaries to be heretikes and that so earnestly as they threatened all those with excommunication who should any way fauore them euen with as much onely as to giue them salte to their pottage as for reformatiō of manners there is not a word which proueth that the Pope made anie resistance therein but rather expressely laboured for the same tho by accident of impediments incident it was actually hindered at that present Sacrosancta Synodus vniuersalem Eccles representans nuntijs sanctissimi in Christo Patris ac Domini nostri Martini quinti summi Pontif. specialiter deputatis ipsius reformationem intentus incipiens à fidei fundamentō praeter quod nemo potest aliud ponere damnationem haeresum Wiclefistarum Hussitarum suorumque sequacium c. In decret Cōtra Hussitas haereticos Con. Sen. By which it is manifest how great the impudencie of Sir Hunfrey is in alledging these two Councels to proue want of reformation in the Pope or Roman Church they standing both so plainely for the contrary to his positiō or rather impositiō He equiuocateth also in that allegation of Card. Schomberg whom he affirmeth to haue opposed the reformation made in the Councell of Trent Whereas yet he citeth no wordes of the Card. but onely a bare relation taken out of a certaine history of the acts of the Coūcell published in English touching the foresaid Cardinals oppositiō or rather proposition onely in the point of reformation Which fact being related
meaning of this authour both the title of his chapter out of which our aduersarie taketh the wordes he cites which is this Of the interpretation of scripture by Fathers And the whole tenor of his discourse doe sufficiently declare so that if the matter comes to scanning the fraude will easily appeare with shame enuffe to this our professed aduersarie of truth who not content with this hath also like a cheating gramster to mende his ill game dropt a carde I meane the worde nostra which he hath left out in his translation but this but a pore trick and so let it passe And perhaps it was onely the negligence of the printer But for the readers better instruction I will punctually rehearse the authors wordes concerning his true meaning as well those which Sir Humfrey hath omitted for his owne aduantage as the rest Thus he saith Doceamus quod citra Patrum interpretationem vsum ab eisdem nobis traditum nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis Euangelij verhis sacerdotum quempiam his temporibus verum Christi Corpus Sanguinem consecrare non quod res haec ambigua fit sed quod eius certitudo non tam haheatur ex Euangelij verbis quam ex Patrum interpretatione vsu tanti temporis quem illi posteris reliquerunt That is let vs teach that without the interpretation of the Fathers and the practise by thē deliuered vnto vs noman can proue by the bare wordes of the Gospell them selues that anie man in these our times doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ not because this thing is doubtfull but because the certainetie of it can not be had so much by the wordes of the Euangell as by the interpretation of Fathers and the practise of so long time which they left to posteritie By which wordes it is voyde of all doubt and tergiuersation that the authour of them neuer made question but that true Catholike Prests as he him selfe was truly consecrate and make present the uerie bodie and bloud of Christ the contrarie of which our aduersarie pretendes to proue onely intending by this pasage and others to declare against his aduersarie Martin Luther that scriptures alone without the expositiō of the Fathers and practise of the Church are not sufficient to conuince the trueth expecially when the wordes are obscure and subiet to diuers senses And therefore in his page 172. giuing the reason of this he saith Hoc idcirco dixerim ne quis ipsis Euangelij verbis pertinacius adhaereat spreta patrum interpretatione quemadmodum Lutherus fecit vsum interpretationem a patribus traditam nihili pendens nuditati verborum infistens quae non sufficiunt ad id quod velint conuincendum Therefore quoth B. Fistier I said these thinhs least anie one should ouer obstinately adhere to the wordes of the Gospell themselues as Luther did not esteeming the vse and interpretation deliuered by the Fathers and insisting in the nakednes of the wordes which are not sufficient to conuince that which they desire And in the insuing page he concludeth in this manner Therefore that is manifest which afore we promised to sbow to wit that long continuing custome and concording exposition of Fathers none dissenting doth yeald more solid certainetie how anie obscure place of the Ghospell must be vnderstood then the bare wordes which may be varioufly detorted by contentious people at their pleasure By all which wordes it is more then certaine and manifest that this authour neuer intended to show that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can not be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse as our false aduersarie doth endeuore to persuade his reader for he onely affirmes that this can not be conuinced by the bare text of scripture without the exposition of Fathers if anie contensious person should obstinately denie it as his wordes aboue cited euidently declare And as for those wordes which Sir Humfrey quotest in his margent which in English are these Neither is there anie worde put there by which the verie presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ may be proued in our Masse I say that he dealeth not honestlie in the recitall of them in regarde he omittes the next wordes following not obstanding they belong to te integritie of the same discourse and also are a plaine explication of the former as the reader of the whole discourse may more clearely vnderstand the wordes being these For altho' saith he Christ made his flesh of the bread and his bloud of rhe wine it doth not therfore follow by virtue of anie worde here set downe that we as often as we attempt the same doe effect it In which as the reader may plainely perceiue the authour absolutelie affirmeth not that Preists doe not effect that which Christ effected concerning the reall presence of his bodie and bloud in the Eucharist but onely saith there that is among the wordes of the institution of the Sacrament as they are related by S. Math. and in which those wordes doe this in remembrance of me are not contained there is not anie worde by virtue of which the same can be concluded of Preists which is ther affirmed of Christ our Sauiour yet not denying but expresselie auerring that by other wordes of the scripture and particularlie by those wordes rehearsed by S. Luke and S. Paule doe this in remembrance of me interpreted according to the exposition and practise of the auncient Fathers the making of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrement is firmelie proued and established And hence it is that after he had vttered those wordes which Sir Hūfrey also citeth tho' not intirely to wit non potest igitur probari per vllam scripturam it can not therfore be proued by anie scripture that either laie man or Priest as often at he shall make triall of the busines shall in like manner make the bodie and bloud of Christ of bread and wine as he him selfe did since that neither this is contained in the scripture immetiatelie after this I say he subionines for conclusion of his discourse this insuing clause By these things I thinke no man will be ignorant that the certaintie of this matter the faith of consecration as the note in his margen doth declare doth not so much depende vpon the Ghospell as vpon the vse and custome which for the space of so manie ages is commended vnto vs by the first Fathers themselues For it seemed to them the holie Ghost teaching so to interpret this parte of the Euangell and iudged it was so to be vsed in their times that whosoeuer now would introduce either an other sense or an other vse he should vtterlie resist the holie Ghost by whose instinct the former Fathers did deliuer this rite and ceremonie in the consecration of the Eucharist Thus plainelie doth Bishop Fisher explicate his owne meaning in that which he had before deliuered somat more obscurelie so that now
make anie question of it in this nature For supposing their extraordinarie affection that way and that single life is so vnsauourie to them that if it lay in their power they would rather suffer the whole quire of virgins to perish then they would make a religious vowe of perpetuall chastitie or liue without a woman supposing this I say in my opinion they ought in all reason sooner to haue honoured matrimonie with the title of a Sacrament then to haue quite depriued it of that which the scripture it selfe doth giue it Yet supposing they be so preposterous that they will rather impugne that which they otherwise loue best then seeme to agree to the Romane doctrine I tell them all and particularilie him with whome I dispute that although mariage was by God himselfe onelie ordayned in paradise as a ciuill contract Neuerthelesse Christe who came not to dissolue the lawe but to eleuate it to a higher degree of perfection amongst other things he pleased to honore the same with the true nature and properties of a Sacrament giuing also tho' not immediatlie by himselfe yet by his Apostle S. Paul the verie name and title of a Sacrament whereas notwithstanding neyther he himselfe nor anie of his Apostles or Euangelists euer gaue that name to anie of the rest of the Sacraments Wherefore to come nearer to the purpose I say that the institution of this Sacrament was by Christe himselfe who in the 19. chapter of S. Mathewe ordayned the coniunction of man wife to be inseperable to the end it so might be a sacred signe of the indissoluble coniunction of Christe and his Church as it is declared by the Apostle Ephes 5. where he expreslie giueth it the name of a great Sacrament in regard of the sacred coniunction partelie by the hypostaticall vnion and partelie by the vnion of charitie betwixt Christe and his spouse the Church which it signifieth Which foresaid coniunction of man and wife explicated by words of the present tense is the element and Christs ordinance and application of the same to the foresaid signification is the institution by virtue of which it also conferreth grace to the receiuers to the end they may liue in that perpetuall vnion of mindes which is required to the representation of the inseperable vnion of Christe and his Church which is all and more then our aduersarie himselfe demaunded of vs before in this particular matter To which if we adde the authoritie of the Church and auncient fathers for the interptetation of those scriptures which we haue produced for proofe of the truth of this and the rest of the foresaid fiue Sacraments which authorities of the fathers if need required and the place did serue for them I could easilie produce it would yet more plainelie appeere with how little reason the pretensiue reformed Congregations doe exclude them out of the number of true and proper Sacraments And so now according to this a verie easie answere may be framed to all that which the knight bringeth against the septenarie number of Sacraments in the rest of this paragraph and particularilie to the testimonies of those Romane authours and Fathers which he produceth in fauour of his cause And first touching the Fathers which hee citeth besides that which hath binne alreadie spoken I further adde that there was not one of them which was of the reformers opinion in this matter as is most apparent in that Sir Humfrey himselfe could not produce so much as one Father that auerreth the onelie duall number of Sacraments Nay they are so farre ftom this that there is not one of them who doth not in one place or other make expresse mention of more then two if professedlie they make mention of anie at all Secondlie I say that as the reformers cannot with anie probabilitie inferre out of those Fathers who affirmed that the two Sacraments Baptisme and the Eucharist haue flowed out of the side of Christe that there are no more nor lesse then two so neyther can they in anie sort thence inferre that the same Fathers taught not the septenarie number of Sacraments And more then this if the reformers stand vpon this so much that the Fathers by the bloud which issued out of our Sauiours side vnderstood the Sacrament of the bloud of Christe then they must consequentlie eyther confesse that the same Fathers held the reall presence of the bloude of Christe in the Eucharist which yet they themselues denie or else at the least that the reformed Churches haue no true Sacrament at all for that according to their confession there is in it neyther bloud nor bone And out of this generall answere to the testimonies of the auncient Fathers we may inferre how falselie Sir Humfrey in the end of his 149. page affirmeth that they did insist sometimes in the number of two and so restrayned the Church to the definite number of two onelie which saying of his is a manifest falsitie and iniurious to those Fathers whome he so chargeth as that which I haue produced out of S. Augustine in this period doth plainelie conuince in these fiue Sacraments which the reformers denie Neyther was he able to produce one testimonie out of anie of them for proofe of his fayned position but so leaueth it vnconfirmed more then with that fame vntruth by which he belyeth most impudentlie the foresaid Fathers all at a clappe Neyther hath that which he further addeth of the same Fathers in the next page anie greater truth or foundation then this where he sayth that had the Fathers beleeued that those fiue Sacraments had binne instituted by Christe they would of necessitie haue concluded them for true and proper Sacraments and haue easilie found in them the number of seuen Thus in effect Sir Humfrey discourseth to which I answere first that doubtles if the Fathers had had but halfe the occasion which the Church hath had since their time and especiallie since the foundation of the reformed Churches they would of necessitie haue treated and spoken expresselie of the septenarie number and haue distinguished as now the Church and diuines doe betwixt proper and improper Sacraments But the occasion fayling they neyther had necessitie nor conueniencie to speake otherwise of them then they haue donne Nay some of them especiallie those who writ against the Gentiles were rather obliged by the course of those times not to mention the secret misteries of our faith at all then to reueale them to the profaners of them more then was preciselie necessarie for the answere of their obiections Vid. Theodoret Dial. 2. which indeed is the true reason why diuerse of the foresaid more auncient Fathers haue spoken so obscurelie and sparinglie euen of some of the cheife misteries of Christian Religion Secondlie I say that howsoeuer the auncient Fathers spoke of the expresse number of the Sacraments certaine it is they eyther expreslie taught or at the least supposed for certaine doctrine of faith that all those which
the Romane Church now holdeth for true and proper Sacraments doe giue diuine grace to the receiuers as it is apparent out of those places which I cited before out of Saint Augustine for the proofe of euerie seuerall Sacrament and their seuerall effects and consequentlie they held implicitelie at the least and if either necessitie or iuste occasion had required they would haue concluded expresselie the septenarie number of Sacraments and that they were instituted by Christe for such truely and properly And now for the more moderne diuines who wrote since the time of P. Lumbard of which Sir Humfrey citeth to the number of twelue or thirteene there is not one of them who holdeth onely two proper Sacraments as the reformers doe nay there is not one of them that doth not expreslie defende the septenarie number of true and proper Sacraments excepting perhaps Alexander Hales and Durand may seeme to opinate otherwise to the incircūspect reader of which two authours neuerthelesse I say first that Hales doth not denie all those seauen nor anie one of them in particular which the Romane Church defendes to be trulie and properlie Sacraments but he onely is of opinion that onelie fower of them are to be called Sacraments of the new lawe for that as he imagined the other three to wit Pennance Order and Matrimonie had their beginning before True it is Hales cannot be excused from errour in that he affirmeth Confirmation to haue binne instituted by the Councell of Melda except he meaneth onelie that there it was declared to be properlie a Sacrament as I am persuaded he doth but neuerthelesse supposing this his singular opinion yet notwithstanding it being with all certayne that he holdeth the same Sacrament to be one of the seauen no lesse then he doth Pennance which yet he held as it seemeth to some later writers to haue binne instituted by the Apostles Iuxta numerum malorum spiritualiū debet sumi numerus Sacramētorum septem sunt differentiae morborū Hal. 4. part q. 8. mem 7. act 2. notwithstanding all this I say he is impertinentlie alleaged by the knight as an impugner of the Romane doctrine in the septenarie number of Sacraments which notwithstanding his other allucinations he as expresselie maintaines as other diuines doe as his owne wordes plainelie testifie saying thus in his 4. parte and eight question According to the number of spirituall diseases the number of Sacraments is to be taken there are seauen differences of diseases What therefore can be more manithē that this authour tought the compleat number of seuen Sacraments And as for Durand certaine it is that he doth not denie Matrimonie to be a Sacrament absolutelie as the reformers doe but he at the most onely affirmeth that it is not properly and vniuocallie a Sacrament conferring grace in the same manner the other six doe which opinion of his altho' as it sounds it can not stand firme with the doctrine of the Church yet this not our question and in case it were yet is there no reason why one mans priuate tenet nay nor the priuate tenet or errour of more then one or two should preiudicate the common doctrine of the Church both before and after him nor diminish her antiquitie and vniuersalitie in anie point of doctrine especiallie where there is no obstinacie in the authour as in these there was not neyther can the aduersaries drawe anie argument of force against the same in anie case out of one onelie authour or more if more there were contrarie to the torrent of all the rest To omit that as vasques noteth the same Durand in the same place expreslie affirmeth that it is an heresie to denie that Matrimonie is a Sacrament which doubtlesse is a cōcluding argumēt that when Durād affirmed Matrimonie not to be vniuocallie or iuste as the rest be a Sacramēt he did not absolutely deny it to be one of those seuē which the church did both then hold now houldeth to betrue Sacramēts but at the most he onely denied the truth propertie of it in that strict vniuocall manner of conferring iustificāt grace as he and other diuines affirme of the rest which being so then cannot the Reformers haue anie colour to alledge this testimonie either against the absolute truth of that Sacrament or against the Septenarie number of it with the other Nay more then this hauing now exactelie examined the matter I finde that Durand besides that he expresselie defendes the total number of seuen Sacraments disputing seuerallie of the nature of euerie one of them he doth in particular affirme of Matrimonie euen in his resolution or direct anser to the question absolutelie that it is a Sacrament and puts it in the last place for one of the seuen And these are his wordes in their seuerall places noted in the margent Tenendū est absolute quod matrimonium est Sacramētum Quia hoc determinauit Eccle. in 4. d. 26. q. 3. Et ita sunt invniuerso septē Sacramenta Idem d. 2. q. 2. n. 6. To which if we adde that which Capreolus doth testifie of the same durand all doubt of his true meaning in this point will quite vanish away Coactus fuit in vltimo opere cautius loqui vt scilicet confiteretur matrimonium esse vere proprie Sacramētum sed non vniuoce cum alijs nouae legis Sacramentis c. Capreolus in 4. sent d. 26. q. 1. §. For Capreolus saith that in his last worke or edition he was constrained to speake more cautelously soe that he confessed matoimonie to be truely and properly a Sacrament but not vniuocally By which and that also which I haue said before touching Alexander Hales the learned reader may perceiue that both the one and the other are against truth and reason alledged against the septenarie number of Sacraments and against the vniuersalitie of the doctrine of the Roman Church in that point supposing they differ not from the rest of the Romanists as their owne wordes witnesse Except it be in the manner of defending that same number yet both agreeing in the substance of the Controuersie here proposed by the knight our aduersarie Quantum ad tertium durandi and absolutelie affirming that there are truelie seuen Sacraments in the Catholike Church Moreouer in the citation of the other moderne diuines Sir Humfrey vseth much fraud and cosenage and remitting the rest till afterwardes which I will examen in their due places as they are quoted by the knight I will first produce those two whose bookes I had at the first and both of whome he egregiouslie abuseth Bellarmin is corrupted by him in three seuerall places cited in this one paragraph And first he is corrupted in his Second booke of the effect of Sacraments chap 24. where the Cardinall saying onelie that the aduersaries ought not to require of the Romanists that they shewe the name of the Septenarie number of the Sacraments either out of scripture or
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
in both kindes is hereticall but onely that it is heresie to condemne the communion in one kinde for vnlawfull or repugnant to Christs institution and so his position is both false and calumnious as appeares not onely by the decree of the same councell but also by the tenour of the decree of the Councell of Trent neither of which councels defined communion in both kindes either conformable or disconformable to anie precept of either God or man in the nature of faith but they onely declare the practise of the communion in one kinde as a thing not vnlawfull or cōtrarie to Christs institution or precept but otherwise conueniēt for the present state of the Church in respect of the reuerence due to the Sacrament Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christi fideles vtrāque speciē sāctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit Cōc Trid. de cōmun sub vtraq specie can 1. vid. can 2. and for other iuste causes also condemning them that shall affirme that all and euerie faithfull person is bound to receiue both kindes either by the commaundement of God or as necessarie to saluation by vertue of Christs institution or that the communion in one kinde is vnlawfully appointed by the Church or that the Church did erre therein Which doctrine is so plainely declared by the two foresaid Councels and especially by the Councell of Trent and so often repeated and inculcated by moderne diuines to say nothing of the more auncient that if our aduersaries were not ouer much disposed to cauill they would neuer haue the face to calumniate the same by their misconstructions as Sir Humfrey doth in this place The knight cites some ten or eleuen Roman diuines and among them to increase the number he foysteth in Cassander whom yet he either knowes or ought to know he is none of ours but the matter is not great because neither he nor the rest teach any thing here cōtrarie to the doctrine of the Romā Church in this point but they onely relate the custome of the Primatiue Church to haue beene that the lay people commonly receiued in both kindes yet not denying but that the same succeeding Church hath vpon iuste reasons altered that manner of communion Yea and the same authours here cited defending the lawfullnes thereof either in the verie same or in other places of their workes nay and Cassander consult de vtraque specie some of them if not all teaching with all that some times the communion in one kinde was practized in auncient ages so that it was great madnesse in Sir Humfrey to produce then either as confessers of want of antiquitie and vniuersalitie in the Roman Church or for the proofe of them in the doctrine of the pretensiue reformed Churches since that out of their testimonies as shall be declared neither the one nor the other can with anie colorable probabilitie possible be collected and for this reason and because I haue in an other place ansered what our aduersarie can say in this matter I knowe I haue no need to proceed to particulars but onelie pronounce my sentence of this whole Paragraph in generall termes yet because I finde all or manie of the authours cited to haue their sentences and meaning mangled and peruerted therefore I deemed it conuenient to giue the reader notice in particular of the authours ill proceeding And first altho' Vasquez with some others is of a contrarie opinion to Taper manie other diuines to wit houlding as more probable that those who receiue the Sacrament in both kindes doe receiue some more spirituall frute then the receiuers of one alone yet neither doth he condemne the contrarie opinion and practice not yet doth he conclude that it is absolutelie better or safer for the laytie to receiue both formes then one onelie but rather defendes the quite contrarie expresselie in his 216. disputation and last chapter where not obstanding his owne opinion defended in one of his former questions yet he solues the sectaries argument in this latter place and so cleareth the difficultie of their obiection that it is impossible for Sir Humfrey or anie of his confederates to gather anie thing in fauour of their position out of that authour as his owne wordes doe make apparent to the reader of them as here I place them in the margen Licet secundum aliquorū opinionē quam praecedenti disput defendi laici aliquo fructu priuētur dum ipsis calix denegatur tamen cū sumentes tantum vnam speciem nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem careāt vt notauit Conciliū omissis alijs causis postulantibus recte potuit Ecclesia laicis alterā speciem denegare Vasq to 3. in 3. p. disput 216. cap. vlt. Salmeron is abused by Sir Humfrey in regarde he takes onelie some certaine wordes of his which seeme to make for his purpose and omits others which make against him which follow in the verie next leafe and doe so temper the sense of the former that taking them together neither the one nor the other fauoure the reformed doctrine For thus he saith Nos enim c. For we quoth hee doe so confesse the custome to haue beene of communicating the laye people vnder both kindes that yet allwayes in some cases the vse of one kinde hath beene practized Which wordes quite dashe Sir Humfreys designe of prouing that the Church of Rome in this particular hath created a newe article of faith manifestlie repugnant to Christs worde institution practice of the primatiue Churh except hee will be so audacious as to condemne here also of sacriledge for her practice in those cases as he doth our present Church In which passage I much wonder at the slownes of him that otherwise vseth to be so nimble and actiue as that in this place he tooke not paines to turne one leafe further for the discouerie of the truth And the same I say of Valentia who speakes iuste to the same sense and purpose de legit vsu Eucharistiae cap. 10. as also did Father Fisher and Castro in the places cited by our aduersarie And as for sainct Thomas vpon the 6. of sainct Iohn And lyra in 1. Cor. 11. they neither of them disproue communion in one kinde as Sir Humfrey doth alledge but expresselie defendit Vide S. Thom. in 3. part S. Thomas relates that the custome of the auncint Church was to communicate in both formes which custome he saith was obserued euen till his dayes in some Churches where also quoth hee the ministers of the altar doe continuallie communicate the bodie bloud But for danger of effusiō saith he in some Churches it is obserued that the Preist onelie receiue the bloud and the rest the bodie Neither is this saith he contrarie to the sentence of our Lord because he that communicates the bodie communicates also the bloud since that Christ is whole in both the
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
the temporall punishment due to sinnes which is that we call the power of Indulgences of which generall power graunted to Preists we haue diuers testimonies of Fathers and particularlie of S. Aug. who vpon those wordes iudicium datum est Apoc. 20. Sayth Non hoc putandum est de vltimo Iudicio dici sed sedes Praepositorum est ipsi Praepositi intelligendi sunt per quos Ecclesia nunc gubernatur Iudicium autem datum nullum melius accipiendum videtur quam id quod dictum est quae ligaueritis in terra ligata erunt in Caelo quae solueritis in terra soluta erunt in Caelo â—ug lib. 2. â—e Ciuit. c. â—9 idem â—…act 49. â—… Ioan. â—…d tract â—… Vide etiaÌ„â—il can â—8 math â—… Hier. in â—…p 18. â—ath The like he hath vpon the Gosp of S. Ioh. Ideo cum processisset mortuus adhuc ligatus confitens adhucreus vt soluerentur peccata eius ministris hoc dixit Dominus soluite illum sinite abire quid est soluite sinite abire Quae solueritis in terra soluta sunt in caelis S. Ambrose also speaking of the same power l. 1. de Paenit c. 2. saith Deus distinctionem non facit qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus relaxandi licentiam Sacerdotibus suis fine vlla exceptione concessit God saith S. Ambrose makes no distinstion who promised his mercie to all gaue to his Preists licence to release without anie exception Neyther can anie reason be assigned why the pastours of the Church should haue power to applie the merits of the passion of Christ for remission of the guilt of the sinnes themselues with the eternall paine and yet not haue power to applie the same for the remission of the temporall punishment as due vnto them after the remission according to the order of Gods iustice as the eternall punishment was due before it especiallie considering that the temporall paine as being farre inferiour in nature and qualitie to the sinne itselfe it requires much lesse power and fewer conditions for its remission then doth the guilt of the sinne and eternall paine to the guilt annexed The other place of scripture is not onelie for the proofe of the power to graunt Indulgences but also of the practice of the same by S. Paule himselfe the 2. chapter of the second epistle to the Corinth where speaking to the same Corinthians he sayth of himselfe And whome you haue pardoned anie thing I also For my selfe also that which I pardoned if I pardoned anie thing for you in the person of Christ that we be not circumuented of Satam Which wordes altho' they be obscure in the Gramaticall construction yet doe they sufficientlie declare those partes and conditions which are found in such Indulgences as are now practiced in the Roman Church that is to say power in the collator or giuer pietie in the cause and grace in the receiuer S. Paule sheweth his authoritie in that he affirmeth he gaue perdon to the incestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ that is by authoritie from him receiued he sheweth the cause to haue beene the common profit of the Corinthians themselues to wit least they should be circumuented by the deuill so that they in the like occasion might fall in to desperation by ouer much rigour as the incestuous man might haue done if he had not beene pardoned in the performance of some parte of the punishment due to his offense Lastelie he in the precedent wordes sheweth the receiuer to haue beene in the state of grace in that he signifieth his sorowe and pennance to haue beene so great that he was readie to haue beene swalowed vp by the excesse of it And so by this we may perceiue howe deceitfullie Sir Humfrey proceedeth in his 220. page where he insinuateth that S. Paule in the place now cited did onelie release the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication whereas indeede the Apostle did not onelie that but also did absolue him from that temporall punishment affliction in which if he had pleased he might haue constreined him to continue longer and so supplyed by his authoritatiue and suffragatorie pardon that parte of satisfaction which otherwise remained to haue beene performed by the continuation of the punishment imposed and due to the penitent according to the exaction of Gods iustice he supplyed it I saie by application of the merits or satisfactions of Christ which application also and not onelie the authoritie by which sainct Paule did it is included in those wordes in the person of Christ Theod. in 2. Cor. 2. That which by the comentarie of Theodoret vpon this passage doth plainelie appeere who discreetlie noteth that saint Paul is said here to pardone the incestuous Corinthians sinne because it was greater then his pennance And S. Ambrose lib. 2. de Paenit cap. 2. speaking of the same matter saith of S. Paule Donauit Corintho peccatum per paenitentiam And a little after Etenim qui de remittenda praedicauit paenitentia debuit de ijs qui iterandum putant Baptismum non silere By which testimonies of these two most famous and auncient authours Sir Humfreys euasion saying that the Apostle did onelie free the incestuous Corinthian from the bond of Excommunication doth euidentlie appeare to be false friuolous And thus we see that not onelie the relaxation of a punishment enioyned as the knight would haue it but also the same or very like forme of pardon which the RomaÌ„ Church vseth at this present tyme was practiced by S. Paule himselfe in the foresayd case And in trueth supposing at the least certaine receiued maximes of diuinitie which might easily be demoÌ„strated by scriptures if the place did serue for it to wit that after the guilt of sinne is remitted some temporall punishment remaineth which according to the exigence of iustice must be remoueed before the soule can attaine to perfect blessednesse either by iust indurance or mercifull remission and more ouer that the same temporall affliction which many suffer in this life euen after their sinnes be intirelie remitted is not for correction and commination onely as the sectaries doe friuolouslie contend as appeareth plainelie in the example of Dauid who altho' he knewe from the mouth of a Prophet that the guilt of his adultry was pardoned yet vnderstanding neuerthelesse by the same Prophet that ther remained no smale punishment behinde to wit no lesse then the death of his dearest child and that as the scripture it selfe testifieth neither for correction nor commination onely but because by his scandalous actioÌ„ he had caused the enimies of God to blaspheme his name and as the text declareth in the 2. Booke of the Kings the 12. chapter propter verbum hoc that is for this thy fact taking word for action as it is most frequently taken in the scriptures and yet besides all this the same Dauid did voluntarie pennance composing
intention of the minister in administration of Sacraments they are so ignorant sotish as I ame ashamed to rehearse them for example when he sayth that if the Preist fayles in his intention at the tyme of solemnization of matrimonie the maried people liue all their dayes in adultrie or fornication which is a most grosse errour in the knight for that the Romanists the reformers agree in this that altho' Matrimonie were no Sacrament consequentlie that the maried people should not receiue it as a Sacrament yet were it sufficient to free them from adulterie in regarde they receiue it at the least as a ciuill contract whatsoeuer the Preists intention bee And if it were not so certainely all sectaries of this time particularilie Sir Humfrey himselfe for one should liue perpetuallie in that damnable state of adulterie which he mentioneth And yet this sequele I am sure it importes him to denie as earnestlie as he can if it be but onelie for the conseruation of his owne his wifes honour And the like foolish false inferences he makes aboute all the rest of the Sacraments as also aboute the succession of the Popes pastours of the Church as if by the confession of Romanists themselues there were no certaintie in anie of them whereas yet he himselfe citeth Bellarmin in this verie place as teaching that in all these things there is at least morall sufficient certaintie of their reall existaÌ„ce truth Certitudine autem moralem humanam quae sufficit vt homo quiescat ex SacrameÌ„tis habemus etiaÌ„si pendiaÌ„t ab intentione alterius Bel. de Sacr in genere li. 1 c. 28. So that all these deductions are voyde of all seÌ„se reason trueth meerlie framed by the knight out of the superfluitie of his braine obtruded vpon his reader as confessions of his aduersaries in a peremptorie odious manner in disgrace of that Church whose doctrine he is not able to impugne in anie more substanciall manner In a semblable fashion doth he also prosecute the like captious kinde of argument against diuers other points of the Roman doctrine as for Example because he findeth in Biel Peter Lombard that they speake not with anie certaintie of the manner how Saints doe vnderstand the prayers of their supplicaÌ„ts he inferreth that the Romanists are vncertaine touching the doctrine of inuocation of Saints it selfe which neuerthelesse is a most false illation for that although there be some vncertaintie in what manner or by what meanes the Saints doe come to knowe our prayers by reason of the diuers opinions of diuines in that particular yet as well those who Sir Humfrey citeth as also all the rest of the Romanists agree and hould for certaine that Saints are piouslie profitablie to be inuocated prayed vnto all without exception teaching inculcating the same expresselie in their bookes writings Gabriel Biel is so plaine for the doctrine of the Roman Church that if the knight had not corrupted him both in wordes sensc he could not haue alledged him with anie coulorable pretense For in the verie precedent lection to that which he cites against vs. Biel resolues the question in our fauor saying Whence it is apparent that our prayers hope of obtaining beatitude by the mediation of the Saints are not voyde in Heauen but by order constituted by God himselfe we ought to recurre to their helpe assistance perpetuallie implore them with due veneration that we may be saued by their merits In which wordes the rest following I am sure there is sufficient to make the author a plaine Papist yea much more then Sir Humfrey desires to heare in fauor of the Roman doctrine so it is cleare he hath corrupted his sense And nowe for his wordes he hath likewise corrupted them most peruerselie by displaceing tranferring them from one purpose to an other For these wordes non est certum per omnia By which Biel ansers onelie to that question whether it pertaines to the accidental Beatitude of the Saints to heare our prayers which question as you see is onelie aboute the manner or qualitie of the Saints vnderstanding our petitions not of the maine substance he respondes Non per omnia certum est It is not altogether certaine And yet Sir Humfrey applyes this as if Biel had said that it is not certaine that the Saints heare our prayers at all Yet further connecting vnto the same those other wordes vnde probabiliter dicitur Which he also soma't Insincerelie Englisheth it may seeme probable rehearsing them in one series or tenor whereas yet they are vttered by their author manie lynes after to an other purpose where ansering to the question before proposed he said thus Vnde probabiliter dicitur c. Whence it is probably said that altho' it doth not necessarilie followe the beatitude of the Saints that they heare our prayers by congruitie yet God almightie reuelles vnto them all that is offered vnto them by men All which particulars concerning the corruption of this place by the guilie knight may more plainelie be perceiued in the author himselfe then I can possible here expresse As for the Master of sentences Scotus in the 45. d. of the fourth booke altho' perchance they seeme to one that reades theÌ„ superficiallie not to speake with certainetie of the inuocation of Saints yet to the anttentiue reader it appeares clearely they both suppose for certaine of which they frame no disputation that the Angels Saints heare our prayers that we lawfullie profitablie praye vnto them of which points it is most vndoubtedlie to be supposed that those two authors could not be ignorant nor maintaine the negatiue parte in regarde the publike letanies in which the inuocation of Saints is expresselie included were vsed in the Church long before their dayes as histories so commonlie testifie that I need not produce them Besides that the writings of the ancient Fathers whose sentences Peter Lombard professedlie collected as much as was for his purpose of which Scotus could not be ignorant are full of the same doctrine as in our Catholike Controuertists may easily appeare to the reader And therefore whereas the Master vses the wordes non est incredibile scotus probabile est they speake not eyther of the absolute inuocation of Saints or of our prayers vnto them of which neyther of them proposes the question but they applye those wordes to the manner onely of their vnderstanding our intercession And therefore the Master puts the title of the question thus Quomodo Sancti glorificati audiunt preâ—es supplicantium Magister in â—it quaest â—… 45. in 4. â—…ent quomodo how or in what manner or by what meanes doe the Saints heare our prayers how they interced for vs vnto our Lord To which he ansers it is not incredible that the Saints which in the secret of the face of God inioye
safer way to attribute them wholelie to God because although we will yet it is God that worketh in vs to worke All which is quite out of this matter serueth for nothing but to stoppe holes with a vaneflorish graunded onelie vpon the wordes safe way which the knight founde in S. Augustin to sounde to his owne tune ther vpon founded a verball argument And the like dictionariall maner of proofe doth he vse wherby to showe his safer way in the points of priuate Masse communion in both kyndes but most rediculously For whereas he findeth in some of the Romanists that the Masse as being not onelie a sacrifice but also a Sacrament is both more commendablie administred more frutfullie receiued when both Preist people together are partakers of it Sir Humfrey applyeth this to the Raphsodie of the reformed Churches which neuerthelesse hath not a scrap in it either of true sacrifice or Sacrament but is onely a pore hungerie scamling of bread wine not conformable either to the forme of the ancient Lythurgies of S. Chrysostome or S. Basil nor euer heard on in the Christian world before the dayes of Luther and of so smale estimation euen among themselues that if it chance to fall they will scarce take paines to take it from the grounde as may appeare by a prittie passage of that nature which not manie yeares past I receiued from the mouth of one who was then of the ministrie what he is nowe I knowe not who tould me that coming in to a certaine Church the minister as he deliuered the communion to his parishoners did let a peace fall from him but there was not one in the whole congregation excepting a dogge that showed so much deuotion towardes their vnuenerable Sacrament as once to offer to take it from the grounde It is true he tould me with all that the honest minister by tasting a little to often of the cup was some what distempered in his head but that me thought was but a pore excuse for a man of his coate a teacher of reformed doctrine especiallie at such a tyme in such an occasion Which want of respect in the reformed brothers towards their communion doth yet further appeare if we compare it with the extraordinarie great diligence care which the Preists people vse in the Roman Church for the auoyding of all Kynde of irreuerence towardes the holie Eucharist as both the rubrickes of the Missal the ancient Canons dayly practice testifie in so much that one perhaps the cheefest reason of the restrainte of the Sacramentall Cup to the laytie was for the auoyding of such irreuerences as might easilie haue happened amōg such multitudes of people as vse to Communicate at one tyme in the Roman Church So that now we see it was great absurditie in Sir Humfrey to argue the greater saftie of the doctrine of his Church out of that which the Romanists speake onelie of their owne especiallie considering there is not one worde of safetie to be founde in anie of the places cited by him the authours of them not intending to show anie lesse safetie to be foūde either in the doctrine or practice of the Roman Church concerning priuate Masse single cōmunion but onelie at the most that some more spirituall profit would redounde to the people then nowe doth if either their deuotion were so farre extended as that in euerie Masse some would communicate or that the Church in other respects had greater reason to permit the vse of the Chalis to the laitie then not to permit it alwayes supposing as a certaine trueth that not withstanding in some respects the contrarie to that which is nowe practized might be more profitable yet that all circumstances considered that is the safest for mens consciences which is done according to the present custome of that Church which is knowne euen by our aduersaries to haue visibly succeeded from the Apostles at the least personallie is also knowne euen by Iewes gentils to be the most vniuersall Church in the Christian world And let this be sufficient to redargue the proceedings of the knight in this matter yet not omitting that two of the authours he citeth for Romanists to wit the Apostata Deane Cassander are not such that in the citation of Bellarmin he vseth one of his accustomed trickes whose wordes although he rehearseth them truelie in the margen yet he translateth them corruptedlie For whereas Bellarmin saith that the Masse in which communicants are present is more perfect legitimate ex hac parte that is in as much as it is ordained to the spirituall refectiō of the people the knight omitteth in his translation the wordes ex hac parte by that tricke doth notablie peruert Bellarmin's meaning making the reader beleeue he affirmed that absolutelie which neuerthelesse he did expresselie purposelie vtter with limitation with an intention to showe that altho' in one respect priuate masse is lesse perfect lesse conformable to the ancient custome of the Church in regarde of the profit of the people yet that absolutelie in it selfe it is as perfect lawfull as that in which communicants are present Furthermore touching the mariage of ministers Sir Humfrey sayth it will appeare by the confessions of the Romanists that it is the safer way to liue chastlie in matrimony thē by a single life to hazarde their soules by incontinēcie thus the knight which if he meanes of the ministers of his owne misreformed Church onelie I will easilie graunt that supposing their slipperie inclination to lecherie and the smale meanes they vse for mortification of the flesh conseruation of chastitie it is a safer way in my opinion for them to marrie then to liue a single life especillie considering they are no true Preists but onelie equiuocall Clergie men both in Order function that if they had not wiues it is to be doubted the maydes of their parishes would scarcelie liue with out danger among them But if Sir Humfrey speakes of Roman Preists which haue true vocation true ordination sacred function then I will say with diuers graue authors that if the Preists of the old testament obserued those dayes continencie in which they sacrificed by their turnes then ought the Preists of the new testament to obserue chastitie euerie day because they euerie day offer sacrifice Hier. ◠tit ◅os l. ◅fi c. ◅ ve◅ ◅ ◅ ca. ◅c And therefore the Roman Church hath most religiouslie ordained the lawe of perpetuall chastitie of Preists for that altho' perhaps it may seeme more safe for some particular persons to marrie supposing their negligence frayltie in that nature abstracting from a vowe alreadie made the lawe of the Church in that particular yet althings cōsidered for as much as euen the most inclined to vice may liue chaste with Gods grace if they will make vse of his gifts of such meanes as the
foundation vpon which the altitude of the Ecclesiastici structure ariseth And by this S. Augustins faith of S. Peters soueranitie in the gouerment of the Church most clearilie appeares so that no other peculiar opinion of his cōcerning the sense of those wordes super hanc Petram could possible preiudicate his owne constant doctrine in the substance of this matter in it selfe as neither could stapleton or anie other Catholike diuine by their taxation of him And yet neither did S. Augustin in deed reproue the common opinion of diuines in expounding that place of S. Mathewe of the person of S. Peter but expresselie remittes the choyse of the one or the other to the iudgement or affection of the reader as is manifest by his owne wordes vpon this same subiect in his retractions concluding his discourse aboute the two seuerall opinions in this manner Lib. 1. retract c. 21. Harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector Of these two opinions let the reader make choise of which is more probable And so this allegation is nothing to the purpose of Sir Humfreys malitious indeuors in prouing the euident testimonies of ancient Fathers to be eluded by Romanists as being neither anie euident testimonie in it selfe as I haue declared nor yet within the sphere of faith or including the point of controuersie in the matter proposed by our aduersarie in this passage as he falselie supposeth out of which compasse euerie one may lawfullie abounde in his owne sense as well the Fathers in the deliuerie of their priuate opinions as also the moderne diuines in passing their censures of the same as occasion serues So it be performed with discretion modestie as here it was by learned Stapleton as his wordes doe shewe And besides this altho' we should admitte the foresayd wordes of the Euangelist may diuerselie be expounded either of our Sauiour or of sainct Peter or both neuerthelesse the Popes supremacie cannot suffer therby anie preiudice as being sufficientlie established both by other wordes of the same passage by other places of scripture particularlie by that of S. Iohn 21. pasce oues meas c. Feede my sheepe Which wordes are so forcible for the proofe of saint Peters supreme authoritie ouer all Christs flocke that they alone with the circumstances of the text were sufficient to conuicte anie reasonable persons iudgement Thirdlie concerning the communion of the Cup he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying in his answere to the wordes of S. Ignatius one cup is distributed to all that in the latin bookes is not founde distributed to all but for all But first I say that why should Bellarmin be produced for an eluder of the Fathers recordes for telling the trueth or for reporting that which he did see with his eyes perhaps without spectacles And if it be founde by eye witnesses to be otherwise in the Latin copies then in the Greeke as truelie it is as also it is founde that the Greeke copies are not sound in diuers other particulars in which they are discouered not to agree with the citations of S. Athanasius Theodoret What sinne did Bellarmin commit in vttering the same But howsoeuer it bee good Sir Humfrey doth Bellarmin relie onelie vpon that anser nay doth he not giue two other more cheefe ansers then that both which you dissemble And yet more then this you haue shamefullie corrupted that one ansere which you cite For Bellarmin sayth not that S. Ignatius hath the wordes distributed for all but one chalis of the whole Church vnus calix totius Ecclesiae meaning that there is one common chalice because it is offered to God for all Nay besides this Bellarmin yet further addeth that the Magdeburgers read those wordes of S. Ignatius as the Romanists doe of which also craftie Sir Humfrey taketh no notice so that the reader may see that Bellarmin is here diuerslie abused by the false knight yet is he no more guiltie of eluding of the Fathers recordes in this particular then the foresayd Lutherans them selues that is nothing at all Fourthlie he taxeth Sixtus Senensis for saying he suspecteth Origen to haue ben corrupted by the heretikes where he sayth Thus much be spoken of the typicall symbolicall bodie But what if Senensis vtter his opinion in that manner of that place of Origen For doth not eyther he or at the least a number of other diuines giue other solid ansers to the same as may be seene in Bellarmin others As that it is not certaine that workes is trulie Origens that those wordes are not spoaken of the Eucharist but of the bread of the Cathecumes which we commonlie call holie bread that Origen tearmes the bodie of Christ Sybolical Typical because it is present in the Sacrament as a type or signe of the same bodie of Christ as it is vnited to the diuine worde in the mysterie of the Incarnation in a visible māner For in that place Origen compares the bodie of Christ as it is in the Sacrament with the same as it is in it proper existence And so in like manner sanders and Baronius for diuers reasons hould the wordes cited by Caluin out of the epistle of Epiphanius to Iohn of Hierusalem touching the cutting of a vayle with an image of Christ or some other man which he founde at the entrance of a Church for suppositious as being added after the whole epistle was ended And yet notobstanding they relie not intirelie vpon this answere but yeald others also which supposing the foresayd addition were truelie the wordes of that holie Father yet those same authors abundantly cleare the difficultie declare the trueth of his meaning in the controuersie of honour of images As also doth Valentia aboute the wordes of Theodoret touching transsubstantiation who sayth that the substance of bread wine ceased not in the Sacrament To which both Valentia other diuines notobstanding they kewe by that which passed in the Councell of Ephesus Theodoretus authoritie not to be great or at the least not to be so great as that hee alone could or ought to preponderate the rest of the Fathers Vid. Greg. de Val. l. 2. de transub c. 7. Suarez de Eucha D. 46. sec 4. I haue giuen other solide answeres to his wordes besides this which is related by the knight as that he calleth the accidents of the Eucharist by the name of the substāce of bread wine attributing to the naturall properties of nature or substance the name of nature or substance it selfe as both the scriptures other Fathers in the like occasions vse to doe Gelas ep particularlie Gelasius whome the reformers vse to cite against the trueth of transsubstantiation he onelie taking the worde substance which is ambiguous signifieth both the interior substance itselfe the externall signes of the same for the second not for the first all which may be easilie perceiued by him who shall read
the authours them selues with attention care And as for Theodoretus Iames Gordon in his fourth Controuersie of transsubstantiation noteth that if he be trulie translated according to the force of the Greeke wordes all difficultie touching his true meaning doth presentlie cease And thus much for Theodoretus who is no way eluded by Valentia but truelie sincerelie expounded As for Bellarmin whome when he answereth to the testimonie of S. Cyprian aboute traditiōs the knight seemeth to taxe for attributing error vnto him It is not true that Bellar. sayth that he doth not maruell that S. Cypriā erred in reasoning as Sir Humfrey affirmeth but the Cardinall onlie sayth of S. Cyprian ideo non mirum si more errantium ratiocinaretur therefore it was no maruell if he should argue after the manner of those that erre because he writ that passage to which Bellarmin doth ansere in the place cited by the knight when he defended his errour aboute rebaptization against S. Augustin But withall Bellarmin addeth that S. Cyprian reiected not all traditions as the reformers commonlie doe at the least in faith manners but onelie he disalowed that tradition in particular which S. Augustin alledged against his error onelie for that reason because he conceiued it to be cotrarie to scriptures which yet afterwardes appeared not to be so by the definition of the Church not to be So that Bellarmin is both here falselie accused to haue absolutelie affirmed S. Cyprian to haue erred in reasoning also it is false that his testimonie touching traditiōs in generall is by him eluded which is that Sir Humfrey ought to proue if he speakes according to his owne purpose in this place And not much vnlike to this is the same Bellarmin falselie accused by the knight to haue affirmed that S. Chrisostome exceeded the trueth when he sayd It is better not to be present at the sacrifice then to be present not comunicate for Bellarmin sayd not that sainct Chrysostome exceeded the truth but onelie that he spoake by excesse per excessum ita esse locutum or amplificandi gratia as he sayth afterwardes which is not to exceede the truth but to vse a tropicall speech by which the trueth is as farre extended as may be possible within her boundes but no further And more ouer Bellarmin addeth so much besides to this ansere to Saint Chrysostomes wordes Vide Bell. l. 2. de Missa cap. 10. § Porro Chrysost as takes all difficultie quite away touching his meaning in the point of Priuate Masse Neyther is Sir Hūfreys complainte against Bellarmin lesse vniuste where he sayth yet not specifiing aboute what matter that the Cardinall affirmes Prudentius to playe the poet for why should anie man be reprehended for attributing to a Poet that which is proper to all those of his profession that is to speake by way of fiction or to vse poeticall licence The trueth is I can finde no such wordes of Bellarmin as Sir Humfrey citeth but suppose he speaketh in that manner of Prudentius yet I hould it to be no greater an extenuation of his authoritie then it were an extenuation of Sir Humfreys honour to say he vseth his weapons dexterouslie or plaieth the Champion couragiouslie But yet worse then this doth Sir Humfrey deale with Bellarmin aboute his ansere to a certaine testimonie of Tertullian For whereas he onelie sayth that Tertullians authoritie is of no great accounte when he contradicts other Fathers when as S. Hierome speaketh he was no man of the Church the knight to saue labor but not to saue his honestie leaueth out that speeche of S. Hierome putteth the whole censure of Tertullian vpon Bellarmin onelie notobstanding it appeares plainelie that the greater parte of it is taken out of S. Hierome so consequentlie if anie proofe or recorde were eluded in Tertullian Sir Humfrey might more iustelie haue accused him then the Cardinall But it seemes the knight proceeded in this as those that in cases of reuenge either for want of wit or valour still strike their next fellowe whether he be in faulte or no. In conclusion Sir Humfrey had no reason to stand vpon Bellarmin's ansere to those two authours I meane Prudentius Tertullian for that neither of them in the places cited speaketh of anie point of doctrine defined by the Church but of other matters in which as it was free for them to speake what they pleased so was it also free for Bellarmin to ansere what he pleased especiallie supposing that Tertullian speakes but doubfullie in the matter for which he is taxed by the Cardinall that is in the manner of Christs penetration of his mothers wombe if he held he was borne according to the course of nature he contradicteth the rest of the Fathers in which case no one Father hath the credit of an absolute testimonie amongest the Romanists neyther can he or anie for him iustelie complaine if he be disesteemed in such a case Now for the censure which Riuera giueth of Origen to wit that he was full of errours which the Church hath alwayes detested it is so manifestlie true that no man that will not dogmatize with him can denie the same And the truth is that the reformers make as little yea much lesse account either of him or anie other ancient writers then the Romanists doe as the world knoweth especially when they finde them contrarie to their positions And not of one two or three dissenting from the rest but euen of the torrent of their consent of which ouer plaine testimonie is extant in Luther Caluin Kemnitius Chamier Vid. Luth. de capt Babyl c. 1. Calu. 4. Instit c. 18 Kem. pag. 798. Cham. de descens Chr. ad Inf. And yet for all this the knight could produce nothing in particular in which he could accuse the Romanists to haue reiected the recordes of the foresaid authours at the least in matter of faith As for S. Hierome whome Canus affirmeth to be no rule of faith I would knowe what reformer will maintaine the contrarie And if they hould him to be a rule of faith then a dieu their all-sufficiencie of scripture Besides Canus yealdes a pregnant reason why S. Hierome was not to be followed in that particular of which he speakes in that place to wit in the assignation of the Canon of the old testament because sayth Canus he followed Ioseph the Iewe but S. Austin followed the Christians in that point of doctrine which reason of Canus Sir Humfrey ought not to haue omitted if he had dealt sincerelie As impertinent as this also is the taxation of Bellarmins answere to Iustin Ireneus Epiphanius Oecumenius who seeme to haue held that the diuells are not to be tormēted with the paines of hell before the day of Iudgement For this is so absurde a position that I thinke fewe or none of the misreformed Churches defend it so I see not why Bellarmin can iustelie be reprehended for
no authoritie But suppose Cephas did indeed not signifie the head yet what great recorde I praye can that be for Sir Humfreys Church And so whether Cephas signifie the head or the feet whether ridiculum est be in or out of the bookes it auayles him nothing but some smale matter to quarell aboute yet the truth is that the most authenticall edition of Anwerpe 1585. hath the same wordes which Sir Humfreyes cites out of the Roman print in such sorte as one may rather much more suspect those wordes it is ridiculous to be falselie added in the Moguntin edition then detracted in the others Finallie whether the wordes of the Councell of Laodicea be that wee ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells as Sir Humfrey will haue it also some Catholike copies haue or whether in steed of the worde Angells wee reade angles or corners as some other editions haue the matter is not great so the decree be reight vnderstood that is so that the sense bee this we ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells superstitiouslie as some did in those tymes For this being the true meaning of the Councell as it appeareth by the subsequent wordes which are those and make congregations of abominable idolatrie to the Angells it is more then plaine that no recorde can there be founde for the doctrine of the reformed Churches But onelie it serues Sir Humfrey to make a plausible florish to the simple reader to the end that by working vpon his weaknesse by falselie taxing his aduersaries hee may make his owne impostures saleable which otherwise would putrifie spoile for want of vtterance Lastelie for proofe of his accusation Sir Humfrey after all this sturre he hath made produceth onelie one witnesse that a false one and altho' for the greater credit of his cause he held it expedient to giue him the decree of a diuinitie reader professor Deane of Louaine yet hauing examined the matter I founde by better information then Sir Humfrey can haue that Boxhorne before his reuolte had onelie the place a certaine of obscure Deanrie which function altho' it be a place of some credit yet it is farre inferiour to the dignitie either of a Deane of a Capitall Church or of a publike professour of diuinitie in the vniuersitie of Louaine both in learning honour profit And yet this man as I receiued by authenticall relation of the Deane of S. Gudula Church in Brussels others after some extraordinary familiarity which out of his ouer amorous nature he vsed to a domestike maide seruant of his owne out of an vnsetlednesse of his lubrik mynde began at first to defend that it was not necessarie for the Preist to prononce the wordes of consecration orally but onelie to speake them mentallie afterwardes as nemo repente fit malus Boxorno once a pettie-master by degrees falling into plaine heresie founde oportunitie to passe into the land of libertie I meane into Holand with bag bagage I meane with his Sacrilegious spouse the sacred spoiles of his Church Where from the place of a fugitiue Pedant he is preferred to the dignitie of a new Euangelist is become a blostering trumpeter in the pulpits of the misreformed congregations And this is the onely man which Sir Humfrey could bring for a witnesse against the practice of the Roman Church in her manner of censuring bookes or correcting the same or approuing them according to the order decree of the Councell of Trent which collapsed Deane being so infamous in his life as by this which I haue specified and more which I could relate doth appeare and being also now a professed enimy and Apostata from his mother Church let the reader iudge whether in reason his testimony ought to be admitted against her and let him withall be pleased to consider that Sir Humfrey in lue of conuincing his aduersaries of ill conscience he hath by his owne bad proceeding in this section conuinced his owne to be the worst of all so is fallē in to the same pit he prepared for his enimies incidit in foueam quam fecit by forgeing of false recordes hath incurred a farre deeper dungeon of cēsure then hitherto he did in which he must remaine either till he hath payde a double fine or put in suretie for the amendment of his manners THE XIII PERIOD IN His fourteeneth section Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to conuince his aduersaries of the defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions as he calleth them against the scriptures by which we see that as his booke increaseth in number of leaues so he increaseth in multiplication of his malicious and false accusations and these being the cardes he playeth with let vs examen his gaime He continueth confidently his allegation of his false Deane of Louaine for a witnesse against the Romanists whose worde notwithstanding ought not either in reason or according to the course of lawe to be admitted for recorde against those from whose religion he hath reuolted And so whereas he accuseth the Romā Church of poyson in religion tiranny in the common welth it is to be taken as proceeding from a poysonous minde which being once corrupted hateth the truth as much as an ill stomake loathes dainty meates As for the scriptures it is false slaunderous to affirme that the Romanists refuse to be tryed by them so they be taken together with the authoritie of the Church which the same scriptures commende as Saint Augustin speaketh against his aduersaries and in a true sense without which as one of the auncient Fathers saith verbum Dei male intellectum non est verbum Dei that is the worde of God ill vnderstanded is not the word of God Quamuis certum de scripturis non proferatur exēplum tamē earundem scripturarū à nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus quod vniuersae placet Ecclesia quam ipsarum scripturarum commēdat authoritas Aug. lib. 1. cōtra Cres c. 33. And according to this not that sacred Bible which was in the Apostles till the dayes of Luther without alteration is as you calumniously affirme ranked by the Inquisitors inter libros prohibitos among the prohibited bookes but your execrated Bible I meane your execrable translations and annotations mutilations of the most holy Bible are those that are registred in the censure where whether it haue as you affirme I knowe not certainely but I am sure it deserueth the first place because as the Philosopher saith corruptio optimi pessima and so as your Bible-corruption is in the highest degree of badnesse so ought it in reason to be ranked in the highest station of such false wares as that Catalogue condemnes And of the censure of your owne abuses I graunt you may with shame enough to your selues be eye witnesses but if you meane you are eye witnesses of the censure of the true scriptures
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
expounde the faith of the holye church the opinion of this sect that hauing expounded them we approue one reproue the other by a fewe authorities breefe reasons For neither epistolar breuitie doth permit nor anie reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation For such as ar faithfull people but seduced doe not pertinatiously insist in defence of their deprauation but rather hauing heard vnderstanded reasons desire humbly to returne to the way of truth fewe things will suffice But those whoe ar addicted to contentions determined to persiste in their infidelitie would not be satisfyed althou manie reasons should be proposed vnto them Diuinitus Wherfore we beleeue that the terrestriall substances which in the table of our lord ar diuinely sanctifyed by preistlie ministration ar infallibly incomprehensibly admirably by operation of supernaturall power conuerted in to the essence of our lordes bodie the species or formes of the things thē selues remaining with some other qualities least the receiuers should abhorre crude cruent things Cruda cruenta to the end that the credents or beleeuers might receiue more ample rewardes of their faith the bodie of Christ it selfe existing neuerthelesse in heauen at the reight hand of his Father Illeso immortall vnuiolated intyre incontaminated vnhurt soe that it may truely be affirmed that we receiue the bodie of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin and yet not the same The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue but not the same if you respect the species or formes of bread and wine and the rest before comprehended This faith from ancient tymes did hould and now holdeth that Church which diffused throù the whole world is named Catholique whence it is that as it is said before our lord said in the Euangill Receiue and eate this is my bodie And this is the chalis of my bloud c. In this cleare manner speaketh Lanfranc of the reall presence in this place And page 346. of the same booke he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiasticall histories Which Scriptures saith he altho' they doe not obtaine that most excellent tower of authoritie which those doe which we cal Propheticall and Euangelicall scriptures yet they ar sufficiēt to proue that this faith which now we haue all faithfull people which haue gone before vs haue had the same from priuatiue tymes A primis temporibus And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus more ower if that be true which thou beleeues and maintaines of the bodie of Christ vbique gentium it is false which the church beleeues of the same matter in euerie natiō For all those whoe reioyce to be called and to bee Christians doe glorie in that they receiue in this sacrament the true flesh and bloud of Christs bodie receiued from the virgin Inquire of all such as haue knouledge of the latin tongue and of our writings Inquire of the Grecians Armeniās or of Christian people of anie nation what soeuer they will with one mouth testifye that they haue this faith Furthermore if the faith of the vniuersall church be false either ther neuer was Catholique church or she hath perished nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of soules then a pernicious error But no Catholique will graunt that the church either was not or that she hath perished In this plaine sorte testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the vniuersall church in which it were madnes to imagine he did not include his owne I meane the church of England And supposing he liued writ this the verie next age following the age in which Alfric dyed to wit in some parte of the leuēth centurie it is more then monsterous impudencie in our aduersaries to affirme that in the dayes of Alfric the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation was commonely preached and beleeued in the Realme of England Further more Pascasius Rathbertus writ a booke intituled of the bodie and bloud of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram as is cōmōly supposed althoù I finde him not named by Pascasius he hath alsoe an Epistle of the same subiect to one Frudegard with an exposition of those wordes of the Euangelist Math. 26. Caenantibus autem illis c. In all which writings Pascasius most plainely defendeth both the reall presence and transsubstantiation most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same bodie and bloud which Christ receiued of the Virgin Marie and the same in which he was crucifyed is really and truely present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice I need not relate his wordes for euerie particular because I knowe our aduersaries can not denye but that this Author is plainely for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine onely I will rehearse some generall wordes of his in which he declares the faith of the vniuersall church in and before his tymes for after testimonies of diuers āciēt fathers alledged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid wordes of S. Mathewe thus he saith Ecce habes amantissime c. Behould most louing brother thou haste in the end of this little booke the sentences of the Catholique Fathers compendiously noted by which thou maist learne that I haue not seene such things in rashnes of speech when I was a child but that I haue proposed them by diuine authoritie and by the authoritie of the holye Fathers to such as demaunded them But now it being cleare that Since that tyme the faith of all men is not one and the same then cease I praye to beleeue with such as they bee if as yet they can not vnderstand that nothing is impossible to God and lett them learne to assent vnto the diuine wurdes in all things to doubt nothing of those For till this present no man is read to haue erred in them except those whoe erred aboute Christ himselfe notobstanding manie doubted or haue ben ignorant of the Sacraments of soe great a Mysterie And afterwardes the same author in the same treatise saith thus Qua expleta voce c. Which wordes being pronounced meaning the wordes of consecration we all with one consonant voyce say Amen And soe the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confesse that it is that thing which she prayeth for wherby let him whoe will rather contradict this then beleeue it regarde what he doth against our lord him self against the whole Church of Christ Therfore it is a nefarious and detestable villanie to pray with all and not to beleeue that which truth it self doth testifye and that which vniuersally all in euerie place doe teach Whence it is that since he him selfe affirmes it is his bodie and his bloud doubt ought not to be made in anie thing altho' we see not with carnall yes that which we beleeue We haue seene alsoe what Pope Gregorie houldeth of this what
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
difficult questions nor yet could you haue so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirme in one place that the text of scripture is the sole Iudge expounder of itselfe indefinitlie without liâ—itation yet on the contrarie in another place that you doe not denie the authoritie of the Fathers iointlie agreing in the exposition of them in matters of faith yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them as if the holie Ghost were bound to appeere visiblie to deliuer the true sense of them as often as anie controuersie of faith occurreth All which the like disparates the vertiginous knight vttereth within the compasse of this one section also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselues Iudges plaintiffes in their owne cause wheras indeed the Romanists neyther make themselues but the euer visible continueing Church Iudge of their cause nor doe they hould theÌ„selues for plaintiffes but for defendants faithfull possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they receiued from their auncestors And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his owne receiued Principle touching the interpretation sense of scriptures of which he his brothers make euerie priuate person man or woman Iudge vmpier yet condemnes for vnreasonable that the Roman Church should vse the like authoritie euen when it is publikelie assembled in a generall Councell So that these all those a foresaid particulars deliuered by our aduersarie touching this point are but onelie his owne fancyes of which he makes vse for want of better materialls to patch vp this part of his by path in which as you see he continueth his peripateticall exercise euen to the next section Sec. 4. In which it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise yet they make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of scripture thus the knight fableth of whom I tknowe I may iustlie say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur And in reallitie of whome I pray can this be so trulie verified as of those who notobstanding that vnder a false colour that euen in cases of doubt controuersie they ingenuouslie professe that scriptures must be interpreted by themselues onelie Vid. ChaÌ„ Panstrat I. de inten scrip yet neuerthelesse doe most pertinaciouslie maintaine that the exposition of them belongs to euerie member of their Church in particular that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another for what is this but to make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of the scripture not the scripture itselfe as they deceitfullie pretend Let the indifferent reader be Iudge of this It is true the Councell of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers yea Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities places of care of soules take an oath of the same but as they take the oath so doe they performe also the obligation of it And I demand of Sir Humfrey who hath such a great talent in reprehending whether he thinkes not in his conscience that those who vnder the strict boÌ„d of oath are obliged to anie matter are not more like to performe it then those who haue no such obligation whereby to restraine their actions surelie there is a great difference in the circumstances consequentlie a great reason to iudge that those Romanists who haue such an oath obliging them to followe the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture will be farre more carefull to performe the same then the reformed Doctours who haue no such bridle to refraine the inclination to noueltie of their itching witts Now wheras Sir Humfrey after his ordinary cauilling manner doth say that if the Romane Church can make good the vniforme consent of Fathers for their twelue new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation preferre it before any priuate or later exposition this I say is a meere sophisme in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes that he who interpreteth scriptures must haue positiuely the vniforme consent of Fathers for his expositions but onely that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers the which because the kinght did not rightly vnderstand as it seemes when he read the Concell the Bull of Pius he abuseth Caietane Canus Andradius Bellarmine Baronius other moderne Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree wheras yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established the rest being knowne for notorius defenders of it so running vppon false grownes the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts building his By-way to omitt others of lesse moment diuerse scurrilous scoffes touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it s well knowne he his companions are much more guilty in that kinde with two notorious vntruthes affirming that all the pristes Iesuites are sworne not to receaue interpret scriptures but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers that it is an article of the Roman faith so to doe all which needes no further examen in regard that to any iuditious reader these two particulars onely will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the authors iugling trickes which he vseth in this part of his by-way which being voyde of substantiall matter it suteth best to him that made it but agreeth nothing to the Catholike RomaÌ„ faith â—ect 5. In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures which he promiseth to proue by pregnant testimonies of all ages that it is the same which learned Doctors professors intirely preserued in the besome of the Roman Church in all ages I haue treated of this in parte in my former Censure to which I adde returning that Sir Humfrey saith of Campion vppon himself which is that if this Nouellist had binne as reall in his proofes as he is prodigall in his promisses he had gome beyond all the reformed proselites sinces the daies of Luther for neuer man made greater florishes with proorer proofes all that he bringeth being founded vppon the same equiuocation which he vsed in his safe way consisting of this proposition the Fathers of euery age haue acknowledged the 22. bookes of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonicall to be the true Canon no other For it is true the Fathers of all ages receiued from Christe his Apostles those same bookes acknowledging them for Canonicall but it is false that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonicall of which truth particular instance
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