thē if two should argue the one that the colour of the sea water is greene and the other blewe that some ignorant Cockes-come should step in and tell them that it followes on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all Which who so euer should presume to doe he deserued to be soundlie hist at for his audacious follie so doth Sir Humfrey And as for Biell whome the knight cites saying it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament he hath indeed those wordes which are quoted by him tho' not in his 49. as he puts it but in his 40. lection vpon the Canon but yet this his saying is not contrarie to the Romanists who easilie admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christs bodie in the Eucharist is neither expressedlie declared in the Scripture nor yet in all ages and by all authours expressedlie tought in the Church as matter of faith neuerthelesse this authour himselfe in the same place addes in plaine wordes that now that opinion which defendes transubstantiation is receiued by all Catholikes yealding for a reason of the same because saith he we ought to hould of the Sacraments as the holie Roman Church doth hould And afterwards he addes Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holie Fathers we ought to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is in the Sacrament by conuersion of the bread into it we are to fee c. And the like I say of Scotus Yribarne his Scholar who altho' they seeme to diminish the antiquitie of transubstantiation yet their meaning onelie is that it was not in auncient times declaredlie proposed by Publike authoritie of the Church as an article of faith yet both of them expresselie beleeuing and defending the same professedlie as a matter of faith And by occasion of this I desire the reader to take notice that whensoeuer he findes anie Catholike authours to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time their meaning is not that the obiect in it selfe was no matter of faith in anie one time since it was first reueiled by God either expresselie in it selfe or as included in some other veritie but onelie that it was not expresselie and generallie knowne and beleeued for such by all faithfull people by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publikelie vnto them by the Church in anie Generall Councell For that as much as concernes the doctrine in itselfe it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church then it was euen before it was so defined as may appeare in the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his eternall Father in the vnitie of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like which in them selues were reueiled verites and matter of faith euer since the newe Testament and the lawe of Christ was published to the world not obstanding they were not declaredlie and vniuersallie knowne for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene Ephesin Chalcedon Councels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian Nestorian Euthycian heretikes And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this breefe obseruation may suffice to satisfie anie indifferent mynde Nowe as I said of Scotus and Yribarne the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez in his comment vpon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it vpon the first art Of the 15. quest he saith transubstantiation which ther he calles conuersion is not in the Euangell expresselie conuersio non habetur explicitein Euangelio and before he saith we expresselie receiued from the Church that which the Gospell did not explicate Yet afterwardes the same authour expresselie teaches and inculcates that those wordes this is my bodie cause both the reall presence and transubstantiation For thus addes Et perhoc verbae Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scrilicet conuersionis continentiae c. That is And by this because the wordes of Christ this is my bodie doe effect both nouelties videlicet of the conuersion and the containing By which wordes it is manifest what this authours meaning was absolutelie touching the reall presence transubstantiation howsoeuer he spoake of the manner in which it is cōtained in scripture which is not our questiō And in this sense speakes Aliaco when he saith in the place cited by our aduersarie that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remaine still a possible neither it is contrarie to reason nor to the authority of the scriptures c. For he meaneth onely it is not repugnant to anie such expresse scripture as doth conuince the transsubstantiatton plainely to euerie one without the authoritie and declaration of the Church and therfore he addeth if it could stand with the determination of the Church in which Aliaco showes such obedience to the Church as Sir Humfrey and his fellowes obstinately denie vnto her most piously captiuating his vnderstanding euen in that which he held more easie and conformable to reason and scripture according to humaine intelligence and discourse More euer touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl cap. 10. His intent in that place was onely to proue that meerly by the bare wordes of scripture without the traditionarie interpretation of the Fathers no certaintie can be had in questions of controuersie or matters of faith And to proue this which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humfrey and the rest of our nouelists he argueth exhiposthesi or vpon supposition saying that not obstanding it is true and certaine that our Sauiour by vertue of those wordes this is my bodie did make his owne bodie really present in the Sacrament yet if one were obstinate standing preciselie to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers and sense of the Church he might denie that it doth thence followe that in our Masse Prests make really present the bodie of Christ Not meaning to affirme that they doe not in deed for that the rest of his booke doth demonstate him to beleeue the reall presence in Masse especially the fourth chapter but onely intending to declare by examples and reasons that it can not be conuinced that Catholike Prests doe so by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctours of the Church and her infallible authoritie And now this being the true sense of B. Fishers discourse Sir Humfrey verie coningly by leauing out the precedent and subsequent wordes of the authour so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse And that this is the true
consecrationem fieri arbitrantur Ego vero consecrationem horum verborum operatione hoc facite in meam commemorationem fieri existimo Christus enim c. There be verie manie saith this author who think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these wordes this my bodie materially pronounced Whence it is that I haue seene some whoe comeing to consecrate doe in a strange manner cast their breath with the foresaid wordes vpon the breade and wine as if in as much onely as they be naked wordes not considering anie thing else in them they did hould consecration to be performed by them But I think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these wordes doe this in rembrance of mee For Ghrist c. By which wordes it clearely appeareth that Christophorus did not absolutely denye that preists doe consecrate by these wordes this is my bodie but he onely affirmeth that they haue not their consecratiue virtue or force included in their owne materiall sounde but receiue it from the precept of Christ contained in those other wordes of his Doe this in remembrance of mee That which I yet further conuince by o other wordes of the same author in this same Action wher thus he discourseth in confirmation of his position Nemo proinde existimet haec verba hoc est corpus meum technice materialiter prolata consecrationem efficere sed ipsius Sacerdotis orationem in qua haec ipsa recitantur mandati huius hoc facite virtute atque operatione irrogatam ac spirituali virtute roboratam Let noe man therfore think saith hee that these wordes this is my bodie artificially and materially pronounced doe make the consecration but the prayers of the preist in which these same wordes alsoe are recited proceeding from the virtute and operation of this precept doe this and strenthened by virtue of the same Thus Christophorus By which it is manifest he had noe intention to denye these wordes this is my bodie to be them by which preists doe consecrate since he expressely affirmes that they are included and rehearsed among those prayers benedictions and gratiarum actions by which according to his tenet they dayly consecrate But he onely in his owne priuate opinion houldes that as well those wordes this is my bodie as the rest of the prayers which the preists vse haue their virtue and efficient force of consecration not from their owne materiall sounde but from the precept of Christ doe this in remembrance of mee Which altho' as it hypothetically or totally soundes it is an extrauagant and singular placet or dictamen of his yet is it not repugnant to the Catholique Roman faith either in the point of the reall presence or transsubstantiation as may plainely appeare to anie iudicious reader But onely hath some affinitie with the tenet of the moderne Grecians in this particular whoe not obstanding constantly defende both the one and the other as I haue shewed in an other place by the doctrine of their late Patriarch in his responsion to the lutherans And now I hence inferre as a thing more directly for my purpose that the wordes which Sir Humfrey produceth against transsubstantiation out of a certaine treatise intuled de Correctione Theologiae Scholasticae are not truely the wordes of this author But that Treatise is falsely ascribed vnto him and forged in his name how soeuer our aduersaries make great estimation and vse of it That which I clearely demonstrate because it containeth doctrine repugnant to that which he him selfe teacheth in his owne vndoubded worke against the Sacramentaries For wheras according to the citation of the knight in his 108. page of his safe way in his Treatise inscribed de correct Theol. Schol. Christophorus hath these wordes Therfore it most certaine that Christ did not consecrate by those wordes this is my bodie neither ar they anie parte of consecratiō And yet in his Treatise against the Sacramentaries he directly affirmeth the contrarie saying thus Christus enim horum verborum hoc est corpus meum vi operatione consecrationem confecit panis natura in verum ipsius corpus sese mutante c. Which is in English Christ did consecrate by virtue and operation of the wordes this is my bodie the nature of the bread being changed or changeing it selfe in to his bodie c. Now it is plane that these wordes plainely contradict the other rehearsed by our aduersarie these directly and expressely affirming that Christ did consecrate by these wordes this is my bodie the other directely and expressely denying the same In soe much either we must of necessitie grante that the Archbishop plainely contradicted him selfe which is not to be admitted especially in a graue learned diuine as he was or else that the Treatise in which is soe expressely contained a denyall of that same which the same author affirmeth in his owne knowne acknowledged worke is not truely his but falsifyed and falsely published in his name and consequently what soeuer our aduersarie produceth out of it proueth nothing but is to be registred in the list of such other cōterfeit wares as he selleth to his reader for currēt in the rest of his worke And touching his Treatise against the sacramētaries some other of his workes althou ' they cōtaine some extrauagant positions and therfore were iustely condemned to be expurged by the authors of the Index yet because particularly in his booke against the denyers of the reall presence the author exprssely submitteth his doctrine to the censure of the Roman Church purposely placeing in the frontispice of his booke omnia sanctae Eccesiae Catholicae ac sanctae sedi Apostolicae Romanae iudicio submissa sancto therfore his authoritie can not anie way preiudice the Roman faith And now let this suffice to shewe the falsitie of this citation onely the reader must further suppose that if I had seene the Treatise it selfe I could haue cleared the matter more exactely But our aduersaries take an order for that keeping closse all such obscure workes and reseruing them for their owne pallates as great nouelties and most daintie dishes Some fewe more authors remaine vnexamined by reason I could not haue them as Cardinal Carapha Ioānes Marius twoe or three others But I assure the reader the allegations drawne out of them by my aduersarie containe no matter of importance which is not sufficiently cleared without anie further searche of the places as they stand in the bookes Onely this inconuenience ther is in this matter viz. That if I had obtained a sight of the authors thē selues I should probably haue discouered some more of the alledgers ill proceding In respect of which and my other more triuial defectiuenes I will vse the same excuse which S. Augustin hath for a certaine worke of his concluding thus Si quid ab eis dici solet quod forte disputando non attigi tale esse arbitratus sum cui mea responsio necessaria non
to reade the same nay and that which is yet more maruelous he seemeth to glory not a little that this hath beene all effected by the importunity of his reformed brothers as if forsooth they had exercised an act of some heroycall virtue therein Whereas in truth importunity is so farre from desert of commendation as it may be much more iustly registred in the list of vices then of virtues and soe we see that in the Scripture it selfe the importunitie of a beggar is branded with the marke of improbity that which I maruell the knight being so greate a Biblist as he is did not reflect vpon it And admitte it were true that the Romanists moued by the importunity of the sectaries did translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue for the laitie to reade by what rule of Logike I pray you Sir Humfrey doth it follow that many Romanists haue renoūced Popery before their death proue but this one consequence and I yeeld you the victory And pray tell me what article of faith is that which teacheth the Romanists to beleeue that the Bible ought not to be read by the laytie in no case or vpon no reasons neuer so weighty or if you can finde no such article as I know you cannot then confesse you haue lost the victory in the point confesse you haue proceeded weakely confesse you haue by your first argument proued nothing and so I will take that for graunted and passe to the second which allthough it hath some more sense in it then the other yet it is senselesse enough as shall presently appeare For that being to proue your antecedent or first proposition you onelie produce L. Cookes report that most of the Romish proselytes did frequent your Church or seruice for the first eleuen yeares of Queene Elizabeth But you must knowe that this authour is no competent witnesse against the Romanists he is one of your owne crue we care not for his reportes we leaue them to the lawyers He indeed as you do now presumed to write matters of diuinity but in that he plaied the Sutor vltra crepidam as you doe and so laboured onely to make him selfe ridiculous as you doe But let vs admit that which he reporteth to be true and that fome frequented your Church and seruice in those times as I my selfe haue heard they did at the least in exteriour shewe yet priuately at home frequenting Masse also doth it thence follow that in their minds they renounced Popery no such matter No more then doe diuerse of his maiesties subiects who euen at this day goe to your Churches whom neuerthelesse you your selues hould for none of yours but therefore doe commonly terme them Church going Papists So that according to this and euen ad hominem that is vpon your owne Principles your sequel is to be condemned to be of noe force or at the most out of that fact of those Romanists which you speake of it can onely be inferred that they proceeded contrary to the profession of their faith but not that they renounced the same which two things if you could haue duely distinguished I verily persuade my selfe you would neuer haue discoursed so friuoluslie as you doe in this point But now I greeue I haue spent so much time in ventilating so largelie such chaffie stuffe After this wise discourse Sir Humfrey passeth to his owne persuasions for the proofe of his assertion I am verily persuaded saith he that many at this day in the Church of Rome doe assent to our doctrine that dare not communicate with vs openly in the Church adding an appeale to their consciences how many of the Romanists haue renounced Popery in those diuerse points in this place But to this I answer that if Romanists would haue bene persuaded by this wise knights motiues they had lōge ago all renounced Poperie and turned Puritans indeed but God be praised they neuer were nor I hope euer will be persuaded by him and his workes if they haue anie branies in their heads No suerlie And if they come but once to examine this his booke and get a view of the discouerie of his deceipts they will be so farre from being moued either by his reasons or by his authority to relinquish their owne faith that doubtlesse they will rather be quite out of loue both with him his religion And euen in this particular persuasion of his he sheweth himselfe so ridiculous as no man of iudgment if he marke his proceeding can euer esteeme him as a man worthy either to be heard or followed For what man in the world will be moued by him who in steede of proofes bringeth his owne persuasions onely of the testimonie of the conscience of those whom he houlds for aduersaries and whose consciences if he proceedes consequently he must either hould for bad or at the least for vnknowne to himselfe What is this but absurdum per absurdius and yet he is so confident in this his vaine persuasion that he cometh to specifie diuerse points of Popery which he affirmeth to haue beene renounced by many Romanists some of which pointes are no Poperie at all but either his owne lies or els his ignorant mistake of the true doctrine of Papists in those particulars For example in his page 32. he demaundeth of vs how many Romanists doe smile at fained miracles at diuine vertue ascribed to medals beades Agnus deis and the like which saying of his is meerely grounded vpon a false supposition or rather a slanderous falsitie of his owne coyning as if it were true that the Romanists in generall did both approue false miracles and hould diuine vertue to be in medals beades and Agnus deis neither of which is true or was euer defended by any Romanist in the world it being both true and manifestlie knowen that though all Romanists hould the foresaid things for holie and do assure themselues that God doth sometimes please to worke strange effects by them yet do not they beleeue that any diuine vertue doth reside in them no more then they hould to haue resided in the shadowe of S. Peter which neuerthelesse wrought strange and miraculous effects So that by this discourse Sir Humfrey doth onelie proue his owne ignorance and malice as also he doth most manifestlie in the next lines and that more subtillie then before where he demaundeth how many Romanists do preferre the lawfulnesse of Priests mariage before the keeping of a concubine although saith hee the contrarie be the common doctrine of the Church of Rome In which wordes he doth indeauour craftilie to insinuate to his reader that it is a poynt of Poperie and that the Roman Church doth approoue the keeping of a Concubine by a Priest rather then he should marrye whereas the Church doth not in anie case allowe eyther of the one or the other but onelie houldes that that Priest offendeth God more grieuouslie who marrieth to wit after his preisthood and vowe of chastitie Saecerdos si fornicetur
text of the sixt of S. Iohn did according to the interpretation of S. Augustin but onely make question of the reall preseÌ„ce or possibility of Christs giuing his bodie to be eateÌ„ not otherwise theÌ„ in that grosse manner which they then conceiued in their mindes whereas yet the knight and the rest of his congregation directly absolutely affirme that Christs body and blood are as farre from being really contained in the Sacrament as heuen is from the altar or Communion table And thus it appeares that by indeauouring to make vs Capharnaites Sir Humfrey showes greater grossenesse of coÌ„ceipte them the grosse Capharnaites did by denying the reall presence vpon the same or like carnall imagination for for which he and his mates renounce it From this Sir Humfrey passes to another parte of his Pedegree wher he putteth in the Popes supremacie as if it were deriued fundamentally from the Gentils and to this purpose he applies the wordes of our Sauiour Lucae 22.25 so ridiculously that it makes me thinke he is will read in the booke of Quodlibets or quaeris he makes vse of Scripture so ingeniously The wordes of our Sauiour are these The King of the Gentils exercise Lordship ouer them and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactours Out of which place Sir Humfrey will needes inferre and prooue that the Gentiles haue giuen the Pope his supremacie and consequently that they are the benefactours and founders of the Roman faith in that particular Which passage of the Scripture how falsely and impertinently it is applied and how contrary to the true sense those words of our Sauiour are vsed and abused by the knight I will not spend time in examination of it but leaue to the iudicious reader to censure of it as he pleaseth onely I cannot omitte to take notice how he concludeth this his idle discourse with another place of Scripture out of the 20. of S. Math. where our Sauiour saith to his disciples whosoeuer will be greate amonght you let him be your minister whosoeuer will be chiefe among you let him be your seruant by which words it is most appareÌ„t agreed vpon by all interpreters except the nouellists that our Sauiour intended nothing els but to giue his disciples a lession of humility not so that they ought not in any case to haue superiority and dominion in that nature one ouer an other which were to destroy the Hierarchy gouernment of the Church which he himselfe ordained but that those who were to haue it should not abuse it by dominiering tiraÌ„nically ouer their subiects or subordinates And yet Sir HuÌ„frey I know not by what rule of Alchimie will needs extract out of this place that his and his fellowes doctrine touching the supremacy is receaued from Christ himselfe But in trueth with all my Logike I cannot vnderstand how he inferreth any thing hence for his purpose except he will deduce ex quolibet quodlibet and make a nose of way of the holy Scripture as indeed he doth very frequently framing such a sense to the wordes as maketh for his position and thence deduceing arguments for proofe of the same And if one were disposed to make vse of Scripture in that maÌ„ner he might-aswell inferre out of this place a kinde of supremacie for the ministrie especially if we write the word minister with a greate M. as Sir HuÌ„frey doth And indeede I must confesse that your ministers are greate among you in diuerse respects For some of theÌ„ haue greate Bishoprikes others greate benefices and allmost all greare wiues and greate store of children And if the King would be pleased to suffer them theÌ„ why might they not come to obtaine the supremacie euery one is his turne by succession in that case they might doubtlesse make farre better vse of the cited places of Scripture in fauour of themselues then they doe in applying them against the Romanists And according to his false dealing in applying the Scripture so doth he falsely affirme that the Popes supremacy was first graunted by Phocas falsely applying the testimony of Vrspergensis to that same fol. 149. for Valentinian the Emperour who liued aboue 100. yeares before Phocas in his epist to Theodosius which is extant in the preambles of the Councell of Calced sayth of the Bishop of Rome to whoÌ„ all antiquity gaue the principalitie of preisthood aboue all c. And as for Vispergensis altho' the authoritie of his booke may iustely be suspected as hauing ben published by the reformers or rather deformers of Basill yet doth he not say as Sir Humfrey affirmes that Phocas first granted the supremacie to the Bishop of Constantinople but rather the quite contrarie for thus he sayth Post Gregrorium Bonifacius sedit cuius rogatu Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum cum antea Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam omnium After Gregorie saith Vrspergensis Bonifacius did sit at vhose request Phocas constituted the seat of the Roman and Apostolicall Church head of all Churches for before the Church of Constantinople writ her selfe first of all Churches So that as the reader may plainely knowe Sir H. hath falsified Vrspergensis relating that to be said by him of the Church of Constantinople which he directly speakes of the Church of Rome which neuerthelesse is so little to his purpose that howsoeuer he takes it being not a gift of the Emperour as not being in his power since that nemo dat quod non habet but onely a declaratiue constitution I cannot conceiue why our aduersarie should haue corrupted this authour except it were to exercise his haÌ„d Especially supposing it is a thing vnpossible to appreheÌ„d how either Phocas or anie other maÌ„ or Angell could giue the Pope of Rome his supremacie which is that in this passage he intendeth to proue by coÌ„ferring the same according to our aduersaries relation vpon the Bishop of CoÌ„stantinople And so I leaue this for one of S. HuÌ„freyes vnintelligible mysteries of his reformed faith For worship of Images S. HuÌ„frey deduceth the Pedegree of the Romanists froÌ„ the Basilidians and Carpocrationes But his deduction is false for it he falsely citeth S. Ireneus who saith indeede those fellowes were heretikes for worshipping of images but in another kinde farre differeÌ„t from the honour which the Romanists vse towards pictures Vtuntur auteÌ„ imaginibus incantarionibus reliqua vniuersa pererga Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 23. And he expressely condeÌ„neth Carpocrates as plainely appeareth by his wordes Imagines depictas quasdam de reliqua materia habent fabricaâ—as dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo in teÌ„porequo fuit Iesus cum hominibus has coronant ponunt eas cum imaginibus muÌ„di PhilosophoruÌ„ videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae Platonis Aristotelis reliquem reliquoruÌ„ obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt Iren. eod l. cap. 24. because he put the
that nature And now of this and the rest of the testimonies which haue beene discussed in this paragraffe which if it had not beene for the satisfaction of the common people which may easily be deluded by them I would neuer haue prosecuted so largely as containinge noething worthie of a scholers labour it may I say be easily collected and perceiued how fondly he concludeth his whole discourse as if he had made it appeare that the reformed faith touching the spirituall and sacramentall participation of Christs bodie had beene generally beleeued and taugh both in the former and later ages and as if the doctrine of transsubstantiation had noe vnity among the Romish authours nor vniuersalitie among the auncient Fathers nor certainety in the scriptures This I say is a most impudent vaunt of the bragadocho knight for that it hath beene already made manifest by the same testimonies which he produceth against the Roman doctrine that not onely the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the same in those two points stands firme and sound but that there is no antiquitie or vniuersalitie at all to be found in the doctrine of the reformed Churhes in those particulars to say nothing of other points of theit deformed faith and so this shall suffice for the censure of this paragraffe which as it is larger in wordes then the former so deserueth it a larger sentence of condemnation as conteining noething more but a greater multitude of diuerse sorts of ill proceeding The third paragraffe is of priuate Masse in which for the honour as I suppose which he beareth towards the mother Church he placeth her definition in the first ranke and then afterwardes the article of his owne Church The decree of the councell of Trent ses 22. can 8. is this If ame shall say that Masses in which the Priest alone doth communicate are vnlawfull and therefore ought to be abrogared let him be accursed but the article of the reformed Church will not haue it so but protesteth that priuate Masses that is the receauing of the Eucharist by the Priest alone with out a competent number of communicants is contrarie to te institution of Christ and the practise of the primatiue Church Thus the knight setteth downe the matter of disputatiō thus he placeth the two armies in battle aray with their contrarie collours one confronting the other And this speciall difference I note in them that the one armie consists of milites veterani that is of ould Roman souldiers gathered out of the whole Roman Empire and Christian world the other of fresh men fetched from a corner of the world that is from Ireland Loe heere the armies set in order now let vs see who carries away the victorie You may perceiue by Sir Humfreys relation that the Councell speaketh with authoritie it intimateth those aged Synods of the primatiue Church it doth so fulminate that it maketh the reformed brothers tremble to heere it Naye it seemes it so daunteth the valiant knight that he found no other refuge then to flie to Irelād for an article of his faith A man would rather haue expected that to confront the Councell of Trent and it definition Sir Humfrey would haue had recourse to the Councell of Gapp or of Dort or to some consistorie assemblie of Geneua or to an Acte of an English Parleament But alas the poore Caualier found so small hope of assistance in these that he was constrained to saile to Ireland for an Irish article as he himselfe doth tearme it True it is the Irish article directlie opposeth the definition of the Councell but by what authority I know not yet certaine it is that in the Coūcell of Trent there were assembled by themselues or their legates or at the least conuented all the Princes both of the ould and newe Religion and Prelates of the Christian world as the Bull of indiction and the oration had in the last session most plainelie testifie And so the authoritie of this Synod euen in common sense must needes be verie great but the authoritie of the articles which our knight opposeth to the Councell what authoritie they had is yet vnknowne neither could they possible haue anie authoritie of greate moment for that they were gathered onelie out of a verie small corner of the Christian world and farre inferiour in vertue learning and other naturall parts to the most greate graue and venerable number of the members of the foresaid Synod Wherefore let the indifferēt reader iudge whether of these two armies is to be followed The authours of the article protest that priuate Masse is contrarie to the institution of Christ and the practice of the Church and hence the knight inferreth that it is vnlawfull and therefore to be abrogated and farther that the Councell of Trent by cursing those who hould that masses in which the Priest alone doth comunicate are vnlawfull and ought to be abrogated doth cursse Christ that ordeined it and God that commaunded vs to obserue it Heere you see the knight talketh with as greate authoritie as if he were the greatest graduate either in Oxford or Cambridge neuerthelesse he must giue him leaue who is no graduate to let him knowe that he fayleth mightilie in his colection yet not so much in the gradation it selfe as in the premises which being either false or at the least aequiuocall the conclusion must of necessitie be faultie That which deceiued him is his Irish article of faith in that it affirmeth the receiuing of the Eucharist without a competent number of comunicants is contrarie to the institution of Christ For though it is true that when Christ instituted the Sacrament he did actuallie comunicate those that were present yet it is not true that he included in the institution of it that iust so in all occasions it should be practized neither gaue he anie negatiue precept therein in that respect but onelie an affirmatiue which according to it nature not allwayes but onelie according to time place and persons obledgeth So that the distribution is neither anie essentiall parte of the Sacrament nor yet anie necessarie propertie of it to be in all occasions exercised but rather appertaineth onelie to the due administration of it according to the foresaid circumstances and heerein consists the aequiuocation of the first article Now touching the second part which affirmeth that the receiuing of the Priests alone is cōtrarie to the practice of the primatiue church is also equiuocall for if it meanes that the primatiue Church did in all circumstāces of time place and persons practice the same either by virtue of Christs institution or commaund so it is false as we haue alreadie showed but if it meanes onely that indeede so it was practized in the primatiue Church either alwaies or for the moste parte yet not as a thing alsolutely necessarie either by virtue of Christs institution or precept so we cannot deny but that it is true which the second parte of the article affirmeth but then this
meaning is and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vnto the whole Church as an infallible trueth that the number of Sacraments properlie and truelie so called is no more nor lesse then seauen his meaning is that because the foresaid Councell is of as greate authoritie as other generall Councells euer haue had in times past it ought to haue the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined and consequentlie that as those points of doctrine which notwithstāding they had beene doubtfull before were neuerthelesse by the same Councels determined as certaine and infallible doctrine of faith without anie defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or consent in such manner as all the whole Christian world was boūd vnder paine of damnation to beleeue it as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person definde in the Councell of Nice the diuinitie of the third person in the first Councell of Constantinople the vnitie of the person of Christ in the Ephesin and the duplicitie or distinction of his natures in the Councell of Calcedon as also the duplicitie or distinction of his wills in the sixt Councell celebrated at Constantinople so in like manner ought the present Church to doe with the Councell of Trent in all it definitions and particularlie in the definition of the number of the seuen Sacraments which definition ought to be held for certaine as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Councels both in respect it was decreed by the authoritie of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made as also in regard it hath antiquitie vniuersalitie and consent both in asmuch as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authoritie and also for that we doe not finde anie either of the auncient Fathers or moderne diuines to haue denied the Sacraments to be seuen in number or affirmed them to be onelie two as the reformers commonlie teach Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humfrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent the decrees of all other Councels nay euen Christian faith it selfe might be called in question this reprehension I say is as friuolous as the former for that according to both Bellarmines supposition and the trueth itselfe the present Roman Church and Councell of Trent being of the same authoritie as I haue aboue declared with the Church and Councels of more auncient times and also it being euident that as in those daies diuerse points of doctrine haue bene called in question by the heretikes of those times so they might at this present be brought againe in doubt by others as experience itselfe hath taught vs both euen in those same matters which in former times haue bene definde as appeereth by the heresie of the new Trinitarians and others as also in other truethes which as yet were euer held in the Church for certaine all this I say being most apparantlie true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sorte of people doubtlesse if as Bellarmine saith we take awaie the credit of the present Church and present Councell of Trent or others which heereafter may be assembled there will be no power lefte whereby to suppresse such new oppinions and errours as by heretikes in diuers times and occasions may be broached contrarie to the Christian faith as well concerning matters alreadie determined in former Councells as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be inuented by other sectaries of which we haue too much experience in the Nouellists of these our dayes who call in questiō diuers points defined in former Synods of which we haue instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the diuine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians of the doctrine aboute the lawfull vse and honour of images defined in the 7. Generall Councell the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Councell of Lateran The number of the Sacraments and the like reiected euen by Sir Humfrey him selfe and his fellowes and consequentlie that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plaine and certaine and so farre from Atheisme as the contrarie is from trueth it selfe And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Councells with those of auncient times suerlie the reformers themselues are farre more faultie and guiltie in this kinde for that they doe not equalize but also preferre the authoritie of their owne present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Councells of farre more auncient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion And this they doe not onelie in these points of doctrine which the later Councells haue determined against the later errours of Sectaries as the knight doth odiouslie sugiest but also in some articles of most auncient faith and doctrine as is manifestlie apparant in the pointe of the reall presente iustification and the like And as for the reason which Sir Humfrey yeeldeth against the authoritie of the present Church alledging that the worde of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all beleeuing Christians this reason I say is of no force it is but an ould song of the Puritans which hath beene a thousand times repeated by the reformers and as osten refuted by the Romanists And who denyes but that the worde of God certainelie knowē for such truely interpreted and declared is sufficient for the faith of all Christiās but to this who doth not also knowe that the authoritie of the Church is necessarie in all times and places nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically inuolueth the other and that in such sorte that the sectaries by excluding the infalible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficientie of the scrpitures doe nothing lesse then deny that parte of the scripture which commendeth vnto vs the constant and perpetually successiue authority of the Church till the confommation of the worlde And if Sir Humfrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yeeldes surely he could not so much haue marauiled that he giues so great authority to the councell of Trēt and present Church for saith hee if we take that away we haue no infallible testimonie that the former Councells were euer extant that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine c. for the mention which historians make of those councells is but a humane testimonie subiect to falsitie thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might haue more colour to complaine of him and the the Romā Church the insyncere knight resolued to keep it from the eyes of his reader True it is that the reformers out of their greate purenesse or rather out of
their pure madnesse doe vsually exclaime against the supposed superstitions of the Roman Church but the Romanists may farre more iustly complaine of them in the same kinde in regarde that superstition is noething els addording to the etimologie of the worde but superfluous religion and to tie the worde of God to the precise written caracter alone in my conceipt is the highest degree of superstition that can be imagined because these precisians by that meanes doe so excessiuelie and superfluously extoll the writen worde that by their exclusiue hiperbole of the sufficiencie of it alone they renounce all other sortes of worde of God either preached or otherwise deliuered to the Church either in plaine tearmes or at the least by necessarie sequelle which is noething els but out of a superfluous precisenes to assigne limits to that which is illimitable and boundes to that which is infinite and consequently out of a superstitious zeale of religion to destroyall true religion and the true worde of God it selfe Furthermore for the sufficiencie of the written worde preciselie the knight citeth the Apostle S. Paule act 20. vers 27. were he saith so I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the councell of God but this is so impertinentlie alledged that it needes no answer it being manifest that the Apostle neither speaketh of scripture alone nor intendeth to exclude other partes of the worde of God nor yet so to limit that which he himselfe writ or spoake as if he had deliuered in writing all the doctrine with out exception which is any waie necessarie to the saluation of euerie mans soule both in generall and in particular Otherwise it would follow that all which the rest of the sacred writers haue published in the scriptures were superfluous and no way necessarie to haue beene penned Besides that S. Paule in the place cited saith not that he hath written but onely that he hath declared vnto them all the councell of God and so he neither in wordes nor sēse fauoureth the reformers tenet of the all sufciencie of the writtē worde but rather Sir Hūfrey is here to be noted for a corruptor of the text And no lesse idlely doth the knight cite for the same purpose the testimonie of Bellarm. his meaning being so farre from this matter as that if hee were not his aeuersarie as he is most plainelie euen in this point yet had it beene meere madnesse to haue as much as named him in this darticular and so perhaps for this reason onely he was ashamed to quote the place yet as comonly he doth in other occasions Finally for conclusion of his disproofe of the authoritie of the present Roman Church Sir Humfrey demaundeth of vs how the faith of Christians can depend vpon a Church which is fallen from the faith or generall beliefe of Christianitie can rely safely vpon a coūcell that is disclaimed by the greatest parte of the world By England by France by Germany But to this I answere that in this double question he telleth his reader at the least a double lye both which we must take vpon his owne credit for he alledgeth nothing but his owne worthie word which of how little worth it is we haue sufficientlie tryed allreadie Wherefore we must with his leaue tell him that neither it is true that the Roman Church is fallen from the faith except he meanes from the faith of Luther and Caluin or from his owne English faith from which neuerthelesse the Roman Church cannot truelie be affirmed to haue fallen but it from her she hauing beene in the world manie hundrethes of yeares before the authours of the new Religion were created nor is it true that the Tridentine Councell is disclaimed by the greater parte of France and Germanie at this present time in matters of faith To saie nothing of Italie Spaine Poland Hungarie and those most vast and spatious Indian Regions of later yeeres reduced to the Roman faith all with nations doe conteine a farre greater number of such as imbrace the foresaid Councell then there are reformers in the world who reiect the same Especiallie considering that euen amongst the reformed Churches themselues notwithstanding the most rigorous lawes proceedings which they vse against the Roman Catholikes where they haue the superioritie of power yet is there no smale number to be founde of those who willinglie receiue all the doctrine of faith conteyned in the Tridentine Sinod and consequentlie it appeeres by this that Sir Humfrey hath failed mightilie in his Cosmographie and calculation when he affirmeth that the foresaid Councell is disclaimed by the greatest parte of the world except in his greatest parte he includes Iewes Turkes and Gentiles or at the least count for his owne all those which are not Romanists of what sect or faction soeuer they be as some of his reformed brothers vse to doe not excluding the most vnchristian heretikes the Arians out of the number of the members of their Congregation to make it showe more ample and glorious After this the knight out of the vehemencie of his zealous Spirit falls into a fearefull execration taking vpon him the Anathema if anie man aliue shall proue that the seuen Trent Sacraments were instituted by Christ or that all the Fathers or anie one Father in the Primatiue Church or anie knowne authour for aboute a thousand yeeres after Christ did teach that there were neither more nor lesse then seuen Sacraments truelie and properlie so called and to be beleeued of all for an article of faith Thus hee with so manie turnings and windinges as you see and so manie limitations of his speech that a man would thinke it vnpossible but that he might escape the snare of his owne conditional cursse which yet he doth not but rather falleth flatte into it as I will presentlie shewe And first I say that if Sir Humfrey would content himselfe with the authoritie or testimonie of dead men I could remitte him not to one but to one hundreth authours who yet aliue in their workes doe testifie the foresaid institution in plaine tearmes to witt all those diuines who liued and writ euer since the time of Petrus Lombardus of whom as from their common master they receaued the doctrine of the seuen Sacraments as successiuelie deduced from the institution of God and deliuered it to their successours with greate vniformitie and consent as appeereth by their bookes And altho' this might be sufficient to satisfie anie reasonable person in the world neuerthelesse because Sir Humfreys importunitie is so greate that he will needes haue the testimonies of liue authours I remitte him to all those who either in the publike vniuersities or pulpits of all Catholike countries doe teach and preach the same at this daie to witt that not onelie a thousand yeeres after Christ but euen from the time of Christ himselfe or at the least from the time of his Apostles preaching and writing there were neither more nor lesse then seuen Sacraments truelie and
in this paragraph among which I finde Cassander in the first rancke of corruption for altho' the testimonies which Cassander cites doe not proue fully his intent yet is it euident by the wordes of those he produceth that he speakes in that places of the Canon of the Masse especiallie when he sayes in the title of his chapter canonicam precem c. And Sir Humfrey translates it not the Canō of the Masse as he ought to haue done but Canonicall prayers so odious and reformidable vnto him is the reporte of that great Canon that he durst not name it Moreouer the testimonie of Cassander is detorted by Sir Humfrey quite from the sense in which he speakes it For he speakes not there of the vulgar tongue one worde but whether the Canon of the Masse ought to be pronounced with a lowde voyce especiallie the consecration that the people may heare it and anser Amen And the same I or Cassander forme me anser to the constitution of Iustinian which Cassander himselfe alledges to that same purpose and in no other sense And so in like manner the wordes of the Decretals are violentlie drawe to a sense repugnant to the authors meaning that is from doctrinall tongues to vulgar languages To the wordes of Lyra if he had dealt sincerelie Sir Humfrey ought to haue added those which immediatlie ensue and explicate his minde more clearelie Sed postquam populus multiplicatus fuit consueuit se conformare ministris Ecclesiae vtpote stando cum dicitur Euangelium deposito caputio adorando Eucharistiam consimilia fiunt in Ecclesia Latina in Latino sufficit quod Clericus respondeat pro populo expeditius enim fit hoc modo quam in vulgati But since the people increased and is accustomed to conforme it selfe to the ministers of the Church to wit by standing at the Gospell by puting of their bonet to adore the Eucharist and such like are done in the Latine Church in Latin and it is sufficient that the clearke ansers for the people for it is thus more readilie performed then in the vulgar tōgue Lyr. in 1. Cor. 14. Which wordes are so plaine against Sir Humfrey in diuers respects that he may be ashamed to heare them Belethus cited out of Cassander to proue that seruice and prayer must be in the vulgar language is abused by them both Inde etiam inoleuit vsus vel laudabilis cōsuetudo in Ecclesia vt pronūtiato literaliter Euāgelio statim in vulgari populo exponeretur Belet in Proae Exp. diuinorum offic For Belethus expresselie supposeth that the Masse and office of the Preist are in Latine and therefore euen in this same place and euen in some of the wordes cited by Cassander he mentioneth a laudable custome of some places an which sayth he the Gospell being pronounced it is presentlie expounded in the vulgar tongue Now if it were read in the Masse by the Preist in the vulgar tongue then it had beene vaine for Belethus yea and impertinent to haue made mention of that custome in the entrance of his worke of expounding the diuine offices for the vse of the lesse learned sorte of the Clergie as he professeth to vndertake It is true he hath in the same passage that it was prohibited to speake with tongues without an interpreter but that is nothing els but the very same which the Apostle himselfe declared 1. Cor. 14. vnderstanding by tongues the miraculous speech of strange languages which the speakers them selues did not vnderstand aboute which saith this author there was in the Primatiue Church a prohibition except it were with an interpreter And this is that which by accomodation Belethus applyes to the argument of his booke by way of Prologue In the rehearsall of D. Hardings wordes Sir Humfrey takes onelie those which testifie that in the Primatiue Church prayers were in the vulgar language But he leaues out the iuste reasons which the Doctor alledges for the alteration of the same made by the authoritie of the Church euen with in the first foure hundreth yeares as also he omits those pregnant proofes which he brings to showe that six hundreth yeares after Christ the seruice of the Church was in no other language then in Greeke or Latine By all which the reader may perceiue this author is not sincerelie dealt with in this passage that which yet will more plainelie appeare if he will please to see his anser to Iewels chalenge the 3. article The testimonie of Waldensis is vsed by Cassander onely to proue that diuine seruice or Masse ought to be pronounced with an intelligible voyce that the people may anser Amen but not to proue that the publike office must be in vulgar language and so it is impertinent Honorius cited by Sir Humfrey page 193. is falsified in regarde he is alledged for the cause of the alteration of the ancient custome of the vse of seruice in a knowne tongue For that author speakes not a word of the vulgar language but onely of the secret pronoūcing of the Canon which was decreed saith he I knowe not howe truely by occasion of a strange accident which happend in times past touching that matter Vnde sinodali decreto sub anathemate est praeceptum vt nullus Canonem nisi in libro in sacris vestibus super altare super sacrificium legat In which words I knowe not what linx except our Egleeyd Humfrey can see seruice in the vulgar tongue Gretzer is abused both in sense and wordes In sense because he speakes onely of the Latin tongue and of that time when it was either vulgar or very common to manie nations and yet the knight applyes his speech to proue that publike seruice ought to be deliuered in the vulgarly knowne tongue of euerie nation and at all times not contenting himselfe with lesse then this In wordes he doth also abuse Gretzerus for that he cites them neither intirely nor consequenter in English omitting or at the least altering those which haue relation to the authors precedent sentence to wit hinc illae exhortationes c. hence are those exhortations of the Fathers c. and also others before them which he ought to haue rehearsed compleatly because they are to the same purpose I will put the whole tenour of his wordes in the margen that the reader may more plainely see the fraude Latini Patres quos citat Whitakerus loqunn tur De eo tēpore quo lingua Latina erat multis gētibus vulgaris aut valde cōmunis hinc omnes simul psallebant Missae linguae populo nota celebātur quia Latina lingua erat omnibus vel plerisque nota Hincillae Patrū exhortationes vt omnes simul psallant vtque faciant attēte intelligibiliter vocēque suam cum Sacerdotum vocibus coniungant Quae admonitiones iustissimae erant quādoquidem lingua auditoribus non ignosa omnia peragebātur cōsuetudo ita ferebat vt tota ecclesia simul
Wherfore qui legit intelligat he that shall read Bellarmine in the place cited by the knight that is de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Will easilie preceiue him to be so farre frome the confessing all sufficiency of scripture in that sense in which the reformers take it that the verie title of his booke which is of the vnwritten worde doth manifestlie conuince the contrarie And as for the wordes which Sir Humfrey cited altho' we take them in that mangled manner in which he hath rehearsed them yet if they had ben reight vnderstood by him I ame persuaded he could haue founde no iuste coulor to produce them in fauour of himselfe For that it is manifest by those two limitations necessarie for all men preached generally to all men that the Cardinalls meaning could not be that absolutelie all things which are necessarie for euerie person or state of persons in particular or as the logitians speake necessarie either pro singulis generum or pro generibus singulorum are written in the scriptures but onely Bellarmin meant that altho' all those things are written which all men both in generall in particular must necessarilie knowe haue for the obteining of saluation yet that there are some other things necessarie to some particular persons or to some particular states of persons included in that generall number of all men which are not written as namelie aboute the Gouernment of the Church administration of the Sacraments in particular the Baptizme of children the rites of the same that the beptizme of Heretikes is valid All which Bellarmin doth so plainelie specify that it is imposible for him that reades vnderstands him to doubt of this his meaning And yet not vnlike to this doth Sir Humfrey proceed with the same Bellarmin whome he citeth to the same purpose in his first booke of the worde of God wher out of these his wordes the scripture is a most certaine most safe rule of beleeuing the kinght concludeth that it is a safer way to rely wholely vpon the worde of God which can not erre then vpon the Pope or Church which is the authoritie of man sayth hee may erre Which conclusion neuerthelesse is most false captious as well in regarde that according to Sir Humfreys owne confession Bellarmin houldeth the scripture to be but a partiall rule of faith â—age 258. as also cheeflie because when Bellarmin calleth the scripture a most certaine most safe rule he doth not exclude the authoritie of the Church or diuine tradition but expresselie includeth them both as the other parte of the totall rule of faith which scripture also so onelie not otherwise he calleth with great reason regula credendi certissima tutissima knowing neuerthelesse on the contrarie supposing for certaine that with out the authoritie of the Church traditions the scripture can neither be knowne to be true Scripture not in what sense it is to be vnderstood consequentlie as Sir Humfrey taketh it it is not either an all sufficient certaine or safe rule by an other consequence it can much lesse be imagined to be a safer way to relie wholelie vpon the written worde as the reformers doe then to rely vpon both the scriptures the authoritie of the Church diuine traditions as doe the Romanists taking God for their Father in the writteÌ„ worde the visible Church for their mother in the knowledge interpretation sense of the same And thus wee see by this discourse that Sir Humfrey proueth nothing but his owne dishonest dealing with Bellar. whom besides that which I haue alreadie showed he doth more then impudenlie belie in that he affirmeth him to allowe the worde of God to be but a pertiall rule of faith which Bellarmin doth not say but onelie that the scripture is a partiall rule Page 258. not denying but the worde of God in all it latitude js a totall rule of all the Christian Catholike faith but yet supposing for certaine that the scriptures are not totallie conuertible with the worde of God but that they are distinct things the one from the other as ta parte is from the whole which any man of common iudgement may easilie perceiue And if these be the trickes shifts by which Sir Humfrey meaneth to make Bellarmin a confesser of his reformed religion in steed of gaining him he will loose his owne faith credit The knight still passeth on his way tells his reader it is a safer way to adore Christ Iesus sitting on the reight hand of God the Father then to adore the Sactamentall bread which depends vpon the intentioÌ„ of the Preist But I tell him againe that the safest way of all is to adore Christ both in Heauen whersoeuer els he is And he himselfe hath tould vs his bodie blood are in the Sacrament wheâ— if wee will not be accounted infidels wee most constantlie beleeue he is And so we say with that most auncient vanerable Father Saint Cyrill of Ierusalem Hoc est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus Math. 26. Mark Luc. 22. since that Christ himselfe affirmeth so saith of the bread this is my bodie who dareth here after to doubt of it he also confirming saying this is my bloud who can doubte say it is not his bloud And supposing this his reall presence which we Romanists trulie beleeue with auncient S. Cyrill the rest of the Fethers the safest way is to adore him in the Sacrament not as sitting at the reight hand of his Father onelie But as for you reformers as it can not be safe for you to denie Christs reall presence in the Eucharist so neither is it safe for you to refuse to adore him there where in the true Sacrament he is truelie present I knowe Sir kinght you make your comparison betweene the adoration of Christ in Heauen the adoration of the Sacramentall bread but it proceds vpon a false supposition for the Romanists adore not the bread but Christ vnder the forme of bread whose existence there doth not so much depend vpon the intention of the Preist but that sufficieÌ„t certaintie may be had of the same at the least much more then you can haue that you receiue a true Sacrament whe you take the bread at the ministers hand who if he hath no intention to doe it as Christ did when he gaue it to his disciples then may you receiue as much at your owne table as at the communion table But the trueth is that all this is nothing but captious cogging in Sir Humfrey for proofe of which he most impertinentlie produceth S. Aug. de bono pers lib. 13. cap. 6. Wher he hath not a worde to this purpose but onelie treateth there of the supernaturall actions of man saying that to the end our confession may be humble lowlie it is a
saying that he seeth not how the foresaid authours can be excused from errour in that particular for that the Cardinall onelie condemneth them in that which the reformers themselues according to reason sounde doctrine ought to condemne also that in no question of Controuersie betweene vs them nor which can iustelie preiudice the foresayd Fathers authoritie in other matters especially in which they all agree Lastelie sayth Sir Humfrey we produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin To which Salmeron the Iesuit quoth hee ansereth that weake is the place which is drawne from authoritie But first I aske of Sir Humfrey what he his consorts haue to doe with the immaculate Conception For that is no Controuersie of faith betwixt the Romanists them it is a question among some Romanists them selues lawfull for either side to make the best vse they can of the testimonies of Fathers either by imbrasing them or expounding thē in that particular point as they finde them most aduantageous for the defence of their seuerall opiniōs so farre as the Church permits thē that without any disparishmēt to their authority in regarde their wordes are not so plaine but that they may seeme to admit diuers expositions in that particular And as for Salmerō he neither speaketh of the Fathers in generall when all or most of them consent in a matter of fayth nor yet when they plainelie agree in anie other point of doctrine but onely when they speake doubtfullie or obscurelie this I say vpon supposition the place of the foresaid authour is truelie cited which in regarde I haue taken the knight so often tardie in that Kynde of proceeding I may vnrashlie suspected And the truth is that hauing now viewed the place in the booke which is in the 51. Disputation of Salmeron vpon the 5. to the Romās I finde that he speakes not of the vniforme consent of Fathers or Doctors but onelie of a certaine great number of thē to which he opposeth an other as great as he supposeth yea greater therefore he addes Quare si authorum numero decertare velint meaning the opposers of the immaculate conception of the Virgen procul dubio absorbebuntur So that this author is abused iust as I did coniecture before I sa his booke And altho' I can not much commend Salmeron for anie great ingeniousnesse in his application of the shepards sentence yet sure I ame that if he applied it not verie aptelie you Sir Humfrey applie it much worse more absurdelie And thus hauing nowe examined all the particulars of this section hauing founde nothing which proueth the authours intent I will end my period yet noting by the way how vanelie Sir Humfrey concludeth his discourse affirming his reader to haue heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the behalfe of the Protestant doctrine made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues which notobstanding is all false meere delusion for that I haue made it clearelie appeare that neyther anie Romanist by him cited hath graunted that anie one of the Fathers doth teach anie point of Protestant doctrine nor yet that they speake in those places here cited of the cheefe points of doctrine in Controuersie but contrarilie it appeareth that they speake onelie either of other matters which little concerne the Catholike faith or at the least they speake in an other sense then the reformers pretend yea that which is more remarkable not with vniforme consent but rather fewe or at the most two or three in one matter in which manner of proceeding what argument soeuer may be deduced from them it is no more trulie to be iudged called the testimonie of the Fathers absolutelie then that may be called absolutely the testimony of the reformers in which neuerthelesse onelie some fewe of them yeald their testimonies yet that but in some particulars those no principall points of faith And as for this complaint which Sir Humfrey maketh so formallie of the elusion of the proofes recordes of the Fathers as also touching that which he in like manner frameth against the Roman Church for her prohibition or censure of bookes I wonder with what face he can reprehend that which he knoweth to be so much practized in his owne Church in which there cannot the least pamphlet or smalest volume come forth which if it doth but seeme to cōtradict anie parte or point of the English faith or anie other point of Puritanimse is not presentlie ceased vpon by a pack of Pursuiuants put to the tortor of the Consistoriall assemblie there to receiue sentence of condemnation by virtue of which it seldome scapeth the flames of Vulcan Of which in parte is witnesse Doctour Mountagues latelie published booke which by reason it sauored a little of some points of Romanisme by an expresse Apeale euen to Cesar himselfe could not be saued from the seuere censure of the Puritan sinagoge And particularlie touching the authoritie of ancient Fathers if it were a faulte in the Romanists to call in questiō some passages or sentences of some of their writings where they iustelie suspect them to haue ben corrupted by heretikes Surelie the sectaries of these tymes are much deeper plunged in this nature thē they are in regarde that vnder the breight colour of reformation they doe not onelie vse to reprehend particular passages but reiect whole bookes that not onelie of the most ancient Fathers as appeareth in the Hierarchie of sainct Denis but also whole bookes of the scriptures themselues as is manifest in the bookes of the Machabies others which they vtterlie renounce condemne for Apochripha not sparing the booke of wisdome it selfe such cruell patrons they are of ignorance and of want of diuine knowledge Nay now of late they are be come so precise in this their spirituall tyranie that in their last editions as I ame informed they haue quite banished the foresaid bookes of Machabies Tobie Iudith wisdome Ecclesiasticus out of their bible To omit other bookes of lesse moment which they haue eyther mangled or left quite out of their editions as in the Inquisitors Index may be seene So that nowe the reader may plainelie perceiue that Sir Humfrey his pure simmists are so farre from excuse for their importune complaint of the Romanists in this particular that we may iustelie compare them to those Phariseis who could sooner see a mote in their fellowes eye then a beame in their owne And so here I leaue them all to be censured for hypocrites by Christ himselfe passe to the next section THE XII PERIOD THIS Period shall containe an other accusation of the knight in which he chargeth the Romanists with the crime of razing the recordes of the reformers clipping their owne authours tongues by which sayth he they are conuinced of an ill cause cōscience But how falselie the Romanists be accused by Sir
their censure is onely conditionall or a generall abstractiue manner It is trrue he graunteth that some of his doctours affirme that a Papist may be saued but he deliuereth his owne glosse vpon it saying it is ment onelie by inuincible ignorance so by his owne commētarie he corrupted the whole text And if this be the best construction his charitie can afford wee will thanke him for it as much is it deserueth Neuerthelesse it is no matter what either Sir Hūfrey or his fellowes say in this point wee esteeme not so much of there iudgements as to frame out of them anie rule for the safe way of saluation for this rule wee had long before their Church was built wee had it frome the way maker him selfe And I tell you by the way Sir Humfrey that if any of your Church be saued in the manner I haue declared in the begining of this Period they are absolutely said to be saued in our Church not in yours thoguh exteriorlie they liue dye in yours And so to conclud if you will not permit the Romanists to drawe an argument from the confession of some of your authours but will needs affirme with your greatest doctour Arch Puritan whitaker that vpon his worde ther is not one Papist to be founde in Heauen I for my parte vpon condition you brag not of a victorie as you vse to doe I will not contend with you but as in a matter neither of faith nor yet of anie great consequence supposing your owne peruerse glosses I leaue you to your owne sense as also I doe those Romanists whoe vsed that argument against some of their aduersaries THE XVII PERIOD SIr Humfrey hath played the Iacke so long that in this his last section he playeth Iacke on both sides telling vs in the title that he intendeth to showe that the Protestant religion is safer by the confession of both parties that is both of Romanists Reformers But I knowe not to what end he made this section except is was onely to make the number of his sections euē for I finde nothing in it but a new repetitiō of old matters so oftē alredy inculcated that my eares are wearie to heare them And if Sir Humfrey was disposed to playe in the number he ought rather to haue made choise of the od nūber thē of the euen as being in the Poets opiniō more pleasing to God Deus numero inpare gaudet But let this passe for how soeuer hee doth I for my parte desire not to stand vpon numbers but vpon substance If he had brought either newe matter or at the least some new proofe of the old it might perhaps haue ben worth the labour to examen it but I finde onely old matter newe equiuocations sleights falsities these onely I will breefely discusse But the whole drift of the knight in this his last sectiō is as he saith him selfe to make good the title of his booke which is that therfore hee his fellowes are in the safer way because quotteth he the Romanists agree with vs in the principall points of doctrine because that is the safer way wherin differing partes ioyne both in one this I hould to be the substance of his whole discourse if anie ther were to be founde in it First therefore he telleth vs great newes to wit that there is a Heauen a hell in the beleefe of which sayth hee wee both agree thence he concludeth that this is the safer way because both sides ioine in it But this if you marke it is meere Sophistrie for in stead of a whole way both in this particular and in the rest of the points of controuersie he passeth throu ' in this section he sheweth but a peece of a way The whole way which he ought to shewe in this one point is the reformers beleefe of heauen hell their denyall of Purgatory limbus Now Sir Humfrey putteth in truly the first parte of his way to wit the reformers beleefe of heauen hell how true this is I knowe not but he leaueth out deceitfullie the second parte of the way viz. the Reformers beleefe in the denyall of Purgatorie Limbus so as I sayd before in stead of the whole way he sheweth but a peece which peece altho' it be supposed to be neuer so safe yet it will not serue the turne to bring a man to his iourneys end nor yealdeth him anie more certaintie or saftie in his way then he that should tell one who is vpō his iourney to yorke that his safest way is to goe from London to Islinton there should leaue him to shifte for himselfe for his directions in the rest of the way in which case certaine it is the traueller should be little or nothing obledged to him who shewes him that parte of the way onelie which all the world knoweth And the trueth is that Sir Humfrey argueth in this whole matter as if he should say of himselfe his fellow reformers we the Turkes agree in the creed of one God differ in the beleefe of Christ the Messias therefore it is the safer way to beleeue onelie in one God in which wee all agree then to beleeue in God Christ too in which wee stand single Euen so concludeth the knight of the faith of Purgatorie Limbus the rest of the points in controuersy which he particularizeth in the discourse of this section arguing no otherwise then in this absurde manner Neyther is it ô Sir Humfrey our standing single by our selues or double with you that eyther maketh or marreth either the faith of Purgatorie or anie other article of the Roman doctrine as you falselie fallaciouslie suppose in your argument But scriptures generall Councells Fathers the authoritie of the most vniuersall Church are the pilars vpon which the house of our faith is built And as for your ioyning with vs in anie one article or els in the generall assertion of some of your authours that wee may be saued in our Church how soeuer it may seeme to some to be a confirmation of our faith yet it is not anie parte of the foundation of our faith but onelie a kynde of morall argument or motiue that we are in the safer way because euen some of our aduersaries themselues hould we may be saued in it But yet as this alone if otherwise we did faile in the true grounds of our faith themselues can not be a sufficient proofe that we are in the safer way then you so ought it not to be a sufficient proofe that you are in the safer way because we agree with you in some parte of your doctrine Especiallie considering you faile in the cheefe grounds of your faith as hath ben shewed partelie in my this cēsure partelie by other Catholike diuines in their seuerall workes And if anie argument for the greater safetie of your way could be drawne from our agreement with
expounde the faith of the holye church the opinion of this sect that hauing expounded them we approue one reproue the other by a fewe authorities breefe reasons For neither epistolar breuitie doth permit nor anie reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation For such as ar faithfull people but seduced doe not pertinatiously insist in defence of their deprauation but rather hauing heard vnderstanded reasons desire humbly to returne to the way of truth fewe things will suffice But those whoe ar addicted to contentions determined to persiste in their infidelitie would not be satisfyed althou manie reasons should be proposed vnto them Diuinitus Wherfore we beleeue that the terrestriall substances which in the table of our lord ar diuinely sanctifyed by preistlie ministration ar infallibly incomprehensibly admirably by operation of supernaturall power conuerted in to the essence of our lordes bodie the species or formes of the things thē selues remaining with some other qualities least the receiuers should abhorre crude cruent things Cruda cruenta to the end that the credents or beleeuers might receiue more ample rewardes of their faith the bodie of Christ it selfe existing neuerthelesse in heauen at the reight hand of his Father Illeso immortall vnuiolated intyre incontaminated vnhurt soe that it may truely be affirmed that we receiue the bodie of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin and yet not the same The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue but not the same if you respect the species or formes of bread and wine and the rest before comprehended This faith from ancient tymes did hould and now holdeth that Church which diffused throù the whole world is named Catholique whence it is that as it is said before our lord said in the Euangill Receiue and eate this is my bodie And this is the chalis of my bloud c. In this cleare manner speaketh Lanfranc of the reall presence in this place And page 346. of the same booke he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiasticall histories Which Scriptures saith he altho' they doe not obtaine that most excellent tower of authoritie which those doe which we cal Propheticall and Euangelicall scriptures yet they ar sufficiēt to proue that this faith which now we haue all faithfull people which haue gone before vs haue had the same from priuatiue tymes A primis temporibus And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus more ower if that be true which thou beleeues and maintaines of the bodie of Christ vbique gentium it is false which the church beleeues of the same matter in euerie natiō For all those whoe reioyce to be called and to bee Christians doe glorie in that they receiue in this sacrament the true flesh and bloud of Christs bodie receiued from the virgin Inquire of all such as haue knouledge of the latin tongue and of our writings Inquire of the Grecians Armeniās or of Christian people of anie nation what soeuer they will with one mouth testifye that they haue this faith Furthermore if the faith of the vniuersall church be false either ther neuer was Catholique church or she hath perished nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of soules then a pernicious error But no Catholique will graunt that the church either was not or that she hath perished In this plaine sorte testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the vniuersall church in which it were madnes to imagine he did not include his owne I meane the church of England And supposing he liued writ this the verie next age following the age in which Alfric dyed to wit in some parte of the leuēth centurie it is more then monsterous impudencie in our aduersaries to affirme that in the dayes of Alfric the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation was commonely preached and beleeued in the Realme of England Further more Pascasius Rathbertus writ a booke intituled of the bodie and bloud of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram as is cōmōly supposed althoù I finde him not named by Pascasius he hath alsoe an Epistle of the same subiect to one Frudegard with an exposition of those wordes of the Euangelist Math. 26. Caenantibus autem illis c. In all which writings Pascasius most plainely defendeth both the reall presence and transsubstantiation most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same bodie and bloud which Christ receiued of the Virgin Marie and the same in which he was crucifyed is really and truely present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice I need not relate his wordes for euerie particular because I knowe our aduersaries can not denye but that this Author is plainely for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine onely I will rehearse some generall wordes of his in which he declares the faith of the vniuersall church in and before his tymes for after testimonies of diuers āciēt fathers alledged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid wordes of S. Mathewe thus he saith Ecce habes amantissime c. Behould most louing brother thou haste in the end of this little booke the sentences of the Catholique Fathers compendiously noted by which thou maist learne that I haue not seene such things in rashnes of speech when I was a child but that I haue proposed them by diuine authoritie and by the authoritie of the holye Fathers to such as demaunded them But now it being cleare that Since that tyme the faith of all men is not one and the same then cease I praye to beleeue with such as they bee if as yet they can not vnderstand that nothing is impossible to God and lett them learne to assent vnto the diuine wurdes in all things to doubt nothing of those For till this present no man is read to haue erred in them except those whoe erred aboute Christ himselfe notobstanding manie doubted or haue ben ignorant of the Sacraments of soe great a Mysterie And afterwardes the same author in the same treatise saith thus Qua expleta voce c. Which wordes being pronounced meaning the wordes of consecration we all with one consonant voyce say Amen And soe the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confesse that it is that thing which she prayeth for wherby let him whoe will rather contradict this then beleeue it regarde what he doth against our lord him self against the whole Church of Christ Therfore it is a nefarious and detestable villanie to pray with all and not to beleeue that which truth it self doth testifye and that which vniuersally all in euerie place doe teach Whence it is that since he him selfe affirmes it is his bodie and his bloud doubt ought not to be made in anie thing altho' we see not with carnall yes that which we beleeue We haue seene alsoe what Pope Gregorie houldeth of this what
partiallity of the rule of faith where yet nothing is to be found in that sense which the knight fraudulently framed to his owne purpose And now from hence I passe to the Epistle dedicatory on which I had scarce cast myne eyes when presently I discouered two or three slanderous lyes vttered by the author the firste is that the pretended Catholike Church as he phraseth her is made the whole rule of faith by the Romanists the second that the Romane Catholikes are tought to eate their God kill their King the third that the Pope at this day alloweth of the Iewes Talmud inhibiteth the bookes of Protestants And those vntruthes I haue noted onely not for that I could not haue marked out others but because they seemed the most obuious grosse palpable I omit also to specify diuers places of Bellarmine cited by Sir Humfrey both heere in many other partes of his worke which well examined can serue him for no other purpose thē to coulore his cousinage And as for the rest of his preface I can assure the reader it is little more then an idle tedious repetition of the same matters which he handled in his firste booke and whosoeuer will take the paines to read both his pamphlets will find so frequent rehersall of the same things that his eares will tingle to heere them nay some whole chapters of this booke there bee which excepting the title haue little other matter then the same which is found in the other as will appeere in particular to him who shall conferre the two last sections of it with the tenth eleuenth sections of the safe way In so much that I thinke I may not vnfitly say of the workes of Sir Humfrey that which a certaine pleasant wit sayd once of the writings of Luther Tolle contradictiones calumnias mendacia dicteria ac schommata scurillia in Catholicos Romanos inanes digressiones ambages atque inutiles verborum multiplicationes duo eius volumina in vnum haud magnum libellulum redigi posse non dubito that is take way Sir Humfreys contradictions calumniations lyes take away his scoffes ieastes against the Romane Catholikes his idle vaine digressions multiplication of wordes or repetition of matter with his friuolous circumlocutions I doe not doubt but both his volumes may be easily reduced to the bulke of one small pāphlet And thus much concerning the Preface the booke in generall from whence I passe to particulars THE DISCVSSION OF THE SEVERAL sections in their order Sec. 1. In his first section I thinke I may trulie say Sir Humfrey telleth but one vntruth but it is so lardge a lye that it reaches from end to end I meane but one totall lye for partiall lyes there are diuers This totall vntruth is in that he affirmeth in his second page that the difference betwixt vs them is such as was betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists which is manifestly conuinced to be false euen by those same words which he himself cites out of that holy doctor Aug. de vnit Eccl. cap. 2. who directly sayth that the question betweene him them was vbi sit Ecclesia where the Church is And yet the question is not betwixt the Romanists the Reformers where the true Church is but which is the true Church that is whether the Romane church all the rest of the particular Churches in the world adhering to obeying that Church as the cheife mother Church be that true Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed commended in the scriptures or the reformed Church or Churches wheresoeuer they be which the reader may plainly perceaue to be a farre different question from that of which S. Augustine speaketh in the place cited by the kinght Secondly the whole discourse of this section runneth vpon a false supposition to witt that the Romanists refuse to proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onelie as S. Augustine did saith the kinght against the donatists but this is not true for the Romanists are so farre for reprouing that course in this point that they scarce vse any other proofes then those same scriptures which the same S. Augustin ordinarily vseth for that purpose as may be seene in the workes of both ancient moderne diuines Thirdly neuertheles when the Romanists say they proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onely they doe not therfore meane so that they exclude the interpretation of them according to the ancient tradition of the same Catholike Church for so neither S. Augustine eyther against the Donatists or any other hereticks in the like case alleaged the scriptures but as the same Saint Augustine saith thou ' partly in different wordes to another purpose De vnit Eccles c. 19. vt non nisi verum sensum Catholicum teneamus not so but that we doe followe the true Catholike sense of the same scriptures And in fewe wordes that which the Romanists meane is that they doe not vse the scriptures for proofe of their Church in the sense of the pretensiue reformed Churches but ouerly in that sense which anciently hath binne imbraced by the most vniuersally floryshing Church in all or most ages according to the diuersity of tymes And thus we see cleerlie that Sir Humfrey in diuerse respects hath grosselie ignorantlie mistaken the state of the question both betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists also betwixt himselfe the Romanists And consequentlie those authorities which he produdeth eyther out of S. Augustine or other ancient Fathers are impertinent of no force against the faith of the Romane Church but on the contrarie by his false dealing he hath fallen into that by path which in his erroneous imagination he hath prepared for his aduersaries in which neuerthelesse he himselfe if he proceed in this manner is like to walke euen to the end of his iorney I meane throu ' all the sections of his booke Sec. 2. In his second section he pretends to ansere to the pretences as he termeth them taken by the Romanists from the obscuritie of scripture from the inconueniences which he saith his aduersaries alleage for the restraint of the lay peoples reading them yet he is so farre from performing his taske in this behalfe that he doth not so much as relate completelie those reasons which moue the Romā Church to ordayne the said restraint but onelie catching at one or two of the lesse important causes alleaged by Bellarmin to that purpose giuing a verie sleight superficiall ansere vnto them he spends a great part of his time in forging a new cause which he falselie conceiueth to haue binne the onelie or cheife motiue which the Roman Church had to prohibite the reading of the Bible to wit for feare as he sayth their Trent doctrine new articles should be discouered And also in breathing out an odious relation of the speaches of some particular
Vide relat Synod Dordrecht Dort in which the reformed Prelates carryed themselues so zealouslie that as it is crediblie reported they spent 2000. pounds in Renish wine to heat their spirits before euer they had decreed anie one point of their controuersies Sec. 17. In his seauenteenth section Sir Humfrey doth nothing but foyst babble abuse Bellarmine other Romanists about the Church as if they extolled her aboue the scriptures accusing here to haue spoyled herself of them as if it were vncertaine among them whether the Roman Church is the true Church because they teach it hath diuers acceptions which is all false friuolous matter for that altho' the Church according to the heterogeniall partes diuers functions of the persons of which it consists may admit seuerall denominations as are the essentiall representatiue or virtuall Church in which point also peraduenture there may be found some difference among the Romanists in their manner of speech speculations yet in substance they all agree that the visible Church to which the faithfull must seeke in their doubtes is the visiblie perpetuallie succeeding Church from the time of Christe till this day which is the plaine way in which etiam stulti ambulant euen the most simple sort of people may easilie finde walke in all other Churches especiallie the inuisible Congregation of Sir Humfrey his fellowes is but a blinde diuerticle by-way fitter for wanderers vagabonds then for the true honest people of God to walke in Sec. 18. In the title of the 18. section the knight pretendeth to proue that the Plea which the Romanists drawe from the infallible authoritie title of the Catholike Church is false vaine friuolous Althou ' the name authoritie of the Catholike Church hath euer binne so odious to all sortes of sectaries that they made it a cheife parte of their labours to impugne the same of which seuerall instances might easilie be produced yet this practise of theirs hath neuer bin so much vsed or so earnestly pursued as in these present tymes For as it is well knowne that their Captaine Antesignane Luther strucke his firste stroake at the Pope Churches power to graunt indulgences so is it also apparent by experience that all his followers continue the same battle with all their strenght stratagems For proofe of which wee need goe no further then to this our aduersarie Who throu ' his whole workes laboureth nothing more then to diminish the lustre power of the Catholike Roman Church in so much that in this verie section he maketh choise rather to lay violent hands vpon the sacred Bible shamefullie to corrupt three seuerall places of the diuine scripture then faile of his purpose or want colour for his peruerse intent which to the end the reader may more plainelie vnderstand I will particularlie reherse The firste place therefore consists in diuers passages of the epistle to the Romans especially in the firste chapter where that which the Apostle by way of admonition speaketh onely to those particular Christians members of the Church which were then at Rome exhorting them to be constant in their faith humble themselues least God cut them of for their sinnes as he did the Iewes the knight doth violentlie drawe it to the whoâ—… Roman Church as if S. Paul did intimate tâ—…â—t had a possibilitie of falling consequentlie was but a particular Church feygning also that sainct Paul did therefore pray for the continuance stabilitie of the Roman faith as if saith Sir Humfrey he had for seene by the spirit of prophesie they would glorie in their owne merites all which is quite repugnant to the meaning of the text as the reader may easilie perceaue And the like abuse of the knight the reader may see in other places which he cites to the same purpose viz. to proue that the Romane Church is faileable as 1. Thessal 8.2 Thessal 3.1 Tim. 3.15 Ephes 3.14 In all which places he vseth much of his accustomed craft peruerting the sense most sacrilegiouslie in all those sacred texts in the firste to the Corinthians he falsifieth the wordes putting thou for vs the particulars of which I am sorie I cannot stande to examine to the end his grosse cousenage might more cleerlie appeare and how vnder coulour of scriptures the sacred word of God truth is adulterated euen by him who so much braggeth glorieth in it After this same fashion he eludeth two pregnant places of Fathers for the authoritie of the Church the one is of Sainct Cypr. lib. 1. epist 3. the other is of sainct Augustine contra epist fund cap. 5. to coulore his euasion about the wordes of sainct Augustine which are these Praterea Ecclesia quae nunc est in fide errare non potest ergo si credidarit aliquem librum esse canonicum ex eius testimonio â— loneum firmum quo sumetur à Theologis argumentur Canon lib. 2. c. 7. Euangelio non crederem nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoueret authoritas he citeth Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. as if this author did fauore his false interpretation of sainct Augustines meaning who neuerthelesse besides that his wordes are not cited home by Sir Humfrey he onelie affirmes that sainct Augustine did not intend in that place to make rhe Church the formall reason why an infidell or one lately conuerted beleiues the Ghospell but onelie the necessarie condition of his beleife of the Canonicall scriptures which doctrine of Canus makes nothing at all for our aduersaries intent in this place which is to disproue the infallible authoritie of the Catholike Church which Canus doth not denie Lib. 7. de Canon c. 10. but professedlie maintayneth particularlie in the verie precedent chapter in other places in a most Catholike manner To this purpose the knight also cites Durand Driedo Gerson but rehearseth not their wordes which notobstaÌ„ding I haue seene cited by Chamier but if they be truly sincerelie vnderstood they conuince nothing against the infallible authoritie of the Church as neyther the wordes of sainct Thomas who onelie affirmeth that sainct Augustine speakes of the Church as an oueruling cause but not as the foundation of faith which no Romanists denies but all vniformely teach that their faith is founded vpon the word of God whose onelie authoritie is the supreme rule of the same but the Church the proponent onelie In the rest of his section Sir Humfrey makes a diuersion to the vniuersalitie of the Church for which he onely produceth some impertinent reasons of no force with the authorities of the Councells of Ferrara Basill waldensis others none of which proues any thing appertayning to the matter in treaty but onely serue to patch vp this part of his bypath in which I leaue him Sec. 19. The 19. section following affirmeth that the Church is finally resolued into the Pope whome saith the kinght the
the same yet that is not truly the Iesuites challendge but that you produce some which haue professed your religion in euery point in euery age before the daies of Luther This is the charge you haue vndertaken till you haue discharged your selfe of this your honor still remaines at the stake for all your bragges your safe way is to the Romanists all other of mature iudgment but onely a by-way serueth onely for a cowardly excuse of your want of abillitie to performe your promise But now to returne to the contents of this section in particular from which I haue in some sort digressed I say it consists onely in a recapitulation of those seuerall pointes of controuersie which I haue alreadie examined in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I haue not sufficiently confuted conuinced to be of no force but all eyther false equiuocall or impertinent it is most apparent that what soeuer he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is noe conclusion nor of any more authority then his owne bare affirmations or negations consequently notobstanding the vaine knight will needes seeme to haue the victorie to haue gained his cause yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather iudge in fauour of the anserer then of the abiector especially considering how farre more easie a matter it is for any man to impugne the doctrine of another then to defend his owne Wherfore I ioyne issue with myne aduersaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath heere sett downe applying the same to the safe way by-way as he hath donne by-way of antithesis or oppositiue comparison betwixt them both in the manner followeing And firste I say The Romanists teach that not scripture onely but scripture with diuine Apostolicall traditions receaued for such by the vniuersall Church in all ages the approued generall Councells the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the onely certaine meanes safe way to saluation But Sir Humfrey with his complices teach that scripture onely interpreted otherwise them by authoritie of the most vniuersallie florishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers doctors of the same is sufficient to saluation this is a doubtfull by way Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe perfect rule of faith yet in some places obscure ambiguous as euen some of their aduersaryes confesse therfore it is not sufficient alone but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter this is a safe way to saluation but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation conference of one place with another by euerie priuate man or woman that can but reade it is a sure euident perfect rule of faith this is an vncertaine by-way Thirdly the Romanists teach that traditions appertayning to faith or manners receaued from Christe by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselues by inspiration of the holie Ghost as such conserued in the Church by continuall succession are to be imbraced reuerenced with like pious affection as the scriptures this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that onelie those traditions concerning faith manners that can be proued by scriptures of which sort they denie anie to be in the Church notobstanding sainct Paul in the scripture expresselie commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions deliuered vnto them by word of mouth or by epistle And this is an vncertaine by way Fourthly the Romanists teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures some certaine persons in the Church as professors of diuinitie some others for the auoyding of noueltie in doctrine take an oath of the same moreouer that where they finde that consent they are to receaue it as a certaine rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or inuention of other new sense or glosses this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed onelie so farre as according to their priuate spirit or iudgment they agree with scriptures which is a captious deceitfull rule of expounding them And this is an vncertaine by-way Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholike Church is a congregation or companie of people beleiuing professing the true faith of Christe vnder one cheife head our Sauiour Iesus Christe his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as cheife Pastor visible gouernour of the same vnder Christe sayeing with all that the notes whereby the true Church is knowne from all other hereticall scismaticall conuenticles are not onelie cheiflie exteriour splendour amplitude miracles as our aduersarie doth deceitfullie insinuate but principallie the name Catholike antiquitie continuall succession c. And this is a certaine safe way but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastours people with out anie certaine infallible authoritie assigning for markes of the same that which is common to all congregations euen of heretikes schismatikes according to their seuerall opinions as all euerie one of them holding they haue the true word Sacraments rightlie preached administred in their conuenticles which consequently can be no certaine markes of the true Church in particular no more then the name of a Christian in generall can be an infallible note of a true beleiuer this is an vncertaine by-way Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Councells by the Popes authoritie or approbation conuocated confirmed are not onelie of great vse in the Church But also of certaine infallible power for the determination of all doubts controuersies in religion which may arise in seuerall times occasions this is a certaine safe way But the Reformers teach that General Councells althou ' they say they be of great vse authority in the Church to determine controuersies in religion yet they hold them of vncertaine authoritie subiect to errour both in faith manners this is an vncertaine by-way Seauenthly the Romanists teach that the cheife rock angular stone vpon which the Church is built is Christe the Sauiour of the world yet they say with Christe himselfe that Peter is also in his kinde a rock vpon which he promised to build his Church this is a certaine safe way But the reformers teach that Christe alone is the onelie rock vpon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the expresse wordes of Christe in the scripture sayeing to Peter vpon this rocke will I build my Church this is a diuerticle or by-way Eightly the Romanists teach that the
were by strong fauor of the secular power This is that in substance which Sir Hūfrey alledgeth out of Gerson yea an something more then he him self produceth And yet neuerthelesse as the reader may easily vnderstand there is nothing agreeable to the reformation of Luther and Caluin For Gerson onely reprehends and that iustely some particular persons in some particular countryes and in some particular obseruations which soe exactely and rigorously obserue theit rules lawes soe exorbitantly estreeme of them that they often tymes by indiscreet zeale are more diligent in performing them then they are in keeping the lawes of God and that they some tymes punish more seuerely a religious person offending against one of those monasticall rules or statutes or against one of the Popes preceps or lawes of the decretalls or others then they punish him whoe committeth adulterie or sacrilege Wher as those twoe false reformers Martin and Iohn were not content with this and to procure a reformation in some particular persons rules and statues but they tooke away all monasticall obseruations either of vowe rule or constitution and extingnissed all Ecclesiasticall lawes both of the Pope and Church as much as lay in their power violating euerting and razing the verie buildings of religious houses and consuming by fyre the bookes of the decretals and whole Canon lawes quyte destroying that and much more by rage and furie which Gerson out of a pious Christian zeale onely wished to haue amended Gerson complained of the euill life of fryres and nunnes with desire to haue them reformed and reduced to the obseruation of their ancient rules and constitutions onely excepting against the multiplicie and varietie of religious orders suntque per haec caelestia tonitruasublata prohibita damnata omnia istius generis vota penitissimè Lut. tom 2. fol. 272. But those companions in impietie Luther and Caluin would haue all religious and monasticall discipline wholely extingnished as Sacrilegious damnable and contrarie to the lawe of God vsing opprobrious speaches against all Religious persons their profession Gerson tooke to consideration whether the multitude and varietie of images might not be occasion of idolatrie in the simple people yet did not he reproue the due honor of them But our newe reformers or rather deformers either will haue no images at all in Churches as Caluinists or at the least they will not haue them honored with religious reuerence as Lutheranes reprouing all kinde of veneration or worship of them as superstitious and idolatrous Gerson onely reprehended the excesse as he apprehended in the canonization of soe manie newe saints the more religious obseruation of thers feastes then of the feastes of the Apostles by some particular persons or Churches but these twoe prophane fellowes allowe not of anie religious celebration of the feasts of either ancient or moderne saints neither of Apostles nor Euangelists neither of confessers nor martyres making account onely of the sabaoth day as they cōmonly call the sunday in that nature alsoe houlding the canonization of noe saints for either necessarie lawdable or authenticall desiring rather their memories should be extingiushed rhen reuerenced Gerson likewise comdemneth instely superstitions comitted by particular persons in the worship of saints vaine obseruations ouer great credulitie giuen by them to euerie passage recounted in some inauthentichall legendes yet admitting defending due moderate honor of saints the authentical true histories of their liues But our pretended reformers reiect all religious honor of Saintcts hould the relatiōs of their liues miracles for Apocriphall fabelous at the least of moderne saints Gerson defended the Roman doctrine of indulgences most Catholiquely as his treatice of that matter doth testifye Indulgentiarum cōcessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectēda deuote in fide spe charitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui potestatem lium clauium Ecclesiasticarum dedit hominibus Gerson p. 2. act 23. and onely taxed some particular pardons of sinnes as he relates for saying soe manie pater nosters in such a Church before such an image calling them superstitious opiniōs and friuolous additions as hauing neuer ben approued by the Roman Church But our newe doctors masters Luther Caluin vtterly condemne all sortes of Indulgence graunted by the Pope yea and the power of the Church to graunte them Gersō speaking onely of some vitious Ecclesiastical persons reprehendes preists for that vnder the pretense of maydes they keepe cōcubines yet plainely supposing the lawe of Celibate or single life of cleargie to haue ben in vse in and before his tymes as a thing lawdable and fitting for their vocation quoniā assidue nostri sacerdotes sacris occupantur mysterijs quid diuinius quam vt continua polleant castitate Gers 2. part dialog de celib Act. 4 But those twoe luxurious imps the one a professed fryer the other a vowed priest according to their newe reformation teach it lawfull and laudable for preists not obstanding their vowes of chastitie to chāge the state of chastitie in to the state of mariage they being the first that gaue example of that sacrilegious action and leading the daunce them selues Gerson complaines that Cathedrall Churches are made dennes of theeues and consecrated monasteries markets Innes But by the followers of Luther and Caluin those holie cloysters are not onely made markets and Innes but euen stables and hogstyes Cathedrall Churches as it were common burses or exchanges for relation of newes and negotiations in which manifould iniustices and illicit contracts are plotted and accorded to the great profanation of the house of God ordained for onely prayer seruice and Sacrifyce soe that if Gerson were now aliue doubtlesse he would rather taxe the pretended reformers in this nature then those Catholique profaners of his owne tymes Gerson bids inquirie to be made if ther be not Apocryphall Scriptures and prayers introduced in the Church to the great preiudice of Christian faith not meaning of anie Scriptures or prayers approued for Canonicall and pious by the authoritie of the Roman Church as are the bookes of machibies Sapience Ecclesiasticus Tobie and Iudith and prayers to saints all which Gerson him selfe did receiue for such but he onely reprehendes such false Scriptures or prayers as some newfangled priuate persons had published and inuented with out warrant or authoritie of the prelates and gouernors of the Church But Luther Caluin and their schollers peremptoriely reiected and excluded out of the text and canon of seripture the forosayde bookes and some others as allsoe all manner of prayers to sainrs euen those prayers and kookes of scripture which had ben most anciently approued and read in the seruice of the vniuersall Church at the least since the tyme of Innocēt the first Pope of that name and soe vsed in the dayes of S. Augustin and euer since till the late dayes of Luther And now by this breefe collation or cōparision
it is euer essentially one the same in it selfe cleare from distinction cleare from error the coÌ„trarie to which neuerthelesse should necessarily be true if ei-faith were diuided in to fundamental not fundamental faith the Church could erre in her propositioÌ„ of the one not of the other And to this I adde that one propertie of the true Church is holines but now what sanctitie integritie or holines can possible be in the Church if it be infected with errors in faith of what nature soe euer they bee For as the scripture affiirmes sine fide that is true pure intyre faith impossibile est placere Deo True faith is the forme fashioÌ„ beautie of the Church which is the immaculate sponse of Christ ' not hauing spot or wrincle In soe much that if she be defaced thus with errors she can not possible be the sponse of Christ as in the cided place like wise in the Canticles she is described all faire or comely but rather she would be like a leaper or most deformed creature Thirdly I confesse for my parte I could neuer perfectly vnderstand what the Nouellists truely meane by fundamental not fundamental points by reason I finde the matter in none of their workes sufficiently explicated I veriely coÌ„ceiue they purposely anoyde the declaration of it to the ende the absurditie may lesse appeare Neuerthelesse it seemes in probabilitie that by fundamentals they meane all those points which according to their owne exposition ar contained in scriptures the three creedes And by not fundamentals the points of controuersie betwixt vs theÌ„ as is the number of Canonical bookes the infallible rule of interpretation of scriptures the real presence transsubstantiation iustification ' c. This beiÌ„g supposed I argue thus Either those points which our aduersaries call not fundamentals ar matters of faith ' to be beleeued by all sortes of Christians according to the diuersitie of their tenets vnder paine of damnation or not to be beleeued If they ar thus necessarily to be beleeued by faith then doubtelesse they ar included in those truthes touching which as I haue declared coÌ„firmed before by both scriptures Fathers Christ promised to his Church the assistance of the diuine Sprit to remaine with it eternally that is till the consummation of the worlde and consequently the Church can not committe anie error in proposing them to the people as being no lesse fundamental in that respect then anie of the rest of the articles of faith But if our aduersaries on the contrarie denye them to be necessarily beleeued vnder paine of losse of SaluatioÌ„ hould theÌ„ onely as matters of indifferencie such as may either be beleeued or not be beleeued without preiudice of faith or maÌ„ners vpon this supposition I graunte the Church may erre in proposing theÌ„ to her flock but yet in this case that parte of our aduersaries distinctioÌ„ affirming that the Church can erre in not fuÌ„dameÌ„tal matters of faith is still false and impertineÌ„t in regarde those particulars aboue telated in which they teache the Church can erre ar soe farre from being either fundamentals or not fundamentals in matter of faith that according to the former supposition they ar not either one way or other with in the circuit of faith and consequently that parte or member of our aduersaries dinstinction viz that the Church can erre in not fundamentals is both false nugatorie and impertinent in which sense soeuer they intend to maintaine it Fourtly I proue directly that the affirmatiues euen of those particulars controuerted betwixt vs and the professors of the English Religion ar fundamental points of faith and by consequence that if the Church can erre in them that parte of their new distinction is false according to which they auerre the Church can not erre in fundamental points of Religion which I conuince in this forme of argument That distinction is false and absurde according to which it necessarily followes that the Church can erre in matters the true faith of which is necessarie to saluation But according to the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith it necessarily followes the Church can erre in matters necessarie to saluation Ergo The distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith is a false and absurde distinction The minor in which the total difficultie consists I proue because according to this distinction the Church may erre in these propositions The Church hath the true complete Canon of scripture The Church hath the true interpretation and sense of scripture Christs bodie and bloud ar truely really substantially and not by onely faith contained in the sacred Eucharist c. And yet the faith of these either affirmatiuely or negatiuely is necessarie to saluatioÌ„ as the aduersaries theÌ„ selues if they will not be occounted obstinate in a matter soe cleare and manifest can not denye Therfore it is hence concluded by forcible sequele that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals in matters of faith is false and absurde Fiftely I reason in this manner against the same distinction If the infallibilitie of the Churches authoritie consistes in fundamental points of Religion onely and not in all that the true Church shal at anie tyme declare vnto her members concerning their faith and Religion then were not tâ—e prouidence of Christ perfect towardes his sponse but more defectiue then God was towardes the synagog of the Iewes neither were this anie other then to imagine that Christ in deede did laye a sounde foundation for his Church but lefte walles and roofe exposed to be deiected or caste to grounde with euerie puffe of winde which how repugnant to reason his owne inuiolable promisse this is the reader may easily consider and censure Sixtly I argue yet more positiuely against the distinction related because our aduersaries frame it either in respect of the greater or lesser dignitie of the obiects of fundamental and not fundameÌ„tal points of faith in them selues or in respect of the greater or lesse necessitie of them to saluation by reason of the necessitie of faith which the members of the true Church haue of them all and euerie one in particular Now if we respect onely the material obiects in them selues and the necessitie of them to saluation precisely soe I confesse ther ar some particular matters of faith which much surpasse orhers and in that respect alsoe the one may not vnaptely be termed fundamental in comparision of the rest which haue not that preheminencie For example that ther is a God and that God is a rewarder of workes quod Deus est remunerator sit That he is one in three persons that the second person in Trinitie became incarnate or tooke humaine nature vpon him was borne of the Virgin Marie suffered death for our dedemption c. are matters both more noble and dignifiable in them selues then those Christ fasted fortie dayes and fortie nights an Angel
THE VVHETSTONE OF REPROOFE OR A REPROVING CENSVRE OF THE misintitled safe way declaring it by discouerie of the authors fraudulent proceeding captious cauilling to be a miere by-way drawing pore trauellers out of the royall common streete leading them deceitfully in to a path of perdition Errare fecit eos in inuio non in via Psal 106. WITH A POSTSCRIPT OF ADVERtisments especially touching the homilie epistles attributed to Alfric a compendious retortiue discussion of the misapplyed by-way AVTHOR T. T. Sacristan Catholike Romanist CATVAPOLI Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS Anno M.DC.XXXII THE PREFACE I Haue viewed perused exactly a certaine smale vollume published by Sir Humfrey Linde He intituleth it the safe way but I finde it containes nothing either safe or sound To make it more plausible he giues it a Latin inscripton printing in the front of it via tuta not much vnlike to the practise of Mountibanks who to make their pouders more vendible set on their boxes strange titles to persuade the ignorant they are farre fetched of care vertue He calleth it a waie leading alle Christians to the true Catholike Church But indeede it is no waye but rather a diuerticle or diuersion or if it be a way it s onely a by-way leading sinple soules into woods deserts leauing them there vnmercifully to be deuoured by rauenous beasts If it be any way at all it is not via tuta but rather via torta a Kinde of negatiue way consisting in negation of the true Catholike way therefore as according to the doctrine of Aristotle negatio est malignantis naturoe negation is of a malignant nature so it being a negatiue way it cannot possible be any other then via malignantium the way of the malignant reprobate people He addes it leadeth to the true auncient Catholike faith now professed in the Church of England but this confirmeth that which I said before that his way is no true way but a by-way as leading to a by-place to a Countrie people separated from the rest of the world Tote diuisus orbe Britannus conducting to a nation diuided from the rest of the earth as in situation so is it separated in Religion from others yea from it selfe from the trueth from antiquitie as being no more auncient in all poynts then the daies of Queene Elizabeth as her 39. articles plainely testifie diuerse of them being first proclaimed by her her parliament hither the way leadeth there it leaueth the poore traueller at a non plus without any meanes to passe vnto Christ his Apostles He saith farther in the title that euen the Romanists his aduersaries doe testifie the safety of his way but this is most ridiculous most false of all the rest of his inscription he citeth indeed greate tropes of authors in pretense of his positions some of which are true Catholike writers but others not acknowledged for such by vs others manistly knowen to be his owne consectaries all those that are truly ours he doth eyther malitiously or ignorantly abuse so doth but make checker-worke or Crosse lines of them alto gether for his ministers to play in the pulpit with their parishioners at fox geese I imagin'd his name had bene Line but now I perceiue certainely it is not for he vseth neither line nor square in his booke I meane neither method nor square dealing For setting aside his prologue Epilogue his first chapter or section might aswell haue bene the last the laste his first as otherwise as for his sinceritie it is not to be found either in the beginning midle or ending wherefore if his name be Linde as he subscribeth it is more agreeable to the inside of his worke which is very well linde indeede I meane with lies And the trueth is the greatest part of his pamphlet is but ouerworne brokery stuffe dropped from whites way B. Mourtons patched Appeale forged Imposture vshers outrages excepting some frenchwares taken out of the corrupted store house of that famous mountibanke Daniel Chamiere with whom I perceaue his worship hath had no smale corespondence He stileth himselfe knight which no doubt he is but as that title soundes honestie honor and nobillitie so none of that I finde in his booke which is so replenishsd with bragges boasts and protestations as one would sweare him rather to be a protesting puritan then a pure Protestant Which with other reasons moue me to suspect the booke is not his but a ministerial bastard fathered vpon his nobilitie for the greater authoritie of the worke but that I will not much examine onely this I say that when I had read it I did soma't doubt whether the knight could be so versed in our Roman diuines as thou ' to little purpose the penner appeeres to be which caused me to suspect the true authour is some one of greater reading and industrie then I imagin Sir Humfrey is Spuria multorum patrum proles yet on the other side I am verelie perswaded that considering the multitude of ignorant absurdities it conteines the authour of it cannot be a man of any sollide learning in diuinity which being supposed I cannot absolutely condemne Sir Humfrey for taking vpon him the name yet he cannot be iudged wholely excusable in his honor for that he consented to be the putatiue Father of so base a bratte This which I haue is the third edition the fourth may be dailie expected in regard the booke is so full of matter I meane of corruption Yet after the contents come once to be exactely discussed discouered I persuade my selfe it will quikly loose it vndeserued credit the dubtlesse if the leaues were larger it would ride poaste to Tobaconistis grossers shops I confesse Sir Humfrey I am Tom. Teltruth who cannot flatter or dissemble yet may you assure your selfe that altho' my speeche be ordinarily directed vnto your selfe my intent is directly to reprooue those onelie who in their contriuing of the worke for you in your name haue so profanely misapplyed abused sacred scriptures ancient Fathers an number of other graue Catholike authors so corruptedlie produced against their owne professed faith Neyther yet haue I anie meaning by my words to offēde the dignitie of your person which I respect in the highest degree of desert as neither the persons of those who truely are the authors of the worke haue deceiued both you others but rather with charitable S. Aug. I chiuse to say of you euery one of my aduersaries in religion Homo viuat moriatur error Let the man liue the error dye But now I will descend to particulars after due examine passe my sentence vpon euerie seuerall section cheefelie insisting in discussion of the citations of the aduersarie dedicating my whole censure not to the gentrie of my Countrie as Sir Humfrey doth and of whose mature Iudgments I can
the bread and wine consecrated by the Preist are not turned into the bodie and bloud of Christ by vertue of Gods worde and power let him not trouble himselfe and vs with such obscure new founde fragments as this with which as being subiect to diuers expositions he fills his owne head and ours with proclamationes neither disprouing ouer doctrine nor prouing his owne and onelie giues occasion of altercation and expense of time in vaine aboute the tryall of these his questionablie and faultie wares From hence Sir Humfrey passes to the second parte of his Paragraffe that is to the doctrine of transsubstantiation in these wordes Looke saith he vpon their doctrine of transsubstantiation and you shall see how miserablie their Church is diuided touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of that point of faith Thus the knight To which I answer that hauing exactely examined all the particulars which he produces for proofe of this his boysterous affirmation I finde that as he chargeth most falselie the Romanists of diuision in the doctrine of transubstantiation so his proofe of the same by authoritie of the authours which he cytes is also most deceitfull in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point and consequentlie as if euen according to their owne tenets they had neyther antiquitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine whereas in truth none of the cited authours haue anie disagreement among themselues but all with one vnanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist some of them onelie differing aboute the manner of it Some houlding it to be sufficientlie expressed in scripture as vnlesse it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place all scholasticall diuines affirme Some others among which scotus is one or rather scotus alone being of opinion there is no place of scripture so expresse that without the dermination of the Church it can euidentlie conuince and constraine one to admitte transubstantiation in the Sacrament Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held euen in the Primatiue Church tho' perhaps the worde it selfe was not vsed in those most auncient times but since inuented But not obstanding what they held in these particulars yet doe none of them which the knigth cites impugne tran̄ssubstātiation or denie that the bread and wine are truelie conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist but they all expresselie auouche and maintaine it so that a man may maruell where Sir Humfreyes eyes were when he read and rehearsed them And as for Cardinall Aliaco he doth not expresse his owne opinion in the wordes alledged by Sir Humfrey nor yet affirmeth it to haue beene defended by anie authour in his time but saith onelie tertia opinio fuit the third opinion was Putting his owne which he calleth more common and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church as also to the common opinion of the holie Fathers and doctours onelie graunting that it doth not euidentlie follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remaine after consecration together with the bodie of Christ or absolutelie ceaseth or that which I rather conceiue of his true meaning it can onelie be gathered out of this authour whome I haue exactelie read in this passage that in times past there were some fewe who before the matter was plainelie defined by the Church defended that it is possible yea and more conformable to naturall reason and more easie to be conceiued nor were euidentlie repugnant to scripture that the bodie of Christ might remaine with the substance of bread in the Sacrament none of which is contrarie to the doctrine of transsubstanciation as it is beleeued actuallie in the Church nor to the vniuersalitie of her faith therein supposing that an act may consist with possibilitie to the contrarie of which nature it selfe yealdes infinitie examples especiallie in such effects as depend vpon indifferent or free causes But not obstanding this diuision of the Romanists which as the reader may easilie perceiue being onelie in accidentall points of this controuersie betwixt them and the reformers maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose yet besides this the testimonies which the knight alledgeth out of the same authours are so farre from prouing his intent that there is not one of them which doth not either expresselie containe or at the least suppose the trueth of the Roman doctrine in the chiefe point of the controuersie of transubstantiation two especiallie that is dutand in his Rationall and Cameracensis speake so plainelie in that particular of the conuersion of the substance of the bred and wine into the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignoraunt as not to perceiue them to be against him or so impudent that perceiuing the same he should vēture to produce that which he might easily haue perceiued it could serue for nothing els but a testimonie of his owne confusion especiallie considering with how small sinceritie he hath delt in vsing or rather abusing for the aduantage of his cause both the wordes and sence of some of the foresaid authours as appeereth particularlie in the citation of Bellarmin page 111. where he affirmeth him to saye that it may iustlie be doubted whether the scriptures doe proue the bodilie presence of Christ in the Eucharist In which he shamefullie belyeth the Cardinall for he sayth not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight of the proofe of the reall presence out of scripture of which neither he nor Scotus of whose opinion he there treateth makes anie doubt at all but he onelie saith that altho' to him the scripture seemes so cleare that it may force one that is not obstinate to beleeue transubstantiation yet merito dubitari potest it may with iust cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proued so expressely by scriptures as they may constreine anie man not refractorie to beleeue it which are farre different matters as anie one that is not either verie ignorant or verie desirous to deceiue may easilie vnderstand Secundo dicit Scotus non extare vllum locum scripturae tam Expressū vt sine Eccles determinatione euidenter cogat trāsubstantia tiationem admittere atque id nō est omnino improbabile nam etiā si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara vt possit cogere hominem nō prosteruū ta an ita sit merito dubitari potest cā homines doctissimi acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant 3. addit Scotus quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturā declarauit ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstātiationē Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23. And in the same fashion if not worse doth he abuse
the mouth of two or three witnesses euerie worde may stand And so suppose it were true that S. Chrysostome sayd iust that which Sir Humfrey would haue him yet is not one testimony enuffe to conuince an aduersary thus much I say for as much as concerneth the point of controuersie it selfe of the all sufficiencie of scripture But because the knight may say this is not that which he intendeth directlie in this place but onelie to conuince that Bellarmin hath eluded the foresayd testimonie therefore I answere secondlie that Sir Humfrey needed not to haue gone to Bellarmin's Chronologie for the censure of the foresaid worke for he might haue founde it more plainelie censured before in his controuersies as appeareth lib. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto the 11. chapter Where the Cardinall hath these wordes But this testimonie is not of Chrysostome but of the author of the imperfect who was either an Arian or certainlie his booke was corrupted by the Arians in manie places Thus Bellarmin Shewing the corruptions by two seuerall instances taken out of the worke it selfe where he speaketh against the Homousians that is against the Christians of the Catholike Church to which he giueth that name because they defended beleeued the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his Father yet it s well knowne that sainct Chrysostome neuer eyther writ or spoake against the Homousians as being one of them himselfe a professed enimie to their aduersaries the Arians And hence it is plaine that Bellarmin had reason to censure that worke not to acknowledge it for S. Chrysostomes as Sir Humfrey would haue it except he would haue condemned that glorious Doctour of the Church for an Arian heretike as the reformed brothers must of necessarie consequence doe if they will haue him to be the authour of that vnperfect treatise Neyther did yet Bellarmin taxe it for that sentence which the knight alledgeth out of it as hee craftilie falselie insinuates but for other erroneous doctrine which it containeth which is no more contrarie to anie article of the Roman faith if it be trulie vnderstood then it is to the faith of the reformers except perhaps they be nearer in some points of their doctrine to the Arians then the Romanists bee whoe quite deteste abhorre the same Which I leaue to their owne consciences to determin For altho' the Romanists denie that the sole scripture pure text of the bible is sufficient to determin all controuersies doubts in doctrine or māners yet they doe not denie but that the sole scripture doth sufficientlie declare the most greatest parte of the doctrine necessarie to saluation particularlie they graunt that the true Church may be sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture truelie expounded which is the verie same that the authour of the imperfect affirmeth in the foresayd wordes Neyther is it all one to affirme that the Church is knowne onelie by scriptures to affirme that the scripture onelie hath all sufficiencie as Sir Humfrey doth falselie suppose when he vseth the first proposition taken out of the author of the Imperfect as a medium to proue the second which is his owne position because to know the Church onelie is not all the doctrine which the scripture containeth as necessarie to saluation but onelie a parte of the same so it is cleare that how true soeuer it be that the church is knowne by scripture onelie yet cā it not be thēce inferred that all the doctrine of the Church necessarie to saluation is sufficientlie knowne by onelie scripture except out of the pregnance of his wit extrauagant skill in logique the knight can inferre an vniuersall proposition out of a particular which I know he can no more performe then he can extract by arte two oysters out of one apple And thus we see that Sir Humfrey hath not proued by the exception of Bellarmin against the foresaid treatise that either the Roman Church or Romanists haue eluded their recordes or reall proofes of Fathers touching the question of all sufficiencie of scripture for that the sentence thence produced proueth no such thing And consequentlie there was no necessitie that Bellarmin should indeuour to infringe the authoritie of the whole worke for such a testimonie drawne out of it as is not contrarie to the Roman faith neither can it with anie coulour be imagined that the Cardinall would euer haue layde his censure vpon the same if it had not ben faultie in greater matters Secondlie Sir Humfrey produceth saint Augustin touching the deniall of honour of Saints where he sayth that manie are tormented with the diuell who are worshipped by men on earth And whereas Bellarmins answere according to Sir Humfreys relation is that peraduenture it is none of Augustins that sentence the honest knight as if Bellarmin were all the Romanists that euer writ or spoake maketh a generall interrogatorie saying what say the Romanists to this As if that which one onelie priuate man speaketh in a priuate matter were to be accounted the voyce of all men of his profession And yet Bellarmin doth not onelie adde more in his ansere yea much more to the purpose which not withstanding our braue Sir Sycophant very slylie omittes viz. that he could not finde those wordes in S. Augustin but also addeth three other principall anseres to the same obiection And so it appeareth that insteed of proofe that Bellarmin eludeth the recordes of S. Augustin the elusorie knight eludes both Bellarmin his reader egregiouslie by deceitfullie omitting that which both iustified the Cardinalls proceeding also declared the true meaning of the place cited in sainct Augustins name Thirdly he taxeth Bellarmin stapleton for saying that S. Augustin was deceiued or committed a humane errour in his interpretation of those wordes super hanc Petram caused by the diuersitie of the Hebrewe Grek Latin tongue which either he was ignorant of or marked not But I ansere first that what soeuer error S. Augustin might commit in this matter certaine it is that it was onelie aboute the interpretation of those wordes Math. 16. thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church For touching Sainct Peters supreme authoritie in it selfe which is that our irreligious aduersarie intendes cheefelie to diminish in this occasion it is most apparent that S. Augustin stronglie maintaines it in his second of Baptisme cap. 1. saying Quis nesciat illum Apostolatus Petri principatum cuilibet Episcopatui esse praeferendum That is who can be ignorāt that Principalitie or soueraintie of Peters Apostolate is to be preferred before anie Episcopate or Bishoprike And in his 15. sermon of the saints he speakes yet more plaine to this purpose affirming that our sauiour did nominate S. Peter for the foundation of the Church ideo digne fundamentum hoc Ecclesia colit supra quod Ecclesiastici officij altitudo consurgit And therefore saith S. Augustin the Church deseruedlie honoreth this
Humfrey it plainelie appeares by the examen of witnesses which I will make presentlie and in the meane time let but the reader reflect vpon that which hath hitherto ben sayd he will easilie perceiue that Sir Hūfrey himselfe is conuinced not onelie of a bad cause an ill conscience but also of such grosse proceedings as is not able either to the partes or su credit of a Caualier But now to particulars His first charge is layde vpon the inquisitors for blotting out a certaine note made in the margen of the Bible of Robertus Stephanus vpon the 4. chapter of the deuter That God prohibiteth grauen images to be made But what razing of recordes is this Is a newe note made by some one moderne vnknowne authour not sutable to the true sense of the text in such an edition of the bible as cannot be of anie long standing to be accounted one of your recordes And if it be yours how came it into the Bible what doth it there hath not the Inquitor as much authoritie to put it out as some obscure brother of yours had to put it in the true meaning of the scripture neither in the place of that note nor anie other is that God did prohibit absolutelie all grauen images as one of the greatest diuines you haue doth ingenuouslie confesse Daniel Chamierus Panstrat l 21. de imag c. 8. n. 1. but onelie he did forbid them to be made to the end to adore them as Gods or at the least to adore them with danger of idolatrie and yet the foresayd wise annotation maketh the scripture to forbid all grauen images absolutelie Wherefore it s nothing but a false recorde ordayned to deceiue the reader by abusing the true sense of Gods worde so the Inquisitor when he branded it with a deleatur he did but execute iustice vpon a falsifier of the Kings letters which in him neither argueth bad cause nor ill conscience but sheweth both of them to be in the authour of the counterfet recorde which he foysted in to the sacred bible To omit that it being no note of anie Roman authour as it manifestlie sheweth it selfe not to be yet the knight leap'd quite out of the quire when he cited it for a record of his owne except he supposeth al the writings of the pretended reformed Doctors of what sect soeuer they be to be recordes for his Church against the Roman doctrine which is both most ridiculous in itselfe nor yet was anie such razing of the reformers recordes euer intended eyther by the Inquisitors or by anie other censurer of bookes in the Church of Rome His second charge is aboute a certaine glosse vpon Gratian which glosse affirmeth according to Sir Humfreyes relation that the Preist cannot say significatiuelie of the bread this is my bodie without telling a lye This glosse saith hee is condemned by the inquisitor to be blotted out It is true the Inquisitor did so but what then did he therefore doe it wit an ill conscience I denie the consequence And in your conscience Sir Humfrey is it not an idle glosse indeed Doe not your ministers themselues when they deliuer the communion call it the bodie blood of Christ And if the Preist lyeth when he sayth so not of the bread as the false glosse sayth if so it saith but of that which is contained vnder the forme of bread surelie your ministers tell a farre greater lye when they say significatiuelie of the bare bread that it is the bodie of Christ truelie reallie as Master Caluin affirmeth Instit l. 4. cap. 17. And so I conclude this point that Sir Humfrey had no reason at all to accuse the Inquisitor of an ill conscience in razing onelie such a recorde as is no lesse repugnant to the doctrine of the reformed Churches then to the Roman faith if anie matter of faith it were which indeed it is not so by consequence it is also impertinent to the matter here in question Thirdlie Sir Humfrey chargeth the Inquisitor for blotting out Cassanders whole tract of the Cōmunion in both kynds But what worse conscience sheweth the Inquisitor in this fact then the Inquisitors of the reformed Churches doe who are not content with a simple doleatur but daylie condemne whole Catholike volumes to the vnmercifull Vulcan And as for the recordes which you take out of Cassander we make no more accounte of them then we doe of those which you take out of Luther or Caluin so you may take them make your selfe merrie Fourthlie Caietans opinion that the wordes this is my bodie doe not sufficientlie proue transubstantiation is no recorde for you as you falselie suppose for he doth not denie transsubstantiation as you doe but expresselie defended it as his owne wordes declare which I afterwardes recitie nay he doth not affirme absolutelle as suarez wordes quoted by your selfe in your owne margent expressely declare that the foresaid wordes doe not sufficientlie proue transsubstantiation as you corruptedlie relate but onelie sayth at the most that secluding the Churches authoritie they doe not proue it which not as contrarie to faith but as a singular extrauagant opinion of that authour Pope Pius did if perhaps he did piouslie blot it out not preciselie because it fauoreth the reformers as in trueth it doth not to anie purpose but because it sm'at disfauored the truth which is that transsubstantiation is indeed plainelie enough contayned in those wordes of Christ this is my bodie Howbeit I must needs aduertice the reader that I neyther finde those wordes supposed to be Caietans blotted in anie Index that I haue seene nor yet can I finde them in anie edition of Caietan in the place cited by Suarez that is vpon the 75. q. art 1. But onelie these Conuersio non habetur explicite in Euangelio these Quod Euangelium non explicauit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus Nay more then this I finde other wordes in the same place which conuince that Caietan held transsubstantiation to be sufficientlie contained in those wordes this is my bodie for so he argues Sacramenta nouae legis efficiunt quod significant ac per hoc verba Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scilicet conuersionis continentiae vt expresse dicta sacri Concilij authoritas testatur consequens est vt cadem Christi verba significent vtramque nouitatem Wherefore supposing Caietan said not that the wordes this is my bodie conteine not sufficientlie transsubstantiation but onelie not expresselie I cannot conceiue what foundation Suarez might haue for this his relation except peraduenture Pius quintus founde that edition alone of Caietan to haue ben corrupted by heretikes therefore caused it to be corrected in that passage as indeed an other place of the same Caietan 2. 2. q. 122. is discouered by the authors of the prohibitiue Index to haue ben in that same fashion fraudulentlie depraued as the same Index expresselie
difficult questions nor yet could you haue so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirme in one place that the text of scripture is the sole Iudge expounder of itselfe indefinitlie without liâ—itation yet on the contrarie in another place that you doe not denie the authoritie of the Fathers iointlie agreing in the exposition of them in matters of faith yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them as if the holie Ghost were bound to appeere visiblie to deliuer the true sense of them as often as anie controuersie of faith occurreth All which the like disparates the vertiginous knight vttereth within the compasse of this one section also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselues Iudges plaintiffes in their owne cause wheras indeed the Romanists neyther make themselues but the euer visible continueing Church Iudge of their cause nor doe they hould theÌ„selues for plaintiffes but for defendants faithfull possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they receiued from their auncestors And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his owne receiued Principle touching the interpretation sense of scriptures of which he his brothers make euerie priuate person man or woman Iudge vmpier yet condemnes for vnreasonable that the Roman Church should vse the like authoritie euen when it is publikelie assembled in a generall Councell So that these all those a foresaid particulars deliuered by our aduersarie touching this point are but onelie his owne fancyes of which he makes vse for want of better materialls to patch vp this part of his by path in which as you see he continueth his peripateticall exercise euen to the next section Sec. 4. In which it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise yet they make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of scripture thus the knight fableth of whom I tknowe I may iustlie say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur And in reallitie of whome I pray can this be so trulie verified as of those who notobstanding that vnder a false colour that euen in cases of doubt controuersie they ingenuouslie professe that scriptures must be interpreted by themselues onelie Vid. ChaÌ„ Panstrat I. de inten scrip yet neuerthelesse doe most pertinaciouslie maintaine that the exposition of them belongs to euerie member of their Church in particular that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another for what is this but to make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of the scripture not the scripture itselfe as they deceitfullie pretend Let the indifferent reader be Iudge of this It is true the Councell of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers yea Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities places of care of soules take an oath of the same but as they take the oath so doe they performe also the obligation of it And I demand of Sir Humfrey who hath such a great talent in reprehending whether he thinkes not in his conscience that those who vnder the strict boÌ„d of oath are obliged to anie matter are not more like to performe it then those who haue no such obligation whereby to restraine their actions surelie there is a great difference in the circumstances consequentlie a great reason to iudge that those Romanists who haue such an oath obliging them to followe the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture will be farre more carefull to performe the same then the reformed Doctours who haue no such bridle to refraine the inclination to noueltie of their itching witts Now wheras Sir Humfrey after his ordinary cauilling manner doth say that if the Romane Church can make good the vniforme consent of Fathers for their twelue new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation preferre it before any priuate or later exposition this I say is a meere sophisme in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes that he who interpreteth scriptures must haue positiuely the vniforme consent of Fathers for his expositions but onely that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers the which because the kinght did not rightly vnderstand as it seemes when he read the Concell the Bull of Pius he abuseth Caietane Canus Andradius Bellarmine Baronius other moderne Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree wheras yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established the rest being knowne for notorius defenders of it so running vppon false grownes the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts building his By-way to omitt others of lesse moment diuerse scurrilous scoffes touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it s well knowne he his companions are much more guilty in that kinde with two notorious vntruthes affirming that all the pristes Iesuites are sworne not to receaue interpret scriptures but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers that it is an article of the Roman faith so to doe all which needes no further examen in regard that to any iuditious reader these two particulars onely will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the authors iugling trickes which he vseth in this part of his by-way which being voyde of substantiall matter it suteth best to him that made it but agreeth nothing to the Catholike RomaÌ„ faith â—ect 5. In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures which he promiseth to proue by pregnant testimonies of all ages that it is the same which learned Doctors professors intirely preserued in the besome of the Roman Church in all ages I haue treated of this in parte in my former Censure to which I adde returning that Sir Humfrey saith of Campion vppon himself which is that if this Nouellist had binne as reall in his proofes as he is prodigall in his promisses he had gome beyond all the reformed proselites sinces the daies of Luther for neuer man made greater florishes with proorer proofes all that he bringeth being founded vppon the same equiuocation which he vsed in his safe way consisting of this proposition the Fathers of euery age haue acknowledged the 22. bookes of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonicall to be the true Canon no other For it is true the Fathers of all ages receiued from Christe his Apostles those same bookes acknowledging them for Canonicall but it is false that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonicall of which truth particular instance
Moyses to the Machabies all temporall Princes practised power of calling assemblies that assoone as Kings receiued the Christian faith they executed the same power that the later Councells celebrated in the Roman Church are not assembled in the name of Christe all the rest I say is eyther such stuffe as this or else malitious corruptions of some Roman diuines as appeeres in Bellarmin Valentia the sense of both which authors he deceitfullie peruerteth the one lib. 1. de Concil cap. 10. the other tom 3. d. 1. q. 2. p. 5. by which false indirect dealing he doth nothing in this whole section but shewe himselfe to proceed in that by-way which his progenitors Luther Caluin haue shewed him in their corrupted writings Sec. 15. In the 15. section Sir Humfrey affirmeth that Councells giue no support to the Romish religion In his former section he professed great reuerence respect towards the authoritie of Councells especiallie the fower firste yet heere he spareth not the verie firste Generall Councell of those same fower which he so highlie commended before but at once he striketh at no lesse then 60. of the 80. Canons it is commonlie held to containe like a squinteyed waterman looking one way roweing another iust as he did before in his feigned commendation of traditions Fathers But let the reader marke what this man is to proue how preposterouslie he proueth it he will presentlie iudge him not to be squinteyed onelie but eyther starke blind or starke mad He is to proue as he sayth firste that manie generall particular Councells haue erred in euerie age which yet are produced for the Roman religion but how doth he proue this I praye marie because the Councell of Cayphas sayth he is confessed by Bellarmine to haue perniciouslie erred when it adiudged Christe a blasphemer therefore by Bellarmines confession Councells produced for the Roman religion may erre Obstupescite caeli O yee heauens stand yee astonished to heere this mans logike this being his firste card iudge what the rest of his hand may be how like he is to conclude who argueth from Cayphas to Christe from the old lawe to the new from a Councell of false Iewes to Councells of true Christiās Vid. Bell. de Conc. l. 2. cap. 8. the reader may see Bellarmins anser to this parologisme if anie further anser it deserues in his opiniō for in my iudgemēt it needes no more but a loud lafter thus I leaue it He passeth to the second age sayth that the Councell of Antioch is cited by Gretzerus by Turrian by Baronius for the worship of images yet that the firste publishers of the Councells neuer mentioned it But what is this to the purpose of prouing that by the confessions of Romanists manie decrees Canons of Councells by them produced for the Roman religion are counterfeit or deuised to proue the Trent doctrine doth it follow that because some publishers of Councells did not find this Councell or other such like in their dayes therefore they did confesse them for spurious or Apochriphall or that those who afterwards haue brought them to light as the authors aboue named Baronius Turrian Binnius haue not as much authoritie to publish them for authenticall as you your criticall Cooke to denie them or condemne them for counterfeit Censura Patr. especiallie considering that those who allow this particular Councell of which we now speake are all knowne to be of farre greater knowledge in matters of antiquitie then those that collected Councells before them to witt Merlin Crabbe Surius Nicolinus who althou ' they be one more in number then those moderne Romanists who allowe this first Councell of Antioch as found in the librarie of ancient Origen yet neyther doth the greater number contradict the lesse nor yet if they did haue they so much authoritie as to preuaile before them In the third age the knight setts the Carthaginian Councell celebrated by S. Cyprian his Collegues which Councell sayth the knight may serue to proue that some Councells rightly called are dischareged by our aduersaries adding that this Councell is therfore reiected by the Romanists by reason that S. Cyprian the whole Councell apposed the title of the Popes supremacie But in this proofe Sir Humfrey committeth diuers grosse faultes firste in that he supposeth falsely that a Councell orderly conuocated ought not to be reiected which is a position that I am sure no Romanist as I thinke no sectary before Sir Humfrey euer defended the reason is for that it is not the assemblie but the proceeding concluding of a Councell is that which giues it decisiue authority otherwise a Councell without definitions subscriptions confirmation should necessarily be receaued which is most absurd Secondly the kinght telleth his reader a manifest vntruth where he affirmeth that the foresayd Councell is therfore dischareged because S. Cyprian the whole Councell apposed the title of the Popes supremacie for that Councell was assembled onely about rebaptization of those which had binne baptised by heretiques neyther is there any mention of the Popes authority eyther good or bad but onely S. Cyprian by way of preface or preuention warneth those Bishops that were present that euery one deliuer his sentence or verditt freely without iudging one another because saith he none of vs doth constitute himself Bishop of Bishopps so what is this I pray to the Bishop of Rome or Popes supremacy whome S. Cyprian so much respected that euen in this occasion as S. Hierome testifieth Dialog aduers Lucif he directed his sinod to Pope Stephan which is an euident signe that he was not contrarie to the Popes supreme authority but rather did disetely in that his fact acknowledge the same Thirdly Sir Humfrey dealeth falsely when for conclusion of this point he saith that this may serue for proofe that Councells rightly called are descharged by his aduersaries when they make against the Trent faith it being manifest that this Synod containes not any one of those matters which he contemptuously termeth the Tridentine faith From whence it appeeres that in steed of proofes the liberall kinght hath giuen vs his owne impostures And thus it fareth with him throu ' all this section captiously concluding vniuersall propositions of particulars as that some Romanists doe cite for the Popes supremacy one or two Councells of whose authority others make doubt therfore the doctrine of the Popes supremacy is wholely grounded vppon vncertaine Councells notobstanding he himself acknowledgeth that besides these few doubt full authorities there be many more in number cited by Bellarmine others that are vndoubted with such sophisticall illations mingling diuers equiuocations false suppositions confounding generall Councells with particular confounding truth with falsity yea much falsity without any mixture of truth he concludeth his section in such a fashion as it is easie for anie that hath his
to conceiue it rightlie he runneth a madding throu ' his whole section vpon an erroneous supposition prouing nothing but his owne spleene against the Pope want of vnderstanding iudgement And in this same Frantick fashion he dealeth with sainct Gregorie in his 9. epistle of the Register the Bull of Pius quartus concerning images equiuocating in the word adoration which by reason holie S. Gregorie takes it for diuine honour he teacheth with great reason that althou ' images may be lawfullie made vsed with due reuerence as he sheweth in another place yet they cānot be lawfullie adored in the other sense From whence Sir Humfrey will needes collect that the moderne Pope Pius contradicteth that which his famous predecessor did teach before him in that he declareth according to the doctrine of the Tridentine Councell due honour veneration is to be giuen to the images of Christe his sainres in which neuerthelesse there is no contrarietie at all but rather great agreement conformitie not onelie in the matter it selfe but euen in their manner of speech And by these two pointes which are the cheife matter of moment which our aduersarie hath in this section the reader may easilie cōiecture of the rest if besides this if he doth but marke how deceitfully he dealeth with Bellarmine in the conclusiō of this section about the succession of the Popes to S. Peter I am persuaded he will neuer trust Puritan writer as long as he liues But note the impostors subtletie that which Bellarmine sayth of the immoueable placing of the seate of sainct Peter at Rome by Christes appointment which he affirmes not to be a matter of faith or immutable precept of God this honest disputant applies it to the absolute being of sainct Peter at Rome the seating of his chaire ther then vpon this false detorted vnderstanding of his doctrine inferreth as from his owne confession that therefore at the best it can be but probable that the Pope should succeed Peter in that Seat thre is no necessitie to beleiue it for that Bellarmine saith it is no point of faith that if Christe gaue anie such precept it may be changed thus the knight And yet the truth is that in none of those places the Cardinall speaches of the succession of the Pope to sainct Peter but onelie of the certaintie of the connexion of the Apostolicall seate with the particular Roman Church whether the one is so strictlie ioyned to the other that it cannot be transferred to another place viz. to Antioch where sainct Peter did fitlie for a time abide or to some other Episcopall seate of the Catholike Church which Bellarmine affirmes not to be a point of faith or immutable diuine precept but of the infallibility of the succession of the Pope in the seate of S. Peter he makes no doubt but constantlie defends it to be a matter of faith diuine institution as is manifest by his owne wordes in the 12. chapter of his second booke de Rom. Pont where he saith expresselie Successio Romani Pontificis in Pontificatu Petri ex institutione Christi est a little after Si quis tamen petat an iure diuino Romanus Pontifex Pastor sit caput totius Ecclesiae omnino id esse asserendum And now by these plaine wordes of Bellarmine it manifestlie appeereth he is so farre from standing vpon probabilities in the point of succession of the Pope to sainct Peter that all those places which the knight cites out of the second fourth booke de Rom. Pont. as that non est improbabile Dominum iussisse vt Petrus sedem suam Romae figeret And non est de fide diuina immutabili praecepto Romae sedem Petri esse constitutam est tamen probabilissimum pie credendum And those other wordes forte non est de iure diuino Romanum Pontificem Petro succedere And those Ius successionis Romanorum Pontificum in eo fundatur quod Petrus Romae suam sedem fixerit All those places of which the knight makes a praye to deceiue his reader are spoken not of the succession but of the reason of the succession of the Pope to the Apostle Sainct Peter for Bellarmine doth expresselie distinguish in the same place saying aliud esse successionem aliud rationem successionis the firste which is the succession he teaches cleerlie to be by the institution of Christe but the manner of the same succession that is the reason wherefore the Bishop of Rome rather then the Bishop of Antioch or anie other doth succeed S. Peter in that Seat hath it beginning from the fact of Peter But Bellarmine neyther in anie piace of those cited by Sir Humfrey nor in anie other affirmes that the right of succession is founded in the fact of Peter But this was the craft of our subtle knight whereby he might inferre that the fact of Peter being no matter of faith but at the most of morall certaintie the whole frame of the Roman religion might therefore seeme to be doubtfull vncertaine And to this end he falselie applied to the succession it selfe that which by Bellarmine was spoken onelie of the manner of the same succession From which vniust proceeding of Sir Humfrey we may gather by the way that there is no dealing with these people but at hand blowes I meane by producing of the bookes out of which they make their allegations otherwise if they can but scape without examen they will make no scruple to cousen their owne Fathers as experience hath alreadie taught vs. To conclude I assure the reader that the rest of the matter in this place is but such loathsome stuffe as this mingled with so manie impudent vntruthes that I am not able to recount them seuerallie All which because I perceaue the more it is stirred the more it stinkes I will leaue it to himselfe to make the best he can of it if by corruption fraude he will needes build a by-way for vs Romanists he doth but labore in vayne since that he can no sooner finish it but that we can assoone returne it vppon himselfe fellowes Sec. 21. In the next section which is the 21. the knight treateth of the Popes iudgment which he saith is not yet certaine agreed vpon among the Romanists notwith standing it is by them made the rule of faith In this section I finde nothing meritorious of a schollers labour either in reading it or ansering it for it is but an idle continuation of the authors former fooleries concerming the Popes authority in the determination of matters of faith which on the one side he will needes haue it so that the Romanists hold his iudgment for an infallible rule of faith yet he himself cites diuers Romanists which doe not hold the Popes authority to be infallible which in my opinion is no lesse then playne dotage For who is he if he be not
quite depriued of iudgment doth not conceiue that if there are Romanists which doe not defēd the Popes authority to be infallible there most of necessity be also some yea the same Romanists that hold his iudgment not to be an infallible rule of faith from whence it doth further necessarily issue that the infallibitie of the Popes iudgment in determining Controuersies is no point of faith among Romanists how be it is commonly held for the most safe doctrine consequently as the proposition of the title of this sectiō is but a fallacious paradox of the knights owne inuenting so are all the authorities proofes which he produceth to shewe that there is vncertaintie among the Romanists of the Popes infallible iudgment in the rule of faith in vaine of no force as tending to demonstrate that which is not denied by all Catholike diuines And thus Sir Humfrey marcheth on in the by-way of his owne deuious francies euen to the end of his section neuer omitting to excercise himself by the way in some part of impiety against the Popes carping malitiously at the euill life of some of them in particular all which how true or false it is yet not doubting but that they haue binne much calumniated by emulators heretiques ill aduised persons as by the writers of their liues appeereth I cannot heere stand to examine by reason I study professe breuity but will onely answere generally with pious S. Augustine in the like case of obiectiō touching the Popes which liued before in his time that although some traytor had cript in to that order of Bishops which is deducted from Peter himself to Anastasius I say to vrbanius who doth now sit in the same chaire yet should he not preiudice the Church the innocent Christians to whome our poruident Lord sayd Doe what they say but doe not what they doe Sec. 22. In the 22. section the knight affirmes that the Church vppon which the learned Romanists grounde their faith is onely the Pope but the Church vppon which the vnlearned rely is no other then their parishe preistes It is iust so why because ipse dixit because Sir Humfrey sayd it But how doth he knowe it to be so by scripture or by tradition if by scripture let him turne his Bible produce the text if by tradition he is a traytor to his owne cause One said plesantly that the faith of a Puritan is resolued 1. in Biblia 2. in spiritum 3. in carnem firste into the Bible secondly into the spirit thirdly into the flesh heere rests the last resolution of their religion But now seriously to the matter but indeed there is little matter except by matter we vnderstand corruption of this I am certaine there is no want For to begin with the title of the sectiō it hath two partes they both false the one is that the learned Romanists ground their faith vppon no other then the Pope the other that the vnlearned rely vppon no other then their parish prestes neyther of which is absolutely true as experience doth teach And yet if it were true that the simple sort of people did rely wholy vppon their Parish preistes what then may not simple Romanists as safely rely vppon their Parish preistes as simple reformers vppon their Parish ministers who are sometimes euen as simple ignorant in diuinity as themselues setting aside that perhaps they are a little more expert in reading the text of the Bible in English or a misreformed homilie And touching the learned Romanists they doe not rely vpon the Pope onely but chiefly vpon the word of God as also the most simple Romanists doe thou ' not interpred according to ther owne priuate sense as the pretended reformers doe but expounded according to the consent commonly receiued sense of the vniuersall visible Church To this I adde a most odious slanderous lye of the knight where he saith of the beleife of the Romanists that if it be receiued with an affected ignorance a blind obedience Page 573. the partie shall be saued by the fire of Purgatory which is most palpably false neuer asserted by any Romanist but coyned by his owne froathie braine besides this the like dishonest dealing he abuseth Bellarmine in diuers places as lib. 1. de iustif cap. 7. in which place wheras Bellarmine produceth S. Bernards expositiō of those wordes of Iob the oxē did plowe labore the asses did feed by them to proue against sectaries that iustifieing faith consists not so much in knowledge as in assent sayeing docet Bernardus Bernard teacheth that by the oxen are vnderstood the learned doctors of the Church by the asses are meant the ignorant which by their simple beleife rest satisfied in the vnderstanding of their superiors nimble Sir Humfrey applyeing this thou ' very fondly preposterously to the disprofe of the ignorant peoples relyeing vppon their pastors in their faith by changing the word dicit he sayth meaning S. Bernard in to these wordes the Cardinall saith he makes his reader beleiue that the foresayd exposition is Bellarmines owne glosse wheras yet he doth but allege it out of S. Bernard onely to confirme his owne doctrine touching the nature of the forme of iustification Another place the knight corrupts in the same Bellarmine lib. 5. de Euchar. cap. 5. concerning the doctrine of Peter Lombard S. Thomas where the Cardinall affirming that they were not carefull of the question now in controuersie to wit whether that which the Preist celebrateth daily be properly a sacrifice but supposed the affirmatiue part as a thing knowne to all men the crafty Cauallier relates the wordes of Bellarmine so transuersly that the reader cannot but vnderstand by them that the Cardinall affirmes that those two most famous diuines cared not whether the Masse were a proper sacrifice or no but that they did onely content themselues to hold that it is a commemoratiue sacrifice onely as the reformers teach And now let these examples suffice to demonstrate the infidelity of our aduersarie in this section to omit much other impertinent false captious matter allegations diuers of which I haue ansered in my censure are heere superfluously repeated by the knight towards the building of this part of his crooked blinde by-way which as you see by the matterialls of it is so fowle rugged that it is not fit for any person of reputation to appeere in it Sec. 23. The next section is the 23. in number affirming that the visibilitie of the Church is no certaine note of the true Church but rather the contrarie thus Sir Humfrey but he that should duelie consider how farre euen by his owne confession he is ingaged to the Iesuit his aduersarie to proue his owne Church to haue binne visible in all former ages since the Apostles times till this day doubtlesse he would much wonder at this his title altho' if contrarilie
annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesijs successores eorum vsque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognouerunt quale ab his deliratur By which wordes it is manifest that S. Irenaeus doth confute his aduersaries the heretikes not by scripture onely but alsoe cheefely by traditionarie authoritie of the Bishops succeeding frome the Apostles which is directly opposite to the tenets especially of the purer sorte of nouellists whoe neither admitte traditions nor Episcopall authoritie but the onely written worde for absolute and sole Iudge of all Controuersies confutation of heresies Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the historian bookes of the old Testament as I am persuaded doth not plainely affirme neither doth Canus charge him with that error that the bookes of Machabies are not absolutely Canonicall as Sir Humfrey alledgeth but he onely reprehendeth him for vsing a vaine distinction of Canonicall scriptures as if there were some Canonicall onely for instruction of manners and not for matters of faith against the infirmitie or vnsoundnesse of which distinction Canus vseth this reprehensiue conclusion saying Cum sub eodem contextu omnes illi libri nullo facto discrimine definiantur esse Canonici scilicet Ecclesiasticus Sapientia Tobias Iudith Machabaeorū libri duo Baruch ridiculum est vt partim in vna significatione partim in alia libros Cenonicos habeamus Ac si hāc semel distinctionem admittimus authoritate Conciliorum atque Pontificum nullus liber Sacer constare poterit And presently after Id quoniam absurdum omnino est retineamus potius eam rationem oportet quam Caietanus voluit evertere vir vt saepe iam dixi cum primis eruditus pius sed qui in libris Canonicis constituendis Erasmi nouitates ingeniumque secutus dum alienis vestigijs voluit insistere propriam gloriam maculauit And soe you see Canus doth not confesse that directly Caietan maintained the Machabies not to be Canonicall but onely with that distinction neither did in deed Caietan more denye the authoritie of those bookes then he did the Epistle to the Haebrewes that of S. Iames which neuerthelesse he held absolutely for Canonicall tho' not perhaps in the same rigorous sense in which he iudged all the rest of the bookes of scripture to be in the Canon by reason those as alsoe some other partes of scripture haue ben by some ancient authors doubted of in which doubt onely he seemeth to founde his distinction Touching the Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament Sir Humfrey doth most falsely alledge the authoritie of S. Isidore persuading his reader that he reiecteth those same bookes which he and his companions in the newe religion condemne for Apochripha Weras in deed that ancient author numbereth them all in the Christiā Canon And to the end the knights impudencie may more plainely appeare I will rehearse S. Isidores expresse wordes concerning the same whoe in his 6. booke of origenes or etymologies saith thus Quartus est apud nos ordo veteris Testamenti eorum librorum qui in Canone Haebreo non sunt quorum primus sapientiae liber est Secundus Ecclesiasticus Tertius Tobias Quartus Judith Quintus Sextus Machaboeorum Quos licet Haebraei inter Apochrypha separent Ecclesia tamen Christi inter diuinos libros honorat praedicat By which wordes it is soe euident that this holie Father standes for the Romanists and against the pretensiue reformers in this point that I much maruell how Sir Humfrey could haue the face to produce him in fauor of his cause Nay more then this out of the distinction which he maketh betweene the the Hebrewes vs Christians in receiuing the foresaid bookes for Canonicall I frame a firme coniecture that either all or most of these ancient authors whoe seeme to exexclude them out of the Canon doe onely intend to declare that they were not included in it by the Iewes as S. Hilarie S. Hierome S. Epiphanius other authors concerning which point the reader may please to reade the same S. Isidore in lib. Prooemiorum de libris veteris noui Testamenti In the 431. page of his by-way the kinght abuseth Canus whome he there cites lib. 12. cap. 13. For he foysteth in by a parenthesis of his owne the worde reall which neither Canus hath nor yet putteth the force of his reprehension of the bishop of Bitont in that he affirmed in the Councell of Trent that Christ did not offer his reall bodie in his last supper but because he affirmed that Christ did not offer his owne bodie absolutely abstracting frō reall or not reall the question not being in that passage of the reall presence but of the Sacrifice of Christs bodie bloud in the Eucharist which as it seemes by Canus relation the foresaid Bishop in the discussion of this point by way of proposition was of that priuate dictamen how beit after wardes he willingly conformed him selfe to the rest of the Fathers to the decree of the Councell By which it is plaine that this Bishop was not of anie firme setled opinion which might fauor Sir Humfreys doctrine in that particular Illud primum animaduerto iure Cornelium Episcopum Bitontinum in Conelio apud Tridentinum à Patribus Theologis vniuersis explosum qui dixerit Christum in Coena non suum corpus sanguinem obtulisse Canus loco citato And soe you see this is one of Sir Humfreyes prittie pettie trickes which omong other greater will serue to replenish his pages The kinght alsoe in his 157. page of his deuia corrupteth the same author cited in his third booke third chapter Where for these wordes in sacrificio Eucharistiae simul cum corpore sanguinem sacerdotibus esse conficiendum sumendum c. Sacrae litterae nusquam forte tradiderunt he translates the consecrating receiuing of ehe bodie bloud of Christ by the preist c. Are nowhere happily to be found in scripture In which passage the attentiue reader may easily see that the knight plaieth the iugler most nimblely For wheras Canus putteth the force of his sentence in the wordes simul together or at once in the other worde sumendum making an hipotheticall proposition of all his wordes ioyned togither our craftie Circulator soe hādleth the matter that his reader may imagin that Canus affirmed that the consecration of the Eucharist according to the custome of the Roman Church is not found in the bible That which that author neuer dreamed but onely intended to produce as an instance of Apostolicall traditions that copulatiue of the practice of the preists consecrating actuall receiuing both the bodie bloud at one the same tyme in the vse of the Eucharist which Canus supposeth rather to be a tradition then expressely contained in the text of scripture More ouer Sir Humfrey cites Gretzerus but onely twise first in his defense of the tenth
prisci moris which signifyes the custome of celibate to haue ben no newe lawe as he would falsely persuade hir reader but established in ancient tymes And more then this he foysteth in to his translation the worde necessarie in steed of flagitare videntur And thus like a bungling boteher he patcheth togither those vncertainties of Cassander to make himselfe and others a deceitfull safegarde of greater confort and benefit for the soule which he erroneously supposeth rather to be in his misreformed faith them in the Romish And now how vnfaithfull weake pore proceeding of Sir Humfrey this appeares to be let the indicious reader consider The knigh moreouer traduceth Bellarmin in the preface to his booke de Romano Pont. translating in euerie place for Graeci the Greeke Fathers as if the Cardinall did confesse that the ancient and most famous Greeke Fathers to wit S. Chrysostome S. Basil Epiphanius and others did impugne and resiste the supremacie of the Bishop of Romane Wheras it is plaine Bellarmin meaneth onely such Grecians as sate in the Councell of Calcedon whoe frandulently defined in absence of the Popes legates that the Patriarch of Constantinople is soe the second after the Roman Bishop as that yet he hath equall priuiledges whence Sir Humfrey will needs inferre that the supremacie of the Pope wantes succession as if the Popes resistance to this attempte of vsurpation in those Grecians were sufficient to exstinguish a true and estblished succession of all former tymes In his page 104. of the deuia touching Salmeron the knight falsely affirmes out of chamier that he speakes in the person of the Grecians when he vttereth those wordes For as much as the benedictton of the lord is not fuperfluous c. For Salmeron neither mentions Grecians nor Latinists but onely argues for the second opinion which he putteth of those which seeme to hould that Christ did not consecrate his bodie and bloud with those wordes This is my bodie But whose soeuer those wordes bee the matter is not great yet certaine it is that Sir Humfrey dealeth falsely and deceitfully in that he produceth them and Salmeron to proue that the grand point of transsubstantiation as he pleaseth to terme it hath neither foundation in the scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among the Romanists whenas neither those wordes of Salmeron are spoken to proue that the grand point of transsubstantiation as he pleaseth to terme it hath neither foundation in the scriptures nor certaintie in the Fathers nor vnitie among the Romanists When as neither those wordes of Salmeron are spoken to anie other end but onely to confirme the opinion of such as hould that out Sauior did not consecrate with those wordes This is my bodie Howbeit both he and they agree most vniformely in that how soeuer Christ him selfe did whose power being infinite was not tyed to anie wordes at all for the effecting that which he intended no more then he was in the operation of miracles particularly in the miraculous transsubstantiation of water in to wine in the mariage feast of Cana yet Preists whoe are but his substitutes or instruments in that sacred action doe vndoubtedly consecrate with those determinate wordes This is my bodie in which all Romanists yea Grecians excepting some moderne Grecians whoe adde some other deprecatorie wordes doe consent vnanimously accorde Wher vpon Salmeron before he comes to rehearse opinions touching that point whether Christ him selfe did consecrate with these formall wordes saith plainely Illud igitur tanquam certum constitutum est apud omnes hanc fuisse nobis formam consecrationis praescriptam iure diuino institutam ac nobis traditam Which wordes sufficiently declare that there is no incertaintie among the Romanists aboute the foresaid wordes of consecration Nay if ther were that incertaintie among diuines aboute the forme of the Eucharist which Sir Humfrey pretendeth yet doth it not follow that the Doctrine of transsubstantiation is vncertaine supposing that both Salmerō all the same diuines agree that the bread and wine are truely transsubstantiated or turned in to the bodie bloud of Christ consequently this author is impertinently alledged as hauing nothing for the knights purpose Besydes that parte of the wordes which he cites out of Salmeron whether they be the Grecians or not they include clearely the doctrine of transsubstantiation to wit those in particular when he graue it transmutation was alreadie made soe the vnwarie knight hath alledge this passage against him selfe For if the change of the bread wine was made before Christ gaue the Sacrament to his disciples the Romanists haue their desire intent that Christ did truely transsubstantiate the elements it importing little to this question by what meanes he performed his action Page 547. of his deuia the kinght corrupts Salmeron by a mangled relation false construction of his wordes which he produceth to proue that some Romanists particularly Salmeron hould the Popes iudgement infallible But how soeuer it be that some Roman diuines hould the Popes authoritie euen without a generall Councell infallible in determining controuersies in matters of faith others the contrarie which as Bellarmin noteth is no matter of faith Yet certaine it is that Salmeron is here abused by Sir Humfrey for that in this place cited what soeuer he doth in others he rather attributes all infallibilitie in resoluing declaring matters of controuersie cheefely to the assistance power of the holy spirit then either to the Pope or Church His wordes are these Neque haec sunt satis nisi accedat vnctio eruditio Spiritus Sancti quem Dominus mansurum nobiscum in aeternum qui in generalibus synodis in Christi Vicario Petri successore residens omnes incidentes quaestiones ortas de fide contronersias sua authoritate terminet atque absoluat Thus Salmeron prologom 9. can 1. Wher the reader may perceiue that the kinght hath either ignorantly or malitiously applyed the relatiue qui to the Pope which neuerthelesse is referred by Salmeron to the holy Gost As anie Grammer boy that vnderstands latin may eassely perceiue And yet blinde Sir Humfrey whoe not being yet a perfect Gramarian will needs playe the Doctor of diuinite englisheth rehearseth Salmerons wordes thus The lorde promised his Spirit to Christs Vicar the successor of Peter by his authoritie the determins all matters of faith Let the reader compare the english with the latin he will presently discouer the fraud S. Isidor Pelusiota writ the Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey page 630. to a monke named Zenon complaining vnto him of want of virtue corruption of maners in the Church in comparison of the primatiue tymes all which that holy man affirmes to proceed from dissention wickednesse or malice of these whoe gouerne especially of preists thou ' not of all but he hath not a worde of the Pope or of anie defect or of the
which I haue made the reader may plainely viewe the great difference ther is betweene the desired reformation of Gerson and that of the pretended Innouators of our tymes the one being almost quite opposite to the other the one intending onely to redresse the Church in some particular accessorie defects the other indeuoring violētly to destroye the whole frame and foundatiō of the visible Church and to build a newe one and finaly the one being a reformation either wholely or cheefly in the life and maners of some corrupted persons the other cheefly in faith doctrine and not regarding reformation of life but rather giuing more scope and libertie to licentiousnesse then euer was heard of in the Christian world And altho' Gerson doth insinuate the necessitie of reformation euen in matters of faith and religion yet doth he not meane of the faith and teligion maintained approued and practized by the Roman Church but he speaketh onely of the errours of heretikes some abuses of other particular persons cropen into the exercise of the true religiō in which he desired reformation to the end the state of the Church may remaine and cōtinue firme in her former puritie without staine of erroneous doctrine or corrupted manners In all which he wished the slownesse of the prelates might be hastened by the power of the secular authoritie of kings and Princes rather then lye vnamended with danger of the Roman faith and preiudice to the saluation of soules Which pious zeale of that renowned chanceler was highly to be commended as farre different from the proceedings of the authors of our newe pretended reformation who to acquire them selues a name of famous men vnder the colour of reforming the Church made a preye of the same with infinit losse of Christian soules and generall domage to virtue and religious life More ouer I am to aduertice the reader that in the citation of this author Sir Humfrey hath cōmirted twoe notable fraudes The first is in that he reherses a great parte of his wordes as if he had founde them allogether in one continuated order or text wheras the author hath them in diuers places to diuers purposes For example Sir Humfrey ioyneth that which Gerson saith of remission of sinnes by so mainie Pater nosters which he hath in his treatie of Indulgences with that other passage of preferring the particular obseruations of some countries before the lawe of God which he hath not in the same place but in an other treatise intituled de directione cordis Secondly I finde those wordes of Gerson which all or most of them being spoaken by him onely of correction of manners the kinght applyeth thē to matters of faith to persuade his reader that ther were corruptions in the Church euen in matters of faith and that the chancelor procured reformation of them An exemple of this fraude you haue in the 650. page of the deuia where the knight sayth Gersō wished at the least a restoring of the ancient faith of the Fathers tyme citing for this his treatice intituled de Coucilio Generali vnius obedientiae and quoting these wordes in the margin Ecclesia sinon ad statum Christi Apostolorum Saltem ad statum Syluestri restituenda Which wordes neuerthelesse Gerson speaketh not of matters of faith but onely of the prouision and collation of benefices as both his whole discourse and especially his precedent wordes doe most clearely demonstrate Which are these Sed longe aliter imprimatiua dolatione donatione distribuebantur bona talia quam postmodum tempore praelatorum qui caeperunt paulatim refrigescere a sanctitate priorum tandem abusi sunt collationibus bene ficiorum ciusmodi administratione quod Papae ad se paulatim multa reuocauerunt vsque adeo quod finaliter datis occasionibus acceptis quas non est hic opus recitare quasi tota iurisdictio collatio talis paenes Papam eius curiam remanebant And after theses wordes Gerson vttered those other at which Sir Humfrey catched yet according to his inueterated custome related not syncerily which if otherwise he had truely reheharsed they would haue presently discouered the truth and of what matter they were deliuered for Gerson saith vel redeundum esset ad statum Ecclesiae tempore syluestri Gregorij quando quilibet Praelatus dimittebatur in sua iurisdictione sollidudinis parte nowe let the reader confer all these wordes of Gerson with the citation of Sir humfrey in the page aboue noted he will presently perceiue howe he hath corrupted thē both in tenor and sense and how he hath foysted in the worde Ecclesia wher it is not to be founde in the text of the author As alsoe in the place taken out of Gersons in his consolatorie tract of rectifyind the hart he transposeth and mangleth his wordes leauing out the worde particular and for the wordes in aliquibus religionibus translating in manie conuents puting manie in steede of some And where the same Gerson in an other place complaining of the imperfections and vices of the regular and secular Cleargie doth explicate him selfe not to meane of all but of some particular persons Sir Humfrey guilefully omits his wordes which are these Sed nunquid hodie omnes Domini Paelati in intedictis post dicendis culpabiles sunt malis absit reliquit enim Dominus sibi in Israell septem millia virorum quorum genua non sunt curuata ante Baal and where the author speaking of disorders of the monasteries of nunnes and fryres vseth the worde quasi to giue the reader aduertisement that he speaketh not absolutely but onely by way of comparison In cōsolat the malitious knight leaues it out as if it were not to the purpose as he omits alsoe the worde nōnunqnam when the author speakes of the dāger which some tymes happeneth among the simple sorte by reason of the multiplicitie of such things as he ther mentioneth In like manner in an other tract in wheras the Chancelor at the first making some doubt of the obtaining of a certaine Indulgence by saying soe manie Pater nosters before an image of the Crucifix yet afterwardes doth moderate his owne speeches soe that it plainely apppeares he doth not condemne the same the fraudulent knight soe relateth the passage as if Gerson had not onely taxed that forme of indulgēce in particular but alsoe had absolutely renoūced the Romā doctrine touching the lawfullnes of Indulgēces in generall his wordes are these Circa haec itaque similia multum caute procedendum est prouidendum ne opponatur firma vel pertinax credulitas propter erroris periculum neque etiam oportet eiusmodi omnino pertinaciter dissentire nec etiam penitus contemnere improbare est igitur ambulandum in his via media c. by which and other the like submissiue temperate wordes which he hath afterwardes in the same place the reader may see Gerson was as farre from
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be