rightly vnderstood with the Catholique faith which we now professe For heere is nothing but what I shewed before out of Bellarmine Lib. 5. de iustif cap. 7. prop. 3. to wit that in reguard of the vncertainty of our owne iustice that is whether we be iust or noe and for the peril of vaine glory it is most safe to putt our whole confidence in the Sole mercy and benignity of GOD. Which word Sole doth import confidence in that and in nothing els With which it may stand very well that men in the fauour and grace of God may doe works meritorious of increase of grace and glory which is the controuersy betweene Vs and Haeretiques For men may bee in grace and not know it they may doe those good works and yet not know that their works haue that supernatural goodnes purity of intention and other perfection which is necessary to make it meritorious all which makes vs vncertaine whether we merit or not though we be neuer soe certaine that if our Workes be such as they should bee they are meritorious And to this purpose is the discourse of the Councel of Trent in the end of the 16. Chapter of the 6. Session where hauing explicated the meritt of good works and reward dew vnto them it hath these memorable words to stopp the mouths of all insulting Haeretiques Absit tamen vt homo Christianus in seipso vel confidat vel glorietur non in Domino God forbid that any Christian man should trust or glory in himselfe and not in our Lord. What more then is there Sir Humphrey in that booke which you alleadge then heere is in Bellarmine and the Councel of Trent or which may not be easily explicated to this sense And all this answeare is supposing you cite your author true for I haue not seene him nor doth it soe much import to see him But if it bee not against vs why will you say doth the Inquisition correct it I answeare not for the doctrine but for the doubtfulnes ambiguity of the words which being not rightly vnderstood might endaunger the lesse wary Reader 's fall into your Lutheran errour of deniall of all meritt of good works which was neuer intended by the author though it may bee he might speake securely in those dayes where there was no thought of any such haeresy But how soeuer the booke is not of any knowne good author and it hath been printed and reprinted now in this tyme of haeresy by Haeretiques and therefore may well fall vnder the Inquisition's correction as giuing iust cause of suspition that they thrust words in for their owne purposes What poore authority is this then for you to build vpon Wherefore to begin well you haue wholy failled in the proofe of your first point of iustification producing but one onely place and that of noe speciall good authority as you alleadge it out of Cassander and euen nothing against vs If then you begin soe well with iustification how are you like to iustify your self in the rest of your points which follow to which I now passe The Knight's 2. §. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's super as he speaketh and the Doctrine of transubstantiation examined §. 2. 1. HE beginneth this § with a praeamble concerning his Churches Baptisme which he saith noe mā will deny to be the same substātially with that of the Primitiue Church and that our salt spittle and other caeremonies doe not transsubstantiate the element nor want of them enforce rebaptization Which serueth for nothing els but to shew the man's folly and vanity for what Catholique did he euer heare speake against the Validity of the Sacrament of Baptisme administred in dew matter and forme and with intention of doeing what the Church doth though the Minister were neuer soe much Haeretique Iew Turque or Infidell or affirme that the caeremonies therein vsed did cause any transubstantiation of the water or that for the want of them the party were to be rebaptized noe we say none of these things but onely that they that administer this Sacrament without these caeremonies euer vsed in the Church from the Apostles tyme vnlesse in case of necessity doe cōmitt a great sinne as Protestants doe and the more because they omitt them out of an haeretical contempt Which notwithstanding the Baptisme is auaileable 2. But letting this passe the knight cometh to the Sacrament of the Eucharist wherein he triumpheth mightily about a certaine Homily of one Aelfricke an Abbot heere in England about the yeare 996. Which he saith was approued by diuers Bishops at their Synods and appointed to bee read publiquely to the people on Easter-day and two other writings or Epistles of the same authors one to the Bishop of Sherborne the other to the Bishop of Yorke The words of the Homily are these as he citeth them out of D. Vsher. There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is receiued of the faithfull The body truely that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbs with a reasonable Soule liuing and his Spiritual body which nourisheth the faithful Spiritually is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limbs without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodily but Spiritually c. Thus farre the authority or words of this author wherwith Sir Humphrey maketh much adoe spending 2. or 3. leaues in it 3. To which I answeare first for his Synods that it is strange hee nameth not any Synod nor any author or place where any such is extant For the Councels I haue examined them and yet doe not find any Synod held in England about that tyme or any thing of that nature handled Lett him name the Synode and bring the words I doubt not but we shall find a sufficient answeare therefore to let his Synods alone for the present we come to Aelfrike whom I haue not also seene nor can find soe much as named in those books which haue most of our Catholique authors both moderne and ancient saue onely by Harpsfield in his history where I find also noe more but that the Berengarian haeresy beganne some what to bee taught and maintained out of certaine writings falsely attributed to Aelfricke this is all and therefore cannot say soe much in confutation of this place as it is like might be said if a man did see the author himselfe and not set out or translated onely by Haeretiques but yet I trust I shall say enough euen out of Dr. Vsher who citeth the Latine in the margent to shew Sir Humphrey's bad dealing and to satisfy any indifferent Reader 4. First you Sir Humphrey to turne my speech to you I say that Aelfrick was a Catholique author and deliuereth nothing but Catholique doctrine in this Homily or place by you cited which a man may proue euen out of your selfe For
will giue him leaue to take him for his owne to encrease his Church and make vpp his number of learned men for noe man but an haeretique can dispute against what is once defined Catholique Doctors may indeede differ in opinion soe long as a thing is vndefined For soe long it is not faith but when it is once defined they must be silent and concurre all in one because then it is matter of faith Which agreement and concurrence of opinion in such a case sheweth there was still before a kind of radical vnion that is a praeparation of mind or promptnes to submitt to Authority of the Church when it should shew it self Wherefore whatsoeuer hee or any man els shall say of our differences are but arguments for the vnity and certainty of our beleife 4. Now for his reuiew of all his 8. points it is but a reuiew indeede wherein he taketh all that he said before for true as if he had carried all smooth before him which prouing quite contrary all this reuiew and discourse builded thereon falleth to the ground Neither will I stand examining them all heere againe but remitt the Reader to what is said particularly of each one in his owne place Onely heere I will reflect vpon his conclusion which is a witnessing of men and Angels that we haue noe antiquity and Vniuersality for proofe of our articles For his protestations and witnessings there are many examples gone before which shew how foolish false and hypocritical they are of this therefore I say noe more but that it may goe with the rest But I aske him how he proueth we haue noe antiquity For his first point he laboureth to proue against our Iustification by words out of a Ritual in S. Anselmes dayes some fiue hundred yeares since that the sicke party was to putt all his trust in Christ's merits Which thing I shewed to be nothing against vs. Wherein then hath he derogated from the antiquity and Vniuersality of our Doctrine and though that proofe had beene good that is to say against what we teach of iustification what could the bare authority of soe late a worke haue preiudiced our antiquity which we maintaine 1000. yeares before that tyme Or what could that doctrine taught in such an obscure booke of I know not whose writing nor of what authority and but in a corner of the world praeiudice the Vniuersality of our doctrine taught in all tymes in all countryes by Fathers and Doctors in their seueral tymes and in general Councels or doth it shew his doctrine to be ancient because it was taught 500. since or Vniuersal because it was taught in England noe such matter In his second point of transubstantiation he bringeth one man saying the words of consecration doe not of themselues without the explication of the Church proue the realnes of Christ's praesence in the Sacrament another man saying they doe not proue transubstantiation or that it was defined but in the Councel of Lateran about 500. yeares agoe to which We answeare againe that those one or two say nothing against vs in the points of controuersy with haeretiques and euen in that which they teach contrary to the common consent of Diuines though in matters not defined we say they are reproued not by one or two but by all the whole current of Catholique Diuines what is this then against the antiquity of our Doctrine or doth it proue his Doctrine to be ancient or vniuersall nay doth it proue it any Doctrine at all For what can any man tell by this what he beleeues much lesse whither it be true or noe which he beleeueth may not another man that denieth the Protestant-Lord's-Supper proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his doctrine or rather his denyal of doctrine as the Knight doth his and by the same argument Because a man denieth one point of ours doth he presently allow all his may not he find a third way of his owne different from both and if the Reader please to marke it all the knights proofe of antiquity is the denial or doubt made by some one of our Writers though that one of ours be much more against him in other things as a man may see both in Caietane Scotus and the rest as I said before His discourse then in this is as deuoyd of reason as his Doctrine is of antiquity 5. In his â— point he bringeth a great many authorityes to proue that anciently the people did communicate euery day with the Priest which we grant and aske againe what this derogateth from the antiquity of our Doctrine or how it proueth that a Priest is bound to forbeare saying Masse if there be noe body to communicate or that it is ill and vnlawfull for him to say Masse in that case or how it proueth the antiquity or vniuersality of his doctrine that denieth all Masse nay doe not we moreouer ex abundanti proue that the custome of the peoples daily Communion did cease euen in the Primitiue Church and yet that some Priests did say Masse daily Doe not wee then proue our antiquity not onely by disproofe of his erroneous nouelty but euen by positiue proofes drawne from antiquity Concerning the number of Sacraments he saith some teach there be 3. some 4. some 5. some 6 that some say of this Sacrament it was not instituted by Christ others of that some say this Sacrament is not proued out of this place of Scripture another not out of the other Now suppose all this were true as I haue disproued him almost in euery word he saieth and shewed his folly Doth this proue the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine is not the number of 5. or 6. as farre from his number of two as from ours of 7. and the number of 3. or 4. as incompatible with his number of two as with ours of seauen What madnes is it then in a man to thinke by this disprouing of our number to thinke his owne to be soe presently proued as if a man could not deny 7. but hee must affirme onely two For as for his proofe out of some Fathers naming of two he confesseth others name three others 5. some more some lesse which he bringeth to disproue our seauen but how doth it stand with his two Soe of his Communion in one Kind he saith out of many of our authors it was anciently vsed in both and we grant it but we say it was also vsed in One many tymes and might haue beene more and may also be now in One or both as it shall seeme good to the Church according to diuers circumstances in whose power is the administration of the Sacraments How doth the affirming of the former part or denying of the later proue the antiquity of his doctrine which is that it is not lawful to administer in one kind For publique Prayer he saith out of some of our authors it was vsed in a knowne tongue in the Primitiue Church We grant it and say
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
Testament there where you tooke out your note All which annotation if you had read well vnderstood Annot. in cap. 14. 1. Cor. you could neuer haue said more of this matter the inconueniences are much vanity curiosity contempt of Superiours disputes emulations contentions schismes horrible errours profanations and diuulgation of the secret mysteries of the dreadful Sacraments which of purpose were hidden from the vulgar as S. Denys Eccl. Hier. cap. 1. and S. Basil de Sp. Sancto cap. 27. testify thus that note Besides the very ignorance of the Latine tongue and coÌ„sequently of all sacred learning which would follow thereof onely in Clergy men is ten hundred tymes more harme then that fruite in the Layity is good to say nothing of the vnity of the Catholique Church excellently represented and maintained heereby whereof and of other reasons also I spake before the Church therefore which is to reguard the publique good what is best and fittest all things considered might most prudently haue ordained the vse of the Latine tongue although it had not beene in vse from the beginning as it hath beene and for the common good euen with losse of some fruit to some priuate men though indeed that fruite be noe necessary or needful fruit nor euen fruit at all the inconuenience being well waighed and compared with the fruit Now of this controuersy in this manner also none of your authorityes doe vrge but onely Caietans who though he were a good a learned man yet in him the prouerb is verified quandâ—que bonus dormitat Homerus He is noted to be often mistaken in matters of Diuinity which was his proper professioÌ„ but much more in scripture wherein hee was not soe well skilled and soe committed many faults and in this particular he is greatly mistaken for he expoundeth that chapter of S. Paul to the Corinthians to be of publique prayer of the Church wherein being soe plainely deceiued noe wonder he might say it were better to haue it in a vulgar tongue soe also for that end he wishes there were not Organs nor Singing in the Church that men might vnderstand the words the better Wherein if his iudgment be good and to bee followed why haue you Organs and singing in your church neither were you soe well aduised in alleadging his authority for a Puritane may also make vse thereof against you and whereas Caietans reason is the aedification of the Church he is mistaken in the very end of prayer which is not aedification or instruction of the people but the honor of God immediatly For in prayer the Priest doth not speake to the people but to God in behalfe of the people wherein the people doth onely ioyne with him For which vnderstanding of the Priest's prayers is noe way necessary 11. But now I come to Gabriel who you say was soe farre from approuing vocal prayer in an vnknowne tongue that on the contrary he giueth 7. special reasons why it should be vnderstood by the people But this is most false Sir Humphrey for Gabriel doth not speake of prayer in a knowne or vnknowne tongue nor of publique prayer but onely of priuate prayer and of vocal prayer as it is compared with mental prayer and giueth these 7. reasons which you alleadge but not for proofe of what you say but onely to shew that beside mental prayer it is also conuenient to vse vocal prayer some of which reasons indeede haue noe place but where the words are vnderstood but yet other some haue For thus he saith Gab. in can lect 62. Sufficit oratio mentalis quoad Deum qui inspector est cordis vtilis tamen est priuata vocalis propter plures causas quas assignant Doctores Alexander Thomas caeteri Mental prayer is sufficient for as much pertaineth to God who is the beholder of the hart yet priuate vocal prayer is profitable for many causes which the Doctors Alexander Thomas others assigne theÌ„ assigneth those 7. reasons Soe as it is plaine he saith nothing in this but what others say that his question is not of prayer in a knowne or vnknowne tongue but of vocal prayer in general 12. Your 7. and 8. points of Safe doctrine of not Worshipping images and praying to Saints I putt together being short not needing much answeare For reason you alleadge none nor authority hut onely Erasmus Cassander Chemnitius Who are all of as good authority as your selfe For as for a word which you alleadge out of S. Aug. though you note not the place I say it is not to purpose for it is but this tutius iucundius loquâ—â— ad meum IESVM I speake more safely and more sweetly to my IESVS You doe not say then to whom and from hence you might as well inferre that while S. Aug. was vpon the earth he should not so much as speake to any man or desire their prayers as well as inferre there vppon that he should not pray to any Saint 13. Your last point is our doctrine of Meritts whereto not hauing said sufficiently at first you thinke to say more now but the truth is you haue more words but not more matter For heere you proue it onely out of a word of S. Bernard's saying Ser. 1. in Psal Qui habitat dangerous is the habitation of those that trust in their owne merits and soe say we but we say withall that to acknowledge that Almighty God rendereth a crowne of iustice to good works done by his grace and hyre to those that labour in his vineyard is not to trust in a man 's owne merits but to acknowledge the mercy iustice and fidelity of God For this not onely a man may acknowledge that hath good workes but also a man that hath none nor thinketh hee hath any and consequently noe whit confideth in his owne merits Ser. 61. in câ—nt Another place is out of the same Saint but out of an other of his works where he asketh what safe rest or security can the weake Soule find but in the wounds of our Sauiour And soe say we too but what doth this hinder but a man may say as I said before that God rewardeth the good works of his Seruants out of his iustice and fidelity which out of his Mercy he gaue them grace to doe but heere I note that in the citing of this place in the text you putt the two first words in Latine thus Vbi tuta as if you would make one thinke S. Bernard pointed at your Safe way may not a man without wrong to your witt thinke such a conceit might come into your head though S. Bernard were dead many ages agoe I will not say soe of you Sir Humphrey but yet thought is free as they say Well your next author is Waldensis who as you tell vs thinketh him the sounder Diuine Suar. to 3. de gr lib. 12. cap. 1. n. 2. that simply denieth such Merit but you say not
what merit but it is true Walden as Suarez well noteth though he speake not of this controuersy but against the Pelagians is somewhat too strict V. Bell. lib. 5 de iustif cap. 16. and though he acknowledge the thing yet he doth not soe well like the manner of speaking of merit as alsoe some other Diuines doe not soe approue the word meritum de condigno though in the thing it selfe they all agree to wit that aeternal life is giuen to men as the reward of their good works which is all that others meane by condigne merit Your last authority is a place of Bell. which hath beene answeared before to wit that it is most safe to trust wholy in the merits of Christ Which I wonder why you should alleadge for your doctrine against ours For it is ours as well or more then yours neither doe we cōdemne you for not trusting in your works Chap. 12. or trusting wholy in Christ if so be you doe not deny the necessity and efficacy of good works for purchasing grace and glory And that is your doctrine which you should shew to be Safe but that you cānot nor doe not soe much as goe about Wherefore to come to an end of this Chapter all your proofes sayling in euery point your vaunting cōclusion of the Safety profitt and Comfort of your beleife vanisheth into smoake as the rest doth Of the 12. Sect. the title whereof is this Our aduersaries conuicted by the euident testimonies of the Ancient Fathers either ridiculously elude them or plainely reiect them CHAPTER XII 1. IT cannot be vnknowne to any man of learning or that hath but any the lest acquaintance with the controuersies of this age what great aduantage we Catholiques haue by the writings of the ancient Fathers how highly we esteeme them what confidence we place in them and how we appeale to them for decision of our controuersies and how small respect on the other side Haeretiques shew either to their persons or writings as being in their opinions but men and subiect to errour or rather how contemptibly they speake of them For proofe whereof a man neede not goe farther then that little treatise of Campians 10. reasons the 5. of which is of the Fathers Where a man may see what the Haeretiques say of them they call one an old doting man another they call a childish writer a third they call a dolt and forsaken of God a fourth they call a fabler that knoweth not what he saith a fift they say is bewitched by the Diuell a sixt they say is as damned as the Diuell iniurious to the Apostle blasphemous wicked impious and what Fathers are these thincke you that they name thus who but Denis the Areopagite Hippolitus Cyprian Gregory Nazianzene Ambrose and Hierome and for the writings of the Fathers they say this man's are like dreames and most pernitious another hath foule wennes another writeth like a madd or frantique man another bringeth forth darnel and dreggs others haue left blasphemies to posterity and the like One haeretique preferreth one Caluin before an 100. Augustines another careth not for a thousand Augustines Cyprians Churches whose very words and places are quoted by F. Campian And yet heere is a Knight of the same broode that vndertaketh forsooth in a particular Section to proue that we establish the antiquity of his doctrine decline the certainty and safety of our owne by saying that we auoide the proofe of Fathers wherein he sheweth himself more more impertinent the farther he goeth For whereas there hath beene sometymes one father that hath erred or held some singular opinion different from the common of other Fathers one or two ancient writers that haue euen become Haeretiques because our authors note those things soe as noe Haeretique can but acknowledge that to be true which we say nay and he himself cannot tell what to say against vs he accounteth this forsooth to bee eluding of the Fathers or reiecting their euident testimonyes Neither doth he in all this Section bring one argument or one word of authority to disproue any thing that any authour of ours hath said nor doth hee alleadge euen the reasons which our authors giue of their saying whereas they giue very many solid reasons Soe that for my part I cānot tell what the man meaneth in this manner of dealing nor what to say to him for euen the words of our authours which he bringeth are very sufficient answeares soe as I see not well what more he neede to haue but because in the fashion or sleight manner of speaking he may delude some of his Readers and make them thinke the answeares insufficient I must a little more discouer his impertinency in leauing out some of the answeares and extenuating others and euen in bringing some nothing at all to this purpose 2. And soe to beginne with him he saith in the first place that touching the all sufficiēcy of Scriptures S. Chrysostome saith the Church is knowne tantūmodo onely by the Scriptures heerevpon he askes this question what say the Romanist to this authority Bell. saith hee answeareth it is probable the authour was a Catholique but it seemes to be none of Chrysost thus hee To which I answeare first that I find not this place obiected in Bellar. whereto to giue any answeare at all but there is another place not much vnlike and to that he answeareth that the worke out of which it is taken is not Chrys but another's commonly cited by the name of author imperfecti who Bell. saith was either an Arrian himself or his worke was corrupted by Arrians and this he doth not barely say neyther in his cōtrouersies nor in his booke de Scripto eccles De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. Which is the booke heere cited by Sir Humphrey where Bellarmine saith the thing but not by way of answeare as he makes him I say he doth not onely say it but also proue it by a plaine example or two of Arianisme Verb. Io. Chrysost but because he findeth Catholique doctrine in other places of the same worke and in the same points he rather thinketh the authour to be a Catholique and his worke onely to haue beene corrupted and this is most true and euident Which had the Knight but sett downe thus plainely what had there beene more to be obiected or answeared but he curtails it as if Bell. had said onely it is none of Chrys Which is also soe true plaine as he himselfe cannot gainesay it and yet he is not ashamed for the creditt of his obiection to call it Chrysostomes But the place it selfe is soe farre from prouing the all sufficiency of Scripture as it proueth nothing at all but the insufficiency of Sir Humphreys wit For how many wayes may it be answeared euen supposing that the words were S. Chrysostomes or some other good authour's being but these that the Church is knowne onely by scriptures For I aske him
doctrines 3. For traditions adoration of images Saints c. all is answeared before Soe likewise his Communion in both kind and merit of good works But for that which he saith that he acknowledgeth vniuersality of nations and people not to be a marke of his Church I cannot but wonder at it For what is this but euen in plaine termes to confesse his Church not to be the Church of Christ Isa 2. Isay the Prophet describing the Church vnder the type of a mountaine saith that all nations shall flow vnto it Psal 71. Psal 2. The Prophet Dauid describing the Kingdome of Christ saith that he shall beare sway from sea to sea Dan. 2.3 ◠that God will giue him nations for his inhaeritance and the bounds of the Earth for his possession Apoc. 7 9◠Daniel describeth the Kingdome of Christ like a mountaine growing from a little stone and filling the whole earth S. Iohn seeth a multitude which noe man could reckon of all nations and tribes and people and tongues this being also the thing wherein the Church of Christ is specially distinguished from the Synagogue of the Iewes that that pertained but to one nation this to all the nations of the earth and all the Fathers proclaime nothing more particularly S. Augustine in a whole booke of this argument against the Donatists And a Knight to come and tell vs he doth not account this as a marke of his Church What is this but in plaine termes to acknowledge that his Church is not the Church of Christ Beside I would know what he hath meant all this while by Vniuersality which he hath laboured to proue to belong to his Doctrine the principal thing vnderstood by Vniuersality when we take it for a note of the Church is the Vniuersality of place to wit Mar. 16.15 diuers kingdomes and countries as it is vsed by our Sauiour himself euntes in mundum vniuersum praedicate euangelium omni creaturae and now in denying this marke to belong to his Church doth he not deny it to belong to his doctrine for how can that doctrine be vniuersal that is taught by a few and in a corner of the world and in acknowledging his Church not to be vniuersal doth he not acknowledge it not to be Catholique for is not Catholique and vniuersal all one as all men know in this word then he hath graunted enough to ouerthrow all that euer he hath said or can say of his Church 4. But now to come to the matter which he purposeth in this section which is to answeare our argument that it is safer for a man to take the way of the Catholique Church then the Protestant because euen Protestants agree with Catholiques in this that they may be saued in their religion and Catholiques deny that Protestants can be saued this argument the Knight denieth being sory for his part that a charitable opinion on the Protestants part should giue any Romanist occasion to liue and dye in the bosome of that Church therefore he interpreteth that saying to be meant onely of such as by inuincible ignorance resigne their eysight to their Priests Pastours which men if they hold the articles of Christian beleife without opposition to any ground of religion and liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church such men he saith liuing Papists and dying Protestants in the principal foundation of Faith may find mercy because they did it ignorantly But such Papists he saith as liue in States and Kingdomes where they may come to knowledge of the truth and will not these men dye in their sinnes though yet againe he a little temper the rigour of this doome in saying he will not iudge their persons though he pronounce their doctrine soe damnable as that if he had 10000. soules he would not venture one of them in the Romane Faith and Church For which he taketh God and his holy Angels to witnesse and then concludeth very pathetically thus Farr be it from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points in controuersy betwixt them and vs to be of an inferiour alloy as that a man may resolue this way or that without perill of his saluation And then tells vs the fresh bleeding wounds and sufferings of holy men and Martyrs in his Church doe sufficiently witnesse the great danger in our religion and difference betwixt vs and that we may know that the best learned of his Church were farr from graunting saluation to any Papist liuing and dying in the profession of the now Romane Faith he bringeth a saying of Whitaker who would haue vs take it vpon his word that in heauen there is not one Iesuit nor one Papist to be found this is the Knight's whole discourse in the second part of his section 5. Whereby vpon examination it will appeare hee is as well redd in his owne authors as in our Schoolmen and Fathers And to beginne with him he is sorry the Protestants charitable opiniō should giue any man encouradgment to dye a Papist But by his leaue this opinion doth not proceede from charity but from euidence of truth as all testimony from an enemy doth But whether it be charity or not this Knight will none of this charity and therefore he saith that this is meant onely of some ignorant people whose ignorance may excuse them but yet euen these men though they liue Papists they must dye Protestants in the principall foundation of that Faith This is good stuffe Papists may be saued in their religion but yet they must dye Protestants very right Sir Humphrey where haue you learned this theology that a man may be saued in one religion yet soe as he must dye in another this is a new conceit neuer heard of before that a man may bee saued in a religion but soe as not to dye of it and heere a man might aske at great many pretty questions as what foundation of Faith that is that they must dye in what articles of Apostolique and Christian beleife what grounds these are that may not be opposed all these had beene necessary things to be expressed in such a singular treatise as this of yours which must forsooth beare the name of a SAFE WAY leading men to true Faith And why also a man that holdeth the Apostles Creede and other things common to Catholiques and Protestants not forsaking the Catholique church and indeed not knowing any thing els for heere you speake of a Catholique in a Catholique countrey where it is to be supposed the name of a Protestant or other heretique is vnknowne why I say such a man should be said to dye a Protestant in the principal points of his faith I see not For why doth the Apostles Creede belong more to you then to vs had we it from you or you from vs nay if I would stand vpon it I could shew you not to beleiue a right in any one article thereof Whereof he that listeth to know more
may looke in Poss bibl select lib. 8. cap. 32. Nor doe I see what that meaneth that you say of men that liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church where they dwell For if it be soe that they may make shew of one thing outwardly and meane an other inwardly as I see not what you cā meane els then I say it is the most damnable dangerous dissimulation of all other the most sure way not to be saued in any religion For neither the outward profession of a religion without the inward beleife nor inward beleife with an outward contrary profession can saue a man What then is it you would say a man may see you are in straights faine you would not goe absolutely against that which many Protestants say that a Catholique may be saued in his religion yet that will not stand neither with your owne iudgement as it seemeth nor bitter speeches which you haue spoken of the Catholique church as calling it Babylon the Seate of Anti-christ and such like nor drift of your booke which is wholy to draw men away from the Catholique faith and therefore you would faine find some ignorant people who should be Catholiques and noe Catholiques liue Catholiques and dye Protestants in outward shew Catholiques in inward beleife Protestants Which are two great and grosse absurdities and withall doe not serue the turne For in neither of these two cases is that proposition verified that a man dying a Papist may be saued for he doth not dye a Papist Neither can that ignorance which you speake of alleadging the place of saint Paul saue men noe more then it could doe him who doubtlesse should neuer haue found such mercy as to be saued had he not first found the mercy to be drawne out of that his ignorance wherein he was This I doe not say that it is absolutely impossible to find one soe inuincibly ignorant as may not be saued without a distinct and particular profession of the Catholique Faith and abrenunciation of the Protestant but I say it is a metaphysical and morally impossible case For how shall a man receiue pardon of his sinnes be enabled to walke the way of God's commandments while he liueth or be armed against the combats of the Deuil at his death without receiuing the Sacraments of the Church which is a sufficient profession of faith wholy distinguishing him from the Protestant or any other sect Therefore the Knight's chiefe answeare to the argument is a plaine denial that a Papist can be saued especially in England or in any Protestant State where there is a course taken to bring him to the knowledge of the contrary though yet he doe not pronounce damnation on our persons as he saith we doe on his But wherein doe we pronounce damnation vpon their persons more then he on ours he and others of his opinion say our doctrine is damnable and consequently that noe man can be saued by it we say the same of his doctrine and that noe man can be saued by it for this or that particular man we doe not take vpon vs to giue any absolute iudgment but that we leaue to God 6. But now for that which he saith of vs that we cannot be saued and that it is farre from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points of controuersy betweene Catholiques and Protestant to be of an inferiour alloy soe as a man may hold either way without peril of saluation I will appeale onely to his owne men and to such as I presume he will not deny to be good men at lest chiefe men of his owne Church For the points therefore in controuersy as frewill prayer for the dead honouring of reliques reall presence transubstantiation communion in one or both kinds worshipping of images the Popes primacy his being Vicar of Christ and head of the Church auricular Confession and the like they are all acknowledged some by one some by another not to be material points soe as a man may without perill beleiue either way and one maine point to wit the real praesence is said by some to be but as it were the grudging of a little ague The seueral authours are Perkins Cartwright Whitgift Fulke Penry Some Sparke Reynolds Bunny Whitaker Iohn Frith in Fox in his acts and other English writers beside Melancthon Luther and other Latine writers whose names may be seene in the Protestants apology where their very words are sett downe Protest apolog tr 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. and places of their works exactly cited which therefore for breuityes sake I omitt heere to doe and shall onely content my self with citing some for the other point which the Knight denieth to wit that we may be saued First noting by the way that heere is a full iury of good men and true in the iudgment of any Protestant who giue vpp their verdict against our good Knight Sir Humphrey as honest a Middlessex Iuror as his father was and as great a freind of Iuryes as he is confessing the points in controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy to keepe his owne word of art And which is specially to be noted whereas a mayne reason why our Knight is loth to yeild the points in controuersy to bee matters of indifferency is because the fresh bleeding wounds of the Martyrs of his Church witnesse the daunger of our religion among these authours there is one Iohn Frith a famous Foxian martyr who acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth noe man of necessity to saluation or damnation whether he beleiue it or not and the like the same man also saith of prayer for the dead which Mr. Iohn Fox relating and not disapprouing he is to be presumed to approue and so both the Martyr Frith and Fox the martyr-maker whose authority me thinks should be more worth then an hundred of his Martyrs are against our Knight and notwithstanding all their bleeding wounds and sufferings will giue him leaue to thinke his points of controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy and many of them not onely soe but euen absolutely condemne his very beleife and doctrine as a man may see fully proued in the examen of Iohn Fox his Calender to which I remit him contenting my self with one onely Martyr whom I presume our Knight will acknowledge for a great one to wit V. Protest apolog tr 2. cap sect 5. Iohn Husse this man Luther saith did not depart one fingars breadth frō the Papacy Iohn Fox saith he held Masse transubstantiation vowes freewill praedestination informed faith iustification merit of good works images of Saints And indeed of the haeresies now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants he held onely one to wit Communion in both kinds in all the rest he held with vs this Martyr then must needs sooner allow vs to be saued then Protestants but heere is enough of this idle matter 7. Now therefore to the other point whether we liuing
faithfull people haue complained of the coldnes of Catholiques in that they doe not communicate soe feruently and frequently as they did in the primitiue Church not of the Priests saying Masse when there bee none to communicate This is therefore also Sir Humphrey-like to say one thing for another Now for the translation of Scriptures you triumph as if those of Doway confessed that they did it importunitate Haereticorum and for this you are faine to be beholding to Casaubon's epistle to Peron which you cite whereas you might haue looked your self in the booke better then Casaubon who was a French man and is supposed not to vnderstand English soe well as you but it may bee you looked in the booke and finding Casaubon tell an vntruth you would tell it after him though you knew it to be such because you thought it made against vs and for the disgrace when you should be charged with it you meant it should light vpon your author but there is shame enough in store for you both You should haue cited the place where these of Doway say soe for I finde it not those of Rhemes indeede who were the same authors say quite contrary in their preface to wit Rhem. test Praef. initio that they doe not translate the scriptures for any of those reasons which Haeretiques vrge but for the more speedy abolishing of haereticall translations and they there shew that there haue beene some vulgar translations of scriptures long before Luther's tyme and that the reading of them was neither generally forbidden nor generally permitted in former tymes noe more then they are now how neere then doe they come 6. As for that which you tell vs out of my L. Cook 's report's that our Catholiques did frequent your Churches till the eleuenth yeare of Q. Elizabeth I answeare that for my Lo Cooke I haue not to meddle with him Answ to Cook reports cap. 16. neyther neede I hee was soe soundly answeared by a Catholique Diuine and soe exposed to the scorne of the world for his notorious falshoods and euen in this particular among others that he neuer had the hart or face to make answeare for himselfe And yet now you are not ashamed to take vpp his false tales and tell them againe afresh Now after this for a leafe together you talke your ordinary fustion that many Catholiques hold this and that and tother point of your doctrine though they dare not communicate openly with you For why I pray should they not dare heere in England where they are compelled thereunto But I lett this passe as being all your owne discourse except onely one thing out of Câ—sterus who saith that a Priest doth sinne more grieuously in marrying a wife then keeping a Concubine Which you seeme to take for a great errour To which I say that in your Ministers who are meere lay men and may marry as freely as any body els it is a greater sinne to haue a concubine then to marry nay to marry is noe sinne But in Priests who cannot marry it is a greater sinne to marry for it is noe marriage and in this Sir I would know of you whether it would not bee a greater sinne for a man to marry another mans wife her husband being aliue then to liue loosely with her at his pleasure nay whether it be not worse for him to liue loosely with her with promise to marry her when her husband dyeth then without such a promise sure it is For a promise in such a case according to the Canons is an impediment that they can neuer marry together Likewise is it not a greater sinne for a man to marrie with à neere kinswoman within the degrees forbidden in which case it is noe Marriage then to liue loosely with her Sure it is and yet this is it which you condemne in Costerus but it makes noe matter what you say 7. And soe I come to Bishop Gardiner who you tell vs dyed a Protestant because when he came to dye he sett the Merits of Christ in the gap to stand betweene Gods iudgment and his sinnes I answeare Sir Humphrey that if you can bring a Catholique that doth not doe soe we will yeild Bishop Gardiner to haue died a Protestant And soe of Bellarmine whom you make men beleeue to haue died a Protestant because hee craued pardon at the hands of God not as a valewer of meritts but as a giuer of mercy For by this rule Bellarmine should not onely haue died but also liued a Protestant for as often as hee said Masse which was euery day throughout the yeare that hee was able for 40. yeares together at least before his death he said those words and soe doth euery Catholique Priest as oft as he saith Masse for they are in the Canon of the Masse Cap Signifiâ—â—sti which is neuer changed but is alwaies the same though the epistles Ghospells and prayers change according to the seueral tymes and feasts What a madnes then is it heere hence to make Bellarmine a Protestant but it is like the rest of your inferences 8. But you haue another thing out of Bellarmine which is that he saith it is most safe to put trust in the onely mercy and goodnes of God It is true Bellarmine saieth soe but yet you leaue out the former part of the sentence which was to be the reason and rule of the later part which is this by reason of the vncertainty of our owne iustice and perill of vaine glory it is most safe c. Wherein I would faine see what there is to make Bellarmine a Protestant For hee doth not deny that there is any confidence to be placed in our good works proceeding from God's grace as you Protestants doe for he had proued in the same Chapter out of Scriptures and Fathers that there might but there hee saith withall that because we know not whether we haue such good works or noe or though perhaps we know we haue yet for feare of vaine glory it is the better way to turne away our eyes from them and looke onely vpon God's mercy Which he proueth by many prayers which the Church vseth in that manner and among others this very prayer whereby you gather him to be a Protestant which as he vsed in his sicknes soe he taught in health how it was to bee vsed without daunger of Protestantisme or any other such error but what Doth this take away all merit of God works or all confidence in them nothing lesse good Sir knight as any man may see without farther declaration Well but though you cannot make Bishop Gardner or Bellarmine-Protestants Lib. 2. de iustif cap. 1. yet you will make Pighius a Caluinist in the point of Iustification But Bellarmine euen there where you cite him cleareth Pighius though not from all errour yet from that imputation of Caluinisme in two respects the one in that his opinion is not wholy the same with Caluin for he
contrary of Christ's body in the B. Sacrament as by and by shall appeare 8. Fourthly whereas the Latine saith Caro spiritualis spiritual flesh the knight translateth it the spiritual body which I onely note without standing vpon it for it is noe great matter But that which cometh next is the maine corruption of all For whereas Aelfricke saith that this spiritual flesh which is as much to say as our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrament according to the outward shew which it carrieth doth consist of graines of corne hath noe bones nor sinewes noe distinction of limbs noe life or motion of it selfe the knight leaueth out those words Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly which are the very life of all that which followeth to wit that to see to it cōsisteth of corne to see to it hath noe bones and sinewes to see to it hath noe distinction of parts to see to it hath noe soule nor power to exercise any motion of it selfe the knight making his Reader thinke that Aelfricke saith our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrement hath noe bones noe parts noe soule c. which is a notorious falshood Lastly whereas the knight maketh this inference in the same place as if they were Aelfrick's words therefore there is nothing to bee vnderstood bodily but spiritually Aelfrick saith not soe though that might bee said in a good sense but thus he saith For whatsoeuer therein giueth the substance of life is of spiritual power inuisible working and diuine vertue In which there is a great deale of difference betweene Aelfrick's for which giueth a reason for that which goeth before and the knight's therefore which maketh an inference vpon that which was said which a learned man will easily perceiue to make a great deale of difference in the sense nay any man may see the difference betweene a reason and an inference Aelfricke therefore plainely teacheth in these words that that flesh doth liue but with all that that life proceedeth from a spiritual power and inuisible working Which agreeth very well with what he had said before that according to the outward shew that flesh hath neither bones nor sinewes nor limbs nor life nor motion but that all these things are not seene and that the life which it hath proceedeth from a spiritual power and working which is not seene 9. Now lett any man see whither this Knight haue not egregiously abused this ancient author corrupting this little sentence of his by fiue great corruptions besides other more of lesse moment which I haue beene somewhat longer in discouering because it is the man's maine proofe in this place and one of his two records as he calleth them wherewith as it were with two speciall and ancient euidences he presenteth his Reader in the very beginning of this Section § 1. and wherein therefore he hath vsed all the cunning he could deuise to make this author speake his Protestant language and consequently also the Bishops and other learned men of that tyme who approued this Homily if they did approue it as hee saith but in vaine as you may see by this that is said and by one place more which I will bring euen out of this Knight's maister Dr. Vsher which shall plainely shew this Aelfrick's perfect Catholique beleife in this point The words are these Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur panis substantiam vini creaturam conuertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat sic etiam in deserto manna aquam de petra in suam carnem sanguinem conuertere praeualuit c. as therefore a little before he suffered he could change the substance of bread and the creature of wine into his proper body which was to suffer and into his bloud which was extant to be after shed Soe in the desert he was able to change manna and water into his owne flesh and bloud c. Where he sheweth plainely a conuersion of bread and wine into that owne body of Christ and bloud which was a little after to suffer and be shed which is nothing more then that which we call transubstantiation And out of this as a certaine truth he gathereth that Christ had also the power to turne manna and water into his body and bloud as well as bread and wine And soe it is in reguard of the power it is all one but in reguard that Christ was not then in being according to his humane nature the manna could not be changed into his body and water into his bloud Which place as plaine as it is it is a strange and almost incredible thing to see how D. Vsher which I onely note by the way for my quarrel heere is not soe properly against him doth peruert by his interpretation For thus hee putteth the English in the text So he turned through inuisible vertue the bread to his owne body and that wine to his bloud as he before did in the wildernesse before that he was borne to men when he turned that heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to his bloud Wherein there is scarce one word truly translated which I will not stand to shew particularly but not onely the maine corruption that whereas Aelfricke saith that as Christ was able to turne the bread and wine soe he was able to turne the manna and water This man turneth it quite contrary that as hee turned the manna and water soe he turned the bread and wine which is a foule corruption But D. Vsher I heare is sufficiently answeared and his corruptions laid open to the world if the books might be as freely printed and sold as his But therein they haue the aduantage of vs Catholiques that they haue free vse of libraries and prints and publique allowance for the sale All which we want and therefore noe meruaile if books be not answeared as freely as they are written But this is but by the way 10. Now then if thus much may be said out of what D. Vsher picketh out for his owne purpose what may a man thinke might be said if a man saw the author himselfe who though he were printed in London as Sir Humphrey noteth 1623. yet is he not now to be heard of But as I was saying all this sheweth this Aelfricke to haue beene a Catholique and that his doctrine was none other then the Doctrine of the Catholique Church at this day Wherefore Sir Knight Campian's saying which you account a vaine flourish standes good still that you cannot espy soe much as one towne one village one howse for 1500. yeares that sauoured of your Doctrine and should still be true though you might find some one man or two or more that did agree with you in your Berengarian haeresy though alsoe one man doe not make either towne Village or howse For your faith doth not consist of
translate them But because your intent in this place is to proue out of this Doctor that the consecration is performed not by the words of Christ but by his blessing for els I see not what you should ayme at I will bring you a place out of himselfe expressely to the contrary which is this Tolle verba Christi non fiunt Sacramenta Christi Odo Cam. exp in can Miss dist 3. Vis fieri corpus sanguinem appone Christi sermonem Take away the words of Christ and take away the Sacraments of Christ Wilt thou haue the Body and bloud of Christ made put thereto the word of Christ In which words he sheweth that all the Sacraments of Christ are performed by words soe as without words they are not Sacraments as the Catholique Church teacheth And in particular that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the worde of Christ is that whereby the bread and wine is changed in to his body Of which change and matter he speaketh most plainely a little before in this manner In specie panis vini manducamus bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis sanguinis subijsdem qualitatibus mutata substantia vt sub figura sapore prioris substantiae facta sit vera substantia Christi corporis sanguinis In shew of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of the body and bloud vnder the same qualities the substance being changed that vnder the shape and tast of the former substance the true substance of Christ's body and bloud bee made Which words are no lesse euident for proofe of the reality of Christ's presence and change of the bread and wine into his Body and Bloud or transubstantiation then the other are for proofe that the change is made by force of the words Which declare what his meaning is in those words which you alleadge for the blessing as if that did cause this change For he as many other Fathers and Doctours call the very forme of consecration a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for soe holy an end and because they produce soe noble an effect or because they are ioyned alwayes with that benediction and thanks-giuing vsed both by your B. Sauiour in the institution of this holy Sacrament and now by the Priests in the Catholique Church in the consecration of the same You haue then Sir Humphrey gotten as little by Odo as by any of the rest 20. But after all these authors you putt one in the rere who must make amends for all that the rest haue failed you in and that is one Christophorus de Capite fontium Arch Bishop of Caesarea in his booke de correctione theologiae Who indeede speaketh plainely for you in behalf of the blessing against the words of consecration if you cite him truely as a man might well make doubt if the author were otherwise allowable but because he is not I doe not soe much as looke in him but remitt you to the Romane Index where you shall find his booke by you heere cited forbidden which may be answeare enough for you and euen the arrogancy of the title sheweth it to deserue noe better a place for it is entituled de necessaria correctione Theologiae scholasticae As if he alone were wiser then all others Schoolemen putt together Besides in the words cited out of him by you in this place there is a grosse historical error which euery man may perceiue at the very first sight to let passe his theologicall errours and it is in this that he saith that in that opinion of his both the Councel of Trent and all writers did agree till the late tymes of Caietan as if Caietan were since the tyme of the Councel of Trent Whereas indeed he died aboue a Dozen yeares before the first beginning thereof And withall you doe not marke how in citing this place you are against your self For whereas you make Cardinal Caietan and this Archbishop of Caesarea your two champions against the words of consecration as if they did both agree in the same heere this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him but onely Caietane Whom then shall we beleeue you Sir knight or your author 21. Now though you thought to conclude with this Christopherus a capite fontium as being a sure card yet cannot I omitt though after him to answeare heere a certaine authority which you bring before somewhat out of season out of Salmeron telling vs that he speaking in the person of the Graecians deliuereth their opinion in this manner For as much as the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine neither gaue he simply bread it followeth that when he gaue it the transmutation was already made and these words this is my body did demonstrate what was contained in the bread not what was made by them Whereto I answeare first that you mistake your termes when you call this an Opinion which is an errour of the Graecians Secondly I might answeare that this is not Salmeron's authority whom you seeme to cite but doe not indeed you citing onely for authour a french Huguenot called Daniel Chamier who also citeth those words out of Salmeron but without any the least mention of the place where they may be found Soe as Salmeron's works making 7. or 8. good volumes to looke for such a place as this without any light or direction is almost as good as to looke for a needle in a bottle of hay Yet I did looke in that part of his workes which treateth of the B. Sacrament where I thought it most likely to find this place but found it not Which notwihstanding I will not say but it may bee there for it is true that there haue beene some Latine authors that haue held that our Sauiour himselfe did consecrate not by those words but either by other words V. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 1. seq or by the power of his owne will without any outward signe or by some outward signe other then words or by these very words twice spoken Into some of which Doctrines it is like some Graecians might fall being soe prone to erre as they haue beene these later ages V. Aund though in other authors I doe not find this errour of theirs of the benediction before the words but rather the contrary Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 3. that these words this is my body wherewith Christ did consecrate are not now sufficient to consecrate without certaine prayers coming after in the Canon of the Masse appointed by the Church But of this it maketh not much matter and it may be some of them soe thinke and therefore I answeare thirdly for Salmeron this is noe opinion by him allowed as you would seeme by your manner of citing him to insinuate but by him condemned of errour as your freind Chamier saith expresly citing to that purpose Salmeron's owne words also euen there where
their subiects though he did permitt the vse thereof to others some tymes more sometymes lesse according to the difference of tymes places and persons But this of the extent of the Popes power in this kind is not a matter for this place but it pertaineth to that disputation of the Popes authority in general It is enough heere if we proue the same power and vse of giuing Indulgences now as was in most ancient tymes as the Councel of Trent declareth and you your selfe confesse in as much as you graunt that Indulgence and Pardon was granted by the Byshops then Which we proue to be the same now for neither doth the Councel of Trent stand saying who hath more or who hath lesse of that power for that was needlesse the question being with Haeretiques who denyed the power wholy to be in God's Church 5. The difference then betweene our Indulgence and that of the primitiue Church is not in this that is in the power of granting it Wherein thē you may say as you seeme indeede to say that it consisteth in this that ours is by application of the merits of Christ and his Saints which we terme the treasure of the Church And that their was a free relaxation without any such reguard to this treasure But the difference cannot also be in this for the Bishop's power whereby he did pardon then was grounded in the merits of Christ for what he did he did in the person of Christ as S. Paul saith of himself in forgiuing the Corinthian Neither did he forgiue the guilt of the temporal punishment wholy gratis or freely without any manner of satisfaction to the iustice of Almighty God in as much at lest as these penances were imposed for satisfaction for the fault in the sight of God alsoe this I say the Bishop neither did nor could doe for Christ himself did not forgiue sinne soe but by shedding of his bloud For as S. Paul saith in lege sine sanguine non fit remissio In the Law there is no forgiuenes without bloud Heb. 9.22 Whereby the holy Apostle proueth that without the shedding of Christ's bloud there is noe remission of sinne and all forgiuenes of sinne as well for the guilt as punishment is dependent thereof Wherefore what the Bishops did forgiue in this manner they did forgiue by application of Christ his merits Now these merits were not new but the former merits of his life and passion for Christ did consummate all by one entire oblation of himselfe as S. Paul saith Heb. 10.14 if then it were by vertue of those merits then must they needs lye in store ready to be applied to men as they did dispose themselues to receiue the fruit of them and the Pastours pleased to dispence them and why then may not Christ's merits lying thus in store for the neede of all men be compared to a common treasure and be called by that name Soe farr forth then as those Pardons were grounded in Christ's merits or granted by application of them to the penitent there is noe difference betweene theirs and ours 6. Now for the merits of the Saints you seeme to say that they had noe part in those indulgences that is those Indulgences were not giuen by application of the merits of the Saints But therein you are also mistaken Sir Humphrey For euen in that place of Saint Paul wherein you allow him to speake of Indulce he saith he doth forgiue the Corithian not onely in the person of Christ but for their sakes also which importeth the prayers and deserts of Saints to haue some place in the bestowing of that indulgence and soe likewise it was the practize of the Primitiue Church as you cannot but know for Martyrs that had made a good confession of their faith and endured torments for the same to make intercession to the Bishops for releasing part of the punishment dew to others who out of weaknes failed therein and what was this but by applying the superaboundant merits of the one to supply the want of the other and that this was not by way of impetration or fauour onely at the Bishop's hand but by application of the very Martyr's merits appeareth by Tertullian Tertull. lib. de pud cap. 12. who being become now an Haeretique did reprehend that custome saying that a Martyr's merits were litle enough for himselfe without hauing any surplusage to helpe others withall wherein yet he doth not seeme to deny this application if men haue to spare of their owne satisfactions as noe question many and almost all great Saints haue For though they may continually as long as they are in this world increase in grace and merits for soe much as pertaineth to essential merit without hauing to spare but rather still needing which kind of merit they cannot part with to others yet for that other fruit of their works and sufferings which pertaineth to satisfaction and temporal punishmēt dew for their owne sinnes they may haue sufficient for themselues to spare also to helpe others For example a man falleth into some one sinne for which he cometh to be soe sory after that he betaketh himself to a state of penance during his whole life leading the same in great austerity of fasting watching praying and in the exercise of all Vertues and it may be hauing first obtained pardon of the fault it self by harty contrition and humble confession by those good works obtaineth also remission of the temporal punishment within the space of 1. 2. 3. 7. 10. or 12. yeares for examples sake he then leading the same life still 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. yeares more as many haue done what shall become of all that satisfaction which is ouer and aboue for that sinne or sinnes which he committed before it doth not perish nor passe without fruite though not of him yet of others at least who are members of the same mistical body with him soe then some men haue merits superaboundant to this effect and these merits may be communicated to other members of the same body and these merits are not lost nor forgotten by almighty God though they be not applied presently why may not they then be said to lye in deposito as money in a treasury 7. In this therefore is not the difference betweene our Indulgence and those which you allow wherein then I see not vnlesse it be that we extend our indulgence to the dead as indeed you seeme to make it in part To this I may answeare first that it is another controuersy or another point at least of the same controuersy For Indulgences are applied in a different manner to the liuing and the dead and that definition which you giue that Indulgence is an absolution from the guilt of temporall punishment doth not pertaine to the dead for absolution is a iuridical act to be performed by a Superiour and iudge towards an inferiour and a subiect being vnder his power which the soules in Purgatory are
not in respect of the Pope Wherefore you in going to indulgence for the dead seeme to allow them for the liuing or rather shew you cannot say against them Now for applying indulgences to the dead though the manner of application be different and that we doe not find examples altogether soe ancient as of the former yet the things is in some sort the same supposing you grant the power of applying Indulgences to the liuing as you cannot deny your owne ground being laid thus therefore I shew the matter to be the same supposing another point alsoe of faith which is not heere to be disputed of to wit the communion of Saints or communication which is betweene the Saints liuing and dead either raigning in heauen or suffering in satisfaction of their sinnes in Purgatory This I say supposed the punishment which was dew heere by the poenitential canons may be taken away as you confesse which being not taken away by indulgence nor suffered heere according to the Canons must be suffered there why may it not then be taken away by applying indulgences to them there as well as by works which other men may doe for them heere on earth Which according to the Catholique faith are auaileable for them there in Purgatory Which communion or communication among themselues being grounded in the society and vnity which they haue with Christ why may not the same Vnity and society be sufficient for them to partake of the merits and satisfactions of Christ and his Saints who haue gone before and left that treasure of their merits as well as by the merits and sufferings of men liuing heere vpon earth there is noe difference then nor reason why you should grant that ancient manner of indulgence and denye ours now a dayes or why you should grant indulgences for the liuing and not for the dead soe long as they pertaine to the communion of Saints and haue neede thereof 8. Now for that which you adde heere to make our Indulgences applied to the soules in Purgatory ridiculous by saying we grant them for many thousand of yeares after death thereto citing an old Sarum booke of the howers of our Lady it is false and idle False both because your authority which you cite doth not mention Purgatory but onely saith that whosoeuer shall say these these prayers shall gaine soe many thousand yeares of pardon Which is noe more for the dead then for the liuing but onely that you doe not vnderstand the matter either of the one or other or rather they are for the liuing onely For Indulgences are not to be applyed to the dead vnlesse that be expressed in the grant which is not soe expressed in this grant of yours It is also false because the very thing which you say and would proue by your authority is false to wit that we giue Pardons for thousand of yeares in Purgatory after death For we doe not soe neyther doe we vnderstand those Pardons wherein are mentioned such numbers of yeares soe as if men were without those Pardons to remaine soe long in Purgatory But we vnderstand those yeares according to the poenitential canons by which many yeares penance were dew for one sinne And many men's sinnes being both very grieuous and a man may say without number according to the account of the ancient poenitential canons they may soone amount to thousands of yeares which though a man cannot liue to performe heere in this world nor euen in Purgatory for the length of tyme yet he may in Purgatory in few yeares space nay few moneths or few weekes space suffer soe much punishment as is answearable to all that penance of many thousands of yeares which a man should haue performed heere if he could haue liued soe long in which case a man may haue a pardon of soe many thousand yeares as well as a plenary both coming to one What strangenesse then or impossibility is therein this discourse if you did vnderstand it that you should thinke onely by a scorneful laugh to disgrace or disproue it It is also idle for you to vrge any thing that you find in any old booke as if that were presently of vncontrollable authority being nothing soe For we defend nothing but what hath sufficient approbation or allowance of the Catholique Church which many such old books as you cite want you should therefore haue added that withal if you had meant to proue any thing thereby 9. Now after this you tell vs that long before Luther's dayes by relation of Thomas Aquinas whom yet you cite not but onely out of Valencia some whereof opinion that ecclesiastical Indulgence of it selfe could remitt noe punishment neither in the Court of God nor of the Church but that they were a pious kind of fraud to draw men to doe good works but this opinion you say the Iesuit condemneth for erroneous and why I pray you Sir could you not as well say that S. Thomas did condemne the same not onely for erroneous but impious also but onely because you would make your Reader thinke it was condemned onely by the Iesuit and not by S. Thomas or rather that hee did as it were winke at it but how farre S. Thomas was from that and how free on the other side any man may see by this that putting the question in the 1. ar of his â—5 q. of the Suppl whither indulgences auaile any thing he maketh answeare that all grant that they auaile something because it were impious saith he to say that the Church did doe any thing in vayne and in the 2. art asking how much they auaile he saith that some say they auaile to euery one but according to their faith and deuotion he himsef saith it is very perilous to say that they doe not auaile soe much as they sound that is to soe much effect or pardon as they are giuen for Wherefore the antiquity of this opinion nothing auaileth you but rather doth you harme it being then condemned for an errour as likewise it auaileth you not that you bring halfe a dozen of our authours witnessing that there is noe expresse proofe of Scripture nor of some ancient Fathers as S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose c. for Indulgences For we grant there is not soe expresse mention of them as of many other points because there was not soe much vse of them though out of some Fathers also much more ancient then S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose c. we proue the vse of them to wit out of S. Cyprian and Tertullian as you may see in Bell. the one aboue 100. Lib. 1. de indulg cap. 3. the other aboue 200. before any of these Fathers and besides them the authority of certaine Councels as that of Nice Ancyra and Laodicea though if we had not either of these Fathers nor any els nor of these Councels yet would not that follow which you ground therevpon to wit that we want antiquity and consent of Fathers For it is a
I take you in earnest as you seeme to meane it and aske what certainty you or any Protestant hath or can haue that you are Christians if you thinke that your Christianity dependeth vpon the Sacrament of Baptisme If you thinke it doe not as it is the doctrine of the Puritans indeede that Baptisme is not any cause of grace but onely a signe or seale of the adoption which they receiue by carnal propagation from their faithfull parents and it seemeth also yours by what you say both heere and before in your 4. § of Sacraments in the definition of a Sacrament if I say you thinke soe then I confesse you neede not feare the Minister's want of intention but that pertaineth to another disputation but yet you haue as little certainty or lesse of your christendome still for what know you whither your Parents were of the faithfull or noe that is whither they did beleiue there was a God or what they did beleiue of him and soe of your owne Children if their christendome depend vpon yours or your wiues faith it may be they may bee much more vncertaine thereof then we are by depending vpon our Priests intention for noe man can know your inward beleife but find you what you will we shall still find some man's intention or other that shall make your faith or Christendome vncertaine vnlesse you can proue you were Christned by God himselfe which sure you will not goe about to doe 8. But howsoeuer you extenuate the force and necessity of Baptisme for Matrimony I suppose you will not wholy abrogate it though you put it out from among the Sacraments and of it I aske what certainty you can haue of the lawfulnes of your owne Marriage or legitimation of you children You cannot say but the validity of that contract dependeth vpon the intention and consent of the partyes though not of your Minister as wee alsoe say it dependeth not vpon the intention of our Priest but of the partyes which marry which we say commonly are the Ministers in this Sacrament Wherefore if for example your wife had no intention when she spake the words of Marriage it is noe Marriage but fornication and consequently your Children are bastards nay though the matter should haue depended wholy vpon your owne intention in your marriage and that you be a great deale more sure of it then you can be as it is now depending vpon your wiues intention also yet is that surety farre from the certainty of diuine faith and soe you are in noe better case for that matter then wee For Order I might likewise instance the same among you but a small deale of Order serues your turnes for I see not any thing done by vertue of your Ordination which any man or woman may not doe without it Therefore for vs I answeare it is cleane a different thing of the certainty of the Catholique faith which we maintaine and of euery man's priuate or particular beleife of his owne iustification or saluation which we deny to be soe certaine the one being grounded vpon the authority of God's diuine truth and reuelation the other vpon humane knowledge or rather coniecture it is one thing to say there be 7. Sacraments and that these Sacraments doe giue grace where they are duely administred with all things requisite on the part both of the giuer and receiuer and another to say they are soe to me that is that in my receiuing of any one of them all things haue concurred both on the Priests part and myne the former is reuealed by God and propounded by his Church the later is not reuealed in any scripture and therefore by your owne rule can be noe matter of faith For the inconuenience therefore which you say may follow though any way that you can inuent I doe not thinke but there wil be two for one and farre greater I answeare that though in matter of Baptisme Ordination c. there may happen some defect in this or that particular case for want of intention matter forme or the like yet it belongeth to the prouidence of almighty God not to permitt any vniuersal or euen great defect to happen and soe though we be not certaine by certainty of diuine faith that this or that man in particular is truely baptized and ordained a Priest yet we are certaine by the certainty of diuine faith that not onely there be such Sacraments but that they are also truely administred in the Catholique Church soe as there can be noe danger of the fayling of either or of any danger which may ensue therevpon to the notable praeiudice of faith and saluation of soules and withall though we be not certaine by certainty of faith of euery particular yet wee haue moral certainty that is as much certainty as there can be of any humane thing which dependeth of the action or intention of any man which as we see it is enough for men to rest themselues secure in all worldy matters concerning their liues and goods which most men prize aboue their soules soe it may also giue a man sufficient security in matters of his soule especially since as we say if he be not wanting to himself almighty God will not of his goodnes suffer him through another man's fault to want any thing necessary for his saluation but will incite him to contrition for forgiuenes of his sinnes or to make doubt and seeke whether he haue those necessary thinges or noe But yet with this security there remaineth a place for an holy feare which may keepe downe our pride and make vs shake of all torpour exercizing our selues in good workes and working our saluation with feare and trembling But of this kind of faith it is not that wee meane when wee dispute with haeretiques of the certainty of true faith but of faith as it is a beleife and doctrine deliuered in general abstracting from this or that man whether he beleeue aright or be certaine of his beleife that is that he beleeueth wherefore Sir Humphrey in changing the question herein you committ a notable grosse aequiuocation of termes which is a fowle fault in a Scholler as you are forsooth 9. But from this you passe to another point of vncertainty or rather an other kind of proofe of our vncertainty thus You say we are vncertaine whether the Saints heare our prayers or not and whither some that we pray vnto be Saints in heauen or diuels in hell the later you proue out of Caiet because he saith that the miracles whereon the Church groundeth the canonization of Saints cannot be infallibly knowne and out of Saint August and Sulpitius the one saying some were tormented in hell which were worshipped on earth the other saying that the common people worshipped for a Martyr one that was damned and who appeared and told them soe the former vncertainty to wit whether the Saints heare our prayers Gab. in can lect 31. Mag. in 4. d. 45. you proue out
saith thus It is not incredible that some such thing should be after this life but whether it be soe or noe it may be a question You say also for the place where it is or how long soules continue there whither there be fire or water or whither material fire or noe there is nothing certaine among vs You cite Sir Thomas More Bishop Fisher and Bellarmine whose words I passe ouer as needlesse and then you tell vs that S. Greg. who gaue the first credo to Purgatory saith some are purged by fire some by hott bathes and vpon certaine apparitions and reuelations related by him and S. Bede you say it is come to be an article of faith but you conclude with a place of S. Aug. quite against Purgatory Lib. de vaâ—it Saecul â—ap 1. where he saith that when the Soule is separated from the body presently it is either placed in paradice for its good works or cast into hell for its sinnes I answeare that you still goe abusing S. Aug. who is soe plaine for Purgatory that noe Catholique now liuing can be more plaine and in this very booke of his Enchiridiâ—n and place by you cited he is soe plaine that one Mr. Anthony Alcocke a zealous disciple as it seemeth translating it into English is faine to write certaine animaduersions vpon the 110. chapter wherein he confesseth S. Aug. his opinion heere for Purgatory but he laboureth to obscure his meaning or reconcile him by fetching other places as wisely and well to the purpose as you are wont to doe but to be brief with you that which S. Aug. saith may be a question is not of purgatory or the being of Purgatory as you say most Linde like but of the manner of paine as whether euen as men are heere troubled in this world more or lesse with the losse of worldly things as they more or lesse loued them which trouble or tribulation S. Aug. explicateth to be that fire whereof S. Paul speakes saying that those that build hay straw stubble c. shal be Saued as it were by fire whether I say men be soe punished in Purgatory this S. Aug. doth not determine but whether there be a Purgatory or noe Enchir. cap. 110. let any man iudge since he saith there Neque negandum est defunctorum animas c. Neither is it to bee denied that the Soules of the dead are relieued by the piety of their freinds liuing when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them or almes giuen in the Church Note heere 3. or 4. controuersies decided in this one sentence of S. Aug. Satisfactions Masse Purgatory Prayers for the dead and there he also distinguisheth 3. sorts of dead people some in heauen that neede noe such helpe others in hell that cannot be helped by them a third of those that are not soe well as not to neede them nor soe ill but that they may be the better for these helpes This S. Aug. speaketh certainely and more we doe not say certainely of Purgatory the particulars of place manner of punishment durance c. are things disputable among Diuines which you haue nothing to doe with and if for such vncertainties you will reiect the beleife of Purgatory by the same reason you may deny that there is an hell as it is like you doe in your hart for els you could not say and write as you doe Now for S. Greg. who you say gaue the first Credo to Purgatory that is answeare enough which I alleadged last out of S. Aug. by which it appeareth he gaue it an vndoubted Credo long before for he died neere 200. yeares before S. Greg. but for founding the beleife thereof vpon apparitions of dead men reuelatioÌ„s of this Saint S. Bedes relation it is most false by the same argument still For how could the faith of S. Aug. his tyme be grounded vpon the reuelations of men lyuing two or three hundred yeares after or indeede vpon any reuelation of any man faith is grounded vpon the reuelation of God alone deliuered vnto vs by his Church Therefore to the last place of S. Aug. I say it is vnderstood that presently as soone as the soule departeth it receiueth the doome either of Paradice or hell that is whether it is to goe finally and that is both true and his meaning as appeareth by what he saith of the same matter els where thus Tempus quod inter hominis mortem c. The tyme betweene the death of a man and the general resurrection containeth the soules in hidden receptacles as each is worthy either of ease or paine according as it deserued whiles it liued For it is not to be denied that the soules of the dead are helped by the piety of their liuing freinds This place is soe plaine as not only not to admitt any tergiuersation but alsoe to explaine any other that may seeme obscure 12. A third point of vncertaine doctrine as you obiect is Indulgences for which you alleadge Durand and Gerson For Durand looke in the § of Indulgences in Bellarmine Lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 2. and there you shall find him not to doubt of Indulgences but of that which wee call thesaurus ecclesiae for as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of the Saints And as for Gerson who saith that whether the power of the keyes extend onely to such as are on earth or also to those in Purgatory the opinions of men are contrary and vncertaine it is most friuolous to obiect him For what doth this pertaine to faith or doth it pertaine onely to Indulgences is not the question common to other acts of iurisdiction vnderstood by the power of the keyes this is your argument Diuines dispute whether the Popes power extend to the soules in Purgatory ergo the doctrine of Indulgences is vncertaine This might be answeare enough but to display you a little more I will say a word or two more of Gerson and first euen in this point of extending the Popes power ouer those that are in Purgatory euen to the remission of paine absolution from venial sinne or excommunication before incurred he is soe fauourable in this place by you cited as to graunt the opinions on both sides probable which is more theÌ„ other Diuines graunt and is more then needeth for applying Indulgences to the dead Soe as in graunting that probable he maketh this certaine and this for Indulgences in as much as they pertaine to the dead Now for the liuing or power of Indulgences in general thus he saith â—rs 2. p. de â—â—ulg con â— 11. 12 Indulgentiarum concessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectenda in fide spe charitate Domini nostri IESV CHRISTI qui potestatem talium claurum ecclesiasticam dedit hominibus The graunting of Indulgences is not to be little esteemed or contemned but to be embraced in the faith hope and Charity of our Lord IESVS
Vncertainety and nouelty of his owne For which end you produce 8. seueral places six whereof I haue answeared before and there also shewed that some are nothing in the world to the purpose others most grosly falsified The 1. place to wit that noe maÌ„ can be certaine of his faith because he cannot bee certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament because that dependeth vpon the Ministers intention is answeared and proued most foolish chap. 10. n. 7.8 c. the secoÌ„d place which is of transubstantiation as if Bellarmine confessed it probable that it could not bee proued out of scripture is answeared in Cap. 9. § 2. n. 22. concerning which I onely note that in this place you haue a new corruption For whereas Bellar. saith onely that yt may be doubted whether there be any place of Scripture soe plaine as without the declaration of the Church to enforce transubstantiation because some learned meÌ„ as Scotus did doubt thereof though Bell. saith to him the Scripture seemeth soe plaine as to enforce it heere you make him say it may be doubted whether the Scripture will beare it which is cleane another thing for to enforce a sense beare a sense are two Seueral things neither did Scotus or any Diuine els euer make question but that the scripture would beare that sense but whither that were soe cleare and obuious a sense as of it selfe to enforce the beleife of transubstaÌ„tiation The 3. Bell. lib. 2. de Miss cap. 9. 10. place which is of Masse without coÌ„municants I passed ouer before as impertinent to the purpose and soe I might doe heere but for the Reader 's fuller satisfaction I answeare Bellarmine saith that Masse is ordained both to offer sacrifice to God and to nourish the people with spiritual food in which respect as it is not vnlawful to offer it to God though there be none to communicate but very lawfull good and holy soe is it more perfect and as I may say in a certaine sort more lawfull where be some to communicate For then it hath both the ends for which it was ordained Now what doth this make for you Sir Knight or against vs as also that which followeth heere to wit that there is not any expresse mention among the ancienâ—s where none did coÌ„municate but the Priest alone but onely coniectures For noe more is there any expresse mention to the contrary that noe Priest might nor euer did say Masse without communicants which vnlesse you can shew in Bellarmine you say nothing against vs neither if you could shew it should you therefore say any thing for your owne sacrificelesse communion which hath noe affinity with our Masse the essence whereof consisteth in being a Sacrifice and communion in being a participation of the same Sacrifice Your Protestant communion being but a bitt of vnblessed bread and noe participation of Sacrifice for you absolutely deny all manner of visible Sacrifice in the Church Now for Bellarmines coniectures it is true he giueth them noe other name but of coniectures but they are such as may with great probability perswade any indifferent man to conclude that many times and I may say much more frequently the Priest said Masse without communicants then with them And the lest of them is such that if you had but halfe such an one for any point you hold you would vaunt it and triumph as if you had an vnanswearable demonstration But be it soe or bee it not of some of the peoples communicating whensoeuer the Priest said Masse what maketh it to our purpose which is whether it be lawful to say Masse without communicants or not they did not will you say in the primitiue Church I aske what then may not we now the people did communicate euery day then must euery body communicate now therefore euery day all gaue their goods away and liued in common must euery body doe soe now I beleiue Sir Knight you will not like that soe well If the peoples deuotion grow soe cold as not to participate sacramentally of the sacrifice must the Priests grow soe cold also as not euen to offer Sacrifice for his owne and the peoples sinnes This is noe good councel Sir Humphrey almighty God reprehendeth it by his Prophet Isay 24.2 that the Priest were growne like the people Sicut populus sic Sacerdos We could be glad Sir if you could helpe to mend the people but not marre the Priest which you would doe enkindle their deuotion not destroy their faith nor take away the holy Sacrifice of the Masse which affordeth many benefits euen to not communicants though not soe much as to them that doe communicate sacramentally But what doe I in this discourse heere it is enough to shew that Bellarmine doth not patronize you nor weaken vs. The two places following touching prayer in a knowne tongue and Communion vnder both kinds in the primitiue Church are also answeared before are onely of the same kind of argument with this the 6. place which is as if Bell. taught your two SacrameÌ„ts is answeared in two places vpon seueral occasions Chap. 9. §. 4 fine and ch 10. fine and in both is shewed your notorious corruption both of words sense 2. Now for your two last testimonies which you brought not before I shall heere examine One you tell vs is touching faith and good works of which say you it is Bellarmines confession Bell lib. 3. de â—ustif cap. 6. that the Protestants doe not deny but that faith repentance are requisite that is a liuely faith and earnest repentance and that without them noe man can be iustified To this I answeare first that you propound the matter very imperfectly and ignorantly in saying thus touching faith and good works it is Bellarmines confession c. not telling vs the particular controuersy for which you bring this saying of Bellarmines there being more controuersies then one betweene you and vs as whither any thing be needful to iustification beside faith or what faith it is that iustifieth and how and whither good works bee necessary or noe and how they concurre for there be all these things and more in question betweene you and vs. And a man would haue thought by your general title of faith and Workes it had beene in proofe of some of these that you had brought Bellarm. But it is for noe such matter Bellarmine in the place cited handling a cleane differeÌ„t question to wit whether a man can be certaine of his owne grace and iustice that is whether he be in the grace and fauour of almighty God or not and for proofe that a man cannot be certaine thereof he bringeth diuers places of Scripture which imply a condition on our part in our iustification as if we turne to God if we seeke him in our whole hart if we doe penance if we beleeue if we doe his will c. God will turne to vs forgiue our sinnes and the like Which condition saith
Bellarmine we cannot be certaine whether we fulfill or not and consequently we cannot bee certaine of our grace and iustice And he saith these places are soe manifest that our aduersaries cannot deny something to be requisite on our parts For though saith he they deny the remission of Sinnes to depend vpon the condition of workes or our penance faith or other act to be the cause or merit of iustification yet they grant them to be requisite and that without them a man cannot be iustified This is Bellarmines discourse wherein he doth neither confesse any good of your haeretiques nor any way allow or approue your saying as you would make one thinke but bringeth your owne confessions against you and euen by soe much as you confesse though that be farre from enough ouerthroweth another error of yours to wit your vaine confidence and certainty of your iustification Now then Sir Humphrey is not this honest dealing in you to take a word spoken by Bellarmine for one purpose and to transferre it to another farre different and againe in fauour of your selfe to alleadge those words out of Bellarmine as his confession which he alleadgeth onely for yours and to take it soe as if his allegation were an approbation or allowance of them whereas he bringeth them but in the nature of an obiection against your selues and there withall plainely declareth the difference betweene your error and our faith that you will not haue faith or works to be any cause or merit of iustification nor iustification to depend vpon works as vpon a condition whereas we teach all the contrary Which though Bellarmine doe not stand to proue there because that was not a place for it yet he plainely sheweth that to be his beleife 3. The second place of Bellarmine you say is touching iustification by faith onely wherein you tell vs he concludeth with the reformed churches saying that either a man hath true merits or hee hath not If he haue not he is dangerously deceiued if he haue true merits he looseth nothing by not respecting them but putting his trust in God onely But in this againe as before and euery where els you still Linde it egregiously For heere you make as if Bellarmine did allow of your iustification by faith onely whereas he confuteth the same largely and learnedly for 13. Lib. 1. de iustif cap. 1. whole chapters together beginning his disputation thus Hominem non sola fide iustificari 5. argumentis principalibus demonstrare conabimur Wee will endeauour by 5. principal arguments to demonstrate that a man is not iustified by faith onely How then doth he conclude with your reformed churches He concludeth against them you tell vs he concludeth with them And this place which you bring out of him is aboue 50. leaues from that where he beginneth to treate of iustification by faith and is an argument for a farre different matter to wit that it is most safe for a man though he may put some trust in his owne good works yet in reguard of the vncertainty he hath of his owne iustice and danger of vaine glory not to put any trust in them but all in God This later part whereof there is noe controuersy betweene vs and Protestants Bellarmine proueth by the reason heere brought Because if he haue not true merits he deceiueth himself but if he haue and yet trust not in them he looseth nothing by not trusting in them And what is all this good Sir Humphrey to your iustification by faith onely and consequently all that you haue said out of Bellarmine in this section to the antiquity and safety of your doctrine or the contrary of ours not one word to any such purpose on either side and therefore all is but vaine bragging wherewith you conclude heerevpon that our best learned confesse that many principal points of their owne religion yea many articles of faith are neither ancient safe nor Catholique Wherein you speake ignorantly in distinguishing principal points of religion from articles of faith for though euery proposition which is de fide be not an article of faith yet euery principal point is and therefore some giue that for the reason why we call a point an article to wit because it is a principal point but this is but to shew that you cannot speake two words soundly without faltering And yet you must be shewing men the WAY forsooth 4. Hauing then said all you can out of Bellarmine you tell vs it is not the name of Catholique which we assume that makes good the Catholique doctrine neither the opinion of learning or multitude of our side that must outface the truth For say your our Sauiour doth specially note the members of his body by the name of a little flocke as if the paucity of true beleeuers were the special character of the true Church And for our learned you bring a saying of S. Paul to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 1.26 Not many wise according to the flesh not many mighty Mat. 11 25. not many noble And another out of S. Mathew I thanke thee Father because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast reuealed them to babes and then you will vs to reflect vpon our owne church and we shall find the marks of a false church foretold that it should be after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders and after a little of this rauing talke you conclude with S. Augustine that miracles are not now to be expected thus you trowle it out Sir Humphrey Where first to beginne with I might aske what all this is to that which the title of your Section promiseth to witt of the truth of your doctrine out of Bellarmine But that it seemes prouing but dry matter you take your selfe the freedome without reguard to the consequence of your discourse to talke of the Church of Miracles stronge delusions and other such stuffe good for nothing but to fill paper But this very discourse for the matter it selfe sheweth your witt for you could haue said nothing more to the aduantage of our cause nor more to the disaduantage of your owne For you shew ours to be the true Church your owne a false one Which to be soe I shall shew not in myne owne words but in S. Augustines who giuing account what it was that kept him in the bosome of the Church reckoneth these very things which you make soe little account of as Miracles multitude of people and the very name of Catholique and I may say also learning Aug. cont ep fundam cap. 4. For answearing that epistle of the Manichees called Epistola fundamenti He beginneth his discourse thus In Catholica ecclesia vt omittam sincerissimam sapientiam c. In the Catholique Church to say nothing of the most sincere wisedome Wherein by mentioning this Wisedome in such manner euery man seeth that to him it was a motiue though he did not soe much vrge