THE FIRST PERIOD.

THIS Period shall containe the first and second sections of S. Humfreys way, and I re­solued to ioyne them toge­ther, by reason I finde litle matter of doctrine in them, as being rather in the nature of preamble or in­troduction, and consequently of too small sub­stance for a scholler to insist vpon.

In his first section he purposed to prooue and disprooue the bitternesse of the Church of Roome towards the reformed Churches, but he bringeth verie little or nothing to that purpose, onely citing for his de­monstration of the same some vnchristian speeches as he tearmeth them, vttered by father Campian in his first reason. She tearmes vs (saith S. Humfrey, meaning the Roman Church) Heretiques, Hellhounds of Zwinglius, Luthers whelpes, Turkish Hugonotes, damned persons, and worse then Infidells, which wordes if they weare truly related I must ne­edes [Page 2] confesse include no small acrimony, but I hauing diligently read ouer on purpose Cam­pians first reason, I finde not them all there, nay nor yet the greater part of them, nor any other equiualent vnto them. I finde indeede he spea­keth sharpely against Luther and Caluin and he tearmeth them and others whom he citeth, Quid ille nunc di­ceret, si vi­ueret in terris, & Lutheros Caluinos­que con­cerneret opifices Biblio­rum, qui sua lima politula & elegan­tula, vetus nouum­que testa­mentum esse rase­rint. Quid Lu­theri Ca­tulis vt Tobiam, Ecclesia­sticum, Macha­baeos, & horum o­dio com­plures a­lios ea ca­lumnia compre­hensos è syncero canone repente dispunge­rent? &c. Quae qui­dem Ec­clesia cu­stos huius depositi non magi­stra (quod haeretici cauillna­tur) the­saurum hunc vul­uersum quem Sy­nodus Tridenti­na est am­plexa ve­tustissi­mus olim concilij publicitus vendica­uit. &c. Castatio mysticum illud Sa­lomonis Canti­cum. &c. Nihilo pluris quam cantile­named a­micula & cum pe­dissequis autor col­loquium amato­rium ve­nereus furcifer aestimauit. Camp. rat. 1. heretiques for their mangling the holy scriptu­res according to their owne priuate Spirits, but he hath not one bitter worde against the per­sons of any sectaries of his owne Countrie, but onely iustly reprehendeth the Nouelists in ge­nerall for rheir abuse of the worde of God. But suppose Father Campian had vsed such spe­eches indeede, what then? do not the refor­mers themselues most frequently both in their writings and pulpits vse farre worse tearmes both against the Romanists and the Roman Church, do not they accuse both her and her members of Idolatrie, Superstition, and Anti­christianity, exaggerating matters with all the satyricall phrases they can inuent, as euen in this very place doth appeere where S. Hum­frey himselfe rayling not onely against the par­ticular members of the Roman Church, but also against her sacred selfe, charging her to haue lost her breasts or at least to giue her chil­dren little or no sincere milke out of her two breasts, the two testaments, and that she doth dayly practi­se spirituall fornication, and that she hath plaid the [Page 3] Harlot with a greate H. and finally taxing her that she mainetayneth and practiseth manifest and manifould Idolatry, and that her title is vsurpa­tion her deuotion is superstition, and she her selfe a professed enemy to the ghospell, from whence you may inferre what a sencelesse blindenesse this was in the knight, to dedicate the first chapter of his booke to the disproouing of the bitternes of the Roman Church, he himselfe hauing spent a greate parte of it in rayling a­gainst her, and also you may perceaue how im­portunely he accuseth her of malignitie and want of desire to quench the vnquenchable broyles of the Church as he tearmeth them, whilest he himselfe through his exasperating speches, asmuch as in him lyeth, putteth no small impediment to the extinguishing of the same, as the reader may plainely perceaue, and notwithstanding he compareth the Roman Church and his owne to two sisters (which comparison allthough it be very fond and ab­surd in it selfe for that the true Church being but one onely spouse of Christ, she can admitte no sister nor Corriuall according to the mea­ning of the holy Spirit in the Canticles affir­ming his spouse to be one, (VNA ES SPONSA MEA) neuertheles he must needes be conuin­ced to haue proceeded most preposterously in this matter, and contrary to all reason, in that hee intending or at least pretending to shew [Page 4] there ought to be loue & vnion betwene them as betwene two sisters descending from one and the same catholique and vniuersall mother as he calleth her, yet as it were with one & the same, breath he accuseth the same Roman Church to haue beene the onely cause of separation; and carrieth the busines in such a rough and vncivill fashion towards her, giuing her such greate occasions of new disgusts, that it plaine­ly appeereth he doth rather demonstrate his owne bitternesse & rancour towards her, then with any probable argument shew any such disposition to remaine in her against any such vnion as hee pretendeth to desire. Why then doth S. Humfrey complaine of that which is in a farre worse manner practised by himselfe and his owne brothers? besides this I pray you doth the supposed bitternesse of F. Cāpian proue the bitternesse of the Roman Church? could he alone bee the whole Roman Church who was but one onely member of it? Or are his spe­eches or priuate positions to be attributed to the whole Church, he being but one parte the­reof and yet not the greatest? what a false Me­tonymie is this? if the head of the Church had vsed such speeches you would haue seemed to haue had some reason to haue attributed them to the whole, because that which the head doth may induce a denomination vppon the rest of the body, of which examples may be found e­uen [Page 5] in nature, but whatsoeuer any other mem­ber doth, it cannot rightly be attributed to the whole. So that we now see that in this allega­tion S. Humfrey himselfe doth so carrie the matter, and giueth the Church of Roome euen in this same section, so much occasion of new disgusts as besides the rehearsed calumnies ta­xing her with creation of 12. new Articles and coyning of new expositions vpō the ould, farre diffe­rent from the doctrine of the Apostles, and that she mayntaineth and practiseth manifest idolatry. And the like most false and slanderous expro­brations, that as I said before, it plainely appee­reth that he hath rather demonstrated his owne bitternes, and rancour towards the Ro­man Church, then shewed any such defect in her, by any argument drowen from Father Campians wordes by him produced, which wordes allthough by his quotation of Iewell in the margent he will seeme to haue taken them at secōd hand, yet certainely it is a plaine imposture, and so let them diuide it as they please betwixt themselues, it being euer suppo­sed that S. Humfrey, and his Iewell, are of e­quall authoritie with the Catholiks, I meane of none at all. Moreouer S. Humfteys whole drift in this section being to cleere his owne Church from the infamous brand of Apostacy, he imposeth the whole cause of separation vpon the Roman Church, and produceth Eras­mus [Page 6] for a wittnes of the same, who being dema­unded (for sooth) of the duke of Saxonie what was Luthers capitall offence that stirred vp so many opposites against him, made answer that Luther had committed two greate crimes, for he had taken away the Crowne from the Pope, and had taken downe the belly of the monkes.

To which saying of answer that Eras­mus is no competent wittnes against the Roman Church, especially in a case where his sole testimonie is interposed. And if S. Hum­frey had ben circumspect he would not haue cited Erasmus his answere for this purpose, as containing one manifest lye if not twb. For neither did Luther euer take the Crowne from the Pope, which as the world knowes, he still enioyeth maugre him and all his adherents: neither did Luther euer take downe the bellies of the monkes, except it was by iniuste vsurpa­tion and rapin to fill his owne, and to leade his lyfe in luxurious concubinate with breach of his vowes to god and man.

Immediately before this momicall passage of Luther out of Erasmus (which although S. Humfrey produced to colour the pretended Reformers diuisiō from the Church of Rome, yet doth it farre more strongly argue a cause in the Pope iustely to reiect them, then anie ex­cuse of their preposterous separation) before this I say he cited a place out of the Prophet [Page 7] Ose which because it makes nothing to this purpose, Cap. 4.15.17. but onely vpon his owne false suppo­sition, that the Roman Church is wicked and idolatrous; therefore vntill I see him prooue his supposition, which yet I know he will neuer be able to performe, I leaue it as impertinent: as also I omit the examples he brings of Abra­hams departure out of Caldea, and of the Iewes out of Egypt; which are as farre from the case we treate of, as Egypt is from Europe or Chri­stendome from Iewrye. Therefore I will one­ly giue notice to the reader how grossely he abuseth certaine authours he cytes, to testifye that by Babylon is meant the Christian Rome. For ther is not one of those authours that affir­mes that after it was conuerted to the Chri­stian faith, it was called Babylon, according as the scripture vsually speakes of Babylon either properly or Metaphorically. Neither is ther likewise anie of the same authours which teach, that since the conuersion of that Citye to the faith of Christ, Christians ought to de­parte from it, as out of a spirituall and idolatrous Babylon, which is that our aduersarie here in­tendes to proue, or at the least ought to proue, if anie thing he meanes to prooue against the Romanists.

And to speake first of the ancient authours here cyted by the kinght, which are Tertulliā, S. Hierome, and S. Augustin, it is directly im­possible [Page 8] that they should meane by Babylon, the Roman Church depraued by anie idolatrie of Christian people, for that they were all de­parted out of the world, before the supposed departure of the Roman Church from the true Religion, is affirmed by our newe sectaries to haue begun, which as they most commonly teach was not before the 600. yeare after the tyme of Christ our Sauiour.

Now as for the moderne authours to wit Orosius, Viues, Bellarmin, and Baronius, and Ribera, they are all knowne Romanists yea and some of them cheefe defendours of the Ro­man Church and faith, and so it is euident by this reason alone that they had not such a thought as to meane by Babylon the Roman Church. Cap. 22. Viues vpon the 18. booke de cuit. Dei, explicates him selfe plainely saying: Pe­trus Apostolus Roman Babylonem appellat, vt etiam Hyeronymus in vita Marci interpretatur, qui ad Marcellam scribens, non aliam existimat des­cribi à Ioanne in Apocalypsi Babylonem, quam Vr­bem Romam. Bellarmin also speakes yet plainer in the verie place cited by S. Humfrey viz. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 2. for he saith. Respondeo Babylonem vocari non Romanam Ecclesiam sed Romanā vrbem, qualis erat Ioannis tempore. Oro­sius I haue not. But let Baronius speake for him selfe and others. Baron. Adam. 45. Nec per somninm quidem quis vnquam inuenit Romanam Ecclesiam esse Ba­bylonis [Page 9] nomine nuncupatam, sed ipsā tantummodô ciuitatem; ac id quidem non semper, sed cum impie­tate referta aduersus ipsam Ecclesiam bellum gere­ret. Ribera vnderstands by Babylon perse­cuting Rome, not as it is nowe, I need not cite his wordes in a case so cleare. So that nowe I doe not see why S. Humfrey produced these authors, except it were by corruption of them, to make them precursors of his corrupted way.

And hence also the reader may gather how weakely the knight proceeds in this his first section, which is the introduction to the rest, in regarde that by indeuouring to reprooue his aduersarie, he doth vnaduisedly prooue his owne imperfections, and so doubtlesse he had better beene idle thē so ill occupyed. And I ve­rily persuade my selfe, that if the Archflamen had duely examined the contents of this se­ction, he doubtlesse would haue marked it with a, non imprimatur.

In his second section S. Humfrey pretends to prooue the cause of contention betwixt the Re­man Church and his owne, originally to haue pro­ceeded from the Romanists by their owne confes­sion. Thus much he promiseth in the title, but performeth nothing. For he cytes but three onely authours, that is, Cassander, Camdē, and Cesenas, in fauor of his position, and yet none of them are acknowledged by vs for sounde [Page 10] Romanists, at the least if we respect their wri­tings here produced. And of Cassander both the inquisitors in their Index, and Bellarmin in his Controuersies, sufficiently declare the vn­soundnes of his doctrine and religion. Cam­den I hope is well knowe. Now for Cesenas notwithstanding S. Humfrey stiles him Gene­rall of the Franciscans, as indeed once he was though afterwards deposed by his owne order and excommunicated by Pope Iohn the 2 [...] for his pertinacie and malapert manner of de­fending, that the Fryes of his order could haue no rents or possessions, yet if he writ against the Tyrannie of the Pope, as he is quoted by the kinght, it is most manifest he could not be a perfect Romanist: or at least that worke could not be his, as in truch I am persuaded it was not, but falsely fathered vpon him, through the iniquitie of him who malitiously compo­sed the mysterie of iniquitie, against the Pope and Roman Church. And hauing now examined the matter I perceiue that which Cesenas writ or Ockam for him was not against the Popes in generall: but he writ onely an epistle or trea­tise (if anie thing he writ him selfe) against the errors (as he termes them) of Pope Iohn in particular, with whome he was much disgusted by reason of the foresaid busines and excom­munications. And as for the wordes which S. Humfrey cites touching two Churches, one [Page 11] good, and an other euill, I fynde none such, nor anie others to that sense in Cesenas. And if euer he vttered anie such wordes, which according to his whole discourse is wholely improbable, yet doubtlesse he could not meane, that the euill Church was the Roman Church intirely and absolutely, in regarde his owne wordes in his foresaide worke doe euidently declare, that he subiected him selfe to the same euen in this same busines, saying in his letters to the Generall Chapter of his Order: [...] Ad Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam publicè & solemniter appel­laui, & me & mihi adhaerentes, & dicta nostra sup­posui correctioni, & emendationi, & protectioni, & defensioni sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae. Et sum semper protestatus me illam fidem tenere & ser­uare velle perpetuo, quam tenet & seruat sanctae Romana Ecclesia, quae est omnium Ecclesiaram ma­ter & magistra. So that this passage is a mani­fest imposture either of S. Humfrey or Plessis choose them whether, who out of an vnsa­tiable desire they haue to fynde out some track or step, though neuer so obscure, of their ima­ginarie Church before the dayes of Luther, care not what they forge or faine.

And yet more then this touching the smale authoritie which Cesenas ought to haue, if he had done or spoken anie thing against the Ro­man Church, if S. Humfrey had looked well aboute him, or had beene carefull to knowe [Page 12] the truth, he migst easily haue founde him re­gistred in the expurgatorie Index, euen in the first Classe for a prohibited authour. And so a man may iustely demaunde of our aduersa­rie with what face then he can affirme his po­sition to be confessed by the Romanists? Or what truth or sinceritie can anie one imagin to be in him? and what credit can prudently be giuen by the Reader to the rest of the allega­tions of his whole booke, who deales in this manner euen in the frontispice of his worke. And in truth I wonder that at the least in hu­mane policie, he was no more circumspect, then to prostitute his reputation so lauishly euen then, when he ought in reason to be most ca­refull of it. And now this may suffice for the censure of this second section as conteyning nothing in particular wich deserueth rehersall, or which may any wise redound, eyther to the authours credit, or serue for the confirmation of his tenets specified in the former section, the proofe as you see being heere as weake and sillie as the matter calumnious before, and con­sequently deseruing no milder sentence of condemnation, then the contents of the former section.

THE II. PERIOD.

NOw I will passe to a view of the third sectiō of Sir Humfreys booke which is, in effect a continuation of the same matter treated in the two first sections, his chiefe drift being to shew the Pope and Roman Church to be in fault for refusing reformation. [...] And because he persisteth in the same manner of proofe videlicet, by the confession of the mem­bers of the Roman Church, I will examine briefly how exactly he prosecuteth the same, and whether he recouereth in this se­ction the credit which he lost in the for­mer.

He laboureth to shew corruption both of faith and manners in the Church of Rome, and that by confession of Roman Au­thours; and for the proofe of this confes­sion he produceth Pope Alexander the fift out of the Councell of Pisa ses. 20. the Councell of Senes, the Councell of Trent in diuerse places. Moulin the 21. chap. of his Eucharist. Agrippa de vanit. Scient. chap. 17. the Bull of Pius the 4. Philippus Mornaeus. Card. Caraph. Consill. de emendanda Ec­clesia. Paulus Vergerius in opusculis, & de Idolo Lauret. hist. of the Councell of Trent in English. [Page 14] These are all the writers he alledgeth, which are ten in number. And although he citheth them all as if they were Romanists (for that he rehe­arseth them all to the same purpose and in one tenour or sequele of words) neuerthelesse it is well knowen that fiue of the ten are so farre from being Romanists, as three of them are professed enemies to the Roman Church, to wit Moulin, Vergerius, and Mornaeus, and the o­ther two that is Agrippa, and the Tridentine hi­story in English, are of no authority, nor credit amongst the Romanists, as being either plaine heretikes, or suspected of heresie. And as for the other fiue Catholike testimonies, they con­taine not one word whereby it may be proued that either the Pope, or the rest, of the Ro­man Church did refuse to admite of due refor­mation, as Sir Humfrey affirmeth, but the con­trary is most manifest out of the Councell of Trent it selfe, euen in the same places which he citeth, where speciall decrees of diuerse parti­cular abuses to be reformed by the Pastors of the Church are extant. True it is that where abuses are decreede to be reformed, those same abuses are of necessity supposed to be, either in times past, present, or future, and so farre I graunt the testimonies cited by the K. out of the two Councels and other Catholike Au­thors be of force: but to prooue that those abuses be corruptiōs in faith, or yet in manners, [Page 15] except we meane of the euill faith and māners brought into the Church by Luther & his fol­lowers) or that they being truly knowen to be in the Church, yet the Pope will not haue them reformed, this I say is a meere calumnia­tion diuised by Sir Humfrey in disgrace of the chiefe Pastour of the Roman Church, and can­not possiblie be deduced out of the foresaid te­stimonies, but rather the quite contrary is ex­pressely to be found, and lastely in the decrees of the Tridentine Councell, as we haue alrea­dy said. Decret. de Refor. That which Sir Humfrey affirmeth in the beginning of his 20. page, is conuinced to be a manifest vntruth, to wit that the day of the Roman reformation is not yet come. And al­though the Knight out of the aboundance of his wit, is not content onely to saye that the Romanists confesse there are corruptions in their Church onely in manners, but alsoe, that they confesse the same in doctrine: neuerthe­lesse of the poynt of doctrine he bringeth not any proofe at all, eyther out of Romanists, or any other waye, but insteede of proofes he vt­tereth diuers vntruths, mingled with some impertinences and equiuocations. Hee telleth his reader in the 20. page that the Councell of Trent, in Paul the thirds time, complained of Indul­gences, but this is most false, for the Councell doth not in anie sorte complaine of the Indul­gences them selues, but onely that the Popes [Page 16] officers in collecting the almes or contribution of the people vppon the graunt and gayning of them, gaue scandall to faithfull Christians, as appeareth by the very same wordes which he himselfe citeth, Vide Con. Trid. sess. 21. cap. 9. among which there is not any one repugnant to the doctrine of In­dulgences but onely to the abuses of the que­stours; as also the same wordes cited in Sir Humfreys margent in lattin, do yet more plai­nely declare, so that this is no lesse then an in­excusable falsitie vttered by the knight for want of an argument, as it seemes, to prooue corruptions in doctrine in the Roman Church. Another vntruth he hath in the 22. pa. where he saith thus: neither did those men (meaning the Fathers of the Councell of Trent) seeke a reformation in manners onely, but in the doctrine it selfe. Whereas they in that very place by the knight alledged, wish onely that the priuate masse might be restored to the auncient cu­stome of the communion of the people, toge­ther with the priest, which as you knowe is no matter of doctrine in cōtrouersie betweene the Romanists and the reformers, but onely of practise, and consequently it proueth not the knights intent in this place, but rather his igno­rant mistaking of the true state of the question in that pointe of controuersie about priuate masse. Now that which he addeth of the La­tin seruice in the Roman Church to wit that [Page 17] the Councell commaunds all Pastours that they at the Masse doe frequently interpret and declare vnto the people the mistery of the Sa­crament, who doth not see how impertinent it is to the matter of doctrine, and how vnapt a medium it is to proue that the Doctours of the Councell either did seeke reformation in the same, or to shew how neare the same doctours came to the doctrine of the reformed Churches, as he presently addeth, affirming them so to doe, since the Councell proceedeth not there, by way of definition or decree in matter of do­ctrine, but onely by way of ordinance and cō ­maund as the wordes by him selfe rehearsed doe plainely specifie; & yet not so but that the same Councell, and in the same place doth ei­ther expressely commaund, or at the least sup­pose that the Masse ought to be for the most part celebrated in the lattin tongue.

Moreouer touching equiuocations, certaine it is that he doth equiuocate in his allegation of Pope Alexander out of the Councell of Pisa, where he saith that the Pope promised solemnely to intend the reformation of the Church, whereas in truth Alexander meaneth not of the faith of the Romā Church, as the knight would haue it, but of the reformation of manners, or of some abuses practized in the Church by parti­cular persons. Besides this, it is not probable that the Pope would meddle himselfe in mat­ters [Page 18] of doctrine in such a Councell as was as­sembled purposely for the taking away of a schisme. But cōcerning manners I finde that in the laste period of the same Councell of Pisa which Sir Humfrey cites ther is expresse men­tion both of some reformatiō already made by the Pope & Cardinals, & also of more referred to the next generall Sinod: the words of which determination are these. Item cum Dominus no­ster Papa cum consilio Concilij intendere [...] reformare Ecclesiam in capite & membris, & iam multa per Dei gratiam sint expedita per ipsum Dominum no­strum Papam, moreouer in the same Councell of Senes which the knight also here produceth I finde no mention of corruption in faith ex­cept by faith Sir Humfrey will vnderstand the corrupted faith of the wiclefists, Hussits, or the Grecians, the reformation and reduction of all which both the Pope and Councell indeuored so farre to effect and compasse, as they declared the first two sectaries to be heretikes and that so earnestly as they threatened all those with excommunication who should any way fa­uore them euen with as much onely as to giue them salte to their pottage, & as for reformatiō of manners there is not a word which proueth that the Pope made anie resistance therein but rather expressely laboured for the same, tho by accident of impediments incident it was a­ctually hindered at that present. Sacrosancta [Page 19] Synodus vniuersalem Eccles. representans nuntijs sanctissimi in Christo Patris ac Domini nostri Mar­tini quinti summi Pontif. specialiter deputatis ip­sius reformationem intentus, incipiens à fidei fun­damentō praeter quod nemo potest aliud ponere dam­nationem haeresum Wiclefistarum & Hussitarum suorumque sequacium &c. In decret. Cōtra Hussi­tas haereticos. Con. Sen. By which it is manifest how great the impudencie of Sir Hunfrey is in alledging these two Councels to proue want of reformation in the Pope or Roman Church they standing both so plainely for the contrary to his positiō or rather impositiō. He equiuoca­teth also in that allegation of Card. Schomberg whom he affirmeth to haue opposed the reforma­tion made in the Councell of Trent. Whereas yet he citeth no wordes of the Card. but onely a bare relation taken out of a certaine history of the acts of the Coūcell published in English touching the foresaid Cardinals oppositiō or ra­ther proposition onely, in the point of reforma­tion. Which fact being related onely by an vn­authēticall history, the allegation can be of no more authority thē is the relatour himselfe who was then a Caluiniā sectary called Suauis who hath writ a very corrupted narration of that which passed in the Coūcell as relating the cō ­tentions or cōtrary opiniōs which the Fathers & Doctours held whiles matters were in debate & vnconcluded, as if they had continued after [Page 20] the definitions and decrees were made, and so abusing both the Councell & his reader egre­giously. And yet more then this suppose the relation were most true and authenticall, yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent, videli­cet that the Pope denieth reformatlon of Cor­ruptions in faith and manners, for that in the wordes related out of the foresaid history, there is no mention of any corruptions of that nature, but onely of abuses in generall tearmes, which Schomberg was of opinion that it had beene better to let them alone, yet that was onely his particular dictamen and proposition, to which neither the Pope nor the rest of the Councell agreed, but resolued, vpon a course of reformation as the decrees themselues doe testifie: so that this passage of the related historie is impertinentlie alledged by the Knight.

Finally S. Humfrey doth equiuocate not onely in that which we haue said, but alsoe in the very substance of this his whole section. For his cheefe or rather whole scope being not onely to proue corruptions in doctrine and manners to be confessed by the Romanists to be in their Church, but also that the Pope re­fuseth to take them away, he by his allegations of the testimonies of some Romanists proueth in parte that there were corruptions in man­ners both before and when the Councell of [Page 21] Trent was assembled, but he quite dissembleth the other parte, to witte, that they were refor­med allso by the same Councell; and yet not withstanding the very same places which he produceth out of the Romanists doe as plai­nely auerre the one as the other. And so out of those proceedings of Sir Humfrey and the rest which hath bene said it may plainely appeere that he is so farre from recouery of that honour which he lost in the former sections, that he hath now stained the same not a little more, and so we may conclude this section and in­clude it in the former censure.

THE III. PERIOD.

IN the fourth section the knight proceedeth to greater matters, to matters I say of life and death; for he affirmeth that manny learned Romanists conuicted by the euidence of truth either in parte or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death, But let vs see how exactly and sollidly he proceedeth in so weightie a matter.

He citeth Med [...]cir. [...] celeberri­mus profes­sor D. Ve­nerandus Gablerus, tanti comi­tis exem­plum secu­tus redijt ad Catho­licismum. Adfuerat is Petro Paulo ver­gerio è cor­pore mi­granti apud quem minor quae dam vide­rat quae illi animum videban­tur perfre­gisse vt non modo Ca­tholicus sed pientis­simus quo­que Catho­licus fieret. Sane aiunt viri graues hunc Apo­statam Vergerium sub mortem teterrimos exhalasse faetores ac bouis instar horrendos edidisse boatus &c. anno 1567. Surius Com. pag. 733. the Councell of Basill out of Gene­brard. Aeneas Syluius out of Platina. Harding out of Iewell. The Rhemish testament out of Cau­sabon. The lord Cooke. B. Gard. out of Iohn Fox. Bellarmins Controuersies. And his last will or te­stament. [Page 22] Albertus Pighins. Paulus Vergerius and his brother Baptist. These are all the au­thours hee citeth in this section. For the proofe of his vast assertion, which authours being but ten in number yet three of them are knowen to be no Romanists except he will haue L. Cooke and the two brother Bishops to be Ro­manists, which neuerthelesse he confesseth to to haue protested against the Romish doctrine; so that now according to his owne confession the whole number of Roman authours he citeth heere is reduced to seuen, which small number I cānot imagin according to what Arithmetick it can truly be accounted many, especially if we compare them to the infinite number of the Romanists which haue bene & yet are extant in the Christian world constant maintainers of Popery. And this I say euen in case it were true that all those seuen had euer renounced the Romish faith either in part or totally, as the knight affirmeth; which neuerthelesse I will make apparent to be otherwise.

And first touching the Councell of Basil, the very same wordes which Sir Humfrey ci­teth do conuince the same, for saith hee the Councell did allow the cup to the Bohemians vpon this condition: that they should not find fault with the contrary vse, nor seuer themselues from the Catholike Church. Now what is heere to be found in these wordes of the Councell which [Page 23] is any kinde of renuntiation of the Romish faith? nay what is there which concerneth the Romish faith at all? that which the Councell determineth being but onelie a graunt to one particular nation vpon particular reasons, and that in a point of practice not of doctrine, which also, if our English protestants were as conformable to the Roman Church in all o­ther points of faith and manners as the Bohe­mians then were, might perhaps vpon the like iust reasons and vpon the same condition be graunted in the realme of England, and that without any preiudice to either faith or man­ners. But our English sectaries are so farre from conformitie to the Romanists not onely in diuerse other points but euen in this particu­lar that they cōtinually exclaime against them both in their bookes and sermons as violatours of Christs institution in that they do not all­wayes and in euerie countrie communicate the people in both kindes, Con. Basi­liense initio legiti­mum po­stea Con­ciliabu­lum Scis­maticum, & nullius authorita­tis. Con. lat. sess. 11. ex Bell. non refe­ro verba. accusing them also that they mangle the Sacrament and vniustlie de­priue the laytie of one part there of, iudging the same for a laufull cause, at the least in parte, of their separation from the Roman Church, none of which particulars are proued by the testimonie of the Councell of Basil to haue concurred in the case of the Bohemians, but rather the contrarie is most plainelie specified: so that the knight hath laboured in vaine or [Page 24] rather against himselfe by producing the fore­said testimonie, of the Councell of Basil in which noe renuntiation of Popery is to be founde nor anie agreement in doctrine or manners with the pretensiue reformed Chur­ches. From whence it is also consequentlie in­ferred that to be clearelie false which our ad­uersarie affirmes in the beginning of this se­ction, to wit that the reformed Churches haue done nothing in this otherwise then former Coun­cels had anciently decreed.

He citeth in the second place Aeneas Syluius, who was afterwardes Pope Pius the second, as if he had renounced the Romish religion in that he saith, that as marriage vpon weightie rea­sons was taken from the Priests, so vpon weightie reasons it were wished to be restored. But what is this to the purpose? is a wish of an alteration in one particular point, & that not in faith but manners or rather in practice of the Church a renuntiation of religion either in parte or in whole? or is the prohibition of marriage, or the celibate or single life of priests anie of the twelue articles which the knight is pleased to tearme the new creede of the Roman Church? no suerlie. How then is it a matter of faith, or the renunciation of it the renuntiation of Po­perie? and not rather a renuntiation onelie of a precept of the Church in case it were truelie renounced by anie Romanist what­soeuer [Page 25] he is. Which renuntiation neuerthelesse was neuer made by the authour cited as his wordes rehearsed out of Platina by Sir Hum­frey himselfe doe make manifest to anie syn­cere and vnpartiall reader. In which not by way of wish or as giuing his reall assent with the reformers as Sir Humfrey doth corrupted­ly relate, but onelie by a doutfull deliuerie of his owne priuate dictamen that present tyme occurring vnto him. Sacerdotibus magna ra­tione sublatas nuptias, maiori restituendas vi­deri. Plat. in pio 2. And yet more then that after he was Pope and making reflection vpon his former writings published in his greener yeares, to the imitation of S. Augustin and others he framed are tractation of diuers par­ticulars passages of his owne workes among which this is one, as appeares by the tenor of the same which in his later editions in force of a breefe or Bull is vsually prefixed to his boo­kes. To omitte that if the foresaid Syluius had bene a renouncer of anie point of Poperie it were too ridiculous to imagin that euer he would haue bene elected Pope, as neuer­thelesse the knight confesseth him to haue bene afterwardes. And thus the reader may plainelie see that this allegation is of no more force then the former towards the proofe of Sir Humfreys intent.

In the next place is master Harding brought in for a renoncer of Popery. For that as Iewell reporteth, he saith that godly and faithfull peo­ple haue since the time of the Primitiue Church much complained of Priuate Masse. But suppose it were true, what is this to the purpose of re­nouncing of Popery? For what zealous and re­ligious Papist is there in the world who doth not iustly complaine of want of deuotiō in the laity for that they haue not that feruour in fre­quenting the communion which those of the Primitiue Church had? and if this could be re­medied what Romanist would not much de­sire it, yea and by all meanes possible procure it? but is this to condemne as vnlawfull or con­trary to Christs institution (as you sectaries doe) all Masses as be celebrated without Cō ­municants? no such matter. No more, nay much lesse then if for complaining that Sir Humfrey Linde doth not deale so sincerely in the citations of his aduersaries as becometh the reputatiō of a knight, a man should there­fore presently be thought to haue quite con­demned him of dishonest proceeding in that nature euen in the highest degree of false dealing and corruption. Which collection if he please to graunt, I know not who will be so vnciuill as to contradict him. Especiallie con­sidering that euen in this verie citation he hath corrupted doctour Harding most vnconscio­nablie [Page 27] by applying against priuate masse that which he speakes onelie against the negligen­ce of the laye people for that they so com­monlie omit to communicate at masse, as if that authour disalowed of the priuate masse it selfe, whose wordes neuerthelesse truelie cited as he hath them in the beginning of the ninth leafe of his answer to Iewels chalēge will cleare the busines and manifestlie discouer where the fault lyeth: that others do commonlie forbeare saith hee, to communicate with the preist it is through their owne faulte and negligence not regarding their owne saluation whereof the godly and care­full rulers of faithfull people haue since the tyme of the primitiue Church allwayes much complained. And thus you see how nimblie the subtil knight hath abused both that worthy doctour & his owne reader. Wherefore it being by this which we haue said apparent that M. Harding was no condemner of priuate masse as either vnlawfull or against the institution of Christ, it also is thence manifestlie consequent that he was no renouncer of Poperie euen in that par­ticular point, and so the proofe which the knight would draw from him is of no force, nor auaileable to his cause; nay it is in trueth so disagreeable to the state of the question that it is no small wonder how either mallice or ignorance could so much blinde him as to make vse of it in this matter.

The fourth restimonie is out of the Rhemes Testament the authours of which (as hee affir­meth out of Causabon) auouch the scriptures to haue bene translated into English by the impor­tunitie of the heretiks. And he addeth that the Ro­manists haue of late graunted a dispensation to some men and woemen also to reade scriptures, and this also was done (saith hee) by the importunitie of the heretiks. Moreouer as it were in confirma­tion of the same, he addeth that most of the Ro­mish proselites, (as he tearmeth them) did fre­quent their Church and seruice for the first eleuen yeeres of Queene Elizabeth: neither (saith he) was it forbidden by any lawfull councell. Thus he discourseth touching this point.

Heere is much a doe and little to the pur­pose. And indeede after a greate deale of stu­die a man shall hardlie collect anie thing out of the whole discourse which may seeme to haue anie shewe of proofe for the knights assertion, videlicet. That many Romanists haue renounced Popery before their death. Yet it seemes to me, his whole drift may be reduced to these two arguments. The first thus: The Romanists haue translated the bible by the importunitie of the reformers, & giue dispensations to some men and woemen to reade it; therefore many Romanists haue renounced Popery. The se­cond thus: most of the Romanists did frequent the reformed Church and seruice for the first [Page 29] 11. yeeres of Queene Elizabeths reigne, neither was their communication with them prohibi­ted by anie lawfull Councell, therefore manie Romanists renounced Popery before their death.

Loe heere two learned Enthymems: they march like two march hares and runne starke wilde. I wonder what nimble vniuersity man hath taught the knight to choppe Logike so minshingly, or what polipracticall Alchymist hath instructed him in the art of extra­ction so exactly, that out of the importu­nity of his reformed consorts, he is able to drawe the translation of the Rhemish Testa­ment, and that with a dispensation for some men and woemen to reade it. So skilfull he is in extracting oyle out of stones and milke out of mountaines. Neither doth his exquisite knowledge stay heere, but he will needes persuade his reader he can extract also out of the same, that many Romanists haue renounced their Popery by translating the Bible into En­glish and by giuing a dispensation 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 [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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 [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 aut domi concubi­nam fo­ueat, tam­metsi graui sacrilegio sese obstin­gat: gra­uiùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimo­nium. &c. Costerus. Enchir. cap. 17. de caelib. prop. 9. then he who keepeth a concubine at home, as Costerus though incompletlie cited and vniustlie taxed by the knigth, doth most truelie affirme. And this is a cer­taine knowen trueth among diuines con­sequent to the prohibition of Priests mar­riage which prohibition once supposed he that should marrie should not onelie com­mitte [Page 35] a scandalous sinne of the flesh, as that Priest doth who should be a Concubinarie, but also he should in that case comit a Speciall irre­uerence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of it selfe a more grieuous sinne then is the keepinge of a concubine, as all men, Aug. de bono vide cap. 11. except the reformed brothers, doe easilie apprehend, con­formable to which S. Aug. saith that mariage after a vowe of continencie is worse then adul­terie. Planè non dubitaue­rim dicere lapsus & ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae no­uetur Deo, adul­terijs esse pe [...]ores. ibidem. To omit, that for a Preist to marrie in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it in­cludes also the scandall of Concubinate it selfe.

But now Sir Humfrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the poynt of me­rits. Lastly (saith hee) how many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption and by reason of the vncer­tainetie of their owne workes doe relie wholie vpon the merits of Christ Iesus? shewe me that learned man that liueth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sounde Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith. Thus the knigth; who as you may easilie perceiue by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to per­swade his reader that all the learned Roma­nists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man iustified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdome of heauen by the good workes [Page 36] he doth by vertue of the grace of God and me­rits of Iesus Christ, because forsooth, many for feare of vaine glorie and presumption, and by reason of the vncertainelie of their owne workes at their death doe relie wholie on the merits of their Sauiour; whereas indeede these are two farre different poynts of doctrine, the first, that is, the trueth of mans merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church; the second which is the confidence in merits, being none; the one being about the substance of merits, the other onelie about the qualitie; the one about the absolute acknowledgment of merits, the other onely about the ouergreate confidence or presumption in them: And so he that renounceth the first, renounceth Poperie indeede, but he that renounceth the second doth not; neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would haue him to be, for the onelie deniall of confidence in merits, as in it selfe it is most manifest. By all which, because Sir Hūfrey with all his diuinitie had not iudge­ment to distinguish, he proueth nothing but doth onelie hallucinate betweene trueth and falsehood. Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he alledgeth anie whit auaile his cause; for suppose that be true which he af­firmeth of him, to wit, that in his sicknes he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt Gods Iudgment & his owne sinnes, yet cānot he thence [Page 37] inferre that therefore the Bishop renounced the trueth of the doctrine of merits in generall, nay nor his owne merits in particular, but one­lie the presumption of them, or the confidence in them by reason of the vncertainetie of them, as I haue alreadie declared. Besides that, this which he is affirmed to say of himselfe being but onelie a relation of Fox, we may iustlie doubt of the trueth of it. For he hath bene long since hunted to his hole by a learned Ca­tholike and his vnright Reuerence manifestlie conuinced to be a Father of lyes.

Wherefore he is of no credit with vs; neither can his testimonie preuaile against vs. We care not for him, his acts and monuments are of no moment among vs, his testimonie is not the cō ­fessiō of a Romanist which is that our aduersary promised in the title of his booke, and we ex­pect he should performe: and to omit the smale credit which I and all Catholikes giue to the relations of Master Fox, yet I fynde that he who hath dealt so falsely with others, hath now founde one of his owne profession who dealt not verie sincerelie with him in recoun­ting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardi­ner at his death, for whereas Sir Humfrey will needs proue by the testimonie of Fox, that this Bishop renounced Poperie at his death in the pointe of merits: yet Fox in his 2622. page onelie saith thus: That according to the reporte of [Page 38] one whome he will not name (perhaps he could not) when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to conforte him (great comfort I warant you) with wordes of Gods promisse and free iustification in the blood of Christ our Sauiour repeating the scriptures to him. Winchester hearing that. What my lord, quoth he, will you open that gap now, then farewell altogether: to mee and such other in my case you may speake it, but if you open this window vnto the people then farewell all.

And now according to this speech of B. Gar­diner let the iudicious reader imagin if he can how Sir Humfrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrarie: to wit that al­tho' dayes wordes might be vttered to him & others of learning and vnderstanding without danger of peruersion, but not perhaps to the cō ­mon people who by their ignorance and fray­letie might easilie misinterpret them (as he did that vttered them) and so easilie receiue harme by them not withstāding that they of themsel­ues in a founde fense include nothing but truth.

The knight also citeth to the same pur­pose (yet to no purpose) Bellarmine in his sixte booke of Iustif. 7. chap. and his testament or last will. Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholy on the merits of Christ Iesus. But this according to that which hath bene already said of this matter, is at the [Page 39] most but onelie a renuntiation of presumption or ouermuch confidence in our owne vncer­taine merits, as is most apparent out of Bellar­mines owne doctrine euen in the verie same chapter where the wordes cited by Sir Hum­frey are found thoug much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwardes I will de­clare. Now in the second place, the wordes are these. I beseech him (that is God) saith Bel­lar. that he would admitte me into the companie of his Saints and elect, not as a valluer of merits, but as a giuer of mercie; which wordes, if the knigth had not bene ouermuch distracted, he would easilie haue perceiued that they fauour his in­tent nothing at all, as not cōteyning any kinde of renuntiation of the due estimation of me­rits in themselues, but onelie signifie a certaine negatiue renuntiation of confidence in his owne particular deserts at the hands of God, which is both most conformable to the same most learned and virtuous Cardinalls owne doctrine in his booke of Iustification before ci­ted, and also most pious in it selfe. But it seemes our learned Knigth, was either ignorantlie or malitiouslie deceiued in the true meaning of Bellarmines wordes, imagining verie sillilie, that because the Cardinall at his death prayed God to receiue him into glorie, not as a valuer of merits, he had held God for no valuer of me­rits at all, whereas God knowes, the pious [Page 40] Prelate had no such meaning; neither doe his wordes rightlie cōstrued, carrye anie such sense rather doe expresse the contrarie by tearming God a valuer of merits in generall: although on the otherside considering his owne wea­kenes, Non aesti­mator me­riti sed ve­niae quaesu­mus Largi­tor admit­to. Can. Miss. and the vncertainetie of his owne parti­cular deseruinges, out of an humble mynde, he feared to put himselfe vpon God as vpon an esteemer of the same (which in case he had had no merits at all might haue failed him) but rather made choyse at the houre of his depar­ture to cast himselfe vpon the mercie of God which hee assured himselfe could neuer be wanting to those who duelie relie vpon his goodnes and bountie. And put the case a poore distressed creature should begge an almes of Sir Hūfrey intreating him to take pitty on him, not as a learned man but as a liberall knight, could he therefore iustelie say the beggar de­nied him to be a learned man? no suerlie, and why? marie because the beggar although he knew him well enough to be a learned man, yet he knew also it was not his learning that could releeue his necessity, but his money. Af­ter this māner it happeneth in the case we treate of: for as such a begger could not trulie be said to haue renounced the knights learning in that case, so neither could Cardinall Bell: be iustlie supposed to renounce God as a valuer of me­rits in the state he was in by recurring vnto [Page 41] him onely as to a bestower of mercie. And thus we see that Bell: dyed as greate a Romane Ca­tholike as he liued, notwithstanding all Sir Humfrey can say against him he can no sooner make Bellarmin a Protestant thē he can make a Protestant of the Canon of the Masse it selfe which hath the verie same wordes which the Card. Piously, vsed at the houre of his death. Next after Bellarmine Sir Humfrey hath pla­ced Albertus Phigius, who if we will credit him, telleth vs he became a Caluinist euen in this verie poynt by reading of Caluins institutions. Thus he relateth this storie and will haue vs take it on the worde of a knight, but he must pardon vs Romane Catholikes if we refuse to beleeue it vpon the bare relation of an aduersarie, as houl­ding our selues to haue full as greate authoritie at the least, to denie it as he hath to affirme it. True it is he quoteth a place of the authour in the margin, but citeth not a worde of his in the text, as in the like occasion he vseth to doe, which causeth me to persuade my selfe there is no such matter to be founde, or at least some mistake in Sir Humfrey in the true meaning of his wordes, as he mistooke in Bellarmine. Especiallie considering that Pighius is noto­riouslie knowen to haue bene a professed ene­mie both to Luther and Caluin as his workes doe testifie. And that Pighius differeth both from the Lutherans & Caluinists in the maine [Page 42] paint. Of iustification it is most manifest by his whole discourse, and particularlie in that he absolutelie affirmes in his 53. page of his Controuersie of iustification, that faith alone though it be neuer so perfect is not sufficient to iustification, saying: Sed fidem hanc solam non sufficere nobis &c. in which place although he doth not name or mention Caluin, yet doth he expresselie and professedlie dispute against that doctrine of his and Luther which putteth iu­stification in faith onelie, so that it hence plai­nelie appeareth that if Pighius did read Cal­uins Institutions as Sir Humfrey affirmeth, it was not to follow them but to confute them. He quoteth also Ruardus Tapperus to what purpose I know not except it be to fill his mar­gent for ostentation, and so I leaue it till he shall further please to declare his meaning, touching that citation which may be he reser­ueth for a fourth edition: in the interim that Taperus was a professed papist his bookes do witnes. And now hauing made it plainelie ap­peere that not one of the Romanists which the knight citeth in this section euer renoun­ced anie point of Poperie before his death, or at the least that no one, nor all the testimonies which he produceth out of Romanists doe proue anie such renunciation, as he auerreth: and also that some of those which he alledgeth for proofe of his assertion, as true Roma­nists, [Page 43] were not as much as in externall showe of the Catholike religion long before their death, and some of them in no parte of their whole life as is manifest in Iewell, Fox, and Cooke, and consequentlie could not in reason be produced by him as witnesses in fauour of his cause noe more then Martin Luther or Iohn Cal­uin, this I say supposed, it onelie now remay­neth that for the conclusion of this Period we doe not onelie censure the Contents of this se­ction for vnsounde doctrine, but also the au­thour of it for an indirect and false dealer in the confirmation of the seame.

THE IV. PERIOD.

THE fift section of the booke is about the impediments of reformation of such thinges as the knight iudgeth inexcusable in themselues: and for impediments of reforma­tion, he assigneth wordlie pollicie and profitte, the thinges which he calleth inexcusable are the doctrine of Purgatorie, Indulgences, prayer for the dead, the communion vnder one kinde, worship of pictures, and such other poynts of Catholike doctrine all which hee temerari­ouslie affirmeth to be inexcusable and that one­lie by waye of an odious relation of then in particular, but adduceth nothing whereby to proue anie one of them to be such indeede, and [Page 44] so neither will I proue anie thing against him heere more then that he vttereth diuerse vn­truthes in this one section. First in that he af­firmeth the faith of Purgatorie is confirmed by Councells meerelie for the benefit of the Pope and his Clergie, which is nothing els but a manifest calumniation without all apparance of trueth, it being a thing wholie improbable and con­trarie to common sense, either that so manie learned, graue and pious men as vse to be as­sembled in Councells should determine anie thing as matter of faith meerelie for anie Tem­porall respect whatsoeuer: or that the laitie of the Christian world, especiallie Princes, Kinges and Emperours being so much more powerfull as they are knowen to bee, then the Pope and Clergie, should condescend to a matter of such indignitie as the knight would haue it and so much to their cost, if they did not otherwise assure themselues both of the integrity of those who meete in those assemblies, and also of the trueth of the doctrine in it selfe. Besides that the same is manifestlie conuinced of falsitie, for that prayer for the deade, and consequentlie Purgatorie, was knowen in the world before eyther Pope, or Councells were extant as ap­peareth by the historie of the second booke of the Macchabies the 12. chapter which our ad­uersaries themselues cannot denie to be a true historie, though they impudentlie denie it to [Page 45] be Canonicall Scripture against the plaine te­stimonie of S. Augustine who affirmeth the Church to hould it for such though the Iewes hold the contrarie. Libros Macha­beorum non Iu­daei sed Ecclesia pro Ca­nonicis habet. Aug. l. 18. de Cuit. Dei cap. 39. So that this is but an o­dious fiction of Sir Humfrey and his compa­nion sectaries inuented by them in disgrace of the chiefe pastour of the Church and the rest of the Priests without eyther authoritie reason or sence, accusing them as hinderers of refor­mation who labour most for it, onelie because they refuse to admitte a reformation of their fashioning which indeede is no reformatiō but a deformatiō or defacing of the aunciēt Church & an introductiō of a certaine new fantasticall Church most disfigured and vglie, vniformiter difformiter deformis, voyde of all luster & beauty both internall and externall, nor euer knowne or heard of before the dayes of Luther.

His second vntruth it in the end of the 39. page, where he affirmeth, that the Romanists in the psalters leaue out the second cōmaunde­mēt. This secōd vntruth of the knight inuolueth a double vntruth, the first is in that he saith the Romanists leaue out the foresaid commaū ­dement in their psalters, whereas it is well knowne that in the whole Psalter the second cōmaundemēt is not to be foūd, at the least for­mally as it is one of the ten. But this vntruth be­cause I perceiue it proceedes rather of ignorāce thē malice, I am cōtent to pardon. Yet because [Page 46] when he said the Romanists lefte it out of their psalters, he either meant they lefte it out of the text of Scripture, or that they left it out of their catechismes onely, I āswer that whethersoeuer he meant, he cānot be excused for telling an vn­truth, first because he falsely supposeth for cer­taine, that to be the second commaundement which indeede is but an explication of the first, in the opinion both of S. Augustine and either all or almost all other diuines of later yeares. Secondly because those same authours: who hould those same wordes. Thou shalt not make to this selfe any grauen image, to be the second commandemēt, doe not hould that the Images of Christ and his saints, and due honour of thē, are prohibited by that precept among Chri­stians, but onely a gentilicall or idolatrous vse of pictures or grauen images of false Gods and other such abuses as be repugnant to the due honour of the true and onely God. Lastly it is also false that all Catechismes leaue out that precept, if precept it be, as appeareth by the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent and of Canisius and some others. So that you see now that the knight is euery way conuinced of an vntruth. And although it is true that in diuerse of their Catechismes the Romanists leaue out all the rest of the first commaundement as they lie in the text of the 20. of Exodus excepting those: Thou shall haue no other Gods but me. Yet [Page 47] they doe not so with any sinister intention, as the reformers vniunstly accuse them to doe, in regard, it is well knowne that those who vse to instruct children in their Catechisme notwith­standing they vse not to fill childrens heads with such proclamations against grauē Images as the reformers doe, yet they neuer omitte to declare and explicate exactly the whole tenour of the words of the commaundement, inculca­ting most diligently the true sense of the same and teaching them how farre it is true that images and the worshippe of them in prohibi­ted by that precept, & the difference betweene the vse of Christian images and those which according to the practice of those times were vnlawfull. But the true reason why Romanists most commonly omitte those wordes: Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing, and the rest, is because Catechismes being onely a short summe of Religion, it is fitting they be most briefe and compendious as being so more easy to learne and more conformable to the ca­pacity of children, then if they were large and prolixe in wordes, especially considering that that which wanteth in wordes may farre more easily be added by the master by may of cxpli­cation then many lines can be cōmitted to me­mory by weake, and vnapt schollers. Neither doe the Romanists make catechismes for Iewes and Gentiles but for Christians and Catholiks [Page 48] and so it were both superfluous and imperti­tinent to put in all the wordes of the text or more as the reformers doe, some of which doe belong rather to the law of moyses then to the Ghospell of Iesus Christ, and therefore for the verie same reason the Romanists leaue out of their Catechismes diuerse words of the precept of the Sabaoth, as iudging them vnnecessarie for the instruction of Christian children. As also because according to the doctrine of S. Au­gustin in his question vpon this commaunde­ment, those onely words: Vide illum infra in fine op. Thou shalt haue no o­ther Gods but me: are the whole substance of the first commaundement, and the same in sense with the other which immediatly follow in the text, to wit, thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen thing, by which grauen thing S. Augu­stin in the same place vnderstandeth an idol & not any grauen image as the reformers doe cor­ruptedly vse to translate and commonly put it so in their Catechismes for the false instruction of their children. And hence it plainely appea­reth that the Romanists leaue not out of any of their bookes of Christian doctrine anie of the ten commandements, but rather that the re­formed brothers put in one more then either according to Scripture or the doctrine of S. Au­gustin they ought to doe, as by the true diuision and number of them at the end of this worke shall the be more manifestly declared.

Thirdly it is vntrue which he affirmeth, though by way of insinuatiō onely, that the Romanists doe adore a piece of bread. For it is well knowne they adore not the bread but that which christ, himselfe affirmed to be his body, for which adoration besides the scripture, we say with S. Augustin: nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit. Aug. in ps. 98. and so this, though Sir Humfrey as it seemes was ashamed to vtter it plainely, yet it is no lesse then a plaine leasing. Besides these vntrueths which I haue now re­hearsed he hath diuerse very idle positions ei­ther false or friuolous, as for example that the power of binding and loosing depends vpon Purga­tory, that by defect of the Priests intention the wor­shipper of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament may commit flat Idolatry and the like, these because they are left by him vnproued, I will also leaue them vnrefuted till such time as I shall see his proofes produced, and in the meane time I condemne this whole section, as containing matter both idle, false, calumnious, and full of inuectiue bitternesse and puritannicall spleene against the Romanists accusing them that they turne the necks of Scriptures cleane about; & that it is a common practice of their Church of Rome to make greater price of victory then verity, & other such matter as is vnworthy to be published ei­ther by printe or pen.

THE V. PERIOD.

THE knight in his sixt section promiseth to refute that which he tearmeth the Common practice of his aduersaries in their re­fusall of reformation, because saith he, we can­not assigne the precise time when errours came in. This I confesse is a matter of importance, and if Sir Humfrey can performe his promise he will in parte recouer the credit which he hath formerly lost; if not, his honour must still lye in the dust. Now to performe his promise he must know that it is not sufficient for him & his partners to assigne the time and persons when and by whom those points of doctrine, which they hould to be erroneously maintai­ned in the Roman Church, were first broached, but they must also by some meanes or other conuince them to be errours indeede. And as long as Sr Humfrey failes in the demonstratiō of either of these, it is manifest he doth not per­forme his worde. He saith indeede very confi­dētly in the beginning of this section, that they (meaning as I suppose himselfe and his compa­nions in sect) are all eye-witnesses that the er­rours, of the Romā Church are this daye so no­torious that a very child may perceaue thē; but what is this to the purpose? this is but a friuolous repetition of their owne bare wordes, this is no [Page 51] lawfull proofe among aduersaries, this is no de­monstration, it is not this Romane Catholiks are bound to stand too, this is no reasonable sa­tisfaction for vs or any other be he neuer so in­different. We must be conuinced of errours by Scriptures, by consent of auncient Fathers, by plaine definitions of approoued Councels. And till you Sir Humfrey, or some of your consorts make this point cleare, we acknowledge no errours in our Church, and by consequence no necessity of reformation in that nature, as your discourse in this section doth falsely suppose. Moreouer touching the assignation of time & persons, when and by whom the pretended er­rours of the Roman Church had their begin­ning, it is apparant the knight is in a great er­rour, in that he persuadeth himselfe that the Romanists exact of the reformers to assigne the time and persons when and by whom such errours as they attribut to their Church were first broached: For the Romanists do not stand precisely vpon assignation of the very first time and persons, or the very first Authours of those supposed errours, no they put no such rigorous taske vpon the reformers, but onely oblige them to shewe when they were first so noto­rious and apparent in the world, as both they & their authours were condemned in any authen­ticall Councell or assembly, and this is that onely which the Catholikes demaund of their [Page 52] aduersaries, and not that which Sir Humfrey imagineth; and therefore whatsoeuer he pro­duceth in this section for the confirmation of his intent in that particular, proceedeth vpon false supposition, and consequently proueth nothing but his owne ignorance. That which is a thing not onely proper to Sir Humfrey in diuerse places of his booke, but also so general­ly incident to the rest of his conreformers as in reading their workes I haue often lamented their case to see them so labour in vaine like hounds spending vpon a false sent. And surely nothing els but the foresaid false supposition was the cause why Sir Humfrey proceeded in this point in so farre a different manner as he doth from the rest of his fellowes. He not ta­king vpon him as they ordinarily doe (tho' without effect) to assigne the time when those imagined errours first began, and who were the first authours of the same; but as it were suppo­sing that to be impossible, or els aduerticeing the ill successe which his fellow sectaries haue had in prosectuing their waye, fell vpon a quite contrary course, indeauouring to shewe a di­stinction and difference betwixt the heresies of the Arians, Pelagians, and Donatists, and the er­rours which he supposeth to be in the Roman Church: graunting that those heresies being such as did (saith he) indaunger the foundation and openly disturbed the Church, might easely [Page 53] be discouered, adding that their first authours de facto were obserued and the times knowne & place pointed at. But the chāge of the Roma­nists doctrine, saith he, was a secret Apostasie scarcely to be knowne or discouered, condem­ning also that for an impertinent demaunde which the Catholikes vsually require of the reformers, to wit, that they shewe the first time and produce the first authours of the supposed Romish errours; by this shewing himselfe very desirous to rid his handes of so hard a taske as he hath vndertaken, as doth plainely appeare by those examples and similitudes which he v­seth for that purpose tho' not very well ap­plied. And now this being the sense of the first parte of this section, let vs briefely examine how soundly he proueth his intent. Matth. 13.24. In the pa­rable of the sower (saith he) Christ himselfe giues a full answer to those impertinent de­demaunds, he telleth vs that after the good seede was sowen, the enemy sowed tares when men were a sleepe. Thus he answereth to the impertinent question of the Romaniste as he tearmeth it. But good Sir Humfrey if the que­stion be impertinent why doe you answer to it? why doe not you rather passe it with silence then spend your breath about it? but it seemes you will needes answer, yea and father your answer vpon our Sauiour as if Christ himselfe had answered in the words cited to the same [Page 54] question which you say the Romanists de­maund of you. Fy what application of Scrip­ture is this! are you a master in Israell and yet ignorant that our Sauiour vsed that Parable to another purpose? did not our Sauiour meane by the enemy, the Deuill, by the tares vices, and by the field the soule of man? is not this a com­mon exposition of interpreters? or if you will needes haue it vnderstood of errours in do­ctrine, and of the sower of them in the field of the Church, of which we know there are good store in your congregation, yet can the parable of our Sauiour auayle your purpose nothing at all. For that the question of the parable is generall and so a generall answer was sufficient. But the demaund of the Roman Ca­tholikes is particular & so in reason it requiers an answer in particular; for example, the que­stion is if Purgatorie be an errour of the Romā Church, who was the first authour of it? In what age did he liue? if not to communicate in both kindes be an errour of the Romā Church, who was the first authour of it? &c. So that in the question of the Romanists there is no im­pertinencie in the sense in which they demaūd it, but the knight's answer is both impertinent in it selfe and also falsely fathered vpon our Sauiour.

True it is that the Roman Catholiks, as I haue said before, doe not oblige the knight [Page 55] nor anie of his consorts to answer so metaphisi­cally to their demaund as he erroneously per­suadeth himselfe. But they onely vrge the re­formers to name the authours and time of such supposed errours in a morall manner; that is who they were that haue beene in anie lawfull Councell condemned for either the broachers or publike defēdours of those he calles errours. Which is a demaunde so farre from imperti­nencie, that there hath neuer beene any noto­rious errour in the Church of God which hath not beene noted so by the writers of the seue­rall ages wherein they liued, or at the least, by some others presentlie after their time. And so hence it appeareth manifestlie, that the Roman Catholikes being no wise guiltie of imperti­nencie in their demaund, yet Sir Humfrey is most impertinent in his answer, and not onelie an impertinent alledger of Scriptures, but also a peruerse detorter of the same, as in­terpreting them by the direction of his owne priuate spirit, and fathering vpon Christ that which he neuer thought nor intended. And this being the substance of his answer to the Catholikes, which in trueth hath no substance in it: yet he still prosecuteth the same making a greate flourish out of the cir­cumstances of the same parable adding that the tares were sowen by the enemie when men where a fleepe, and that by consequence they [Page 56] could not see him and much lesse produce him. I confesse that there both haue bene and be yet in the world who by reason of the exces­siue moisture of their braiue haue sleeped both verie soundlie and verie long. I know the hi­storie of the seauen sleepers who slept some hundreths of yeares. But I neuer heard of anie kinde of Congregation of people that all and euerie one of them sleeped about a thousand yeares together and that so profundelie as that not one of them did euer so much as once dreame of the enimie who sowed tares in their field. Is it possible that all the good men of the houses in all that space of tyme and in euerie place should haue bene so drowsie and so ouer­come with sleepe as none of them could not one tyme or other awake & catch the theefe before the daies of Luther. Surelie there was neuer a Puritane in the world in all that long space of tyme, for if there had bene anie, some of them would infalliblie haue awaked, their hott brauies and fierie spirits would neuer haue suffered them to lie so long in a lethargie, but vp they would haue beene and layd about them most vallantlie with the whole bulke of the Bible, and haue gone to cuffes with Pen­nance, Purgatorie and prayer to Saints, with pictures, Pope and praier for the dead, with merits, masse, and monasteries, with confession, tradition, and transubstantiation, with Indults, [Page 57] fasts, and satisfactions. These I say and all other such like tares as the knight esteemes them, had bene by those Zealous Paterfamil­lians rooted out as soone as euer they peeped out of the earth, if God had not permitted them to take a greate quantitie of Diapodium or pouder dormant by force of which, as I sup­pose, they were all so lulled a sleepe as not one of them could once awake till the tyme of Do­ctour Luther, who if he had chaunced to haue taken one onelie dramme of the same receipt, it is more then probable that greate worke of his had laine vndone till this present day, and perhaps for euer. From this parable Sir Hum­frey passeth to confirme his answer by reasons, saying that the doctrine which they complaine of his a mysterie of iniquitie, and mysteries are secret and worke not openlie and publikly but by degrees, leasurelie, cunninglie and warilie to auoyde discoueries. Thus he, in which wordes you see he cals errours a myste­rie, but describes them rather like a monster then a mysterie, attributing such subtiltie vnto them as if they had the vse of reason; whereas all errours which are such trulie, are by nature voyd of reason, and so, no mysteries but rather monsters. Hee saith they are secret and worke by decrees: And it is true, errours may be se­cret for a short tyme, but long they cannot, es­peciallie such as we heere speake of, that is pu­bliklie [Page 58] defended by a whole Church and all or most of them manie ages together. Mentall and priuate errours may be so smothered as not onelie not by degrees, but so as they neuer come to light and knowledge of the world at all, but vocall errours proposed and published to the people cannot possible be long vn­knowne or vndiscouered. Witnes the errours of Luther and Caluin and of all other condem­ned heretikes, all which doubtlesse for a tyme they were, meerelie mentall, yet euen before the death of their authours notice was taken of them, & perhaps also they were publikelie condemned. And so we see by this reason Sir Humfrey proueth nothing to this purpose, but tels vs of nothing but meere impossibillities contrarie both to reason and common sense. Neither doth it auaile him for defence of his answer to saye that errours being at first often­times in one or few persons onelie, they can­not easilie be espied, for this is not that the Ca­tholikes vrge him too, we haue tould him al­readie that wee will not deale so rigorouslie with him, we are content to graunt vnto him that errours onelie so farre published, were not easilie, especiallie by his drowsie conso­ciates, to be discouered: neuerthelesse we see no reason at all why our supposed errours being so publiquelie taught, penned, and prea­ched as they were long before either Luther or [Page 59] Wicklifs tyme should not haue bene knowen for errours if such they were, long before ei­ther of their daies, This is the point of the question, this is the demaunde the Roman Catholikes vrge, you Reformers are to answer, as longe as you goe about the bush as you doe, and answer not directlie, neither your Euange­licall parable nor your cockatrice egge, though you write it with a greate letter to make it seeme bigger, will serue your turne, they are but onelie similitudes or examples ill applied, they prooue nothing but onelie serue you for a vaine flourish. Exempla illustrant non probant, especiallie if they be equiuocall as yours be. And as for your distinction of publike heresie and secret Apostacie, it is much more friuolous then all the rest you haue brought for the proofe of your purpose in this section. And although perhaps you shewed no small subtil­tie in it, as you thought, yet is it in it selfe a most ignorant piece of doctrine, for that not onelie the common and vsuall sense of the worde Apostasie, but the verie etimologie of the same worde, which signifieth a defection or discession, doth demonstrate that the thing sig­nified by it must be a much more externall and publike action in it selfe then heresie vsed to be, and so that which is ordinarilie and vul­garilie called Apostasie, must be publike and not secret; and therefore when anie errour [Page 60] comes to that degree of malice as it may truely be called Apostasie in this sense, it must of ne­cessitie be knowne, and consequentlie it is such as cannot be kept secret but may be most ea­silie discerned, yea much more easilie then anie heresie how publike soeuer it bee, as being an aggrauating circunstance of the same. And thus we see that for the knight to yeeld a rea­son why the errours of the Roman Church could not easilie be discouered, because they were secret Apostasie, is both most absurd in itselfe, and also inuolueth a contradiction in regard it includeth that a thing may be Apo­stasie that is a thing of it owne selfe publike, and yet remaine so secret that it cannot be dis­couered. Neither is that which Sir Humfrey farther addeth in the same place lesse absurde to witt that secret Apostasie worketh warelie and closelie in the tyme of Darkenes when the seruants of the husbandman are asleepe, for if all Apostasie as it is commonlie taken, must be publike, as I haue showed, how can it then truelie be said to worke in darkenes or by night? or how can the seede of it be scattered at vnawares to the seruants of the husbandman, certainlie except the seruants be so sluggish that they sleepe both nights and dayes, moneths and yeeres, yea and manie hundreth of yeeres together, naye and all the daies of their life, they cannot but discouer the tares of Apostasie, which is [Page 61] not euer in seede as the knight falselie suppo­seth, but is the increase or rather full growth it selfe, or yet rather the ouergrouth of the crop of heresie which is truelie the seede of it.

From hence the knight proceedeth to the second parte of his section, in which he endea­uoureth to shewe vs an vndeniable trueth (as he termeth it) that some opinions were condemned in the Primatiue Church for eroneous and supersti­tious vhich now are established for articles os faith in the Roman Church. And for this his position he produceth an instance out of S. Augustin lib. de moribus Eccles. Cath. cap. 34. in which place he complaines that in his tyme the ruder sort of people were intangled with superstition euen in the true Church; I my selfe (saith he) know manie that are worshipers of Images and se­pulchers whom the Church condemneth and seeketh euerie daie by correction to amend them as vngra­tious children: Thus farre Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustin. To which I answer that this place of S. Augustin hath bene so often obiected by the moderne sectaries that it is worne quite thred bare with handling, and I persuade my selfe that all the Catholike authours that euer writt of controuersies haue sufficientlie ans­wered it if it came in their way. Neuerthelesse least Sir Humfrey should thinke himselfe ne­glected by me, Nolite consectari turbas imperito­rum qui vel in ipsa vera reli­gione su­perstitio­si sunt, vel ita libidi­nibus de­diti vt obliti sint quicquid promise­rint Deo. Aug. supra. I answer first that S. Augustin complaineth in this place of certaine gentilli­call [Page 62] errours and abuses in the adoration of ima­ges and sepulchers then practised in the true Church by some priuate ignorant and vitious persons, who without distinction either of the one or the other did worship the tombes and pictures of all sortes of people. Secondlie I ans­wer that S. Augustin in the place cited, spea­keth not of anie generall doctrine taught in his tyme touching the adoration of pictures, but onelie of some superstitious abuses in the pra­ctise of the same, and so also in this respect the obiection is impertinent. I answer thirdlie that suppose there were some particular persons in the tyme of S. Augustine guiltye either in the manner of their worship of pictures or in their doctrine cōcerning the lawfullnes of the same, doth it thence therefore follow that Catholi­kes are guiltie also of the same crime? or is it consequent, that that honour which Catholi­kes graunte to the pictures of Christ and his Saincts, is iust the same with that which Saint Augustine mentioneth? No suerlie. For as there may be abuse committed in the due ho­nouring of pictures, so there may be also law­full vse in the due adoreing of them, and so it is cleere that it is no true manner of argument or true consequence to collect so. Those people whom S. Augustin reprehended for a­doring of pictures in his tyme did worship ima­ges reprehensiblie: But the Romanists doe also [Page 63] worship images, therefore the Romanists doe worship images reprehensiblie. This I say were it in anie figure, yet is it a captious forme of argument containing a manifest fallacie or equiuocation in the minor by reason of which the Sylogisme concludeth nothing.

Now vpon the foresaid wordes of Saint Augustin, Sir Humfrey addeth a descant of his owne, in which he comits diuerse faults. First in that he saith that although S. Aug. did note some people of his time for superstitious wor­shippers of images, yet did hee neither name the authours of that errour, nor sheweth the tyme when it began tacitlie, intending hence to infer­re that neither are the reformers bounde to as­signe the names of the authours of those er­rours which they attribute to the Roman Church, nor yet the tyme of their defence of them. But this inference of the knight is no conclusion at all, for that the case of S. Augu­stines tyme which is the antecedent of the foresaid illation of the knights, is farre different from the case of the reformers as well for that S. Augustine speaketh of an errour which hap­pened in his owne daies (as Sir Humfrey con­fesseth) and perhappes by such persons as he could not name without preiudice of their fame, as being such as practised those supersti­tions so priuatelie that they were not knowen to more, or at the least, not to manie more then [Page 64] himselfe; after which manner preachers do vse to reprehend vices of persons knowen vnto them, and yet name them not: as also and chie­felie because S. Augustine was neuer demaun­ded of them in particular, or anie other waye vrged to declare their names. None of all which circumstances occurre in the case be­twixt the Reformers and the Romanists, and so out of the wordes of S. Augustine, which be the Antecedent of the knights argument, no true consequence can be deduced against the Romanists.

In has au­tem san­ct as ac sa­lubres ob­seruatio­nes si qui abusus ir­repserint, eos pror­sus aboleri sancta Sy­nodus cu­pit ita vt nullae falsi dogmatis imagines & rudibus periculosae errorem praebentes statuantur &c. Con. Trid. sess. [...]5. init. Another fault sir Humfrey committeth also in that he affirmeth that this corruption which S. Augustin and the Church of his time condemned for superstition was confirmed 400. yeeres after by the second Councell of Nice for Catholike doctrine, and is now decreed by the Councell of Trent for an article of faith. Thus the knight. But this is all false, and grounded onelie vpon an erroneous persuasion of his owne, videlicet, that the worship which those people of which S. Augustin speaketh, gaue to pictures, is the same which the Roman Church practizeth at this daye according to the definition of those two Councells; that which he neither proueth heere, nor can euer proue in anie other place, as being manifest by the doctrine of those same Councells in this point, that they both condemned this super­stitious practice of those people reprehended [Page 65] by S. Augustin & the Church of his age, euē as much as he did in those former tymes. And so neither this instance framed by Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustins wordes, nor the whole ar­gument it selfe concludes any part of his intent in this section: but rather conuinceth by the fact of the same S. Augustin that no errour can possible so secretlie steale into the Church, but it is either presently or within a small tyme espied and noted for such by one authenticall authour or other; which is quite contrary to the position which the knight indeauoureth heere to establish and whoely conformable to the tenet of the Roman Church in this mat­ter.

After this Sir Hum. maketh a large repeti­tion of diuerse points of doctrine defended by the Church of Rome, as if they were farre dif­ferent from the intention of those who first taught or ordeined them, but for this his con­ceipt he bringeth no proofe at all, and so I leaue it as a voluntary tenet founded vpon his owne small authority. True it is he produceth diuerse authours for the confirmation of the same al­ledging them all for Romanists, and yet some of them are not so esteemed to be, as is manifest in Cassander, and Agrippa, which the Roman Church houlds not for her true children but rather for illegitimate. Be citeth also Ioannes Ferus who altho' he was at the lest once a [Page 64] Romanist, whatsoeuer he was afterwardes, yet there haue beene noted in his workes diuerse ill sounding propositions, whether it be for that his bookes haue beene corrupted by the secta­ries of these times as by some editions of his workes may be iustly suspected, or whether it be that the man was something more rash in his assertions then he ought to haue beene. But howsoeuer it falleth out with him in that na­ture, yet the place cited out of him by Sir Hum­frey if it be rightly vnderstood, it proueth no more but that by the priuate abuses and super­stitiōs of some particular men, many things or­deined by holy men with a good intention, haue receiued some accidentall chaunge. And although Ferus exemplifieth in the feasts of the Church, Ceremonies, images, Masses, mona­steries, yet certaine it is his meaning was not that all these are either vnlawfull or superstitious, or that they are new articles of faith or not to be vsed in the Church of God, as the knight and his cōpanions would haue thē to be, but onely out of a pious zeale he wished that such abuses might be corrected as he perceiued in his daies to haue crept into the practice and vse of the same; which is a thing so farre from Sir Hum­freys purpose of prouing an alteration in the Doctrine of auncient tymes, as it is both very conformable to reason, and allso to the decree of reformation made in the Councell of [Page 63] Trent aboue cited. He citeth allso Marius de schis. & Concil. Et Polidore de inuent. rerum, as speaking of the vncertainty of the entrance into the Church of Priests mariage. But this is nothing to the purpose the knight heere trea­teth. For how I pray you doth this proue that there are errours of faith in the Romā Church, whereas the restraint of mariage of Priests it selfe, is no article of faith as Sir Humfrey igno­rantly supposeth, but onely a precept of the Church and a matter of manners; and yet in case it were so in it selfe, neuerthelesse certaine it is that the question or difficultie a­bout the first begining of the restraint (of such onelie the cited authours speake) is no matter of faith and consequentlie can be no er­rour euen in Sir Humfreyes owne false suppo­sition of errours in the Roman Church. To o­mitte that suppose the first begining of the restrainte of marriage in Priests were truelie an article of faith in the Roman Church, yet this being but one particular instance or example drawne out of two Romanists onelie, it cannot sufficientlie proue that generall position of Sir Humfrey, to witte, that there was a knowne tyme when those tenets (meaning the points of doctrine which the Councell of Trent de­fined) were not certainelie knowne or gene­rallie receiued by the Roman Church; since that, according to the rules of Logike no gene­rall [Page 68] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page 68] proposition can be inferred out of a particu­lar, and that touching the rest of the articles of the Roman doctrine, the reformers are so farre from the assignation of the time of their be­ginning, that Sir Humfrey him selfe euen in this verie place is forced to hould this precise tyme of the beginning of the same to be vnne­cessarie to be assigned. And altho' by reason that both those authours are cēsured in the ex­purgatorie Index, we are not boūde to giue cre­dit vnto them: yet this I saye that supposing they are both here produced to testifie that the beginning of the and prohibition of Preists mariage can not be assigned, it is rather a great argument that it was appointed by the prima­tiue Church itselfe then introduced of later yeares. Besides this Sir Humfrey doth falsifie Polydor in the place he citeth, for he doth not affirme that mariage of Preists was not alto­gether prohibited til the tyme of Gregorie the 7. but that it could not be taken away till that tyme. Alijs snper alijs promulgatis legibus non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. coniugium adimi occidentalibus sacerdotibus potuit. Pol. lib. 5. cap. 4. edit. Antuerp. 1554. Cassander altho' Romanists esteeme not of his autho­ritie either pro or contra, yet here he is cor­rupted by Sir Humfrey for companie lest he should laff at his followes, where for those wordes non temerè reperies thou shalt not easilie [Page 69] finde, he translates was not expresselie defined, speaking of the number of the 7. Sacramēts, of which Cassander saith that a man shall not ea­silie finde anie who haue constituted anie cer­taine & determinate number of Sacraments be­fore Peter Lombard. non temerè quenquā reperies ante Petrum Lombardū qui certū aliquem & defini­tum numerum sacramentoū statuerunt. Cass. p. 951.

To the like purpose or rather to no pur­pose he citeth also Gregory de Valentia say­ing that it doth not appeere when the communion in one kinde beganne, which saying of Valentia is most true, & his meaning is that the custome of communicating so, is so auncient that it hath no knowne beginning, and consequentlie it hath bene euer in the Church of God since the time of Christ and his Apostles, and by them practized. And therefore Valentia addeth pre­fentlie after to that purpose, that euer from the beginning of the Church ther hath beene some vse of the Eucharist vnder one kinde, as he hath showed before. Which wordes as ma­keing plainelie against him he was content to omit. So that this testimonie either proueth nothing to the knights purpose, or els more then he desires, as also want of honest dealing in the citation of it. To omitte that when that manner of communion first began in the Church is no article of the Roman faith. The same authour is also once againe cited by Sir [Page 66] Humfrey for that in the same place he affir­meth the foresaid manner of communion not to haue bene generallie receiued but a little before the councell of Constance, which is no more to the purpose then the other allegation or scarse so much. For this and some other testimonies which he citeth page 60. at the most doe but onelie proue that some of the points of do­ctrine, or rather of practice onelie of the Ro­man Church, were not declaredlie knowen and definede successiuelie in all differences of times since the establishment of the Gospell; which the Romanists do not denie: though they knowe it is a point impertinent to the matter heere in question, which is not whether the Reformers can showe a time when the tenets (at he termes them) of the Roman Church were not certainelie knowne or generallie re­ceiued, but also & cheefely whether they were erroneous; and then if such they were, when they were first publikelie knowen and by what authenticall Councell they were con­demned. Which points because Sir Humfrey hath proued neither of them, neither by the testimonies of the authours he cites nor by any other forceable proofe, he hath failed of his pur­pose and promise, and no way recouered the reputation in this section which he lost in the former, but rather hath much increased his discredit, and consequentlie the censure falleth [Page 71] more heauilie vpon him then it hath done be­fore. To the testimonie of Scotus aboute tran­sub. I will answer in an other place.

THE VI. PERIOD.

HEere Sir Hūfrey from a diuine is turned Herold and promiseth the Romanists he will shew them their Pedegree in faith drawne downe from the auncient heretikes, and con­trarilie the pedegree of his owne faith drawne from Christ and his Apostles. So that heere you see the knight hath vndertaken a large peece of worke, and how he will be able to per­forme it I know not. It is a double taske and therefore I doubt he will not go through with it without double dealing. And I suspect this the more for that he saith he will proceede or­dine retro grado, that is as I conceaue, he will imitate the Crabbe in going backward, and therefore I can expect no better of him then a crabbed piece of busines. He saith he will per­forme his worke by ascending vpward, but in­deed his proceeding is so preposterous that a man can find neither ascent nor descent it it. For he begins which lattine seruice, as he calleth it and prayer in a straunge tongue, the beginning of which he attributeth to Pope Vitalian about [Page 72] the yeere 666. And ends with the restraint of mariage of Priests which he affirmed in the 60. page, in his former section not to haue bene altogether established till the time of Gregory the seuenth; and so according to this he doth not ascend but descend, and yet more then this, in the middle of his section he treateth of tran­substantiation as first decreed in the Councell of La­teran about foure hundreth yeeres agoe, and thus you see one cannot conceiue that he eyther as­cendeth or descendeth directlie, but rather that he skippeth vp and downe like a mad man without anie order at all; but now I will cease to seeke order were none is to be sound, and come to the examine of the particular passages of his pedegree.

He endeauoureth to proue the Roman faith to descend from auncient heretikes, first because they teach prayer in an vn­knowne language not to be vnlawfull, (as saith hee) Epiphanius affirmeth of the heretikes Osseni in the first age. But to this I answer that S. Epiphanius is heere abused by the Knight, for he censureth not those people of heresie because they held prayer not to be vnlawfull in an vnknowen language, as Sir Humfrey falselie and ignorantlie affirmeth, but for other errours of theirs which the same Epipha: rela­tes and confutes in his 19. heresie. Neither doth [Page 73] he onelie affirme the Osseni to teach there was no need to make prayer in a knowne tongue as Sir Humfrey imposeth vpon him to the end their errour might some to agrree with the do­ctrine of the Roman Church in this particular, Quibus porro vorbis & inani­bus voci­bus postea in ipso libro decipit, cum cum dicit: nemo quae­rat inter­pretatio­nem sed so­lum in ora­tione hoc dicati, & hac ipsa ni­mirum ex Habraica lingua transtulis velut ex parte de­prehendi­mus cum nihil sint ea quae imagina­tur, iubet enim dicere: Abar, Anid, Moib, No­chile &c. but he further chargeth Elxai the cheefe pro­phet of that sect that he deceiued men with idle friuolous and strange wordes containing no­thing of that which he imagined, and com­maunding his followers to praye in this man­ner: Abar, Anid, Moib, Nochile &c. adding that they should not seek for anie interpretation of them, which forme of prayer neuerthelesse holie Epi­phanius doth not so much condemne for the strangenesse of the wordes, as for the obscuritie and deformitie of the sense, as appeareth by his wordes here quoted in Latin. All which is farre different from the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point, which neither in sense nor wordes vseth anie other prayers then such as are conformable to that originall prayer which Christ him selfe appointed his disciples to vse. Neither can Epiphanius with anie showe of probabillitie be thought to haue condemned them for heretikes for that which he knew neither to be contrarie to Gods worde, nor anie definition of the auncient Church, either before or in his time. And as for that which the Reformers commonlie al­lege [Page 74] out of the fourth to the Corinthians and first epistle. I say that if the same Epiphanius had vnderstood it as written against such like prayers, infalliblie he would haue alledged the place against those heretikes. But he well knew that the Apostles meaning was not to condemne prayer in what language soeuer it were, but onelie to preferre prophesie before straunge tonges, or at the most to preferre prayer in a knowne tonge onelie as more edi­ficatiue, not as absolutelie necessarie, and the contrarie to be condemned as vnlawfull or su­perstitious, as the nouelists will needes haue it.

And as for precept of the Church the same Epiphanius in like manner knew there was none extant. True it is, in his time the practise of the Greck Church was to haue their prayer in Greeke and the Latin Church in Latin, but as then neither all those of the Latin Church did vnderstand that kinde of Latin which then was vsed in the Church, so neither all those of the Greeke which was vsed in the publike ser­uice of the Grecians doe (excepting Schollers) as I haue beene truelie informed, by one of that nation; which practise as you see, is nothing contrary to the practise of the present Roman Church but rather agreable vnto it. In regard that tho' the Latin Masse be not vnderstood of all the heares, yet is Latine euen by the con­fession of one of the most learned Protestants [Page 75] of this age. The common language in the world and vnderstood by many. And so this citation is no lesse in effect then a falsification of the foresaid Father; as is likewise another which followeth out of S. Ambrose whom the knight produceth to the same purpose, yet citing his wordes some­what corruptedly, which he rehearseth in this manner. There were certaine Iewes among the Gre­cians as namely the Corinthians who did celebrate the diuine seruice and the Sacrament sometimes in the Syriake, and most commonly in the Hebrew ton­gue which the people vnderstood not. Thus the knight citeth S. Ambrose in his Comentary v­pon the fourth chapter of the first to the Corin­thiās: but his wordes which I haue reade, in La­tin are these. Hi ex Hebraeis erant qui aliquando Syra lingua, plerumque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus vtebantur ad commendationem, gloria­bantur enim se dici Hebraeos propter meritum Abra­hae. Thus S. Ambrose, where as you see that vn­derstands Latin, there be neither the words di­uine seruice, nor the word sacrament to be foūde, but in tractatibus & oblationibus, that is as I con­ceiue in their exhortations and sacrifices. That which as it seemes S. Humfrey did deceitfully translate otherwise then the wordes doe sound and signifie, least it might appeare to his reader that the Iewes conuerted, euen in those primi­tiue times did celebrate sacrifice as the Roman [Page 76] Church doth now, and not such a drye Rapsodie as the reformers doe in these our daies. But that which is most remarkable of all, it is manifest out of the same S. Ambrose in the same Co­ment, that S. Paul did not condemne that pra­ctise of the Iewes as contrary to the lawe of God, as the sectaries doe, but onely that he sought to bring them from it as a thing lesse pro­fitable in regard of the Grecians amonge whom they liued, and that in respect of their exhorta­tions or instructions which the Corinthians could not vnderstand in Hebrew or Syriacke. That which manifestly appeareth in the verie same wordes of S. Ambrose immediatly prece­dent where speaking of the sense and meaning of the Apostle in the place vpon which he com­menceth saith onelie: vtilius est paucis verbis in apertione sermonis loqui quod omnes intelligāt quam prolixam orationem habere in obscuro, that is to say: it is more profitable to speake few wordes in plaine speach which all may vnderstand, then to haue a long oration or praier in obscurity. Besides this: those last words: which the common people vnder­stood not, are none of S. Ambroses, but added by Sir Humfrey and foisted in as if they had beene the reason yeelded by S. Ambrose, why the Iewes did amisse in vsing their seruice in an vn­knowne language, whereas yet he expressely saith they did it for ostentation and commendation, so that S. Humfrey dealeth heere deceiptfully in [Page 77] diuers respectes for the aduantage of his false cause. For iustification of the which he vttereth a most impudent vntruth in his owne wordes following: affirming, that Sainct Paule wrote that whole chapter of the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians expressely against prayer or diuine ser­uice in an vnknowne tongue, whereas in truth the Apostle expressely and directly laboureth onely to persuade the Corinthians that it is better to prophesie, that is, to interpret Scriptures, then to exercise donum linguarum, the done or guift of tongues. And altho' the Apostle in one place makes mention of prayer or praysing of God in generall saying, si benedixeris lingua &c. yet he neither maketh expresse mention of publike seruice in a knowne language, nor giueth anie precept about it, but onely preferreth that praier which he who prayeth vnderstandeth before that which he vnderstandeth not; and that not absolutelie, but onelie with relation to that time; leauing it for future times to the discretion of the Church to be determined according to the condition & nature of the persons that liue in it, and other circumstances. Alwaies suppo­sing that although, caeteris paribus, some one thing be better then another euen ex natura rei, yet by some notable change of the time, place, or persons, that same thing which once was more profitable, may afterwardes become lesse profitable, yea and sometimes quite vnprofita­ble, [Page 78] or at the least of very small estimation, and importance. And yet for all this our Puritanicall crue runne so a madding with their Bible craste, that they will needes haue a precept where none is, rather then want their wils, especially if it be to Crosse the Papists. That which cānot appeare more plainely then in the matter of which we now treate, where the knight for the conclusion of his discourse citeth Sainct Paul his wordes in forme of a precept, as if he had said pray with the spirit, praye with the vnder­standing also, whereas the Apostles wordes are onely these, orabo spiritu, orabo & mente, that is I will pray with my spirit, I will pray with my vnder­standing, in which forme of speach you see there is no forme of precept or commaund at all, ex­cept one will corrupt the text as he hath done.

The knight also cites one Wolfius as affirming that Pope Vitalian first introduced Latin seruice & praier in an vnknowne tonge. But he might haue saued the labor of citing that authour whom he knowes we doe not admit as a com­petent witnesse in regarde we finde him to be a wolfe indeed that is an enemie to our religiō, and for such he is noted in the Index Epurga­torie. How be it we doe not denie but that Vi­talian for the conseruation of vniformity in the publike seruice of the Church might make a generall ordinance in that particular and extend the practise of some particular and most aun­cient Churches of the West in which Latin ser­uice [Page 79] was euer vsed, to all the rest of the Occi­dentall Churches. Neuerthelesse we denie that by this action he either did contrarie to Gods lawe or renewe the heresie of the Osseni which I haue shewed all readie out of S. Epiphanius to haue beene of a farre different nature notwith­standing out aduersarie doth indeuoure falselie to persuade the same to his simple reader nei­ther was this as the knight vntruelie affirmes to introduce seruice in a strange language, but rather in the most knowne in the world & that in which most nations agree: and so this may serue to demonstrate that the Romanists deriue not this parte of their Pedagane frō auncient heretikes (as our aduersarie doth calumniate) but frō the practise of the most aūcient Church at the least in the west partes of the world to wit the Apostolicall Church. And heare we see also that Sir Humfrey in steede of deriuing the Pedegree of the Roman faith from Iewes and heretikes he deriues his owne from the Father of lyes that is from the abuse of both scriptures and auncient Fathers of the Catholike Church.

In the next braunch of the Pedegree he pla­placeth transsubstantiation, going about to proue that it was the doctrine or at least the pra­ctise of certaine heretikes named Helcesaitae, who faigned a two fould Christ as (saith Sir Humfrey) the Masse Preists doe, who admit one bodie with all his dimentions and proper­ties [Page 80] in heauen, and other in the Sacrament which hath noe properties of a true bodie. Thus Sir Humfrey talkes most absurdely, ignorantly and falsely. Ignorantly for that according to this discourse he houldes the want of locall dimen­sions or properties of a bodie sufficient to cause an absolute, indiuiduall, & sustantiall diuersitie in it, and to distinguish it really from it selfe and so to make it an other distinct bodie which is so voyde of reason that if he had not bene grossely ignorant in Philosophie haue he would neuer vttered such doctrine vnworthie of other con­futation them a schoole stampe or hisse. He speake also falsely first in that he either affirmes or supposes Preists to admit that Christs bodie in the Sacrament is without anie properties of a true bodie. For they all contrarily teach and be­leeue that as Christs bodie in the Sacrament is the same which is in heauen, so hath it all the same properties excepting locall extension. Se­condly he speakes falselie in that he Fathereth that on Preists which none of them either thought or tought, and so makes them guiltie if the Helcesaits heresie onelie for that which he hath forged in his owne phantasticall braine. Also abusing the authority of learned Theodo­ret in misaplying his words in which he vtters not anie iot or title by which it can be gathered that these heretikes meant of Christ in the Sa­crament when they faigned a double Christ; [Page 81] but of two visible Christs, the one aboue I knowe not where, and the other belowe in the world or I knowne not where els: adding that the supernall Christ did in former times liue in manie, but at being descended from aboue. And more, they sayde, he passed into other bodies, & other such like fabulous stuffe they haue of Christ which neuer enterd into the cogitations of any people of learning and iudgement; and therefore it is as great dotage in Sir Humfrey to impose this vpon Catholike Roman Preists as it was in the authour to inuentit, as will yet more plainely appeare by the formall words of Theodoret which here I put in the margin. Christum autem non vnū dicunt (Helcesai­tae) sed hūc quidem infernè, il­lum verò supernè, & eum olim in multis habitasse, postremò autem des­cēdisse. Ie­sum autē aliquando ex Deo esse dixit (Elxai) ali­quādo vo­cat spiritū. quando (que) autem Vir­ginem ma­trem ha­buisse, in alijs autem scriptis ne hoc quidē; Rursus au­tem eum etiam di­cit transire in alia cor­pora & in vnoquo (que) tempore diuerse o­stendi. Theodor. heret. fab. to. 2. lib. 2. pag. 380.

And the like absurditie Sir Humfrey com­mits in that which immediatly followees, attri­buting the doctrine of transsubstantiation to one Marke, an heretike, because forsooth he by some kinde of inchaunting inuocation ouer the Sacramentall cuppe caused the wine to appeare like bloud, which sacrilegious example and pra­ctise of Marcus what force it can haue to proue the Romanists to be of that fellowes Pedegree let any indifferent man be iudge. And moreouer to take away all doubt and assure himselfe the more, let the reader but consider what S. Ire­naeus in the same place cited by Sir Humfrey videlicet. libr. 1. cap. 9. saith of that Marcus, I doubt not but he will, see most clearely how e­gregiously our aduersarie abuseth the Roma­nists [Page 82] in this matter. Marcus (saith S. Irenaeus) pro calice vino mixto fingens se gratias agere, & in multum extendens sermonem inuocationis, purpu­reum & rubicundum apparere facit vt putetur ea gratia ab ijs qui sunt super omnia, suum sanguinem stillare per inuocationem eius, & valde concupiscere presentes ex illo gustare poculo vt in illos stillet quae per magum hunc vocatur gratia.

By which words let the reader if he vnder­stand Latin iudge how voyde of grace is he who so shamelesselie applies this to the Conse­cration of the Eucharist by Preists of the Ro­man Church.

And yet the preposterous knight not being content to haue spoken so irreasonably, yet fur­ther addes that the authours of transsubstantia­tion were those disciples that beleaued the the grosse & carnall eating of Christs Flesh. From whence he would deduce that the Ro­manists descend from the Iudaicall Capharnaits in this point.

But this is a most grosse and ridiculous con­ceipt of him to imagin that they can be succes­sours to such as refused expressely and absolu­tely to beleeue that same which they hould for a matter of faith tho' not in the same grosse manner which those incredulous disciples of Christ did apprehend, and as you also not like reformers but deformers out of the madnesse of your noddles grossely conceiue them to doe: [Page 83] but in a much more spirituall manner, and yet, truely, really and substantially, and not onely in spirit as your priuate spirits would haue it. Which, if it were so onely, it were not the true Sacrament, which necessarily requires to con­taine really and not by faith onely that which it represēts: but it were onely a meere shadowe or figure of a Sacrament as the sacrifice of Mel­chisedech, the manna and bread of Proposition were signes and figures of the Sacrament of the holie Eucharist as not containing but onely re­presenting the body and blōde there contained.

And supposing that Sir Humfrey himselfe absolutely denies the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament, and suppo­sing also that as S. Iohn doth testifie the Ca­pharnaits did also refuse to beleeue the same, this fable of Sir Humfrey, mutat o nomine, may much more aptely and truely be verified of him and his companions (I will not say then of the Romanists) but euen then of the Capharnaits themselues; in regarde the Capharnaites, as farre as can be gathered by the text of the sixt of S. Iohn, did according to the interpretation of S. Augustin but onely make question of the reall presēce, or possibility of Christs giuing his bodie to be eatē not otherwise thē in that grosse manner which they then conceiued in their mindes, whereas yet the knight and the rest of his congregation directly & absolutely affirme [Page 84] 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 cōceipte 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 [Page 85] 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 apparēt & 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 tirānically ouer their subiects or subordinates. And yet Sir Hūfrey 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 [Page 86] proofe of the same. And if one were disposed to make vse of Scripture in that māner, 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 Hū ­frey doth. And indeede I must confesse that your ministers are greate among you in diuerse respects. For some of thē 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, thē 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 whō 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 [Page 87] 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 hād. Especially sup­posing it is a thing vnpossible to apprehēd how either Phocas or anie other mā or Angell could giue the Pope of Rome his supremacie (which is that in this passage he intendeth to proue) by cōferring the same (according to our aduer­saries relation) vpon the Bishop of Cōstantino­ple. [Page 88] And so I leaue this for one of S. Hūfreyes vnintelligible mysteries of his reformed faith.

For worship of Images S. Hūfrey deduceth the Pedegree of the Romanists frō 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 differēt from the honour which the Romanists vse towards pictures. Vtuntur autē ima­ginibus & incanta­rionibus, & reliqua vniuersa pererga. Irenaeus. l. 1. cap. 23. And he expressely condē ­neth Carpocrates as plainely appeareth by his wordes, Imagines depictas quasdam de reliqua materia habent fa­brica [...]as dicentes formam Christi fa­ctam à Pi­lato illo in tēporequo fuit Iesus cum ho­minibus & has coro­nant & po­nunt eas cum ima­ginibus mūdi Phi­losophorū videlicet cum ima­gine Py­thagorae & Platonis & Aristo­telis & re­liquem, & reliquorū obserua­tionem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt. Iren. eod. l. cap. 24. because he put the Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers, and because also he put a croune vpon it, and worshipped it in an Ethnicall manner, and not according to the custome of Christians, but as S. Epihanius heres. 27. explicateth, those heretikes, Gentilium ministeria perficiebant, they sacrified vnto all those images to wit of Pitha­goras & Aristotle together with Christs image after the manner of the Gentiles: and so this parte of the Pedegree containes an errour in in heraldry, and proueth no true descent.

In the next passage which is aboute the Com­muniō in both kinds Pope Leo tells vs, saith the Knight, that the Manicheis a sorte of heretikes in his time vsed the Sacrament in one kinde vi­delicet in bread onely. Cum ad tegendam infidelita­tem suam (Videlicet Manichei) nostris au­deāt inesse mysterijs ita in Sa­cramento­rum com­munione se tempe­rant vt tu­tius lateāt, Ore indi­gno Chri­sti corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem re­demptio­nis nostrae omnino haurire declinant. Leo ser. 4. in quad. It is true S. Leo saith so, but he doth not condemne them for heretikes for that reason, but be cause they abstained frō [Page 89] wine as from an vncleane creature, and because they did not beleeue that Christ had bloud in in his body, and so that which Pope Leo did when he gaue commaunde that those should be diligētly obserued who vsually receiued but in one kind, was done purposely for discouerie of the Manicheis who crastily to conceile their heresie touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholikes dis­semblingly: the Custome of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kinde and in both, as now the Grecians practise, and therefore that holy Pope did discretely com­maunde those should be diligently obserued who in all occasions did vse to receiue vnder the forme of bread onely, houlding that for an euidēt argumēt of their aborring of the bloud of Christ. By which it is euident that euen that same time the communiō was lawfully vsed by some in one kinde otherwise S. Leo needed not to haue vsed any great diligence for the di­couerie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had bene obledged to cōmunicate in both, the Manicheis who frequented the Com­munion would haue beene discouered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice. And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell: tou­touching a proofe of his taken from the exam­ple of the Nazarites as if he had deriued wholy or chiefly the communion of one species or [Page 90] kinde from the practise of their communion, whereas he doth not so, but hauing by other arguments of Scriptures, Fathers, Councells and reasons sufficiētly established the doctrine of the Church in that particular; he bringeth that of the Nazarites onely as a confirmation of the same.

Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those wordes of S. Luke, drinke you all of this, whereby he would proue that the com­munion in both kindes came from Christ, and so it did indeede, but not by precept giuen to all in generall, but onelie to those then present and to those whome they represented as to be their successours that is the Apostles, and all Priests after them but not to anie Puritan or Puritannicall minister as not hauing from them anie true succession. After these passages Sir Humfrey proceeds to inuocation of Saints and Aungels, the founders of which he affir­meth to haue bene the heretikes called Ange­lici, and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum. But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretikes not for the inuocation of An­gells, but either for that they held them to haue bene creatours of the world, or in regard they vsed to boast of their owne Angelicall manner of life, or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels, Erant in Angelo­rum cul­tum in­clinati quos Epi­phanius iam om­nino defe­cisse testa­tur. Aug. haeres. 29. that they did vse to worship them with latria or diuine [Page 91] honour, all which kinde of adoration the Ro­manists with the same Saint Augustin giue to one onelie God. And so the knight doth per­uert the trueth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. vpon the Genes. explicating that passage of Apocalips 19. in which the Angell pro­hibited S. Iohn to adore him saith: neither let it moue the that in a certaine place of scripture the Angell doth prohibite a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God: for the Angell did so appeere that he might haue adored him for God, and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin tea­cheth that the Angelici were heretikes because they were inclined to adore Angels, he meanes because they adored them with diuine honour and not because they gaue that due inferiour worship vnto them which the Romanists vse.

For workes of merit and supererogation hee produceth for authours the heretikes named Cathari and Puritans, but the heresies of these sectaries were farre different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points. Nay they were neuer defenders of either merit or workes of supereroga­tion that euer I read, but that for which they were condemned by the Catholike Church was chiefelie for their defence of the errours of Nouatus and particularelie for denying remis­sion [Page 90] [...] [Page 91] [...] [Page 92] of sinnes and the authoririe of the keyes in the Church, and for that they affirmed their owne pretended puritie to be aboue the do­ctrine of the Apostles as not conteyned in it but farre exceeding it, and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones. Cathari qui se­ipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant: Secundas nuptias non admittunt, paenitentiam denegant▪ Nouatū sectan­tes haereticum, vnde etiam nouatiani appellantur. S. Aug. haeres. 38. And S. Isidor in the verie place cited by Sir Humfrey saith of them. That they named them selfes Cathari for their puri­tie for glorying saith hee in their merits they denie pennance &c. And so it appeares by this that the knight belyes Saint Isidor in two respects. Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres. Christian: as if he did testifie that these here­tikes were the first authours of doctrine of me­rit, and workes of supererogation. Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other. Nor yet makes anie mention in that place of workes of superogation.

And so according to this lette our Puritans of England, and Sir Humfrey him selfe as none of the least of them, examen their consciences well, and doubtles they will finde themselues to haue farre more affinitie with the foresaid fellowes then the Romanists, who both gra­ [...]nt remission of sinnes by vertue of the Eccle­siasticall [Page 93] keyes and allso denie and renounce all such puritie of Spirit as the Puritans pre­tended.

He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to haue bene the he­resie of the Collyridians, Quaedam mulieres currum quendam siue sellam quadra­tam or­nantes expanso super ip­sum linteo in die qua­dam illu­stri anni per ali­quot dies panem ponunt & offerunt Mariae. Epipha: impres. Basilicae Iano Corn. in­terp. om­nes autem panem partici­pant in [...] tum enim hoc m [...] lier [...] opi­nio est. ibidem. Conti­nentiam praedicat nuptias autem scortatio­nem putat asserens nihil dif­ferre ma­trimo­nium a scortatio­ne sed idem esse. Epipha. ibid. nec recipiunt in suorum numerum coniugio vtentem. Aug. haer. 25. and restraint of the mariage of Priests he attributeth to the Tatians and Manicheis, and for proofe of this he citeth Epiphanius heresie 79. and 46. But he abuseth this authour in both those places. And first touching the Collyridians both the same Epi­phanius and others doe expresselie teach that they worshipped our blessed Ladie idolatrously by attributing diuinity & sacrificying vnto her, or her image a cake of bread or tart as the verie worde it selfe in greeke doth signifie; and so this superstitious heresie can be no part of the Popish pedegree. Moreouer Sir Humfrey doth falselie affirme that Epiphanius calles thes women Idolaters, for he doth not in anie place giue them that generall name, altho' they iu­stelie deserued it, but he calles them simulachri­ficae that is sacrifiers to images, which is an he­resie as much repugnant to the Roman Catho­likes doctrine as it is to Protestancie: which worde alone is sufficient to cleare the Roma­nists from the heresie of those profane people: but this, as it seemes, the craftie Cauallier dis­sembled for the aduantage of his false accusa­tion. Secondlie concerning the heresie of the [Page 94] Tatians it is certaine out of that Epiphanius, Ireneus, and others that they reiected Matri­monie absolutelie and compared it to fornica­tion which as the world knowes the Roman Church doth not, but onelie for the greater decencie and reuerence to the seruice of God, prohibits it in those onelie who dedicate themselues to the same by receauing holie or­ders and priesthood. And thus you see Sir Humfrey insteede of deducing the succession of the Romanists from auncient heresies, he makes but a Pedegree of his owne lyes. And the like I say of the Manicheans whome the knight falselie, and iniuriouslie affirmes to haue beene our predecessours in that they pro­hibited mariage in Preists quoting in the margent S. Epiphanius heresie 46. whome neuerthelesse I haue diligentlie read but can­not finde it. Yet I finde in Saint Augustin who both followed S. Epiphanius much in his des­criptions of heresies, and also was better ac­quainted then anie writer of his tyme with the errours of the Maniches, that they did not one­lie prohibit matrimonie in Preists, but that they absolutelie detested the same, for so he saith of those sectaries. Verum si ad virginitatem sic ad­hortamini quemodum hortatur Apostolica doctri­na: lib. 3. con­tra faust. Manich. cap. 6. qui dat nuptum bene facit, & qui non dat nuptum melius facit vt bonum esse nuptias dicere­tis, sed meliorem virginitatem sicut facit Ecclesia [Page 95] quae vere Ecclesia Christi est, non vos spiritus san­ctus ita praenuntiaret dicens prohibentes nubere. Ille enim prohibet qui hoc malum tsse dicit, non qui huic bono aliud melius anteponit. Denique eum vos precipue concubitum detestamini qui solus ho­nestus & coniugalis est, & quem matrimoniales quoque tabulae praese gerunt liberorum procreando­rum causa, vnde vere non tam concumbere quam nubere prohibetis. And presentlie after. Nec ideo vos dicatis non prohibere qui multos vestros audi­tores obedire nolentes in hoc, vel non volentes, sal­ua amicitia toleratis, illud enim habetis in doctrina vestri erroris, hoc in necessitate societatis. Thus plainelie S. Augustin whose wordes to make them also plaine to those who vnderstand not Latin I will put them in English. But if (saith he) you so exhorte to virginitie as the Apostolicall doctrine dōth exhorte: he who giueth in mariage doth well, he who doth not giue in mariage doth better so that you should say that mariage is good, but virginitie better, as that Church doth which is truelie the Church of Crist, the holie spirit would not thus prenuntiate you saying: prohibiting to marie, for he doth prohibit who saith this is euill, not he who doth preferre before this good thing an other thing better then it. Finallie you doe cheeflie deteste that carnall coniunction which onelie is honest and matrimoniall, and which the matrimo­niall writings also declare to be for procreation of children, whence it is that you doe not so much pro­hibit [Page 96] carnall copulation as you prohibit mariage. And presentlie after the same S. Augustin ad­deth. Neither therefore can you say that you doe not prohibit to marie. Because manie of your audi­tours being not willing or refusing to obey in this, you tolerate them for frendship sake, for you haue that in your doctrine of your errour, this in necessi­tie of societie. By which wordes of this most famous doctour we may plainelie gather that suppose S. Epiphanius had those wordes: in sa­cerdotibus: yet he did not meane of Preists one­lie when he spoake of the Manichean heresie, but of a direct and absolute prohibition of ma­riage as vnlawfull and detestable in all sortes of persons: and consequentlie this passage of Sir Humfrey drawne out of the wordes of S. Epi­phanius containeth no kinde of disproofe of Roman Catholike doctrine in this particular, but a faule imposture of his owne, if he can not produce out of this authour the wordes which he citeth.

And whereas he affirmes that the Maniches were our predecessours & prohibited mariage in Preists quoting S. Epiphanius in the mar­gent, Dices mihi om­nino in quibus­dam locis adhuc li­beros gig­nere pres­byteros, Diaconos; & Hypo­diaconos at hoc non est iuxta ca­nonem, sed iuxta hominum mentem Epiph. Haeres. 59. I finde no such heresie in his Cathalogue of the heresies of Manicheus: but contrarilie I am sure I finde in an other place of his workes that Preists were by the Ecclesiasticall Canons prohibited to marie. For thus he speaketh. Doubtlesse you will tell me that euen yet in certaine [Page 97] places Preists, Deacons and Subdeacons gette children. But this is not according to the Ca­non but according to the myndes of men &c. And with these and other errours which he affirmeth to be taught in the Roman Church but doth not specifie, he endeth his Pedegree of the Romanists, which though he houlds it to haue descended either from auncient here­tikes, or at the least to haue, as he saith, neere affinitie with their adultered issue, neuerthe­lesse presentlie after hauing better examined his conscience and considered more deliberate­lie of the matter, he seemes to loose some of his former confidence, and so addeth that if he hath fayled in calculating the right natiuitie of their auncient doctrine, yet sure I am, saith hee, they are vtterlie destitute of a right succession in persons and doctrine from the Apostles and the auncient orthodox fathers of the primatiue Church, so the knight, by which discourse you may easilie perceiue euen by his owne wordes, and the if which he maketh that all which he hath hitherto said hath no greater warrant then his owne suretie, which although his au­thoritie and credit were farre greater then ei­ther we haue found it to be, or it can be in it selfe, yet were it not safe for anie man to relie vpon it, but rather to hould it for verie vncer­taine and fayleable. Especiallie considering that all which he hath produced in proofe of [Page 98] the same are either meere trifles, or at the most verie poore arguments grounded vpon false suppositions yea and vpon plaine vntrueths, falsifications, and corruptions both of scripture and fathers, and so partlie through ignorance and partlie through malice he hath shewed himselfe a most partiall and false Herold.

And now altho' this might suffice for the censure of the section insuing because it per­taineth to the same subiect, yet least the knigth should grūble I will a forde it a Period a parte.

THE VII. PERIOD.

IN his eight section therefore, Sir Humfrey promiseth to produce testimonies of his ad­uersaries touching the antiquitie and vniuersa­litie of the Protestant faith in generall. So he proceedeth in the title. To which he addeth by way of asseueration that if the Roman Church doth not confesse that the reformers are both in the more certaine and Safer waye in the Protestant Church, I will, saith he, neither refuse the name nor the punishment due to heresie. Heere we see the knight is as free in his promises as euer he was, let vs therefore examen how he performeth them, for if he doth not, he cannot escape either the name of an heretike, or at the least, the desert of punishment itselfe euen in this mortall life. [Page 99] Hee beginneth thus. He that shall question vs where our Church was before Luther, let him looke back to the Primatiue Church: nay let him but looke into the bosome of the present Roman Church and he shall finde that if euer antiquitie and vniuersallitie were mar­kes of the true Church, of right and necessitie they must belong to ours. So Sir Humfrey. In which wordes as it were by way of generall assertion he briefelie declareth the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his Church to be found both in the Primatiue Church and also in the present Roman Church, in which assertion there being two partes and that no small ones, the first he endeauoureth to proue by shewing a conformitie betwene the doctrine of the Church of England with that of the Primatiue Church, and descending to particulars he tells vs that his Church teacheth and beleeueth the same three Creedes which were instituted by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primatiue Church, and not created by Luther: as also two of the seauen Sacraments which were, saith he, by the confession of our aduersaries instituted by Christ. The same he affirmeth of 22. bookes of Canonicall Scripture which he saith were vniuersallie receiued in all ages. Likewise of the seuen generall Councells he affirmeth that foure of them were ratified by the Cannons of the Church of England, and confirmed by act [Page 100] of parliament, and thus he runneth through the points of doctrine and faith in which they and we agree, adding to them the confession of his aduersaries. And yet in all his large rehear­sall of points of faith, he maketh no mention of eyther those in which the Romanists and reformers disagree, nor of those new articles of the English Creede which dissent from the doctrine of the Primatiue Church, and which indeede are those that make the reformers guiltie of heresie, as its the doctrine of Iustifica­tion by faith onelie, the deniall of the reall pre­sence and such like: But craftilie leauing them out as if they were not to the purpose he trea­teth, whereas in trueth by reason of these new errours obstinatelie defended by them, there can be no vniuersalitie nor antiquitie in their Church notwithstanding they had neuer so great conformitie both to the auncient prima­tiue, and moderne Roman Church in all the rest of their beleefe. Especiallie supposing that anie one errour in matter of faith obstinatelie defended is sufficient to take away all true an­tiquitie and vniuersallitie of anie Church or congregation whatsoeuer, as euen the refor­mers themselues, as I suppose, cannot denie, for that, as the scripture affirmeth, that he who offends in one thing is made guiltie of all the rest, so he that in one onelie poynt of faith houldeth contrarie to the most vniuersall and [Page 101] auncient Church, maketh himselfe presentlie guiltie of want or defect both of vniuersalitie and antiquitie in his beleefe. For as Saint Na­zianzene saith to this purpose in his 37. oration towards the end: the articles of faith are like to a gould chaine from which if you take away anie one link (as Saint Ambrose saith) Ad cap. 9. Lucae lib. 6. in fine. you take away your saluation, vnum horum, saith he, si detraxeris tetraxisti salutem tuam. And so we see that the knight by reason he omitteth in his discourse that part vpon which the verie me­dium of his argument chiefelie, or at the least greatelie depended, his proofe of antiquitie and vniuersality in his Church falleth to the groūd. But besides this defect he fayleth also in that he saith he beleeueth the three Creedes insti­tuted by the Apostles and Primatiue Fathers of the Church. For either he meanes that those three Creedes do sufficientlie conteyne all that he is bound to beleeue or no. If the first he meaneth, then what will become of his solifi­dian iustification, and of the 39. articles of the English faith, the greater parte of which is not to be found in those Creedes. If he meanes the second, then doth he ill in leauing those par­ticulars out in the rehearsall of his faith. Nay more then this, for if matters were well exa­mined, I doubt not but the knight notwith­standing the protestatiō of his faith of the three Creeds, yet he would be founde holting in the [Page 102] true & generally receiued, or Catholike sēse of diuers of the same, as that of the perpetuall vir­ginity of the mother of God, in that of the descēt of Christ in to hell, of the Catholike Church, the cōmunion of Saincts, remission of sinnes, and the like I say of the doctrine of the 4. first Generall Councels, and of the Sacraments: in which particulars our aduersaries vnderpre­sēce of reformatiō maintaine diuers deformed errours, specified and confuted by diuines of the Roman Church. Moreouer the knight is also defectiue in the proofe of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith, and doth egre­giously equiuocate in that he saith that two of the Sacraments which the Church of Rome houldeth, are professed by the reformers and confessed by their aduersaries to haue beene instituted by Christ, not broached by Luther. This I say is equiuocall and doth not prooue his intent: for although it neither is nor can be denied, but ingenuously confessed by the Roman Church that there are two Sacra­ments, yet doth she not confesse that there are onely two Sacraments instituted by Christ as the reformers professe, but houldeth and be­leeueth fiue more as well as those two to haue beene instituted by Christ, which fiue being denyed, or at the least three or foure of them, both by Luther and the rest of the pretended reformers, and on the contrary hauing beene [Page 103] receiued for Sacramēts in aūcient times, as after­wards shall be declared, the deniers of thē who­soeuer they be, cannot rightly claime either an­tiquity of vniuersality of doctrine in that parti­cular. And the same may be said for the same reason of the 22. bookes of Scripture, and the seuen first generall Councells, in the which he faith of the reformers is neither aunciēt nor v­niuersall first for that they hould those twenty two bookes for canonicall Scripture & exclude all the rest out of the canō, which neuerthelesse as appeareth by the testimony of S. Augustin herecited in the margē, Totus au­tem canon Scriptura­rum in quo istam considera­tionē ver­sandam di­cimus his libris con­tinetur. Quinque Moyses &c. To­bias, He­ster, Iu­dith, & Macha­beorū li­bri duo & Esdrae duo. Et postea. Nam & illi duo libri vnus qui sapientiae, & alius qui Ecclesia­sticus in­scribitur de quadam similitudi­ne Salo­monis esse dicuntur nam Iesus filius Sciach eos scripsisse constātisse perhibe­tur: qui tamē quo­niam in authorita­tem recipi meruerūt, inter pro­pheticos numerādi sunt. Aug. l. 2. de do­cti Chri­stiana. c. 8. were also canonicall in the auncient Church. And secondly because they receiue but onely foure of those seuen generall Councels, which neuerthelesse Sir Hūfrey himselfe here confesseth to haue beene genenerall by giuing them all that title as well as the four first. To omit other generall Coun­cels which he & his brothers violently reiect.

And now touching Apostolicall tradi­tions Sir Humfrey doth no lesse plainely So­phisticate then in the former points, for that it is well knowne that the reformers either hould no traditions at all to be beleeued but rely wholy vpon pure or sole Scripture as the totall rule of their faith: or if they hould any traditiōs to be necessary yet do not they hould all those which the auncient & now the mo­derne Roman Church doth hould, and con­sequently [Page 104] their manner of houlding Apostoli­call traditions is in words onely, and hath no true discent from the Apostles nor any vniuer­sality or antiquity at all, as neither hath their booke of common prayer & manner of ordi­nation and vocation of Ministers or Pastours: and so altho' they haue some parte both of the auncient liturgie and also of the Apostoli­call māner of ordination, yet because they doe not wholy agree with them, no not in the sub­stance and essentiall parts of the action, that is to say not in the consecration of the Eucha­rist, nor in the essentiall forme and matter of order which are the wordes and imposition of hands, they are defectiue in the antiquity and vniuersality of the same in regard that the manner and forme of prayer and administra­tions of Sacraments which the reformed Churches vse at this present is different from that of the auncient Church, & neuer knowne nor heard of in former ages but broach by Lu­ther and his sectatours, quite contrary to that which the knight affirmeth and indeauoureth to prooue, as by comparing their Church seruice, their booke of common prayer, and of ordination of Ministers with the auncient liturgies, as that of Sainct Iames, Sainct Basil, Sainct Chrisostome and others, doth clearely appeare: as also by confronting the same with the writings of the auncient Fathers and their [Page 105] formes of administration of Sacraments, by which we shall finde a maine difference bet­wixt the one and the other in regard that in those auncient monuments of antiquitie, be founde sacrifice, oblation, altar, incense, hoste, chalis, holy oyle, Chrysme and the like: But in the forme of seruice and administration of Sacraments vsed now in the pretensiue refor­med Churches, ther is none of this to be found or hearde. By which it may farther appeare that it is no silly or senseles question, as our aduersarie would haue it, to demaunde of the reformers where their Church was be­fore Luther. Because it hath nowe beene made manifest that allthough some parte of their do­ctrine that I meane in which they and the Ro­manists agree, hath both vniuersality and anti­quity if it be considered in it selfe, yet diuerse other points of it hath neither the one nor the other. That which cannot be found in the do­ctrine of the Romā Church for that allthough it is true that some parte thereof was not ex­pressely definde as matter of faith before the tyme of the later Councells, and sectaries, who by their defection from the euer succeeding Roman Church, and their new errours, gaue occasion of new declarations of some particu­lar points, yet were those neither new in them selues nor first broached & taught by the fore­said councells, but onely they by their autho­rity [Page 106] determined & established for certaine do­ctrine that which diuerse nouellists presump­tuously brought in question, the same neuer­thelesse in all the ages before Luther hauing bene both aunciently and vniuersally tought, or at the least by many doctours of the Church with out contradiction of the rest: or perhaps if anie were of a different opinion, it was because matters were not then so plainely declared by the Church, and vnder her correction. And so the question proposed by the Romanists to the reformers can neither be rightly detorted vpon them, as the knight vainely auerreth, nor yet can the reformers euer be able to answer it, as plainely appeareth both by that with hath beene allready said, as allso by the doctrine of their 39. articles diuerse of which are not onely new in themselues and neuer heard of in aun­cient tymes, but allso expressely broached by Luther himselfe, and that not only in negatiue but allso in some positiue doctrine, as is euident particularly in the point of iustisicatiō by faith alone. And hence allso it is manifestly infer­red how vntruely the knight affirmeth in his 77. page that noe Romanist can deny but that the doctrine of the reformers lay inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church as corne couered with chaffe or gould with drosse: for neither is it true that either all the doctrine of the reformers hath beene in the [Page 107] Church before Luther, as I haue showed, nor yet that any Romanist euer affirmed the same, & so S. Hūfrey deliuereth two falsities vnder one forme of speech continuing the same for the space of a whole leafe grounding his dis­course vpō false suppositions, & equiuocatiōs, & promising to produce testimonies of his ad­uersarie the Romanists for the antiquity and vniuersalitie of the protestāt faith (he meanes the Puritan faith) in generall, yet produceth not one for the same excepting Pope Adrian the 6. and Costerus and D. Harding in Iewell none of which three authours proue S. Hum­frey intent. Costerus and Harding onely spea­king of one or two particular points & that in no matter of faith, to wit aboute the manner of the introduction of communion vnder one kinde and priuate Masse into the Church, as their owne wordes declare.

And as for Pope Adrian, his owne wordes truely and compleatly cyted showe him to speake onely of the conditionall adoration of Christ in the Eucharist in case the hoste should not be consecrated, and so he is here produced by the knight both most falsely and most ridi­culously to proue, for sooth, that the Roma­nists excuse their absolute adoration of Christ in the Sacrament by that conditionall, I adore theif thou be Christ: which manner of adora­tion neuerthelesse they neuer vse but onely in [Page 108] speciall cases of doubt whether the Preist per­formed his office according to Christ [...] institu­tion. The Popes words are these in Latin. Con­cilium Constantiense excusat simplices adorantes hostiam nō consecratam quia facite implicatur con­dition, si consecration sit recte facta &c. And now let the reader iudge how conueniently they be applyed to S. Hūfreys purpose of pro­uing absolutely that the Romanists excuse their adoration of Christ in that manner. Further more Sir Humfrey doth not adduce any reason at all for the proofe of his antiquitie and vni­uersality, but onely vseth his owne conceiptes cōsisting mearely in iffes an andes, or conditio­nall asseueratiōs, & thus quite throu' the rest of his section he rides poste like a man that caries newes of a false victorie now and then drop­ping a lye by the way for the haste he maketh to come to the end of his iourney, which is no­thing els but his owne discredit: which be­cause it hath beene already sufficiently mani­fested I neede not goe to particulars for more proofe of the same, especially for that I know I shall haue occasion hereafter to handle more largely all those seuerall points which our ad­uersary cōgesteth in this place rather by way of recrimination then of treaty, as that Coste­rus & Harding excuse the cōmunion and pri­uate Masse, the one by saying that the cup was not taken away by the commaundement of [Page 109] the Bishops, but that it crept in the Bishops conniuing ther at, which he attributeth to Costerus: the other, that it is throu the negli­gence of the lay people that they cōmunicate not at euerie Masse, which he ascribes to D. Harding. All which is imposed by the knight vpon those two Catholike authours cōtrarie to their true sense and meaning, for that as it is apparent by their owne wordes which I will rehearse in an other place, they say not those things by way of excuse in regarde they know ther is no need of excuse wher no faulte is founde nor acknowledged: it being certaine to them and all other Romanists that how soeuer priuate Masse, and single communion were at first introduced, yet they are both lawfully practized. And so I conclude this se­ction of his, inroling il with the former cen­sures: or rather I may with greate reason frame a more rigorous censure for it, in regard that the knight hauing promised more then before, yet he hath performed lesse, and ha­uing vnder the name and punishment due to heresie vndertaken to showe by the testimo­nies & confession of his aduersaries the anti­quitie and vniuersalitie of his faith, & that his way euen by the confession of the Romanists is more certaine then their owne, yet he hath performed nothing but spent his whole dis­course in equiuocations and iuggeling tricks, [Page 110] and so he cannot possible escape the same sen­tence which his owne execration called vpon him.

THE VIII. PERIOD.

THIS Period shall conteine the ninth se­ction of S. Hūfreys booke: with though by reason of the largenes of it, he diuideth it in to seuerall paragraffes, yet because they haue but small substance in them as he handleth them, though otherwise they be in themselues matters of importance: as alsoe for that his do­ctrine in te same points hath beene already in parte examined & cōfuted, therefore I will not stand to make so many seuerall distinctions in the treaty of them as he doth, but reduce them all to one onely period, briefely examining how farre those testimonies of Romanists which he promiseth to produce as witnesses of the anti­quity of his owne doctrine, and the nouelty of theirs, doe reach in the particular points of the same. He beginneth therefore with iustifi­cation by faith onely, Page. 85. I saith he, will make it appeare that before and after the conquest, the priests and professours of those tymes protested open­ly against the doctrine of Romish merits preaching saluation by Christ alone, and with all publikely professed and administred the same sacraments in the same faith and truth which we teach and admi­nister [Page 111] to this day. Thus he proceedeth by way of assertion with a promise to make it appeare, which assertion neuerthelesse contayning two partes, yet neither of them is true, but both either false or equiuocall, or rather partely false, and partely equiuocall. The first parte is clee­rely false in of it affirmeth that the priests and professours both before and after the conquest protested openly against Romish merits. That this is false it is manifestly conuinced first be­cause all the workes of learned men, and histo­ries both of England and other contries that write of that matter, doe testifye that from the tyme of S. Gregories mission of S. Augustin into England to preach and establish the Ro­man faith (to omit more auncient times) both the Kings, priests, and people as well before as since the conquest haue continually professed the same Roman doctrine which then they receiued, vntill the time of Henry the eight at the least, and among the rest the very same do­ctrine of merits which now the Church of Rome defendeth. As is diligently proued by the authour of the protestants apollogie in the first section of his first treaty the 63. page euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues. And what S. Gregories owne doctrine was in this particular, he himselfe testifieth in his booke of moralls the 42. chap. saying that because in this life there is diuersitie of workes [Page 112] among vs therefore with out doubt there will be in that diuersitie of dignities, to the end that as heare one doth surpasse another in me­rit, so there one may transcend another in the re­tribution. Thus Sainct Gregorie to whose te­stimonie as I could, if neede were, ioyne the expresse authorities of Fathers of precedent ages for witnesses of the doctrine of merits, as of S. Augustin, Hierome, Ambrose, Hilarie, Cyp. Tertull. and other Grecian Doctours euen till the time of the priuatiue Church: so may the consent of those who succeeded the the same S. Gregory be added for the confir­mation of it S. Bernard: to omit other places alledged by me in an other occasion: in his 8. serm. vpon the Cantic. saith. Omne quod feceris bonum malumne, quod quidem non face­re liberum sit, meritò ad meritum deputatur. Concilio Aran. can. 18. debetur merces bonis operibus si fiant, sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit vt fiant. To which might be ad­ded the Councels of Lateran sub Inno. 3. cap. firmiter, the florent. decreto de Purgatorio, and the late Councell of Trent. Which all teach the same doctrine of merits as our aduersaries cannot denie, to which also might be ioyned all those are testimonies of aūcient Fathers who teach that faith onely doth not iustifie, nor is sufficient to saluation, by all which its manife­stly conuinced that the doctrine of iustificatiō [Page 113] could not be openly protested against both before and after the Conquest by the Preists and professours of England, except Sir Hum­frey will persuade vs that the faith of England in those times was different from the faith of all the world beside, and euen of those who di­rectly sent preachers for the conuersion of it from gentilisme and superstition, all which being wholely incredible, so by necessary con­sequence is the whole discourse grounded thereupon. Secondly I answer that its mani­fest out of the words cited by the knight out of the booke of the forme of administration of Sacraments vsed in those times (supposing the booke is authenticall, which neuerthelesse may be suspected as being being onely pro­duced by Cassander a suspected authour) there is not any word, sentence, or sillable which excludes from saluation those me­rits which the Roman Church defendeth: but onely such merits as either exclude, pressely exclude the merits of the passion of Christ and therefore the question which ac­cording to the order of that directory the Priest maketh to the sick person runneth in this tennour. Doest thou belieue to come to glorie not by thine owne merits, but by the virtue and merits of the Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ? which interrogation as you see manifestly containeth an opposition betwene [Page 114] the merits of the infirme man and those of Christ, and for that cause he calleth them his owne as being wholy wrought by his owne naturall power without the concourse of the merits of our Sauiour & consequently in that sense of no force or vertue for the obtaining of saluation. That which is yet more manifest by the like question insuing made also by the Preist to the same person in this manner. Doest thou belieue that our Sauiour Iesus Christ did die for our saluation? And that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his passion? where you see the opposition still runneth, and espe­cially heare more clearely, betwixt mans owne merits or other meanes which proceed not frō Christs Passion, but from some other cause, not including or depending vpon them as the prin­cipall agent of all meritorious operations.

And verily I am persuaded that the reason why in those daies & in those occasions the formes and speach where somewhat different in the matter of merit, from the formes vsed in our times, is no thing els but the differences of errours reigning in the worlde in those times, and those that are now at this present defen­ded by the nouellists. For the Pelagian heresie which did attribute ouer much virtue to the merits of man hauing once beene and perhaps some requikes of it yet remaining verie rife in [Page 115] Englād whē the foresaid directory was vsed (if any such there were) or at the least not lōge be­fore, it was necessary that in all occasions hu­mane merits should be as much extenuated as could possible be without preiudice of faith in that point. But contrarilie in these our daies since the publication of the errours of Luther and other sectaries in this matters, it was con­uenient, if not necessary, to extoll the same me­rits as much as could be without preiudice to the merits of Christ.

Now touching that which is added in the second parte of the knigts assertion videlicet, that the Preists of former times preached sal­uation through Christ alone, it is most plai­nely equiuocall, and in one sense it is true and conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church in all ages, but in another sense it is false and disagreable to the same, it is true that Christ alone is the authour of saluation and that no other then he can saue vs according to that of the Apostle Sainct Peter Act. 4. non est in alio aliquo salus. Nec enim aliud nomen est sub Caelo datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos sal­uos fieri. Neither is there any other name vn­der heauen giuen to men wherein we must be saued: and in this sense and no otherwise the Preists of England in more auncient times preached saluation by Christ alone: yet not­withstanding all this, it is false that those [Page 116] Preists preached saluation with an exclusion or deniall of the merits of man wrought by the grace of Christ and by virtue of his death and Passion, neither was such doctrine euer taught either in England or any other place before the time of Luther, except it were by some more aūcient heretikes. Moreouer that which the knight putteth in the second parte of his foresaid assertion, to wit that the Preists of those times published and administred the same Sacraments in the same faith and trueth, which they (meaning the reformers) teach & administer this day, this I say is partelie equi­uocall in that he saith they publike professed & administred the same Sacramēts. For tho' it were true that two of the Sacraments which those Preists administred videlicet. Baptisme & the Eucharist, be the same which there formers administer at this day, yet it is false that the foresaid Priests did the vse in their time either to professe or administer two onelie, as may appeare by the same rituall out of which S. Hū ­frey draweth this testimonie, in which all the seauen Sacraments are contained and appoin­ted to be administred, if the booke be perfectly published without corruption. Partelie also that same parte of the assertion is false, for that it is manifest the foresaid Preists did not receiue those two which the reformers hould for Sa­craments in the same faith which they doe, for [Page 117] as much as the Priests mentioned receiued those two in the faith of fiue other Sacramēts which also they beleiue to be such as well as the rest, supposing that the number of all the seuen Sacraments were then in beleefe and practice as much as now they bee, as both the rituall cited, if it be not corrupted, and also the histories of those times can testifie, of which fiue Sacraments neuerthelesse the reformers haue no such faith as they thēselues cōfesse. To say nothing of the faith of those same Preists in other points of religion, which as it is cer­taine by the relation of historiographes, was farre different from the faith of the reformers and practice of their Churches, and conse­quentlie it cannot with truth be said to be the same. And as for the rest of the words which the knight citeth out of the same rituall, they proue nothing against merit it selfe but onelie against confidēce in proper merits as appeares by those wordes in particular, place thy whole confidence in his death onelie, haue confidence in no other thing, that which is so farre from the deniall of merits as that it is counselled & aduised euen by those who are most professed defendours of the Roman doctrine in that point as out of Bellarmine and other diuines we haue showed before. Period. 4. Nay and besides this it is most plaine in my iudgment that the fore­said rituall in certaine other words following [Page 118] in the same place did neuer intend to exclude all kinde of merit from the workes of man performed by Gods grace and assistance, for that it expressely saith in the person of that sick man: I offer his merits (that is the merits of Christ) in steede of the merits I ought to haue, for if he ought to haue merits as he affirmeth euen vpon his death bed, though he haue thē not, euident it is that he denied not the same but plainelie supposed the truth of them. And thus we see that the words of the order of ba­ptizing benigniouslie interpreted make no­thing for S. Hūfreyes position nor against the Romā doctrine of merits, How be it the same was iustelie corrected by the Inquisitors both because the manner of phrase which it vseth might easily giue occasiō of errour especially in these our dayes: as also because it is iustelie sus­pected to be Apochryphall, in regarde it con­taines certaine ill sounding sentēces not onely in the doctrine of the Roman Church: but also according to the tenets of the Reformers. As where it saith thus. These protestations of such as lye a dying were reuailed to a cer­taine religious man. And those wordes: he that shall protest such things as followe, from his harte cannot be damned &c. All which propo­sitions and some othgers are commaunded by the authours of the Index to be blotted as well as the wordes which Sir Humfrey here cites. [Page 119] And yet more ouer it is to be aduertised that there is not a worde in all that which our ad­uersarie produceth against merits which doth proue iustification by faith onelie, which is that which he intendes to proue in this place as the title of his paragraph doth declare. And so by this meanes he hath quite fled from his text. And so this may suffice to demonstrate the falsitie of the knights assertion and the nul­litie of the proofe thereof by the testimonies of his aduersaries, seeing plainelie that he doth no thing therein, but partlie by vntrueths and partlie by equiuocations deludes his reader not citing anie one authour either Romanist or re­former in all this paragraffe more then the wordes rehearsed out of the foresaid Rituall, which neuerthelesse hauing bene, as suspected of corruption, chasticed by the Inquisitours, the vncensured coppies (which doubtlesse he and his fellowes onelie vse) haue no authoritie nor credit in the Roman Church, or at the most, verie little, and consequentlie he procee­deth most weakelie in produceing for a testi­monie of his aduersarie that which they doe not acknowledge for theirs, especiallie consi­dering he alledgeth nothing els for the proofe of his tenet. The second paragraffe is of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation. As con­cerning the Sacraments of the Lords supper saith the knight. In the dayes of Alfrick a­bout [Page 120] the yeare 996. There was a Homilie pu­blikelie to be read to the people one Easter day, whe­rein the same doctrine which, saith hee, our Church now professeth was publikelie taught and receaued, and the doctrine of the reall presence (which in that time had gotte some footing in the Church) was plainelie cōfuted and reiected. The wordes which he citeth are these. There is a greate difference betwixt the bodie wherein Christ suffered and the bodie which is receaued of the faithfull, the bodie that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of marie with bloud and with bone, with skinne and with sinewes, in human lims, with a reasonable soule liuing: and his spirituall bodie which nou­risheth the faithfull spirituallie, is gathered of ma­nie cornes without bloud and bone, without lim, without soule, and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodilie but spirituallie &c. Thus farre out of the homilie. And this doctrine faith the knight was deliuered in those times not by one onely Bishop but by diuerse in their Synods and by them commended to the Clergie, who were commaunded to reade it publikelie to the people one Easter day for their better preparation and instruction in the Sa­crament, and for the same cause translated into the saxon language by Alfrick: and to the same purpose the Knight also citeth two other wri­tinges or Epistles as published and translated also into the vulgar tongue by the same Alfric.

But to this I answer first that whatsoeuer do­ctrine [Page 121] is conteynd in the Hom. & Epistles cited, the Romanists are not boūd to beleeue it, because the knight onely citeth them out of his owne authours and as printed by the members of his owne Church, to wit out of B. Vsher, and Do­ctour Iames, and so it is both absurd and imper­tinent to produce thē as testimonies of his ad­uersaries, as he professeth to doe in the title of his section, especially supposing that he hath not aledged any one author of the Romanists religion where by to proue them authenticall, nor yet any other indifferent witnesse, but onely those two reformers whom we haue na­med, whoe by the Romanists may iustly be suspected of partiallity in fauour of their owne cause, especially if we consider that Sir Hum­frey himselfe graunteth that the Latin epistle written by Alfric is to be seene mangled and ra­zed in a manuscript in Benet colledg in Cambridge. And certainely the English coppies being found not to aggree with the Latin manuscript which is either the Originall it selfe, or at the least cometh much neerer the time in which the authour of it liued, then any other coppie the knight could possible haue, there is farre greater euidence that the latter translations and impressions are corrupted by the refor­mers, then that either the Index expurgatorius or any other Romanist hath made any altera­tion or chaunge in the originall coppies or first [Page 122] authenticall manuscripts, or in any other ex­cept it were onely to restore them to their prime innocenty and originall trueth: chee­fely supposing that the inquisitors in their expurgation of bookes intend no other thing more then to reduce such as be corrupted to the former purity of their originalls. Thirdly I answer that admitte the editions which are published in England be true and sincerely translated and printed, which neuerthelesse may iustly be suspected by reason of the mani­fould corruptions found to haue bene vsed in that nature by diuerse of the reformed pro­fession as by the expurgatory Index doth plainely appeare, the authours of which Index haue discouered diuers workes Fathered par­tely by auncient and partely by moderne se­ctaries vpō those who neuer writ them: which was the cause as I suppose, why Antonius pos­seuinus in the preamble to his select Biblio­theke saith that Sixtus, Bellarmine, and others haue manifested very maine pestilent bookes attributed by heretikes to ancient and good authours among which we may number one cited by Sir Humfrey in some parte of his worke, intitled de fiducia & misericordia Dei, which Bell. in his booke de Scrip. Eccles. de­clares to be counterfait and suppositious and none of Bishop Fishers on whom it is imposed. Neuerthelesse how so euer the matter standes [Page 123] touching the truth of the foresaid homilie, and admit it be neuer soe true and authenticall: yet I am confidently assured that the wordes by Sir Humfrey cited out of it against the reall presence, are not so obscure but that they admitte such a comodious exposition as doth not in any sort fouour the denyall there­of but rather impugne and it confute it. First for that there is not one worde which inclu­deth a denyall of the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist, but the wordes onelie showe a differēce betwene the body in which Christ suffered and the bodie which the faith­full receiue, which difference is not reallie in the substance of the bodie it selfe, it being one and the same in nature in euery place where it existeth; but onely in the properties and manner of existence, or being in place: it ha­uing beene in the passion visible, mortall, and with it entire locall extension: but in the Sacrament inuisible, impassible, and vnexten­ded: in which sense allso it may rightly be called spirituall: yea and not altogether im­properly, especially taking it with a relation or respect vnto the same body perfectly exten­ded in the manner aboue declared, it may be said to be without bloud, bone, sinn woe, limbe, or soule, that is without extensiō or mo­tion of these partes, as the cited wordes doe signifie, which by reason of the foresaid ma­ner [Page 124] of being of Christs body in the Sacrament doe call it his spirituall bodie, from thence as it were inferring & concluding that noething is to be vnderstood there bodily but spiritually: all which is noething contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point, but rather most agreeable to the same, which teacheth that Christs body though it be truelie in the Sacra­ment, yet without extension and not in a Cor­porall, but in a spirituall manner; yea and very cōformable to the doctrine of S. Paul who spea­king of the resurrectiō of the flesh douteth not to call one & the same humane bodie both cor­ruptible & spirituall: 1. Cor. 15. Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spirituale, and that not for the difference of the bodie in it nature and sub­stance which it hath not but onelie by reason of the accidentall difference which it hath in it properties and māner of existence, & which the same bodie receiueth in the resurrection not hauing had them in this mortall life. True it is ther is one passage in the homilie which in my opinion hath more difficulty & showe of repugnance to the reall presence & transsubstantiation then the former wordes, to wit where the authour makes a comparison betwixt the manna and water which flowed from the rocke in the desert, both which he affirmes to haue beene figures of Christ bodie and bloud as the Eucharist also is. Neuerthe­lesse [Page 125] he hath consequenter an other passage or two which plainely declare that similitude to be nothing contrarie either to the reall pre­sence or transsubstantiation. For so he addes. The Apostle Paul saith that the Israelists did eate the same gostely meake, and drinke the same gostely drinke, because that heauen­ly meate that fed them 40. yeares and shat water which frome the stome did follow had signification of Christs bodie & his bloud that now be offered daylie in Gods Church: it was the same (saith he) which we offer, not bo­dily but gostely. But which wordes it is euident that Alfric puts a maine difference betwixt that spirituall meate and drinke of the Iewes, & the spirituall foode which Catholike Chri­stians receiue in the Sacrament, that being but a signification, as the authour of the Homilie expressely affirmeth, of Christs body & bloud, it being the same not bodilie but onely spiri­tually or figuratiuelie with that bodie and bloud of Christ which he auerreth Preists to offer daylie and of which he also teacheth the foresaid water to be a representation, not the bodie and bloud themselues, which as being euerie day sacrificed in the altar, euen according to common sense they must of ne­cessitie be reallie and truelie in the Eucharist. And altho' the authour of the Homilie calleth if a figure of Christs bodie & bloud, yet doth he [Page 126] not say it is a figure of thē absent, as the water flowing out of the rock was, but truelie and reallie present, as those his wordes in which he saith and diuers time repeateth, that Christs bodie and bloud are offered in the same Eucha­rist by Preists in sacrifice, doe euidently con­uince, supposing it is impossible to conceiue the authour of the homilie should affirme that Christs bodie and bloud be offered, in the altar, and yet not beleeue the same to be reallie truelie and substantially present in the Eucha­rist. Moreouer the same Homilie saith in plaine termes, the wine which in the supper by the Preist is hallowed, shewe one thing without to humane vnderstanding and another thing with in to beleeuing minds, without they seeme bread and wine both in figure and tast, and they be truely after their hallowing Christs bodie and his blood throu' gostelie misterie. And afterwardes these wordes doe followe, we said vnto you that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housell before his suffe­ring and said this his my bodie and my bloud, yet he had not then suffered: but so notwithstanding he turned trou' in visible might the bred to his owne hodie, the wine to his bloud, which wordes how plaine they be for the reall presence and transsubstantiation, anie one that is not vio­lently partiall in his owne cause may easilie perceiue, considering that for Christ to turne by inuisible might the bread and wine into [Page 127] his bodie and bloud, is nothing els but that which both the definitions of the Roman Church and Catholike diuines call by the names of reall presence and transsubantia­tion.

Thirdlie it is manifest that the foresaid testi­monie cannot in reason be alledged in fauour of the reformers doctrine in this particular, for that they denie the bodie of Christ either to exist or to be receaued really in the Eucha­rist otherwise then by faith & figure, neither of which neuertelesse is denied by the words aboue cited, but contrarilie they expressely and absolutelie auerre that the bodie of Christ is receaued by the faithfull, and altho' they call it his spirituall bodie, yet doubtlesse they doe it onelie for the reason alledged as also for that it nourisheth the receiuers spirituallie, yet they neuer denie it to be a true bodie, or to be trulie present in the Sacrament, or affirme it to be re­ceiued by faith onelie as the reformers com­monlie doe, and Sir Humfrey in particular most expresselie in diuerse places of his booke.

Fourtlie the wordes alledged call the bodie which the faithfull receiue in the Eucharist a bodie gathered of many cornes, without bloud and bone, without lim, without soule. But the reformers professe to receiue no such bo­die in the Sacrament, but the verie same bodie [Page 128] [...] [Page 129] [...] [Page 126] [...] [Page 127] [...] [Page 128] which sitteth on the right hād of God in heauē indued with all the properties and dimensions of a true bodie, though by faith onelie; and so there being such small affinitie betweene both the words and sense of the foresaid place and the reformers doctrine in this point, neither S. Humfrey, nor those from whom he receiued it, had any reason to produce it as a testimonie wherebie to proue their Church to haue bene visiblie extant, and their faith publikelie pro­fessed before the daies of Luther. And from hence we may further deduce how vaine a flourish the knight maketh in the end of his 97. page were by way of conclusion he affirmes that the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and gene­rallie published not in pryuate corners but in pu­blike libraries, not in obscure assemblyes. But in open Churches, and generall congregations of our owne countrye in the darkest ages long before Lu­thers dayes; All which deduction is most fri­uolous and idle: first for that suppose it were most true and certaine that the denyall of the reall presence were contained in the foresaid writings, the contrarie to which I haue made most manifest, yet is it a most vaine and false brag of the knight to saye that therefore the most substantiall points of his religion were visiblie knowne and generallie professed in his countrie longe before the dayes of Luther, it [Page 129] being manifest that with all the Arethmatik he can vse, The de­niall of the reall presence and tran­substan­tiation confessed by Sir H. to be the most sub­stantiall points of his reli­gion. the whole some of substantiall points of his religion falselie pretended to be sounde by him in the foresaide epistles and ho­milie, doe not passe the number of two: whe­reas yet on the contrarie ther are truelie and vnfainedlie aboue twise as manie against him and for the Romanists, as masse, prayers in La­tin, water mixed to the wine in the chalis, offe­ring of the same, sacrifice, the pronouncing of Agnus Dei in the masse, the signe of the Crosse. As also because there are no certaine premisses out of which anie such illation of the knights can be collected, but the quite contrarie as hath beene alreadie showed: and so for Sir Humfrey to say the most substantiall points of his faith haue beene generallie published not in priuate corners but in publike libraries be­fore the dayes of Luther grounding his saying onelie vpon the foresaid writings, is most ab­surde and voyde of truth. To omit that if as the knight affirmes, there is a copie of the foresaid Epistle mangled in the foresaid librarie a man may doubt how the pretēsiue reformers could come by anie more true manuscript then that razed copie, out of which they could by com­paring the one with the other, discouer that that which was so blotted & defaced, did con­taine anie doctrine contrarie to the reall pre­sense or transubstantiation or agreeing with [Page 130] their owne copies now of late translated in to English and printed by them. And also we may further suspect that the copie which Sir Humfrey mentioneth as mangled and razed, is the onelie true originall, and that the trans­sumpts of Alfrickes sermon now published in English, are altered and changed from the pu­ritie of their first copies, all which I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader and my owne further examen of the matter as op­portunitie shall serue. And yet besides this, I cannot conceiue how this businesse hangs together, to wit that Sir Humfrey produces the foresaid homilie against transubstantiation, and yet the same Sir Humfrey page 98. affirmes that they (I knowe not who) haue in that same homilie suggested transubstantiation by two faigned miracles. Now if in that homilie there be two miracles to proue transubstantia­tion, as indeed there bee, howe can it then be truly produced by the knight against the same? So that here must of necessitie be some iug­gling in the matter. And more, for my parte I cannot possible imagin howe that ould mu­stie copie of the homilie being in the saxon language could make two such monsterous iumpes as first to leape out of ould saxon in to English, and then out of exiter into Oxon euen iuste at that present time when M. Fox had need of them for the fornishing of his moulie [Page 131] monumēts. Certainelie I hould this for one of the greatest miracles that anie of the reformed brothers euer committed. Besides this in my opinion it sauoures rancke of forgerie to say that the wordes razed in the Latin copie of Alfricks Epistle to Wolstan Archbishop of yorke were supplied by the saxon copie of Exi­ter, as some of our aduersaries doe affirme, not-obstanding others say they had the supplie from worcester. And I demaunde further, whether it is not much more probable that the sentence which he mentioneth if anie such there were in that Epistle, was neuer taken away in the Latin, but rather added by Swin­glius, Oecolampadius, or Bucer, or some other greater Doctour of that potatorie Confrater­nitie. More D. Iames saith that the Latin E­pistle so razed is intituled: De consuetudine mo­nachorum, and yet the same Doctour out of Fox relates it to be against the bodilie presence. Quibus speramus nos qui­busdam prodesse ad corre­ctionem, quamuis sciamus aliis mini­me pla­cuisse: sed non est nobis con­sultum semper si lere, & non ape­rire subie­ctis elo­quia diui­na, quia si praeco tacet quis Iudicem venturum enuntiet. D. Iames detect. part. 2. pag. 55. Now what connexion the bodilie or vnbodilie presence of Christ in the sacrament hath with the custome of monks, I am persuaded that, excepting these two great Doctours, all the world beside can not imagin: Especiallie con­sidering that in the wordes related by Iames, there is no mētion at all of the bodie of Christ, but of correction of some certaine persons. And surelie Alfrick being an Abbat himselfe it is to be iudged farre more proper to him to [Page 132] haue writ of things appertaining to the profes­sion of religious persons, thē of the Eucharist or transubstātiation, or as they will haue it, against the same. Finallie Fox referres the translation and publishing of the Homilie and Epistles to the yeare 996. Yet Iames affirmes that the Archbishop wolstan to whome Alfrick writte his Epistle concerning that businesse, was a boute the yeare 1054. which yeare differeth much from the other. Wherefore let Sir Hum­frey be assured that till he cleares these difficul­ties this his new-founde writing caries no au­thoritie against the Romanists. And so for conclusion of this matter I say that till Sir Humfrey or some of his companions can pro­duce some authenticall authour before Luther who without their owne glosses or illations doth teach plainelie these negatiues: Christs bodie and bloud are not reallie present in the Eucharist: 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 [Page 133] 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 [Page 134] 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 [Page 135] 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 [Page 136] 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 [Page 137] 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 trā ­substantia 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 Maldonate the Iesuit affirming that he confesseth Saint Augustin in the doctrine of transubstantiation to be wholie theirs, citing the foresaid Maldonat's words vpon the 6. chapter of Saint Iohn. the 5. verse. For the same; which although they be truelie rehear­sed by the knight, yet haue they no such sense or meaning as he doth either ignorantlie or malitiouslie suppose, nor doth he treate in them either of the reall presence or transubstantia­tion, but onelie of the exposition of the wordes of the foresaid verse, Patres vestri manducaue­runt Manna & mortui sunt, qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum. Making a question whether in them there be made by Christ a comparison betweene the seuerall persons that did eate, or betwene the seuerall kindes of breades which they did eate. And whereas Mal­donate citeth Saint Augustine and others to [Page 138] follow that opinion which houlds the compa­rison to be betwixt the eaters, he with other authours who liued since the tyme of S. Au­gustin reiecting that as lesse probable & more neere to the exposition of the Caluinists, lea­ueth it so, and imbraceth the contrarie: and in this point onelie, and in this manner doth Mal­donate persuade himselfe that Saint Augustin as a most greate enimie to heretiks would haue bene of another mynde if he had liued in these our daies, and seene his owne exposition of the foresaid wordes come so neere the glosse of the Caluinists. And this being all; yet our learned knight is so curious an Alchimist that he will needes drawe out of Maldonate by arte, that he confesseth S. Augustin to haue bene wholie for the reformers in the doctrine of transub­stantiation, and (also that which is further fet­ched) that the Romanists haue neither anti­quitie nor vniuersalitie in their doctrine. But alas his worke hath succeeded so vnfortunate­lie that insteede of gould he hath extracted drosse, I meane that in lieu of one single trueth he hath vttered a double lye, falsifying most shamefullie Saint Augustine and maldonate both at once, and with in the space of a verie few lines.

And the like Circulatorie and circumuen­ting tricks the knight also vseth in the cita­tions of Alfonso de Castro Gregorius de Va­lentia [Page 139] and Cardinall Cusanus. As if they did testifie that there is no antiquitie nor vniuer­sallitie in the Fathers touching the doctrine of transubstantiation, where as in deede they haue no such matter, as appeereth euen out of the verie same wordes which he citeth in this place: Castro onelie affirming that there is seldome mention of the transubstantiation of the bread into the bodie of Christ in antiquis scriptoribus in the auncient writers, not in the auncient Fa­thers as the knight doth falselie translate. And that which is yet much falser, he translates con­uersion for transsubstantiation; where it is also to be noted that Castro speakes there onelie of the worde transubstantiation not of the thing signified by the worde, as is euident by his o­ther wordes which presentlie fellowe, saying thus. Who but an heretike will dare to denie these things because they are not mentioned in auncient Fathers vnder such names? So that both Castros wordes, and sense are grosselie corrupted by Sir Humfrey. Valentia onelie affirmeth that it is not to be marueled, if one or two, or some of the auncients (not Fathers as our aduersarie yet somat more corruptedlie then before tradu­ceth) before the question of transubstantiotion was throulie debated in the Church, haue tought lesse consideratelie, and lesse weigtilie of this matter. In which wordes the knight also translates palam, throulie for openlie, and [Page 140] leauing vnmentioned the other ansers which Valentia giues to the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret vpon whose occasion he spea­kes in that manner, Haec ergo tam multa & tanto­rum viro­rum testi­monia sa­tis esse de­bent vt o­stē damus Luthero transsub­tiationem non esse nouā nec trecente­nariam vt ipse asse­rit, sed multo ve­tustiorum nempe ab ipsis Ec­clesiae pri­mordijs proditam. Castro li. 6. haer. 5. f. 178. and yet further omitting the conclusion of the sentence, to wit: maximè cum non tractarent ex instituto questionem; as al­so other wordes which follow to the same pur­pose. Cusanus lastlie saith no more but that certaine of the auncient diuines (if we may giue credit to the knight not heere citing his wordes) are found to be of this minde that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantia­ted in nature but still remayneth, and is clothed with another substāce more noble then it selfe. In which wordes as you see, whatsoeuer those innominated men, and as it seemes vnknowne to Cusanus himselfe, whatsoeuer I say they did hould touching the trueth of transubstantia­tion, yet certaine it is that they were not Cal­uinists in the point of the reall presence as plai­nelie appeereth by that noble substance which they held to clothe the bread after consecra­tion, which doubtlesse could be nothing els but the most pretious and noble bodie of Christ which the reformers denie to be present in the Sacrament.

This therefore is all that the cited authours affirme. And to omitte that none of them vseth the name of Fathers as the knight would haue them, translating and transfor­ming [Page 141] the wordes scriptotes, veteres, and anti­qui Theologi, or the like, into Fathers, or at the least citing the foresaid authours as if they spake planiely of the auncient fathers, which neuerthelesse their wordes doe not showe, I say, to say nothing of this which though it is a trick to deceaue the reader, yet it is so poore a one as it cannot much aduantage his cause. And to admitte that by those formes of speech the foresaid moderne authours meane the auncient Fathers: yet doth not this argue want of antiquity or vniuersallity of the Fathers in that pointe, in regard it is not required to the argument of antiquitie that all auncient Fa­thers in all ages none excepted agree in the pointe for which that kinde of argument is vsed, especiallie before the matter be suffi­cientlie declared & determined by the Church in case of doubt or opposition of heretikes or otherwise: but onely it is required and suffi­cient that the most parte of them doe consent therein the rest not obstinatelie contradicting the same, or carrying themselues at least indif­ferent according to the aduise of Vincent lyr. Contra prophanas haeres. nouit. saying that, si in ipsa vetusttate discrepantes sentētias reperiamus, sequamur sententiam plurium & illustriorum Doctorum. That is, if in antiquitie it selfe we fin­de. different opinions, let vs followe the opinion of the more famous Doctours. And this is there­fore [Page 142] true because that if such methaphisicall antiquitie & vniuersality were necessarie for all points of faith, noe Church in the world could truely be said to haue antiquitie and vniuersalitie in all points of doctrine or to haue beene alwaies Catholikes, it being a thing manifest that not any Church either is, nor was, nor euer will be so auncient and vniuersall as that ail and euery one of the auncient Fathers agree euer actually with her in euery point, as it is most cleare in the auncient Father Sainct Cyprian and yet more cleere in Tertullian and origen, who by reason of some points of doctrine which either were not in their time sufficiently and expresselie determined by the Church, or of which they had, not occasion to treate may seeme in some sorte to dissent from the pre­sent Church euen in such doctrine as now is knowne, and beleeued for matter of faith euen by the nouelists themselues, as appeares in the point of rebaptization defended by S. Cyprian & his adherēts in those times. Which if it were not so, its euident, that the reformers were yet in farre worse case then either the Romanists should be vpon that supposition, or then now they are, if in worse they can be imagined to be, whoe neither haue, nor euer can haue any kinde of vniuersalitie or ātiquity of Fathers either metaphisicall or morall on [Page 143] their side. And now this being all in substance, are rather more then those three cited authours affirme, it hence appeereth how smale reason Sir Hum. had to cite them in his fauour, espe­ciallie considering that one of them that is Alfonsus a Castro, doth onely say that there is seldome mention made of transubstantiation in the Fathers, not denying as it is manifest, their agreement in that point, but rather insi­nuating their consent therein tho' not so fre­quentlie expressed. Furthermore the knigth addeth for the conclusion of this pointe that many writers, and schoole men in their owne Church are so farre from graūt of antiquity & vniuersalitie to this doctrine, that they professe the tenet of transubstantiation was latelie receaued in the Church for a point of faith. And for this he citeth Scotus as affirming that before the councell of Lateran transubstan­tiation was not beleeued as a point of faith and that the doctrine of it is not verie auncient in the Church. Thus Sir Humfrey.

Tho which I answer that all tho' Bellar­min affirmes that Scotus sayde transubstantia­tion was not an article of faith before the coun­cell of Lateran yet I finde he speakes not so ab­solutely, but at the most he saith it was not so­lēnly declared as an article of faith before that Coūcell, not denying but that it minght be also declared in other particular coūcels as in deed it [Page 144] was declared by the Roman coūcell vnder Ni­colas the secōd, aboue a hundreth & fifty yeeres before, and more expressely in another Ro­man councell vnder Gregorie the seuenth: yea and maintained in the Church time out of minde. Neuerthelesse by way of argument I am content to graūt to the aduersaries that which Bellarmin affirmes of Scotus: Et tunc ad tertium, vbi stat vis: dicen­dum quod Ecclesia declarauit istum in­tellectum esse de ve­ritate fidei in illo simbolo edito sub In. 3. in Consilio Later. vbi ponitur veritas a­liquorum credendo­rum magis explicite quam ha­beantur in simboloo rum vel Atha. vel Nyceni: & breuiter quicquid ibi dicitur esse credē ­dum, te­nendum est esse de Substantia fidei, & hoc post istam de­clarationē solemnem factam ab Ecclesia. & Paulo post. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud ve­rum vel non ve­rum, sed Dei insti­tuentis. Et secundum intellectū à Deo tra­ditum Ec­clesia de­clarauit directa in hoc vt cre­ditur spi­ritu veri­tatis. Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 in resp. ad arg. yet not with­standing this liberall graunt, I doe affirme with all that our Church wanteth neither antiquitie nor vniuersality either in this or any other point of her doctrine, and the reason is because allthough some points of her faith were not in all ages and times knowen expresselie for arti­cles of faith, yet were they in themselues such indeede and for such beleeued with an implicite faith at the least, that is with such a faith as all conteined in the worde of God is belieued by all true Catholikes as an infalible trueth, altho' no one particular were knowne vnto them. For as it is most certaine that euery faithfull Christian which cannot reade belee­ueth many things conteined in scrpture with be knoweth not, in regard that altho' he is igno­rant of them in particular, yet in that he belie­ueth all that they include, he allso belieueth truely euen those particular trueths which he knoweth not: so allso it is certaine that euery faithfull Christian beleeuing vniuersally all that which the word of God conteines, hath [Page 145] an vniuersall faith of whatsoeuer points of do­ctrine either was, is, or shall be declared for matters of faith by the most vniuersall Church in any difference of time, and consequently he hath as ancient, and vniuersall a faith of those particular points so declared as he hath of those which euen both in the Apostles time & in all succeding ages were expressely knowne for articles of faith to all the Christian world. And let this suffice to declare that noe point of do­ctrine definde by the most vniuersall Church as matter of faith conteined in the worde of God, can truely be tearmed new, but hath as much antiquity and vniuersality as the greatest mysterie of the Christiā faith, & also that if any noueltie it hath, it is onely in the declaration of it, & quoad nos; that is in respect of that new or expresse knowledge which we receiue of it by the proposition of the holy Church. Which infalible manner of arriuing to a new know­ledge of matters of faith, because the sectaries neither haue it nor admitte it, it necessarily followes that whatsoeuer doctrine they dis­couer in these later times, must of necessity want both the foresaid properties of antiquitie and vniuersality as we haue declared, in regarde they can not show as much as an implicite per­petuallie succeeding faith in the articles they haue newly broched. Sir Hūfrey further more citeth allso Hostiensis and Gaufridus out of [Page 146] Durand. in 4. d. 10. q. 1. n. 23. whoe (as he affirmeth) saith there were others in those daies whoe taught that the substance of bread remaines; and that their opinion was not to be reiected, so the knight relateth. But how false and corrupted this relation is I know out of Durand himselfe for that I finde in his 10. d. of the 4. of sent. q. 1. n. 15. that this passage cited by him, is neither Durandes owne doctrine, nor yet theirs whome he cites aboute it, but onely related by them, and taken out of them by Durand to frame his obiection in the begining of his question, as he vseth to doe, which he afterwardes solues in plaine termes saying in his 25. number. Quod ante inducitur de Glossatoribus Gaufrido & Hostiense super decreta: dicendum quod licet recitent tres opiniones nullam tamen approbant vt veram nisi illam quod corpus Christi sit in altari per transsubstantiationem panis & vim: & si expresse non dicunt aliquam aliam erroneam, non propter hoc non est erronea, non enim sciuerunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius: And thus the busines being well examined, I say no more but that I ame sorie the worthy knight should be so vnfortunate as to stumble vpon the obiection in lue of the doctrine of the au­thor himselfe. How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion, that I doe not much admire the case.

The same Durand is alsoe abused by the knight in regarde he produces him to proue that the Roman diuines are diuided in their o­pinions touching transsubstantiation, which neuerthelesse I haue showed by his owne words how plainelie he maintaines it. And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirme of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is hereticall touching the maine point of trans­substantiation, but onely because by a singular opiniō he houldes that onely the forme of bread and wine, and not the matter is conuerted in to the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sa­crament, which altho' it be false, yet doth not the author therfore make anie doubt of trans­substantiation it selfe and so this is an other of Sir Hūfreyes trickes by which he cousens his reader and iniureth both these diuines at once. But put the case Durand were truely cyted, yet I say as I said before, that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquitie or vniuersalitie, either of the doctrine of transsubstantiation, or any other point of faith. And if the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humfrey will haue it, it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their cappes at it for any such they should euer be able to finde in their reformed congrega­tions, it being now euident out of the examen [Page 148] and censure of the former sections, that to speake within compasse, they haue not (I doe not say the tenth parte in number of the aun­cient Fathers for the proose of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of their whole Creede, which the Romanists haue for theirs) but not so much as one onely authour before Luther, which truely cited and vnderstood doth defend their doctrine in all and euery particular pointe.

And according to this, I answer also to the testimonie of B. Tunstall whom the kinght citeth as houlding the point of transubstantia­tion to haue bene a matter of indifferencie and not an article of faith within lesse then fiue hundreth yeeres. To which I replye first that Sir Humfrey dealeth heere according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie, first because he produceth this authours testimonie as if he had bene of opinion that perhaps it had bene better to haue left the doctrine of Tran­substantiation vndetermined and free for euery one to vse his owne coniecture, as in his Phansie it was before the Councell of Lateran; which is most false for that the Bishop doth onely relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not, his resolution being in that pointe farre differēt as his booke testifieth in that same place. Secondly he dea­leth insincerely in that he taketh hould of that onely which maketh for his purpose in [Page 149] some sort but, leaueth out not onely that which maketh expressely against him and for the reall presence ( quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Eccle­siae fides, which was the faith of the Church from the beginning) but also he leaueth out the very resolution it selfe of the authour in this same pointe of transubstantiation, where after the wordes by the knight cited, he saith expressely he houldeth it iust for that the Church is a pillar of trueth, that her iudg­ment is to be obserued as throughly firme. Ad­ding further that those who contend that, that manner of transubstantiation ought to be reie­cted (meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth) because the worde is not found in scripture, nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt. Quasi vero saith hee Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset, cuius omnipotentiae & spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione vi­dentur. By which plaine wordes of this learned Bishop the reader may plainely see how dece­iptfullie he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight. Secondly I answer that how indifferent soeuer the doctrine of transubstantiation might seeme to our aduer­sarie to haue beene before the Councell of Latran, neuertelesse both this authour and all others truely Catholikes both since and before that councell, haold it not for a matter indiffe­rent, [Page 150] but for a certaine trueth and verity as appeareth planely by that which hath beene said allready in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which haue in this paragraffe beene produced for the contrary.

Lastly I answer that there was neuer such in­differēcy in the Romā Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiatiō, but that so manie authours in all ages folowed the affir­matiue, that the reformed flock shall neuer be able to show anie for the negatiue, no not one classicall authour.

He makes vse also of the testimonies of the other. Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct. Theol. Scholast. cap. 11. & alib. who seeme to say that Christ did not consecrate with those wordes, this is my bodie: but by his benediction. But to these authours I say first that whatsoeuer they held in this par­ticular, they all agree in that point which is here in controuersie betwixt Sir Humfrey and the Romanists, that is they all accorde and teach the reall presence and transubstantiation, and so they are all impertinentlie alledged. Se­condlie I say, that these authours dispute in the places cited, onelie by what wordes, or action Christ himselfe did consecrate, and not of the wordes of Consecration by which the Preists vse to consecrate: And altho' they propose a question of this also, yet they agree in that the [Page 151] Preists doe consecrate by no other wordes but those. This is my bodie. That which in du­rand, at the least, is most plainelie expressed when in his page 166. he saith. Cum ad prola­tionem verborum istorum, hoc est corpus meum: hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat. d. 11. credibile iudicatur, quod & Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit. By which wordes it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate wordes by which Preists doe consecrate, nor yet was of opinion that Christ himselfe did vse anie other, how be it he rela­tes an opiniō of some others which thinke that Christ did not consecrate with those same wor­des, but he saith in the opinion rather of others then himselfe) that virtute diuina nobis occulta confecit, that he did it by diuine virtue or power himselfe, and afterwardes expressed the forme sub qua posteri benedicunt, by which the succee­ding Preists doe blesse or consecrate. Now Sir Humfrey in his citation of this authour lefe out the latter parte of his text which doth plai­nelie declaire his minde to wit the wordes, scilicet hoc est corpus meum, which durand inclu­des in the benediction or cōsecration of Christ, chimericallie ioyning to some of the authours former wordes, others which belonge to ano­ther opinion related by durand, which houldes that Christ repeated the wordes twise first to giue them power and vertue of confection or [Page 152] consecration, and afterwardes to teach the A­postles the forme of consecration, by which the reader may easily perceiue that the knight insteed of making durand his owne, he both lost him & his owne reputation by either most ignorant or malitious peruerting of that Ca­tholike authours wordes, and sense.

The like to which proceeding he vseth also in the testimonie of Odo whome he cites to proue that Christs bodie is made in the Sacra­ment by his benediction, and not by the wor­des: this is my bodie. For he neither sincerelie relates, nor trulie construes them. And first whereas that authour by may of exposition of that worde, benedixit, saith benedixit, corpus suum fecit, meaning that Christ blessed the bread, that is to say made it is bodie, Sir Hum­frey doth English the wordes both with a false interpretation of them and a false separation so: Math. 26. and then made that his bodie, adding the worde then of his owne stampe. Secondlie he makes a false construction of Odos wordes in that whereas Odo vnderstands by benediction con­secration, as diuers other diuines doe, and as it manifestlie appeares by his owne wordes vttered presentlie after, to wit those which Sir Humfrey cytes, saying, virtute sermonis Christi factum est corpus & sanguis Christi: that is, by virtue of Christs speech the bodie & bloud of Christ are made: the ignorant knight imagined that [Page 153] because he affirmed before that Christ by be­nediction made his bodie, therefore he made it without those wordes this is my bodie: which neuerthelesse are the verie wordes of benedi­ction or consecration which Christ himselfe vsed. True it is Odo speakes some thing intri­catelie and obscurelie by reason of his breuitie, yet those plaine wordes which followe in the same place and matter, videlicet virtute sermo­nis Christi fiunt corpus & sanguis Christi, doe sufficientlie explaine the authours mynde, and serue for a cleare exposition of the rest, as the iudicious reader of his whole text, will easilie perceiue.

Concerning the citation of Christopher De capite fontium I suspect there is some legerde­maine vsed in it: because it seemes not to me a thing credible that anie man of learning, and iudgement as he is held to be, should be so farre out of temper as peremptorilic to conclude for an infallible truth to which scriptures, Coun­cels and all antiquitite yeald an vndeniable te­stimonie and consent that the wordes, this is my bodie, are not the wordes of consecration, how be it the might say with the opinion of some others that those are not the wordes by which Christ himselfe consecrated, which point as it is not yet declared by the Church as a matter of faith, so neither is it pertinent to the matter we here treat, if so it were: as being no [Page 154] denyall of transubstantiation, which onelie is here in question and not the wordes of conse­cration. and consequentlie if that authour (whome I could not haue whereby to examen the truth) if I say he speakes in that sense one­lie, then his testimonie was cyted in vaine. As also I may not rashelie auouch that, especiallie if he meanes in the other sense, and as accor­ding to their rehearsall of our aduersarie, the wordes doe sounde. That surelie he had tasted of a wrong fountaine when he spoake in such an exorbitant manner, if so he euer spoake.

I haue exactelie examined Card. Aliaco, and finde he speakes in those wordes cyted by Sir Hūfrey, onely of the possibility of the coexistēce or presence of the substance of the bread & the bodie of Christ vnder the same accidēts, which possibilitie he affirmes neither to repugne to reason nor to the bible, no more then that two quantities or qualities may possiblie stande to­gether vnder one matter videlicet de potentia absoluta, that is by the absolute power of God: which is true in regarde that no text of scrip­ture can be found to such contrarie possibility, nor implicatiō of contradictiō in reason. But all this how true soeuer it is, yet is it out of the pur­pose and state of our question, which is not about the possibilitie, but aboute the fact of transsubstantiation, in which point the resolu­tion of this authour is plainelie for vs saying [Page 155] that altho' it doth not euidentlie followe of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth absolutelie cease to be, nor yet, as it seemes to me, of the determination of the Church, ne­uerthelesse because, saith he, it doth more fa­uore the determination of the Church and the common opinion of the holie Fathers and Do­ctours, therefore I hould it. And this same is that which the Councell of Trēt declares: to which doctrine if Sir Hūfrey would consent as farre as Aliaco, this disputation were at an end, for that here is nothingels required either of him or any other of his profession but that they obey the authoritie of the Church in her definition. Ses. 15 c. 4 Secun­dum hanc viam dico quod pa­nis trans­substātia­tur in cor­pus Chri­sti ad sen­sum expo­situm in descrip­tione tran­substantia­tionis. A­lic. in 4. q. 6. art. 2.

In his 111. page the knight proceedes most sophisticallie in this same matter, where, vpon a false if, or conditionallie false supposition that neither according to the doctrine of S. Thomas, the Roman Cathe­chisme, and the Masse-Preists, as he pleaseth to terme them, the consecrated bread is tran­substantiated by Christs benediction before those wordes, this is my bodie, be vttered, nor by the same wordes vttered after benediction, as saith he, the Archbishop of Cefarea and o­thers doe affirme; he presentlie thence inferres that absolutelie there are no wordes at all in the scripture to proue transubstantiation for an article of faith: which collection of his neuer­thelesse is no other then to deduce for conclu­sion [Page 156] of his discourse an absolute proposition from a conditionall and this also grounded vpon a meere equiuocation: for admit it is true that the foresaid authours doe not agree whe­ther determinately transubstantiation be made by the benediction, or by the wordes of con­secration, yet they all accorde most constantlie and conformablie in this, that by one of the two, to wit either by benediction or consecra­tion, or at the least by both the one and the other, the transubstantiation is vndoubtedlie effected, and consequentlie they agree vnani­mouslie against the position of Sir Humfrey, affirming that there be no words of scripture to proue the same. And the trueth is that Sir Hum­freys captious ratiocinatiō proues no more 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 [Page 157] 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 [Page 158] 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 [Page 160] 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 [Page 191] 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 meaning of this authour both the title of his chapter out of which our aduersarie taketh the wordes he cites, which is this. Of the in­terpretation of scripture by Fathers. And the whole tenor of his discourse, doe suffi­ciently declare, so that if the matter comes to scanning, the fraude will easily appeare with shame enuffe to this our professed aduersarie of truth. who not content with this, hath also like a cheating gramster to mende his ill game, dropt a carde, I meane the worde nostra which he hath left out in his translation: but this but a pore trick, and so let it passe. And [Page 192] perhaps it was onely the negligence of the printer. But for the readers better instruction I will punctually rehearse the authors wordes concerning his true meaning, as well those which Sir Humfrey hath omitted for his owne aduantage, as the rest. Thus he saith. Docea­mus quod citra Patrum interpretationem & vsum ab eisdem nobis traditum, nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis Euangelij verhis sacerdotum quempiam his temporibus verum Christi Corpus, & Sanguinem consecrare, non quod res haec ambigua fit, sed quod eius certitudo non tam haheatur ex Euangelij ver­bis quam ex Patrum interpretatione, & vsu tanti temporis quem illi posteris reliquerunt. That is let vs teach that without the interpretation of the Fathers, and the practise by thē deliuered vnto vs, noman can proue by the bare wordes of the Gospell them selues, that anie man in these our times doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ, not because this thing is doubtfull, but because the cer­tainetie of it can not be had so much by the wordes of the Euangell, as by the interpretation of Fathers, and the practise of so long time, which they left to posteritie. By which wordes it is voyde of all doubt and tergiuersation, that the authour of them neuer made question but that true Ca­tholike Prests, as he him selfe was, truly con­secrate, and make present the uerie bodie, and bloud of Christ, the contrarie of which our aduersarie pretendes to proue: onely inten­ding [Page 193] by this pasage and others to declare against his aduersarie Martin Luther, that scri­ptures alone without the expositiō of the Fathers and practise of the Church, are not sufficient to conuince the trueth expecially when the wordes are obscure and subiet to diuers senses. And therefore in his page 172. giuing the reason of this, he saith. Hoc idcirco dixerim ne quis ipsis Euangelij verbis pertinacius adhaereat spreta patrum interpretatione quemadmodum Lu­therus fecit, vsum, & interpretationem a patribus traditam nihili pendens, & nuditati verborum infistens, quae non sufficiunt ad id quod velint con­uincendum. Therefore (quoth B. Fistier) I said these thinhs least anie one should ouer obstinately adhere to the wordes of the Gospell themselues, as Luther did not esteeming the vse, and interpretation deli­uered by the Fathers, and insisting in the nakednes of the wordes, which are not sufficient to conuince that which they desire. And in the insuing page he concludeth in this manner. Therefore that is manifest which afore we promised to sbow, to wit that long continuing custome, and con­cording exposition of Fathers none dissenting, doth yeald more solid certainetie how anie ob­scure place of the Ghospell must be vnderstood, then the bare wordes; which may be varioufly detorted by contentious people at their pleasure. By all which wordes it is more then certai­ne and manifest that this authour neuer inten­ded [Page 194] to show that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can not be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse, as our false aduersarie doth endeuore to persuade his reader: for he onely affirmes that this can not be conuinced by the bare text of scripture without the exposition of Fathers, if anie contensious person should obstinately denie it, as his wordes aboue cited, euidently de­clare.

And as for those wordes which Sir Hum­frey quotest in his margent which in English are these. Neither is there anie worde put there by which the verie presence of the flesh, and bloud of Christ may be proued in our Masse: I say that he dealeth not honestlie in the recitall of them in regarde he omittes the next wordes fol­lowing, not obstanding they belong to te inte­gritie of the same discourse, and also are a plaine explication of the former as the reader of the whole discourse may more clearely vn­derstand, the wordes being these. For altho' (saith he) Christ made his flesh of the bread, and his bloud of rhe wine, it doth not therfore follow by virtue of anie worde here set downe, that we as often as we attempt the same, doe effect it. In which as the reader may plainely perceiue, the authour absolutelie affirmeth not that Preists doe not effect that which Christ effected concerning the reall presence [Page 195] of his bodie and bloud in the Eucharist, but onely saith there (that is among the wordes of the institution of the Sacrament as they are related, by S. Math. and in which those wordes: doe this in remembrance of me, are not contained) there is not anie worde by virtue of which the same can be concluded of Preists which is ther affirmed of Christ our Sauiour: yet not denying, but expresselie auerring that by other wordes of the scripture, and particu­larlie by those wordes rehearsed by S. Luke, and S. Paule: doe this in remembrance of me: interpreted according to the exposition, and practise of the auncient Fathers, the making of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrement is firmelie proued, and established. And hence it is that after he had vttered those wordes which Sir Hūfrey also citeth, tho' not intirely; to wit non potest igitur probari, per vllam scri­pturam, it can not therfore be proued by anie scripture that either laie man or Priest, as often at he shall make triall of the busines, shall in like manner make the bodie and bloud of Christ of bread and wine, as he him selfe did, since that, neither this is contained in the scripture: immetiatelie after this I say, he sub­ionines for conclusion of his discourse, this in­suing clause. By these things I thinke no man will be ignorant, that the certaintie of this mat­ter (the faith of consecration, as the note in [Page 196] his margen doth declare) doth not so much depende vpon the Ghospell, as vpon the vse, and custome, which for the space of so manie ages is commended vnto vs by the first Fathers themselues. For it seemed to them, the holie Ghost teaching, so to interpret this parte of the Euangell, and iudged it was so to be vsed in their times: that whosoeuer now would in­troduce, either an other sense, or an other vse, he should vtterlie resist the holie Ghost, by whose instinct, the former Fathers did deli­uer this rite, and ceremonie, in the consecration of the Eucharist. Thus plainelie doth Bishop Fisher explicate his owne meaning in that which he had before deliuered somat more obscurelie; so that now I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authours true sense, in which I was forced to in­large my selfe more then the substance of the matter required, the more plainelie to discouer vnto him the fraude of the aduerfarie both in detorting the sense, and mangling the tenor, or continuation of the text of this most Catho­like, and renowned Prelate.

Moreouer Sir Hūfrey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par. q. 75. ar. 7. as also the Romā Cathecisme at randome. as affirming that the substance of the bread remaines till the last worde of the con­secration be vttered. But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long souer [Page 197] the substance of the bread remaines, if at lenght it ceaseth as they both confesse, they both agree with vs Romanists and not with the nouellists, in the faith of transsubstantiation so professedly, that it was more then ordinarie impudencie, and madnes once to mentione them for the contrarie.

Now for cōclusion of the secōd paragraffe of his 9. section, Sir Humfrey affirmes in his 115. p. out of Bell: and suauez, that manie writers in our Roman Church professe the tenet of trans­substantiatien was lately receiued for a point of faith. Which affirmation neuerthelesse is not iustifiable, but false, and calumnious to the authours he cyteth for it, videlicet Scotus, Durand, Tunstal, Ostiensis, and Gaufridus. Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce (supposing Erasmus whome he likewise alledgeth, is no Romanist in much of his doctrine, in what faith soeuer he ended his life, of which, I am not able to iudge) yet none of these Romanists I say euer affir­med the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be no point of faith, as I haue aboue sufficiently declared in my answer to euerie one of their te­stimonies in particular.

And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alledged by our aduersarie as affirming Scotus to haue said, that the doctrine of tran­substantiation, was not dogmafidei, a decree of [Page 198] faith before the Councell of Lateran: the other as aduising to haue him, and those other schoo­lemen corrected, who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not verie auncient. I professe I haue diligentlie read Scotus in this matter, and I sinde he onelie saith, that what soeuer is auerred to be beleeued in the Councel of the Lateran capite firmiter, is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemne declaration: yet he in no place hath this negatiue: transsubstan­tiation was not a point of faith before that Councel, not obstanding our aduersaries alle­gation to the contrarie out of the Cardinal, who, if he conceiued right of his whole dis­course, could not iudge Scotus to haue absolu­telie denyed transubstantiation to haue beene a point of faith in it selfe, as Sir Humfrey will haue it: but at the most quoad nos, or in respect of our expresse and publike faith of the same. For that some of Scotus his owne wordes plainelie importe that trāssubstantiatiō is included in the institution of the Eucharist, howe be it, it was not explicitly or expresselie declared for such in all ages, before the solemne declaration, as he termeth it, made in the Generall Councel of Lateran.

The wordes of Scotus to this sense and pur­pose are these. Scot. d. 11. q. 3. ad ar. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum, sed Dei [Page 991] instituentis. Et secundum intellectum à Deo tra­ditum Ecclesia explicauit, directa in hoc vt credi­tur spiritu veritatis. That is. For it was not in the power of the Church to make this (the point of transsubstantiation) true, or not true, but of God the institutour: And according to the vnderstan­ding deliuered by God, the Church did explicate it, directed, as it is beleeued, by the spirit of trueth. By which ratiocination or discourse, of Scotus, it is most cleare and apparent that the point of transsubstantiation was in it selfe a matter of faith euer since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ, in regarde that it being now a point of faith, it must of necessitie in substance haue beene ordained for such by God himselfe, for that it is not in the power of the Church to make, but onelie to declare, and propose to beleeuers, the articles of Religion, And accor­ding to this, I say, that suarez (sauing the due respect I owe vnto them both) had yet lesse reason then Bellarmin had concerning Scotus: to taxe the same Scotus and some other di­uines, as if they had tought that the doctrine of transsubstantiation is not verie auncient. For neyther Scotus as his wordes which I haue re­lated doe testifie, nor anie other approued di­uine of the Roman Church, doe vse anie such manner of speech, or at the least haue no such sense in their wordes, as euen by all those their seuerall passages which our aduersarie could [Page 200] alledge, doth manifestlie appeare. How be it some of them haue not omitted to say, that the worde transsubstantiation hath not beene aun­cientlie vsed in the Church, but eyther in­uented by the Fathers of the Lateran Councel, or not long before: or at the most, that there haue beene some in the world of a contrarie opinion to the trueth of transsubstantiation in itselfe: which altho' we Romanists should graunt to be true; yet doth it not argue anie noueltie in the doctrine, but rather the nouel­litie of some fewe extrauagant wits, as heretiks or corrigible Catholikes, in opposing the same, which otherwise was generallie main­tained by the rest of the Orthodox diuines in all succeeding ages: the antiquitie of which doctrine, euen those same authorities which the same Scotus himselfe professeth to be pro­duced by him out of S. Ambrose, Scot. d. 11. quest. 3. §. quāt. ergo. to the num­ber of 11. doe euidentlie conuince, yet further adding that manie others are alledged cap. de consecrat. and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction. Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better haue spared to passe their censures in that manner vpon anie Catholike diuines supposing such reprehensions serue for little or no other vse, then to aforde our aduersaries the nouelists newe occasion and matter of contention with­out eyther necessitie or conueniencie, of which [Page 201] the present fact of Sir Humfrey lind euen in this place, doth alreadie yealde vs some expe­rience.

In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might haue saued the labour for that the Romanists hould him absolutely for none of theirs (as in like manner neither doe they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which neuertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though onely by waye of omission) howbeit in this particular Erasmus onely affirmeth that it was late before the Church definde it, which is not contrarie to the certainetie of the doctrine in it selfe, but onely a superficiall relation of the time when it was declared expressely for a matter of faith or infalible trueth in 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 [Page 202] 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 [Page 203] 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, [Page 204] 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 [Page 205] 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, [Page 206] 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 being a matter in this sense either of indifferencie or at the most of greater merit and perfection, it might law­fully be altered by an introduction of the con­trarie custome or practise of the Church, especially the communicating or not commu­nicating of the auditours of euerie Masse being a thing wholelie depending vpon the deuotion of the people themselues. Which deuotion [Page 207] although the Church could haue desired it had continued in the same feruour in which it was in those primitiue times, neuerthelesse ther was no reason why either she should obledge the people to the same, or yet that the Preist for want of deuotion in the people, should omitte his owne, and cease to exercise so high and profitable a function to the members of the whole Church as is the publique liturgie and common praier of the same. And truelie this is a matter so conformable to reason and pietie that if it were not that our aduersaries are quite possessed with a spirit of cōtradiction they would neuer contend so much aboute it as they doe, Especially supposing that of all points of controuersie betweene them and vs that is of the least moment, and a thing for which they haue the smalest reason to striue as well because they themselues reiect all sorts of Masses as vaine and superstitious whether they be priuate or publique, with communion of the people or without: as also because euen they themselues after their newe manner cele­brate their owne liturgie as they call it, often­times yea most ordinarily not onely without the comunion of the people, but euen with out the comunion of either Priest or clarke, as is euident by the most common practise of all the reformed Churches, which onely with a drie fothering passe the greater part of the [Page 208] sūdaies of the whole yeere. And yet these same Zealous brothers are so Crosse in their procee­dinge that they are not ashamed to reprehend in vs the same which they thēselues ordinarily practise in a much worse manner. In regard of which preposterous dealing of theirs in my opi­nion we may not vnaptlie applie vnto them the saying of a certaine ingenious Protestant in his description of a Puritan, to wit that they are become so crosse in their teaching, that he thinkes verily, that if the Roman Church should inioyne the puting on of cleane shirts euery sunday, rather then obey her precept, they would goe lowsie. Ouerb. Caract.

But besides this Sir Humfrey for the proofe of his Irish faith alledgeth scripture out of S. Matth. 26. Marke 14. Luke 22. but the wordes he citeth doe not argue Christs institu­tiō in both kindes in respect of all sortes of peo­ple, Accepit Iesus pa­nem bene­dixit dedit discipu­lis suis, & dixit accipite & manduca­te. but onely his action, manner of administra­tion, not his ordination. we know, as well as the reformers Christ did comunicate his bodie and bloud to all his disciples there pre­sent at the institution of the Sacrament, euen to the traitour Iudas as many deuines doe hould, but we know with all he did not ordeine it so to be administred in all occasions. Neither doe we finde one worde of commaund in the whole bible by virtue of which the Priests are inioined to celebrate this misterie alwayes iust [Page 209] in the same manner that Christ did: And otherwise if we should be so tied to euery cir­cumstance which Christ himselfe vsed and particularie to giue the communion to all that are present, we should be bound to giue it to those also which we know are vnprepared for it, nay euen to excommunicated persons and to such traitors as Iudas. That which neuerthe­lesse I persuad myselfe the most pure precisian of them all will scarsely doe, though otherwise I hould thē not for very scrupulous in that na­ture so they know the receiuers to be mēbers of their cōgregation. And touching the foresaid citation out of the Euangelists, it is to be noted that because Sir Hum. will not haue his reader heare of the consecration of the Sacrament which the reformers neuer vse, in their Churches, therfore he left out the wordes, and he blessed it, puting onely the wordes of thākes giuing, whereas yet the Greeke [...] signifies both blessing and giuing thankes, & therefore when our Sauiour multiplied miraculously the fishes Luc. 9. the Euangelist saith [...] he blessed them.

The knight also citeth a place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. But the Apostle indeed reprehen­deth there the fault of the richer Corin­thians in that they did exclude or at the least not expect the poorer sorte to eate the vsuall supper with them, when they met to gether to [Page 210] receiue the blessed Sacrament, but giueth no precept to them that all that are present should euerie time they did meete in the Church actually receiue the communion, with the Preist: or that the Preist ougth not in anie case to celebrate without a competent number of communicants, which is our question in this place: but at the most S. Paule there ordaines that when the people comes together to eate either the vsuall and common supper, or the bodie and bloude of Christ in the Sacrament, they vncharitablie exclude not or preuent one an other, but expect, and doe it with order and sobrietie, and like brethren together, without scisme or separation: and as Christ himselfe did who imparted his supper most louinglie to his disciples there present without exception of persons: to which altho' I admit the same S. Paule in parte alludes in his first verse of this chapter; saying: be you followers of me as I also of Christ, yet not in that sense as if he had per­suaded the Corinthians that our Sauiour com­maunded that the Eucharist should neuer be celebrated by the Preist alone with our recei­uers, as our aduersarie foundlie infers for profe of the article he opposeth to the Councell of Trent. Neyther is the doctrine of that article in anie sorte fauoured by S. Augustin in his 118. Epistle cited by Sir Humfrey: he onelie there affirming at the most that the Apostle [Page 211] speaketh of the Eucharist, when he saith those wordes: Propter quod fratres cum conuenitis ad manducandum inuicem expectate. &c. That is in English: Therefore my brethren, when you come to eate, expect one an other &c. Which wordes eyther of S. Augustin, or those of the Apostle, are not contrarie to the celebration of priuate Masses except it be in the imagination of the Nouellists, as I haue sufficientlie aboue declared: To omit that the greater parte of di­uines both auncient & moderne, expounde not those wordes of S. Paule rather of the Eucharist but of the common supper, the trueth of which exposition the text itselfe, in my iudgemēt, doth plainely conuince. Yet not to stand vpon this it is sufficient for the defence of the doctrine of the Councell of Trent, in this particular and confutation of the contrarie position, that ney­ther in the cited place of S. Paule, nor in anie other place of scripture, priuate communion, or receiuing of the Preist alone without other cōpanie, is affirmed to be repugnant to Christs institution: nor condemned as vnlawfull eyther by Sainct Augustin or anie other Orthodox writer.

But yet I must further aduertise the reader that I perceiue Sir Humfrey hath not dealte so faithfully as he ought to haue, in his recitall of S. Paules wordes, putting in by parenthesis and in the same letter those (to eate the lords sup­per) [Page 212] which wordes neuerthelesse S. Paule hath not, at the least in that place, and then omit­ing the first wordes of the next verse he connecteth them with the latter parte of the same verse, to wit: that you come not together to iudgement. Procuring by this fraude to per­suade his reader that those wordes containe the penaltie due to those whoe communicate not with the Preist and the rest of the people which directly they doe not, but rather the punishment amenaced by the Apostle to such as by excluding vncharitably ther fel­lowes from participation of the oblations, or common supper then vsed in the Church, and by other abuses and sinnes mentioned in this Epistle, indignelie receiue the bodie, & bloud of Christ in the Eucharist.

And yet not to stand vpon these particular circumstances, certaine, it is that none of them could yeald anie warrant at all for Sir Hum­frey to alter the tenour of the Apostles wordes either by addition, or transposition of them.

Sir Humfrey addeth also that Sainct Paule 1. Cor. 10. calleth the Eucharist the communion. But he might haue saued labour in citing scripture, the commonly receiued phrase both by vs and them being sufficient to prooue that. And yet he might much better haue spared the interpretation of the worde it [Page 213] selfe for whether his etimology be true or false, which I will not stand to examen, certaine it is that no iudicious man can thence inferre that all the people present at Masse must of neces­sity communicate, but it onely foloweth that when they actually receiue the Sacramēt, they receiue the Communion as a common vnion not onely of Preist & people but also and ceefly of the people among themselues, according to the wordes of the same Apostle in his next chapter and 33. verse cum conuenitis, when you come together to eate expect one-another &c.

And much like as he did proceede in the former place of S. Paule, so doth he in this: The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ? Where for, communication he puts communion. And yet the scope and sense of the Apostle in this place is not of the communion of Preist and people, nor prescribes he anie rule in that nature, but onelie reprehendes those who voluntarily and without ignorance eate idolothytes or meates sacrifyced to Idols, saying that as those who receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ comuni­cate or are ioyned in societie with him: so they who of knowledge eate things offered to Idols are made companions of the deuill. And the­refore the same Apostle in the latter parte of his 20. verse saith thus. And I will not haue you become fellowes to deuils. And presentlie in the [Page 214] next verse he addes: You can not drinke the chalis of our Lord, and the chalis of deuils. So that the whole tenour of the chapter afor­deth not a worde or letter for Sir Humfreyes purpose. Wherefore let him examen his con­science diligentlie, and he will easilie finde that neyther the one place nor the other proue anie thing else in this matter then his owne dishonest dealing, and his abuse of the sacred text of scripture. Especiallie considering that in the first place, the Apostle repre­hendes not the Corinthians so much because they did not communicate together, but cheefelie because the rich did vnchristianlie exclude the poore. Which case as the reader may easilie perceiue, hath no place in the Masses of the Roman Church, where none are excluded but rather expresselie exhorted vnto the communion, as the verie same decree of the Tridentine Councel which our aduer­sarie him produces, doth sufficientlie declare in these wordes. Optaret quidem sacrosancta Synodus &c. The Sacrosaint Synod could wish that the faithfull people which assiste at euerie masse would communicate with the Preist, not onelie spi­rituallie, but also by Sacramentall reception. Thus the Councel. Which wordes alone doubtlesse were sufficient not onelie to iustifie the practise of the present Roman Church in this particu­lar, but also to satisfie the aduerse parte, if their [Page 215] importunitie were not so exobbitant, that they will rather suffer pore Christians to passe out of the world without that diuine viaticum or­dained by God for the confort of their soules, & defense against their enimies in that dāgerous trance, then suffer them to receiue it without a competent number as they tearme it: which impious order of theirs may be seene in their booke of common prayer title of the communion of the sicke: not obstanding our Sauiours most strict, and generall charge affirming that vn­lesse we eate his flesh, and drinke his bloud, we cannot haue life in vs. But certaine it is that in this as is in other matters the pretensiue reformers may ritelie be compared to the Pha­risees, exolantes culicem, camelum autem glucien­tes I who straine a gnat, and swallowe a camel, in that they stande so peremptorilie vpon the communion of the people with the Preist in all occasions which is but a circumstance of the precept: and yet make no scruple of vio­lating the precept itselfe euen in time of it grea­test necessitie and obligation. But this I speake onelie vpon supposition their communion were sounde and according to Christs insti­tion, for taking it as it is, the want of it is no losse to the not receiuers of it: and so I leaue them to the generall liberty they vsurpe as well in this as in other matters of Religion, and auncient practise of the Church.

Furthermore the knight citeth the coūcell of Nāts, to proue his tenet, but most ridiculously. For that there is not a worde touching the cō ­muniō in all that text which he citeth. Definiuit. Sanctum Conciliū vt nullus presbyter praesumat solus mis­sam canta­re. Cassan­der. p. 83. And the trueth is the councell onely reprehendeth the saying of Masse with out a clarke, or Minister as it seemes some cloisters of monkes did accu­stome to doe in those times, so you see this is quite out of the purpose, as is also another citation out of Innocent the third libr. 2. c. 24. Illos igi­tur (An­gelos) quos ha­bemus in oratio­ne partici­pes habe­mus in glorifica­tione con­sortes. In­noc. lib. 2. 24. fine. he onely saying that it is piously to be beleeued that the Angells of God doe assist at Masse accompaning those that praie. Not speaking a worde good or bad of the communion of the people in that place.

Lastlie Sir Humfrey alledgeth the te­stimonies of diuerse Romanists which hee calleth the confession of his aduersaries, that priuate Masse was altogether vnknowne to the primatiue Church. But I answer that when the knight cited those authours he ought to haue remembred what hee was to proue ac­cording to the Irish article which he vnderta­keth to defend and according to his owne position viz. That priuate Masse is contrarie to Christs institution, and vnlawfull, and to be abrogated. This then he ought to haue proued if he ment to proue anie thing against the Ro­man doctrine. But in steede of this which he will neuer be able to proue, he proueth at the [Page 217] most by the foresaid testimonies, onelie that which the Romanists, doe not denie, to wit that the primatiue Church did practice the ad­ministration of the Eucharist to those that were present, but he proueth not that either that Church did soe in all occasions, nor that she held it necessarie by virtue of anie lawe, or institution of Christ, and so he laboureth in vaine as well in this as he hath done in other proofes often times before. Neither is this pre­sent point of Controuersie betwene vs and the reformers about the auncient custome of the primatiue Church concerning the communion of the people present at the Liturgie, but whe­ther it is contrarie to Christs institution or commaunde to celebrate priuate masses? the affirmatiue of which question excepting Cas­sander (whome I haue alreadie aduertised the reader to be no Romanist) nay nor yet Cassan­der himselfe nor anie one of the cited testi­monies doth proue. Nay there is not one worde in anie of the places cited touching anie such doctrine or precept of the Primatiue Church but onelie mention is made of the fact of auncient Christians in that particular, with an addition of their owne verdit as houlding it for more profitable to the receiuers to commu­nicate at euerie Masse, if their deuotion were so much extended as in those more feruorous times of the primatiue spirit it appeeres to haue [Page 218] bene. And although not onelie all or most of the authours rehearsed, but also the Councell of Trent itselfe doth hould the foresaid practi­ce of the auncient Church to be more fruitefull for the Laytie then the custome of more mo­derne ages: yet doth Sir Humfrey most absur­delie hence inferre either the noueltie of the Roman doctrine, or the antiquitie of his owne. For that as we haue showed alreadie neither in anie of the cited authours nor in the Coun­cell of Trent it selfe, as their wordes doe wit­nesse, is there anie mention of doctrine or pre­cept of the Primatiue Church but onelie of her fact and practice, from whence also may most easilie appeere the greate impertinencie of a further illation which the knight doth make concluding the greater fruitfulnes of his owne communion then of ours, whereas indeede his being no true communion at all, as not con­taining that which according to the institution of Christ ought truelie and reallie to be in it, and so communicated truelie and reallie to the people, and not by figure and faith onelie, I meane the bodie and bloud of Christ, certaine it is that no such inference can be made out of anie comparison made betwene the Catholike communion and his owne, in regard there is no true paritie or similitude to be founde in them: and moreouer it is so farre from being confessed by the cited authours that the communion of [Page 219] the reformers is more fruitfull then their owne, that they teach expresselie that according to the doctrine of the reformed Churches tou­ching the reall presence, the receiuers of their Sacrament can receiue no fruite at all. And now let this suffice for anser to those authours In generall: Yet because it may be my aduersa­rie will not be satisfied with this generall anser alone, as also because I finde he hath vsed not a little of his vsuall proceeding in want of fidelitie in the citation of the authours, I ame content to descend to particulars, and examen them in order. The first the knight cites, is Cochlaeus out of Cassander, but neither he nor Cassander haue anie thing in that place against priuate Masse, but onelie testifie what the cu­stome of the auncient Church was, which, as I haue alreadie declared, is impertinent to this purpose. Besides Sir Humfrey translates Co­chleus wordes corruptedlie, for he doth not say that the holie Goste hath thought vs a remedie against the slouthfulnes of the Preists in cele­brating of priuate Masse, but he saith, the holie Ghost hath inuented and introduced a pious supplie of this negligence by the frequentation of such Masses as Preists celebrate alone. So by inuerting the wordes, the malitious knight imposeth v­pon the Preists onely for a faulte that which Cochleus calles a remedie prouided by the holie Gost to supplie the faulte of the lesse de­uoute [Page 220] sorte of people as well as the defect of the Preists. Which defect neuerthelesse Cho­cleus placeth not in their slouthfulnesse in ce­lebrating priuate Masses: but in not exhorting the laytie to communicate at euerie Masse, as his wordes sufficiently declare.

In the second place he cites Durand myma­tensis who as speaking onelie of the custome of the auncient Church and consequentlie not against the Romanists, yet he corruptes him both in that for Domino dicente, he translates; according to Christs commaunde: as also by lea­uing out his insuing wordes which declare the reason of the alteration of that auncient cu­stome. Sed excrescente fidelium multitudine tra­ditur institutum vt tantum Dominicis diebus com­municarent. Durand. rat. lib. 4. c. 53. But the multitude of beleeuers increa­sing, it is deliuered vnto vs to haue beene institu­ded that they should communicate onelie on sun­dayes.

Odo vpon the Canon doth not disproue pri­uate Masse, but onelie relates the different cu­stomes of the Church in different times. Cum primitus missae sine collecta non fierent, postea mos inoleuit Ecclesiae solitarias, & maxime in Caenobijs, fieri missas. d. 2. in Can. circa init. The same I say of Belethus, yet Sir Humfrey omits the rest of his wordes. As he did in the testimonie of durand.

Hugo in spec.In the testimonie of Card. Hugo who wit­nesseth [Page 221] onelie the same in substance, he addes the worde together, which is not in the text, to mend his ill market, also letting slip some of his wordes which denote the cause of the chan­ge of the auncient vse, which are these. Initio nas­centis Ec­clesiae Christiani qui cele­brationi Missae ad e­rant, post acceptam pacem cō ­municare solebant. Durantus de rit. cap. 58. Sed propter peccatum circumstans nos, statutum est vt communicaremus terin anno solum. But by rea­son of sinne compassing vs about (saith Hugo) it was determined that we should communi­cate onelie thrise a yeare. And in the next allegation of Tolosanus who sayth no other then the rest, he translates mysterie for Masse.

In the citation of Mycrologus the craftilie omits: iuxta antiquos Canones: And for ante obla­tionem he translates before cōmunion, because he will not haue his reader to heare that either the communion of the people in euerie Masse might seeme to be an Ecclesiasticall custome or lawe onelie, or that there is anie such matter as oblation in the celebration of diuine seruice, for that they themselues haue it not in their newe Raphsodie.

For Cassanders authoritie we do not care. And yet I can not finde in Mycrologus those wordes which Cassander and Sir Humfrey al­ledge out of him, to wit, it can not properlie be called a communion except some besides the Preist doe communicate. How be it the same Cassan­der in the same place doth not condemne pri­uate Masses for a Sacrilegious action, or to be [Page 222] prohibited, as Sir Humfrey and the rest of the Nouellists commonlie maintaine: But onelie playing the parte of a Pacifyer, which he pro­fesseth, persuades that the auncient custome may be restored. Nay and he addes further and that truelie, that the Preists say when they celebrate priuatelie, they doe not participate of the Sacrament in their owne priuate name, but in the name of the Church and people: which doubtlesse in reason is sufficient to make it a true communion, if otherwise it were not. And as for Mycrologus, certaine it is that he is no condemner of priuate Masse, how soeuer he might esteeme that communion lesse proper, according to the Etymon of the worde, Vid. Cas­sander. pag. 998. in which more then one doe not actuallie receiue, which is all he intendes, if anie such saying he hath, which notwithstanding is not contrarie to the doctrine or practise of the Romanists. Innocentius tertius onelie explicates the ancient custome of the Church touching the commu­nion of the people at euetie Masse, and the change of it at seuarall times and by degrees. And surelie if we consider that the Nouelists hould this Pope for one of their greatest oppo­sites in doctrine, it were madnesses to imagin that he should in anie sorte fauoure their te­nets. And because I reflected that Innocentius as being a Pope had no reason to finde anie greater fauour at Sir Humfreys hands then o­ther [Page 223] Romanists haue founde, vpon vewe of the place I discouered that he had falselie transla­ted some parte of Innocentius wordes, which make against him to wit, for these wordes: quia nec hoc digne potuit obseruari, he translates: by reason this custome was neglected, whe­reas he should haue put in English: Because neither this could be dignely, or with due reuerence obserued: By which false translation he in­uertes the true cause of the altetation of the fo­resaid custome.

Hoffmeisterus onelie declares the publicitie of the auncient custome with a desire that en­deauours may be vsed for the restitution of it, with whome we Romanists all ioyne to our power; so this is out of the compasse of our question. The allegation of Doctour Harding who speakes much to the same purpose, I haue ansered in an other place and showed the de­ceite of the relatour, altho' in this place I finde he rehearses his wordes truelie, by reason it had auailed him nothing to haue here abused him.

Iustinian makes no mention of either pri­uate or publike Masses but onelie of the parti­cipation of one consecrated bread or loafe to signifie more expresselie the vnion of charitie, which is not to this purpose: as neither is the place of Bellarmin following lib. 2. de missa cap. 9. as afterwardes I will declare.

But to returne to Doctour Harding, it is true I find Sir Humfrey cytes him towardes the end of the same paragraffe out of Iewell, which altho' he makes nothing for the proofe of his intent in this place, but is onelie brought in vpon the by to enlarge and fournish his dis­course, as I suppose, yet doth he abuse that learned diuine in that he leaueth out one spe­ciall reason which he alledges why the prima­tiue Catholikes vsed to communicate euerie day with the Preist, because, sayth he, they looking hourelie to be catched & put to death by the Panimes (I relate the sense not the for­mall wordes) should not departe without the viaticum. Which wordes being the verie harte of the authours sentence, Sir Humfrey verie slylie omits it, as if it were not to the purpose, and by that meanes he most deformedlie cou­ples the head and the heeles together, which corruption altho' it doth not much auaile him, yet it seemes he makes a recreation of that arte, and so he will rather playe smale game then sit out.

Lastelie the wordes of Iustinian taken out of his Commentarie vpon 1. Cor 10. are im­pertinent, for he does not affirme that the Communion directlie was giuen to all that were present, as his wordes cited by the knight doe testifie, which authour being the laste which he cites, and no more to his purpose [Page 225] then the rest, let this suffice for the censure of the contents of this whole paragraffe, and par­ticularlie for the confutation of that aspersion of Noueltie, and corruption with the knight doth indeuore calumniouslie to cast vpon the Roman Creede, it nowe being plainelie cleered and iustified by that which hath beene said, and he himselfe conuinced of false dealing and forgerie.

The paragraffe insueing is of the seuen Sa­cramēts. And to be plaine with Sir Humfrey, I say that in the verie entrance of his treatie he telleth a plaine lie to his reader, affirming the Romanists to relie wholie vpon the Councell of Trent in this pointe. For this Councell ex­presselie hath in the margent of the decree of the septenarie number of Sacraments, the Councell of Florence, and in the decrees of euerie seuerall Sacrament there is reference to scriptures, Councels and Fathers, as the mar­gines doe testifie. Wherefore thus the knight beginneth, and how he will proceed I know not, but yet for the most parte an ill beginning makes an ill ending.

First he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying that the authoritie of the Councell of Trent if there were no other ought to suffice for proofe of the septinarie number of the Sacra­ments. But he might with farre greater reason haue reprehend both his owne temeritie and [Page 226] the presumption of the reformed Churches. Which without anie such authoritie as the Councell of Trent hath, doe denie the foresaid number of Sacraments. Besides that Bellar­mins meaning is not that the Coūcell of Trent hath sufficient authoritie to define the same without foundation of the worde of God, or without scripture as it seemes Sir Humfrey fal­selie supposeth, but that supposing such a foun­dation, it hath infallible power to declare the same as conformeable to trueth & to the aun­cient doctrine and practise of the Church in former ages, and consequentlie as a matter of faith. And certainelie that Church which hath not this authoritie is no true Church nor such an one as is described in the scriptures, but a meere conuenticle or Scismaticall cōgregation vnsuteable to the worde of God. And whereas it seemes straunge to Sir Humfrey that accor­ding to Bellarmine, one testimonie of a late Councell might suffice for the establishing of an article of faith for that by his owne tenet such an article requires both antiquitie, vni­uersalitie and consent: let him but truelie and sincerelie consider what Bellarmines meaning is, and he will presentlie cease to maruell at his position. He must therefore know that whe­reas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Councell of Trent alone might bee sufficient to declare vn­to the whole Church as an infallible trueth [Page 227] 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 [Page 228] 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 [Page 229] 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 [Page 230] 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, [Page 231] 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 [Page 232] 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 [Page 233] 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 Hū ­frey 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 [Page 234] 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 [Page 235] 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 [Page 236] 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, [Page 237] 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 as instituted by Christ. The number of which authours being not onelie verie greate in it­selfe, but also farre greater and of farre more learned men then all those who in the refor­med Churches hould the contrarie as I per­suade my selfe Sir Humfrey cannot denie: it is most euidēt that (to saie nothing of those aun­cient writers which by their proofes of euerie particular Sacrament by Scriptures and Fa­thes doe plainelie wittnesse the same trueth) he had no reason at all for this parte of his greate demaunded.

And now touching the rest of it, I answer first that as it is certaine the reformers themselues if we should demaunde the like of them con­cerning the number of those Sacramēts which they defēd for truely & properly such, & to be belieued as an article of faith and as instituted by Christ, cannot prooue either by scripture or any one authour, I doe not say for about a Thousand yeeres as they doe, but for a Thou­sand and foure hundreth yeeres after Christ, that they are precisely twoe and no more nor lesse: so consequentie they ought not to require of vs that which they themselues are not able to performe in their owne cause and case.

Neuerthelesse that our aduersarie may plainely see we are not behinde with him, but rather farre before him and the rest of his bro­thers in this particular, I answer farther that all those Fathers who by expresse places of scripture proue euerie one of those Sacraments in particular, and no other, which the Roman Church houldeth for truely & properlie such, doe thereby also shew at the least tacitly, that those and no more nor lesse are beleeued for such by faith. For testimonie of which trueth because it would be too tedious in an­swere of one argument to produce so many of the Fathers as might be alledged, I will onely alledge. Cal. Instit. S. Augustine, who beinge euen ac­cording to our aduersaries oppinion of him, a faithfull witnesse of antiquitie, his testimonie may iustly serue for all the rest: and because of the Sacramēts of Baptisme and Eucharist there is no controuersie, I will onely produce those testimonies which conuince the other fiue.

Wherefore that confirmation is truely and properlie a Sacrament S. Augustine affir­meth lib. 2. contra lit. Pet. cap. 104. where he saith thus. The Sacrament of Chrisme in the nature of visible signes, Sacrosanctum est, is a sacred and holy Sacrament as Baptisme; and he hath the like of order lib. 2. cont. Epist. Parm. cap. 13. sayinh. They are both Sacraments, and both by a certaine consecration are giuen to man, [Page 239] that when he is baptzed, this when he is ordered and in the same place he also saith, that both of them be Sacraments which no man doubteth. Of Pennance he saith lib. 1. de adult. coniug. cap. 26. & 28. eadem est causa Baptismi & reconciliations, fine quibus Sacramentis homines credunt se mori non debere. The same cause or reason is of Baptisme and Reconciliation with out which Sacraments men beleeue they ought not to dye. Matrimonie he compareth with Baptisme lib. 1. de nuptijs & concup. cap. 10. where he saith that the matter of this Sacrament is, that man and woman ioy­ned in mariage may inseperably perseuer toge­ther as long as they liue. And the like saying he hath of the perpetuall effect of this Sacra­ment comparing it with the perpetuall effect of Baptisme. And in the 14. chapter of his booke de bono coniugali, he compareth matri­monie with the Sacrament of Order, which order as we haue cited before, he compared with Baptisme in another place. Finally of Extreame vnction he maketh mention lib. 2. de visit. infir. cap. 4. and in his 215. Sermon of the saints. Where although he doth not in expresse tearmes affirme extreame vnction to to be one of the Sacraments, yet he expressely affirmeth there, and serm. de temp. 115. that the ceremonie of vnction which S. Iames mentioneth, and the promisse, belong vnto the faithfull, and are to be practized by the Priests [Page 240] as the Apostle commaundes: all which proues plainily that S. Augustin held it for a Sacrament as well as the other six, and altho' some doubt may be made whether the booke de visit. infir. be truelie S. Augustines worke, yet certaine it is that the authour of it is both good and auncient. And thus much out of S. Augustine for the proofe of euerie one of the seuen Sacraments in particular, besides that which he speaketh in generall of them, and of the benefit which the Church hath receaued from God by the institution of them, in his first sermon vpon the 108. psalme, where he saith thus. What a greate gift is the office of the admi­nistration of the Sacraments in Baptisme, Eucharist, and in the rest of the holy Sacraments? so that we see that S. Augustin stanneth plainely against the doctrine of Sir Humfrey. And doth fully answer his question touching the number of the Sacraments defended by the Roman Church. And supposing he makes soe spe­ciall mention of these seuen as he doth more then of any other externall signe or ceremonie of the Church (to some of which neuertheles he giueth also the name of Sacrament) and supposing also he cōpareth or all most of them with those two which the reformers them­selues hould for proper and true Sacraments, in their effects and sanctitie, as also amplifying the benefit which God hath conferred to the [Page 241] Church by the institution of them (that which he doth not with the rest of the holie signes and ceremonies which the same Church also vseth) supposing all these circumstances I saie, it is more then certaine that he speaketh of them as of true and proper Sacramants which for such haue beene recreaued and belieued in the vniuersall Church euen euer since the time of Christ the institutour of them. And so let this suffice for an answere of that vast deman­de of our Thrasoniā knight, and to demōstrate, that notwithstanding all his circumspection, his owne conditionall curse is turned into an absolute, and so is fallen vpon him with all it weight and forces as a iust punishment of the temeritie and excesse of that boldnes, which he committeth in protesting, against a truth confirmed with such authoritie and te­stimonie as may satisfie the most tender con­science and settle the most wauering minde in the world. And yet for confirmation of the foresaid answere, we may further adde, that supposing the Master of Sentences so manie yeeres past defended the seauen Sacraments with the institution of them by Christ himselfe and their necessitie and profit in the Church of God: and supposing the same authour writ nothing but what he found in the auncient Fathers, from the collection of whose senten­ces he tooke his appellation: supposing I say [Page 242] all this which his workes doe witnesse, it is most apparent in the morall iudgment of anie indifferent man, that the doctrine which he deliuered concerning the foresaid number of Sacraments, was no other then the faith of the vniuersall Church & also the verie same which by the generall consent of schoole diuines in later ages hath binne taught & preached euen by those of the Grecian Church, as by the te­stimonie of Hieremie the late Patriarch of Constantinople in his answer to the Augustan Confession doth plainelie appeere; where the septenarie number of Sacraments is expresse­lie maintained against the Lutherans as his wordes here quoted in the margent clearelie testifie with shame enuffe to the reformed bro­thers: for thus he saith. Sacramē ­ta verò ri­tusque in hac ipsa Catholica recte sen­tentium Christia­norum Ec­clesia, sunt septem. Baptisma, Chrysma sancti vn­guenti, di­uina com­munio, manusim­positio, matrimo­nium, Pae­nitentia & sacrum O­leum Et statim. Quod ve­ro haec so­la sint nec plura nu­mero: etiā diuisione clarum fit &c. Patriar­cha Con­stantinop. Res. ad Doctores Wittemb. fol. 11. Truelie the Sacraments & rites in this same Catholike Church of right vnderstanding Christians are seuen: Baptisme, chrisme of holie oyntment, the diuine commu­nion, imposition of handes, Matrimonie, Pen­nance, and sacred oyle. &c.

But the knight goeing yet further in the proofe of his duall number, telleth his reader, that the two Sacraments which his Church defends are properlie Sacraments because they haue element and institution: but the other fine are not such because they want eyther of these. But to this I answere that the fiue Sa­craments which the reformers reiect, haue not [Page 243] onelie this which Sir Humfrey requires to his two defaced Sacraments, but also besides this, they haue promise of iustificant grace, which according to the description he maketh heere, his two doe want; and so I retort his prrofe vpon him. For if our fiue be not properlie Sa­craments because in his conceipt they want institution and element; surelie neither are his two properlie Sacraments because they want grace, as being but signes or elements institu­ted by God not giuing grace both according to his former declaration, Caluin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 14. & 15. and also in the common doctrine of the reformers: And so we see that the knightes discourse touching the propertie of his two ministeriall elements is but a grace­lesse peice of doctrine, especiallie considering that if he had binne but halfe so conuersant in our diuines as he will needes seeme to be, he might most easilie haue found both institution element, and grace, annexed to all those fiue Sacraments which he renounceth: which Ca­tholike diuines altho' they doe not all agree in the assignation of the seuerall matters and formers of the same, yet doe they neuerthelesse with great conformitie consent in the number & generall definition of them, to wit that they are all externall and sensible signes which by diuine institution haue the promise of iusti­fying grace annexed. And least the knight take exceptions and complaine that I doe not [Page 244] satisfiie his argument my selfe, but remit him to others for an answere; I will breiflie shewe out of scripture both the institution and ele­ment of euerie one of the foresaid fiue Sacra­ments in particular. Confirmation therefore was instituted by Christ in those places of scripture where he promiseth to his Apostles the Holie Ghost after his ascension, as S. Iohn the 16.5. Luke the 24.48. which collation of the holie Ghost was exercised by the Apostles Act. 10. & 19. by imposition of hands after they had receaued the same holie Ghost by that ex­traordinarie manner which is described Act. 2. which impositiō togither with the words vsed Act. 8. whē they prayed for thē on whom they put their hands, are the matter and forme of this Sacrament. And now heere we see both the institution and the element in this Sacra­ment, which is all Sir Humfrey requireth of vs; and so I will say vnto him that which S. Hierome said to his aduersaries the Luciferians the 4. chap. Si quaeris quare in Ecclesia baptiza­tus non nisi per manus Episcopi accipit Spiritum Sanctum, disce hanc obseruationem exea authori­tate descendere quod post ascensionem Domini Spi­ritus ad Apostolos descendit, That is to say, If thow doest aske me, why he that is baptized doth not receaue the holie Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop, learne that this obseruation descended from that authoritie that after the ascension of our Lord [Page 245] the Spirit descended vpon the Apostles.

Secondlie the Sacrament of Penance hath both element and institution; the element is the acts of the penitent declared by sensible words or signes, the institution is the collation of power conferred by Christ to remitte sin­nes, to his Apostles and in them to all true Preistes according to that of the 20. of Saint Iohn, Receaue yee the holie Ghost, whole sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen, and whose sin­nes you shall retaine they are retayued. In which words both the institution and the element be sufficientlie declared; especiallie if we ioyne the declaration of the Church, without which euen those two which the reformers hould for Sacramēts cānot be conuinced to be truly and properlie such, if one were obstinately disposed.

Thirdlie in the Sacrament of Extreme Vn­ction both the element and institution are plai­nelie enough found in the 5. chap. of S. Iames: where the Apostle sayth. If anie man be sick a­mong you, let him bring in the Priestes of the Church and let them pray ouer him annointing him with oyle in the name of our Lord, and the prayer of faith shall saue the sick, and our Lord shall lift him vp, and if he be in sinnes they shalbbe remitted him. In which place to the externall signes of prayer and oyle, remission of finnes is annexed, as the reader may plainelie perceiue: which effect euen according to the doctrine of the refor­mers [Page 246] themselues as I suppose cannot be found but onelie in such ceremonies as properlie are instituted by Christ himselfe for Sacraments.

Fourthlie the like I say of Order, the sub­stance of which is so plainelie conteyned in the scriptures, Vid. Cal. l. 3. Inst. c. 4. §. 20. &c. 19. §. 31. that some of the greatest reformers haue not had the face to exclude it out of the number of the Sacraments of the new lawe, and the places of Scripture which conuince the truth of it are 1. Timo. 4. and 2. Thimothie 1. where both the sensible element which is the imposition of hands, and the effect of grace an­nexed, are cleerlie described; which effect I thinke our aduersaries confesse, cannot be pos­siblie conferred but onelie by Gods authoritie and institution. The wordes of the Apostle are these in the first place. Doe not neglect the grace which is in the: which was giuen the by pro­phesie with the imposition of the hands of preisthood. In the second place the wordes are these. For which cause I admonish the to resuscitate the grace of God which is in the by the imposition of my handes.

Now lastlie concerning Matrimonie, a mā might iustlie maruell that our new Euāge­listes should make anie question of it in this nature. For supposing their extraordinarie affection that way, and that single life is so vn­sauourie to them that if it lay in their power, they would rather suffer the whole quire of [Page 247] virgins to perish, then they would make a re­ligious vowe of perpetuall chastitie, or liue without a woman: supposing this I say in my opinion they ought in all reason sooner to haue honoured matrimonie with the title of a Sa­crament, then to haue quite depriued it of that which the scripture it selfe doth giue it. Yet supposing they be so preposterous, that they will rather impugne that which they other­wise loue best, then seeme to agree to the Ro­mane doctrine, I tell them all and particularilie him with whome I dispute, that although ma­riage was by God himselfe onelie ordayned in paradise as a ciuill contract: Neuerthelesse Christe who came not to dissolue the lawe, but to eleuate it to a higher degree of perfection; amongst other things he pleased to honore the same with the true nature and properties of a Sacrament; giuing also tho' not immediatlie by himselfe, yet by his Apostle S. Paul, the verie name and title of a Sacrament; whereas not­withstanding neyther he himselfe nor anie of his Apostles or Euangelists euer gaue that name to anie of the rest of the Sacraments. Wherefore to come nearer to the purpose; I say that the institution of this Sacrament was by Christe himselfe, who in the 19. chapter of S. Mathewe ordayned the coniunction of man & wife to be inseperable to the end it so might be a sacred signe of the indissoluble coniun­ction [Page 248] of Christe and his Church, as it is decla­red by the Apostle Ephes. 5. where he expreslie giueth it the name of a great Sacrament in re­gard of the sacred coniunction (partelie by the hypostaticall vnion, and partelie by the vnion of charitie) betwixt Christe and his spouse the Church which it signifieth. Which foresaid coniunction of man and wife explicated by words of the present tense is the element; and Christs ordinance and application of the same to the foresaid signification, is the institution, by virtue of which it also conferreth grace to the receiuers, to the end they may liue in that perpetuall vnion of mindes which is required to the representation of the inseperable vnion of Christe and his Church; which is all and more then our aduersarie himselfe demaunded of vs before in this particular matter. To which if we adde the authoritie of the Church and auncient fathers for the interptetation of those scriptures which we haue produced for proofe of the truth of this, and the rest of the foresaid fiue Sacraments (which authorities of the fathers if need required and the place did serue for them I could easilie produce) it would yet more plainelie appeere with how little rea­son the pretensiue reformed Congregations doe exclude them out of the number of true and proper Sacraments.

And so now according to this a verie easie [Page 249] answere may be framed to all that which the knight bringeth against the septenarie num­ber of Sacraments in the rest of this paragraph, and particularilie to the testimonies of those Romane authours and Fathers which he pro­duceth in fauour of his cause. And first tou­ching the Fathers which hee citeth besides that which hath binne alreadie spoken I fur­ther adde, that there was not one of them which was of the reformers opinion in this matter as is most apparent in that Sir Humfrey himselfe could not produce so much as one Father that auerreth the onelie duall number of Sacraments: Nay they are so farre ftom this, that there is not one of them, who doth not in one place or other make expresse men­tion of more then two, if professedlie they make mention of anie at all.

Secondlie I say, that as the reformers can­not with anie probabilitie inferre out of those Fathers who affirmed that the two Sacraments Baptisme and the Eucharist haue flowed out of the side of Christe, that there are no more nor lesse then two; so neyther can they in anie sort thence inferre that the same Fathers taught not the septenarie number of Sacra­ments. And more then this if the reformers stand vpon this so much that the Fathers by the bloud which issued out of our Sauiours side, vnderstood the Sacrament of the bloud of [Page 250] Christe, then they must consequentlie eyther confesse that the same Fathers held the reall presence of the bloude of Christe in the Eu­charist, which yet they themselues denie, or else at the least that the reformed Churches haue no true Sacrament at all, for that accor­ding to their confession, there is in it neyther bloud nor bone. And out of this generall ans­were to the testimonies of the auncient Fa­thers, we may inferre how falselie Sir Hum­frey in the end of his 149. page affirmeth, that they did insist sometimes in the number of two and so restrayned the Church to the definite number of two onelie, which saying of his is a manifest falsitie and iniurious to those Fathers whome he so chargeth, as that which I haue produced out of S. Augustine in this period doth plainelie conuince in these fiue Sacra­ments which the reformers denie: Neyther was he able to produce one testimonie out of anie of them for proofe of his fayned position; but so leaueth it vnconfirmed more then with that fame vntruth by which he belyeth most impudentlie the foresaid Fathers all at a clappe.

Neyther hath that which he further addeth of the same Fathers in the next page anie greater truth or foundation then this, where he sayth that had the Fathers beleeued that those fiue Sacraments had binne instituted by Christe they would of necessitie haue concluded them [Page 251] for true and proper Sacraments, and haue ea­silie found in them the number of seuen: Thus in effect Sir Humfrey discourseth, to which I answere first that doubtles if the Fa­thers had had but halfe the occasion which the Church hath had since their time, and especial­lie since the foundation of the reformed Chur­ches; they would of necessitie haue treated and spoken expresselie of the septenarie number, and haue distinguished as now the Church and diuines doe betwixt proper and improper Sacraments: But the occasion fayling, they neyther had necessitie nor conueniencie to speake otherwise of them then they haue don­ne: Nay some of them, especiallie those who writ against the Gentiles, were rather obliged by the course of those times, not to mention the secret misteries of our faith at all, then to reueale them to the profaners of them, more then was preciselie necessarie for the answere of their obiections, Vid. Theo­doret. Dial. 2. which indeed is the true reason, why diuerse of the foresaid more aun­cient Fathers haue spoken so obscurelie and sparinglie euen of some of the cheife misteries of Christian Religion.

Secondlie I say, that howsoeuer the auncient Fathers spoke of the expresse number of the Sacraments, certaine it is, they eyther expres­lie taught, or at the least supposed for certaine doctrine of faith that all those which the Ro­mane [Page 252] Church now holdeth for true and pro­per Sacraments doe giue diuine grace to the receiuers, as it is apparent out of those places which I cited before out of Saint Augustine for the proofe of euerie seuerall Sacrament and their seuerall effects; and consequentlie they held implicitelie at the least, and if either ne­cessitie or iuste occasion had required they would haue concluded expresselie the septe­narie number of Sacraments, and that they were instituted by Christe for such truely and properly.

And now for the more moderne diuines who wrote since the time of P. Lumbard, of which Sir Humfrey citeth to the number of twelue or thirteene, there is not one of them who holdeth onely two proper Sacraments as the reformers doe: nay there is not one of them that doth not expreslie defende the septenarie number of true and proper Sacraments, excep­ting perhaps Alexander Hales and Durand may seeme to opinate otherwise to the incir­cūspect reader, of which two authours neuer­thelesse I say first that Hales doth not denie all those seauen, nor anie one of them in particu­lar which the Romane Church defendes to be trulie and properlie Sacraments, but he one­ly is of opinion that onelie fower of them are to be called Sacraments of the new lawe, for that as he imagined the other three, to wit Pen­nance, [Page 253] Order, and Matrimonie, had their be­ginning before. True it is, Hales cannot be ex­cused from errour in that he affirmeth Confir­mation to haue binne instituted by the Coun­cell of Melda (except he meaneth onelie, that there it was declared to be properlie a Sacra­ment as I am persuaded he doth) but ne­uerthelesse supposing this his singular opi­nion, yet notwithstanding it being with all cer­tayne, that he holdeth the same Sacrament to be one of the seauen no lesse then he doth Pen­nance which yet he held (as it seemeth to some later writers) to haue binne instituted by the Apostles, Iuxta nu­merum malorum spiritualiū debet sumi numerus Sacramē ­torum, se­ptem sunt differentiae morborū. Hal. 4. part. q. 8. mem. 7. act. 2. notwithstanding all this I say, he is impertinentlie alleaged by the knight as an impugner of the Romane doctrine in the sep­tenarie number of Sacraments, which not­withstanding his other allucinations, he as ex­presselie maintaines as other diuines doe as his owne wordes plainelie testifie saying thus in his 4. parte and eight question. According to the number of spirituall diseases, the number of Sa­craments is to be taken, there are seauen differences of diseases. What therefore can be more mani­thē that this authour tought the compleat number of seuen Sacraments?

And as for Durand, certaine it is that he doth not denie Matrimonie to be a Sacrament ab­solutelie as the reformers doe, but he at the most onely affirmeth that it is not properly [Page 254] and vniuocallie a Sacrament conferring grace in the same manner the other six doe; which opinion of his altho' as it sounds it can not stand firme with the doctrine of the Church: yet this not our question, and in case it were, yet is there no reason why one mans priuate tenet, nay nor the priuate tenet, or errour of more then one or two should preiudicate the common doctrine of the Church both before and after him, nor diminish her antiquitie and vniuersalitie in anie point of doctrine especial­lie where there is no obstinacie in the authour, as in these there was not: neyther can the ad­uersaries drawe anie argument of force against the same in anie case, out of one onelie authour or more, if more there were, contrarie to the torrent of all the rest. To omit that as vasques noteth, the same Durand in the same place ex­preslie affirmeth that it is an heresie to denie that Matrimonie is a Sacrament, which doub­tlesse is a cōcluding argumēt that when Durād affirmed Matrimonie not to be vniuocallie or iuste as the rest be a Sacramēt, he did not abso­lutely deny it to be one of those seuē which the church did both then hold, & now houldeth to betrue Sacramēts; but at the most he onely de­nied the truth & propertie of it in that strict & vniuocall manner of conferring iustificāt grace, as he and other diuines affirme of the rest: which being so, then cannot the Reformers [Page 255] haue anie colour to alledge this testimonie ei­ther against the absolute truth of that Sacra­ment, or against the Septenarie number of it with the other. Nay more then this hauing now exactelie examined the matter I finde that Durand besides that he expresselie defendes the total number of seuen Sacraments disputing seuerallie of the nature of euerie one of them, he doth in particular affirme of Matrimonie euen in his resolution or direct anser to the que­stion, absolutelie that it is a Sacrament; and puts it in the last place for one of the seuen. And these are his wordes in their seuerall places noted in the margent. Tenendū est absolu­te quod matrimo­nium est Sacramē ­tum. Quia hoc deter­minauit Eccle. in 4. d. 26. q. 3. Et ita sunt invniuerso septē Sa­cramenta. Idem d. 2. q. 2. n. 6.

To which if we adde that which Capreolus doth testifie of the same durand, all doubt of his true meaning in this point will quite vanish away. Coactus fuit in vl­timo ope­re cautius loqui, vt scilicet confitere­tur matri­monium esse vere & proprie Sacramē ­tum, sed non vni­uoce cum alijs nouae legis Sa­cramentis &c. Ca­preolus in 4. sent. d. 26. q. 1. §. For Capreolus saith that in his last wor­ke or edition he was constrained to speake more cautelously soe that he confessed matoimonie to be truely and properly a Sacrament, but not v­niuocally. By which, and that also which I haue said before touching Alexander Hales the learned reader may perceiue that both the one and the other are against truth and reason al­ledged against the septenarie number of Sa­craments, and against the vniuersalitie of the doctrine of the Roman Church in that point, supposing they differ not from the rest of the Romanists as their owne wordes witnesse, [Page 256] Except it be in the manner of defending that same number, yet both agreeing in the sub­stance of the Controuersie here proposed by the knight our aduersarie, Quantum ad tertium durandi. and absolutelie af­firming that there are truelie seuen Sacraments in the Catholike Church.

Moreouer in the citation of the other mo­derne diuines, Sir Humfrey vseth much fraud and cosenage: and remitting the rest till after­wardes which I will examen in their due places as they are quoted by the knight, I will first produce those two whose bookes I had at the first, and both of whome he egregiouslie abu­seth. Bellarmin is corrupted by him in three seuerall places cited in this one paragraph. And first he is corrupted in his Second booke of the effect of Sacraments chap 24. where the Car­dinall saying onelie that the aduersaries ought not to require of the Romanists that they shewe the name of the Septenarie number of the Sacraments either out of scripture or Fa­thers; Primo no­tandū non debere ad­uersarios petere vt ostenda­mus in scripturis aut Patri­bus nomē septenarij Sacramē ­torum, nā nec ipsi possunt o­stendere nomē Bi­narij vel ternarij &c. Bellar. l. 2. de ef­fect. Sacr. c. 24. yet honest Sir Humfrey translates out of the Latin quoted in his owne margent the number of seuen for the name of the number of seuen, repeating the same twise for fayling, and so daceiues his ignorant reader persuading him there by that euen by Bellarmins confes­sion the number of the seuen Sacraments is not to be found either in scriptures or Fathers, whereas neuerthelesse Bellarmin saith no such [Page 257] thing, but onelie that the name of the foresaid number is not to be required in that manner supposing that the substance of a thing is of­tentimes found both in scriptures and Fathers, and yet not the name it selfe, as appeares in the worde Trinitie of persons, and in the name of the number of two Sacraments, neither of which is extant in scriptures.

Secondlie Bellarmin is corrupted in his booke of Extreme Vnction cap. 2. Non om­nes cōue­niunt an cum Apo­stoli vn­gebant o­lto infir­mos (Mar­ci 6.) & curabant, illa fuerit vnctio sa­cramenta­lis an solū fuerit fi­gura quae­dam &c. Bellar. lib. de Sacr. Extrem. Vnct. c. 2. Where the false knight makes his reader beleeue that Bellarmin was one of those who disagreed from the doctrine of other diuines in the do­ctrine of the fiue Sacraments, which he and his companions denie to be truelie and proper­lie Sacraments, and yet the Cardinall onelie affirmes with some other authours that that vnction which the Apostles vsed aboute the sick and restored them to health the 6. of S. Marke, was not the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction, but rather a figure or obumbration of it: Which as you see is a farre different mat­ter from the deniall of Extreme Vnction as it is vsed in the Church, to be properlie a Sacra­ment or one of the fiue reiected by the preten­siue reformed Congregations. Thirdlie the knight corrupteth Bellarmin whome he cites in the nynth chapter of his first booke of the Sacraments, where he peruertes both the tran­slation of the wordes and sense. The wordes [Page 258] in that he Englisheth these, non est ita notum, it is not so certaine, whereas he ought to haue translated, it is not so knowne: The sense he corrupteth in that he persuades his reader that Bellarmin confesseth that the foresaid fiue Sa­craments haue not their institution from christ immediatelie: whereas he speakes not a worde of the institurion, but affirmes onelie that the sacred things which the Sacraments signifie are three; iustifying grace, the passiō of Christ and eternall life; all which, that Baptisme and Eucharrst doe fignifie saith he, res notissima est, it is most notorious, de alijs Sacramentis non est ita notum, of the rest of the Sacraments it is not so notorious or knowne. Yet further ad­ding that it is certaine that euen these fiue Sacraments which the reformers reiect signifie all those three things at the least impli­citlie: But to saie that the foresaid fiue Sacra­ments haue not their institution immediatelie from Christ, neuer entred in to Bellarmins thoughts. tamen cer­tum est saltem im­plicite ea omnia si­gnificare &c. Bellar. loco cit. And so if the knight had dealt play­nelie and sincerelie in the citation of that place of the Cardinall, he could haue found nothing for his purpose, but rather the contrarie.

Furthermore Sir Humfrey also corrupteth vasquez most shamefullie in the 3. parte d. 2. cap. 5. n. 3. de Sacram. Matr. Where he impu­dentlie belyeth him affirming that Vasquez knewe well that neither moderne diuines nor [Page 259] auncient Fathers did conclude Matrimonie for a true Sacrament of the Church. And yet the knight could not be ignorant that the same authour professedlie defendes the same to be trulie and properlie a Sacrament in the third chapter of the verie same disputation which he himselfe cites: and in his 4. chap. Vasquez proueth it by the testimonies of diuers Fathers, putting for parte of the title of the same chap. that the Vasquez de Mat. definition of the Church touching the truth of this Sacrament had foundation in the testimo­nies of the Fathers, and who will please to read vasquez will finde it so. In so much that Sir Humfrey in this particular is wholelie inexcu­sable, especiallie considering that out of the place cited nothing can possiblie be collected or inferred wherebie it may in anie sorte be imagined that vasquez euer dreamed that ei­ther auncient Fathers or moderne diuines (ex­cepting durand and perhaps the Master of Sentences of whome he speakes doubtfullie, not daring to affirme him absolutelie to haue beene of the same opinion with Durand, as in truth he is not) did conclude matrimonie not to be a true and proper Sacrament, but onelie affirmes that none of the places which diuines alledge out of S. Augustin to proue the truth and propertie of that Sacrament, conuince the same in the sense in which (saith Vasquez) we now dispute. Which imagination of Vas­quez [Page 260] tho' it were true, as in my iudgement ap­parentlie it is not, yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent in disprouing the septenarie number of Sacraments. Especiallie supposing, as the same Vasquez affirmes, Cō. Carth. 4. that the fourth Councell of Carthage (in which S. Augustin was present as a great member of the same) makes mētion of the Benediction of the Preist vsed in mariage as in a holie and sacred thing. Graunt I say that Vasquez opinion were true, yet would it not serue the knights turne, ei­ther for the poofe of his intent, or for the ex­cuse of his false and craftie dealing.

Next after Vasquez I will put Suarez althou' according to the order of Sir Humfrey he is the first man he belies in this Poragraph. in 3. part d. 12. sec. 1. where he charges him to saye that the councell of Florence did insinuate the number of 7. Sacraments, Propter quod tan­dem haec veritas de­finita est in Con. Flor. in decreto Eugenij quā Graeci & Armeni facile cum Latinis suceperūt. Suar. loc. cit. and the councell of Trent did expresselie decree it for an article of faith, yet suarez sayes in plaine termes, that the same was defyned in the councell of Florence. So that here is false dealing with suarez and with the truth to make the point of the septe­narie number of Sacraments seeme newe, as ther is also in the wordes following in which the same Sir Humfrey affirmes that the Roma­nists relie wholely vpon the Tridentine coun­cell.

Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostome and Bede [Page 261] be impertinently alleged. For they none of them denie that the Sacraments are no more nor lesse then seuen. And of S. Isidore it is fal­sely affirmed by Sir Humfrey that he accoun­teth but of 3. Sacraments for altho' in the place quoted by him he speakes onely of three (which yet is more then the knight will alowe of) yet doth he not affirme that ther are no more: yea & in other seuerall places he mentioneth three more, Pennance, Order, matrimonie. And of them all he treates onely occasionallie not professedlie as the reader may easilie perceiue, and therfore doubtlesse there is no mention of Extreme vnction among the rest, of which neuerthelesse he was not ignorāt how plainelie S. Iames describes it, neither would haue omit­ted it if occasiō had serued to treate of it. Of Pen­nance he treates lib. 8. orig. page 83. & lib. 2. de offi. Eccles. of Order in his 2. booke de offic. Eccles. page 597. and 598. and of matrimonie he hath expresse wordes in the same booke page 69.

Touching S. Chrysostome, Ambrose, Cyrill and Theophilactus it is false that they maintained onely two Sacraments, and as for Chrysostome and Theophilactus, vpon the 6. of S. Paule to the Hebrewes, they both make mention of Confirmation. S. Ambrose lib. 1. de Penit: makes a kynde of comparison betwixt Baptisme and Pennance, saying: vnum in [Page 262] vtroque ministerium est, &c. and S. Cyrill of Ierusalem lib. 12. in so. cap. 56. doth alsoe compare these two Sacraments together, and both of them mention the Sacrament of Chris­me. the one Catech. 3. the other lib. 3. de Sacra. cap. 2. & de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur cap. 7. so that none of thes Fathers which Sir Humfrey produced for the number of 2. onely Sacra­ments, doe agree with his doctrine: and yet more not one of them treates in anie one place of their workes of the precise number of Sacra­ments, but onely soe farre as their matter and drift required.

Pascasius also is falselie dealt with by Sir Humfrey, both in his meaning and in the trans­lation of his wordes: for the doth not saye, the Sacramets of Christ are Baptisme, Chrisme, and the bodie and bloude of our lord, as Sir Humfrey doth put in English but. Sunt autem Sacramenta Christi in Ecclesia: that is: but Sacra­ments of Christ in the Church be Baptisme Chrysme &c. Meaning onelie that Baptisme, Chrysme and the Eucharist are such Sacraments as he treates of makeing mention of those onely, not to showe the precise number but the nature of a Sacrament in generall, especiallie touching the signification and effects of the same, and therfore he doth exemplifie in those onely which are most notoriouslie knowne for such and their matter and formes most obuious, [Page 263] omitting the rest as being lesse to the purpose he ther handleth. And for Sir Humfrey to affirme that Chrisme is crept in to the text of the later editions, that is but an idle imagina­tion of his owne, otherwise sure he would haue produced some other more auncient edition in which the worde Chrysme is not found. And certainelie he that should compare the faith­fulnes, and sinceritie of the Romonists in that nature, and the care they haue to publish au­thours purely, with the insinceritie of the sectaries, he would presentlie iudge that copie which wantes the worde Chrisme to be razed by them that haue of late yeares abolished the vse of it in their Church, rather then haue the least suspiciō in the world that the same should be added by Romanists whose doctrine and practice in that particular is so frequent and auncient. Especially considering that it makes no more to our purpose of maintaining the sep­tenarie of Sacraments against the pretended reformers, whether the worde Chrysme be in Pascasius or no, then if it were vndoubtedlie true that he had made no mention of it. Suppo­sing it is sufficient for vs to knowe that this author in that place neither intended to proue the number of three Sacraments, nor yet to exclude the number of seuen. Howbeit, I doe not denie but that the worde Chrysme being in the text, it suffices to conuince that the [Page 264] Sacraments of Christ are more then two. And in deed I maruell why the sectaries especiallie those of the English Church should labore so much to exclude Cōfirmation frō the number of the Sacramēts, supposing they either doe pra­ctice if or at the least ought to practise it accor­ding to their owne ordināces, altho' ther is no­thing prescribed by them touching the vse of Chrysme, but onely or cheefelie mētion is made of the blowe which the confirmer giues to the confirmed with a certaine phrase or forme of wordes. Concerning which ceremonie I haue heard that vpon a time, a certaine nominall Bi­shop of theirs at the time of administration, was so extraordinarie well pleased with one of the cōpanie, of the feminine gender, that in steed of the ceremoniall stroake he gaue her a kisse of kindenesse, by which the yonge maide assured her selfe she receiued more grace thē if she had receiued Confirmation it selfe accordnig to their ordinarie manner. And now this may be sufficient for the true meaning of Pascasius.

Hugo a sancto Victore is most peruer­selie dealt with when out of Perkins he is produced by Sir Humfrey against the Sacra­ment of Pennance. For I haue read him lib. 1. de Sacramentis cap. 12. where he sayes thus in expresse termes. Septem sunt principalia Sacra­menta quae in Ecclesia ministrantur. ther be seuen principall Sacraments which are ministred in the [Page 265] Church. And he numbers them in particular and Pennance for one: And in his summa sen­tent. tract. 6. cap. 10. he saith. Sacramentum Paenitentiae redeuntibus ad Deum semper est ne­cessarium. Est enim secunda tabula post naufra­gium, quia post baptismum si quis vestem inno­centiae peccando amittit per paenitentiam recuperare poterit. And by this you plainelie see this Ro­manist is groaslie abused both by Perkins, and his imitatour, as if he were a denier of the septenarie number of Sacraments who soe par­ticularlie doth acknowledge them. As in like manner the same authour is abused by the knight page 128. Touching the custome of the communion of the people at euerie Masse in the Primatiue Church, by omission of his ensuing wordes which are these. Sed propter peccatum circumstans nunc statutum est vt com­municaremus solum semel in anno. That is to saie. But by reason of sinne which doth compase vs aboute, it is now decreed that we communicate thrice a yeare. Whereas likewise neither in the former wordes of this authour cited by Sir Hū ­frey, ther is a iot against priuate Masse, as he would haue it, but onelie a relation of diuers customes of the Church in that particular point of practice, as I haue declared in the pa­ragraph of that matter.

Bessariō in his wordes rehearsed by Sir Hūfrey doth not denie the septenarie nūber, nor doth [Page 266] absolutely affirme that there are onelie two Sa­cramēts, but onelie saith that we read of two onely manifestly deliuered in the Gospell: which is not contrarie to the Tridentine Councell, nor yet that which the knight intendes to proue, to wit that the doctrine of seuen Sacraments is no article of faith. And what if Bessarion should saie that some of the seuen Sacraments are found not in the Gospell but in the Epistle, what would Sir Humfrey replie to that? But in earnest I haue vewed Bessarions treatie of the Eucharist where I finde that, altho' he ma­kes no plaine mention of the seuen Sacra­ments as not hauing anie iuste occasion there offered to handle that matter, yet out of some passages of his discourse with other circumstā ­ces there vnto annexed, it is euidentlie gathe­red what his meaning, and faith was touching the same. For in the place cited by the knight and ther aboutes, Cardinall Bessarion treates particularlie of the forme of the Sacrament of Eucharist, prouing that it consists of no other wordes then those same which our Sauiour himselfe consecrated with, and deliuered to the Church videlicet. This is my bodie: This is my bloud. And by occasion of this he men­tioneth Baptisme, as being one of the two Sa­craments which onelie haue their formes ex­presselie and in speciall termes contained in the Gospell and specified by Christ himselfe. And [Page 267] therefore a little before that which Sir Hum­frey cited out of this authour, he saide. Illud quoque haud contemnendum videtur quod cum duo nobis Sacramenta à Saluatore traditae fuerint Baptismus & Eucharistia vtrumque verbis suis confici iussit: By which wordes it is certaine & cleare that he there speakes onelie of such Sa­craments as our Sauiour most verbally or most expresselie ordained his disciples to consecrate and administer.

And now that this Cardinall did beleeue that there are more Sacraments then these, it is euidentlie conuinced out of those his wordes fol. 169. saying. Ante omniaigitur sciendum est tam hoc Sacrosanctum Communionis de quo agi­mus quam caetera Ecclesiae Sacramenta ideo sacra vocitari, quoniam aliud in se habent quod videtur aliud quod non corporis oculis sed solo intellectu comprehenditur. And after in the same page. Etenim in Sacramento Baptismatis ablutio carnis per aquam ita est Sacrementum vt duntaxat sig­num sit ablutionis peccatorum. Ipsa enim pecca­torum remissio res est significata nihil vltra signi­ficans. And to these wordes he presentlie addes that which is plainelie to our purpose, to wit: Hoc idem in reliquis Sacramētis. Ergo & in Sacra­mento Eucharistia. And yet more plainelie f. 175. Quēadmodum in caeteris omnibus, ita etiam in hoc Sacramento concordes sunt Occidenibus Orien­tales. That is. Euen as in all the rest so in this [Page 268] Sacrament the Occidentals (that is the Roma­nists) doe accorde with the Orientals) that is the Grecians). Besides, this authour was a Greek Cardinall of the Roman Church, and a cheefe agent, and promoter for the vnion of the Latin and Greek Church in the Councell of Florence, where the number of seuen Sacra­ments was defined and declared. To omit that the same Bessarion fol. 181. makes expresse mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation for so he saith. Quod manifestum fiet si quis ad Sacramentum Chrysmatis mentem conuerterit. So that Sir Humfrey could scarce a chosen a worse Patron for proofe of his pare of deformed Sa­craments, then is this Cardinall, if he had sought all Greece ouer: it being manifest that he was a professed defender not onelie of the two Sacraments he mentioneth in the place cited by him, but also a firme beleeuer of the other fiue which the pretended reformers renounce & thrust violentlie out of the rancke of true Sacraments. It is true I haue aduerti­sed some smale sleight of Sir Humfrey in translating or transforming the worde mani­feste in Latin, into the worde plainelie in En­glish: but this but one of his diminutiue trickes and so I passe it ouer. Onelie I desire the in­different reader to reflect how peruers and in­credulous a generation this is which refuseth to beleeue points of doctrine because they are [Page 269] not manifestelie contained in the scripture. Whereas on the contrarie this most learned and Catholike Cardinall Bessarion altho' he graunted that two onelie Sacraments of the Church are so expressed in the written worde of God, yet doth he with a firme and constant faith imbrace the rest.

S. Aug. is impertinētlie cited both in his third booke of Christian doctrine c. 9. and also de sim­bolo ad Cathecu. l. 2. c. 6. in regarde that in neither of the places he speakes of two onely Sacramēts as his wordes cited by Sir Humfrey himselfe doe manifest. Nay in the latter place he spea­kes not at all of proper Sacraments, as his wor­des following faithleslie omitted by our ad­uersarie, doe declare, for thus S. Austin fini­sheth his sentence. Aqua in qua est sponsa puri­ficata, & sanguis in quo inuenitur esse dotata: That is, water in which the spouse is purified, and bloud in which she is founde to be en­dowed: in which passage no mention is made of anie of the seuen Sacraments, as the reader may plainelie perceiue.

Of S. Cypriā I saie the same I saide of S. Am­brose, Austin & the rest. Vid. lib. de operib. Card. sub nom. Cyp. And yet more, I know Sir Hūfrey will be loath to graūt fiue Sacramēts as S. Cyprian doth altho' we should giue him leaue to put the lotion of feet for one, as S. Am­brose did put it for an vnproper Sacrament.

Dominicus à toto cited out of Bellarmin cap. [Page 270] 4. de Sacramento Ordinis doubteth not of Order in generall, but he onelie makes a question of Episcopall Order in particular, whether it be trulie a Sacrament: and so he is ignorantlie and impertinentlie here alledged, with abuse both of him and the reader. As in like manner Suarez or rather Hugo, Lombard, Bonauen­ture, Hales, and Altisiodor. Of whome altho' Suarez Tom. 4. de Sacramento Extremae Vnctio­nis affirmes that they were of opinion that Ex­treme Vnction was not instituted by Christ, but by S. Iames from whence suarez saith id plainelie followes not to be a true Sacrament, yet suarez himselfe addes (which Sir Humfrey fraudulentlie left out) that those authours de­nied the consequence. By which it is manifest that those diuines absolutelie beleeued Ex­treme Vnction for one of the seuen Sacra­ments: not obstanding their material errour aboute the institution of it, which errour being impertinent to this present question of the sep­tenarie number of Sacraments, their testi­monie was impertinentlie alledged and pro­ueth nothing to our aduersaries purpose.

S. Bonauēture also is abused by the knight p. 165. where out of Chamier he carps him saying: that for wante of better proofes, he was pro­digall of his conceiptes in honour of the septe­narie number of Sacraments. But here I finde greater prodigalitie in the dishoneste procee­ding [Page 271] of Sir Humfrey, and his master minister chamier in their iniuste taxeing of Bonauen­ture, then I finde wante of proofes in that au­thour, for if either Chamier or the knight had beene disposed, they might haue found warrantable allegations in him out of scripture for the probation of euerie Sacrament in par­ticular as his seuerall questions vpon them doe testifie. But these men being much more dis­posed to cauille then to finde the truth: they would not caste their eyes so farre, but onelie layed handes vpon that which came nearest in their waye, I meane vpon some of the con­gruences onelie (and yet purposelie omitting the cheefe) which that pious diuine makes vse of more for explication then for proofe of the doctrine. And thus these ill occupied Pedants trifle with him who had more learning, and grauitie, without comparison, then they and their whole Congregation nor yet had they both wit to cite the place they alledged trulie, but quoted the second booke for the fourth.

Iuste according to this manner of proceeding the knight also dealeth with S. Thomas, the Councell of Trent, and Bellarmin and others, as if they had beene so destitute of arguments of scripture and Fathers for their proofes of the seuen Sacraments, that they were glad to refuge to figures and similitudes of seuen vir­tues, seuen capitall vices, seuen planets, seuen [Page 272] defects proceeding from Originall sinne, seuen dayes of vnleauened bread, the offering of se­uen Rams, seuen lauers of naaman, seuen can­dlestickes, seuen seales, seuen bookes and the like: whereas in truth these mysticall numbers are applied to the seuen Sacraments by the fo­resaid authours whereby to confirme and de­clare the matter more plainelie ouer and aboue their other most pregnant and authenticall proofes of the same as in them all and particu­larlie in S. Thomas, and bellarmin, is too plai­nelie to be seene in their workes, to be brought in question by anie one of reading and vnder­standing; S. Thomas hauing seuen seuerallie distinct questions of the seuen Sacraments a parte, besides that he hath of them in generall: and the like I say of Bellarmin. And as for the Councell of Trent it either produceth proofes of scripture and Fathers actuallie for euerie particular Sacrament, or remittes the reader to other former Councells and decrees which haue them. And so wee see by this that Sir Humfrey doth but cogge and trifle for wante of solid subiect.

Touching the citation of Caietan vpon the 5. cap. of S. Iames, it is true I finde the same which Sir Humfrey relates at the least in sense, and so I cannot accuse him in this place of the ordinarie imperfection which he vseth in ci­ting authours. Neuerthelesse he might easilie [Page 273] haue knowne that the same Caietan in his Commentarie vpon the 65. question of the 3. parte of S. Thomas art. 1. doth agree with him in the septenarie number of Sacraments: and therefore in his glosse vpon the second article of that same question he numbers Extreme Vnction for one of the seuen, saying: In titulo intellige per ordinem praedictum, ordinem quo nu­merata sunt Sacramenta in praecedenti articulo. videlieet Baptisma, Confirmatio, Eucharistia, Paenitentia, Extrema Vnctio, Ordo, Matrimo­nium. By which it is manifest that Caietan de­fended with his master S. Thomas Extreme Vnction to be a Sacrament, and consequentlie he is no fauourer of Sir Humfrey in this point of which now we treat. And the same I saye of the same Caietan alledged by the knight as saying that the reader cannot inferre out of the wordes of S. Paule, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, that matrimonie is a Sacrament, because sainct Paule saith not, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, sed mysterium hoc magnum est. But what soeuer out of the predominating subtiltie of his wit, Caietan held of the interpretation of this place of sainct Paule: in which as also in the exposition of some other scriptures, he is noted and notorious to haue beene more subtil then solid, yet certaine it is that he absolutelie defended Matrimonie to be one of the seuen Sacraments of the Church as both his wordes [Page 274] aboue cited doe manifestlie conuince, and also the great pūctuality with which he is knowne to haue obserued and followed his much res­pected and reuerenced Patron sainct Thomas in all points of doctrine, swearing in a manner euerie where in the wordes of his master; so that the knight cannot haue as much as anie conlorable reason to imagin that Caietan stan­des for him in this matter and against the Ro­manists: As neither he hath to conceiue the like of Canus, whome he in the same manner cites as if we were a denier of matri­monie to be a Sacrament, or at the least a testi­fier that other diuines pronounce doubtfullie of the same: whereas in reallitie Canus in de­fence of his owne priuate opinion that matri­monie is not a Sacrament nor conferreth grace except when it is administred by a Preist, doth onelie name some diuines which varie in their opinions concerning the determinate matter & forme of matrimonie, and touching the māner how or whē it giues grace, yet both he and the rest constantlie & expressely teaching, that ab­solutelie it hath both matter and forme and giues graces in one sorte or other, and numbe­ring it among the rest of the seuen Sacraments as their writings doe testifie. So that it was great preposterousnesse in Sir Humfrey to vse the testimonie of Canus against the truth of the Sacrament of Matrimonie since neither he [Page 275] nor those other diuines which he names viz. Lombard, Scotus, sainct Thom. Ricard. Pa­lud. Durand. Vid. Magi­strum. in 4. & vid. S. Th. in 3, part. q. Except they be detorted from their true sense and meaning can possiblie be imagined to haue beene others then professed Patrons and assertours of the whole septenarie number of Sacraments, as by all or most of their owne wordes cited by me in other places, may euidentlie appeare to the reader.

And these being all the authors which the knigth cites is this paragraffe, or at the least all that deserue anser, we may plainelie see that not obstanding all the arte and skill which he hath vsed to make them seeme his owne, yet the. Roman faith touching the seuen Sacra­ments of the Churche standes still firmelie auncient, vniuersall, and visible, which is that he intended to destroy, and I maintaine.

Whence we may inferre for the cōclusion & censure thereof, that all which our aduersarie bringeth in it to proue that there is neither an­tiquitie, nor vniuersalitie in the Fathers, nor consent in the schoolemen (as he spea­keth) sufficient to shew the seuen Sacraments to be instituted by Christ, is meare Sophistrie, founded vpon his owne misinterpretations, falsifications, and corruptions of the authours he citeth, and that consequentlie his owne conditionall curse is absolutelie fallen vpon him, in which we must of necessitie leaue him [Page 276] till such time as by humble recantation of his errours he shall desire absolution.

And now hence I passe to the next Para­graffe which is of the Communion vnder one kinde. In which the knight by a speciall paren­thesis which he makes in his 172. page, peruer­sely persuades his reader that the foresaid man­ner of Communion in one kinde, was decreed as it were in dispite of God and man by the Coūcell of Constance, & that from the time of that Coūcell the Cōmunion vnder both kindes was adiudged heresie, which is not so, for the Roman Church doth not teach that the com­munion in both kindes is hereticall, but onely that it is heresie to condemne the communion in one kinde for vnlawfull, or repugnant to Christs institution, and so his position is both false and calumnious, as appeares not onely by the decree of the same councell, but also by the tenour of the decree of the Councell of Trent neither of which councels defined communion in both kindes either conformable or discon­formable to anie precept of either God or man in the nature of faith, but they onely declare the practise of the communion in one kinde as a thing not vnlawfull, or cōtrarie to Christs institution or precept, but otherwise conueniēt for the present state of the Church, in respect of the reuerence due to the Sacrament: Si quis di­xerit ex Dei prae­cepto, vel necessita­te salutis omnes & singulos Christi fi­deles vtrā ­que speciē sāctissimi Euchari­stiae sacra­menti su­mere de­bere, ana­thema sit. Cōc. Trid. de cōmun. sub vtraq. specie. can. 1. vid. can. 2. and for other iuste causes also condemning them that [Page 277] shall affirme that all and euerie faithfull person is bound to receiue both kindes either by the commaundement of God, or as necessarie to saluation by vertue of Christs institution: or that the communion in one kinde is vnlawfully appointed by the Church, or that the Church did erre therein. Which doctrine is so plainely declared by the two foresaid Councels and es­pecially by the Councell of Trent, and so often repeated and inculcated by moderne diuines, (to say nothing of the more auncient) that if our aduersaries were not ouer much disposed to cauill they would neuer haue the face to ca­lumniate the same by their misconstructions, as Sir Humfrey doth in this place. The knight cites some ten or eleuen Roman diuines, and a­mong them to increase the number he foysteth in Cassander, whom yet he either knowes or ought to know he is none of ours: but the mat­ter is not great because neither he nor the rest teach any thing here, cōtrarie to the doctrine of the Romā Church in this point: but they onely relate the custome of the Primatiue Church to haue beene that the lay people commonly re­ceiued in both kindes: yet not denying but that the same succeeding Church hath vpon iuste reasons altered that manner of communion. Yea and the same authours here cited defen­ding the lawfullnes thereof either in the verie same or in other places of their workes: nay and [Page 278] Cassander. consult. de vtraque specie. some of them if not all, teaching with all that some times the communion in one kinde was practized in auncient ages, so that it was great madnesse in Sir Humfrey to produce then ei­ther as confessers of want of antiquitie and vni­uersalitie in the Roman Church, or for the proofe of them in the doctrine of the preten­siue reformed Churches, since that out of their testimonies, as shall be declared, neither the one nor the other can with anie colorable pro­babilitie possible be collected: and for this rea­son and because I haue in an other place an­sered what our aduersarie can say in this mat­ter, I knowe I haue no need to proceed to particulars, but onelie pronounce my sentence of this whole Paragraph in generall termes: yet because I finde all, or manie of the authours cited to haue their sentences and meaning mangled and peruerted, therefore I deemed it conuenient to giue the reader notice in parti­cular of the authours ill proceeding. And first altho' Vasquez with some others, is of a con­trarie opinion to Taper & manie other diuines to wit houlding as more probable that those who receiue the Sacrament in both kindes doe receiue some more spirituall frute then the re­ceiuers of one alone, yet neither doth he con­demne the contrarie opinion and practice, not yet doth he conclude that it is absolutelie bet­ter or safer for the laytie to receiue both formes [Page 279] then one onelie: but rather defendes the quite contrarie expresselie in his 216. disputation and last chapter: where not obstanding his owne opinion defended in one of his former que­stions, yet he solues the sectaries argument in this latter place, and so cleareth the difficultie of their obiection, that it is impossible for Sir Humfrey or anie of his confederates to gather anie thing in fauour of their position out of that authour, as his owne wordes doe make apparent to the reader of them, as here I place them in the margen. Licet se­cundum aliquorū opinionē quam prae­cedenti disput: de­fendi, laici aliquo fru­ctu priuē ­tur dum ipsis calix denegatur, tamen cū sumentes tantum v­nam spe­ciem nulla gratia ne­cessaria ad salutem careāt (vt notauit Conciliū) omissis a­lijs causis postulan­tibus, recte potuit Ec­clesia lai­cis alterā speciem denegare. Vasq. to. 3. in 3. p. dis­put. 216. cap. vlt.

Salmeron is abused by Sir Humfrey in re­garde he takes onelie some certaine wordes of his which seeme to make for his purpose, and omits others which make against him which follow in the verie next leafe, and doe so tem­per the sense of the former that taking them together neither the one nor the other fauoure the reformed doctrine. For thus he saith. Nos enim &c. For we quoth hee, doe so confesse the custome to haue beene of communicating the laye people vnder both kindes, that yet allwayes in some cases, the vse of one kinde hath beene practized. Which wordes quite dashe Sir Humfreys de­signe of prouing that the Church of Rome in this particular, hath created a newe article of faith manifestlie repugnant to Christs worde, institution, & practice of the primatiue Churh, except hee will be so audacious as to condemne [Page 280] here also of sacriledge for her practice in those cases, as he doth our present Church. In which passage I much wonder at the slownes of him that otherwise vseth to be so nimble and actiue as that in this place he tooke not paines to turne one leafe further for the discouerie of the truth. And the same I say of Valentia who speakes iuste to the same sense and purpose de legit. vsu Eucharistiae cap. 10. as also did Father Fisher and Castro in the places cited by our aduersarie.

And as for sainct Thomas vpon the 6. of sainct Iohn. And lyra in 1. Cor. 11. they neither of them disproue communion in one kinde, as Sir Humfrey doth alledge, but expresselie de­fendit. Vide S. Thom. in 3. part. S. Thomas relates that the custome of the auncint Church was to communicate in both formes which custome he saith was ob­serued euen till his dayes in some Churches where also, quoth hee, the ministers of the al­tar doe continuallie communicate the bodie & bloud. But for danger of effusiō, saith he, in some Churches it is obserued that the Preist onelie receiue the bloud, and the rest the bodie. Nei­ther is this, saith he, contrarie to the sentence of our Lord, because he that communicates the bodie, communicates also the bloud, since that Christ is whole in both the species or kindes euen in respect of both his bodie and bloud. Thus sainct Thomas. By which it is cleare howe farre he was from patronizing [Page 281] Sir Humfreys new tenet maintaining that the communiō of the laitie in the Roman Church is but a halfe communion.

Now touching Lyra, Sir Humfrey hath de­ceiptfullie omitted those wordes of his, which include the verie reason & approbation of the change which the Roman Church hath made, it being the same which sainct Thomas alled­geth in parte as his wordes in the margen declare. Fit autem hic mentio de duplici specie, nā in primi­tiua Eccle­sia sic da­batur fide­libus: sed propter periculū effusionis sanguinis, modo da­tur tantū sub specie panis. Sa­cerdos ta­men cele­brans ac­cipit sub vtraque specie non tantum pro se sed etiam pro alijs Lira. in 1. Cor. 11. So that both these authours are so plaine against Sir Humfrey, and for vs, that a man may almost perceiue that he now re­pents that euer he cited them, as also the au­thours following. To the wordes of Arboreus: but now the communion of both kyndes is abolished: Sir Humfrey ought to haue added that au­thours reason of the abolishment to wit this. Propter scandala quae con­tigerunt, & adhuc continge­re possūt. Arb. Theos. lib. 8.11. For the scandals which haue happened, and which yet may happen. And the like I say of Taper, to whose wordes should haue beene ioyned that which followes, videlicet. This communion of the people in both kindes hath danger of Sacriledge annexed vnto it in sheding the bloud of Christ, and in the omission of the chalis no danger doth occurre nor anie losse of Spirituall grace.

The Councell of Constance is impertinen­tlie alledged as I haue declared before. Bellar­min in the same place and wordes cited by Sir Humfrey, doth directlie impugne that for which he is alledged by the knight, to wit for [Page 282] the Communion of all the people in both kindes. For so he saith. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. And besides▪ all did not receiue in both kindes. As for Cassander altho' we haue him not in the rancke of Romanists; Ex his ita­que confi­ci puto hanc inte­gram in v­traque panis & vini com­munica­tionē etsi simplici­ter neces­saria non habeatur, ei cōmu­nicationi quae in al­tera tantū specie fit, etiamsi mandato contraria non pute­tur, multis nomini­bus esse anteponē ­dam &c. Cass. loco. cir. yet for anie thing I can perceiue, hee doth not absolutelie stand for Sir Humfrey in the sub­sustance of this Controuersie, as neither houl­ding it absolutelie necessarie for the laytie to communicate in both kyndes, nor yet contra­rie to Christs institution, as his owne wordes in that treatie page 1046. Doe plainelie either suppose or insinuate. And for as much as con­cernes priuate or extraordinarie communion, he himselfe relates diuers examples of it. So that the reader may perceiue how smale rea­son Sir Humfrey hath to vse Cassanders au­thoritie for diuers respects in this matter, espe­ciallie if he consider his owne drift in this place, altho' I cannot denie but the same Cassander leanes vnto him, in that he desires the present practice of the Roman Church might be chan­ged as lesse perfect & legitimate then the con­trarie, in his conceipte.

And this being all I need to say touching the testimonies of the cited authours and of Sir Humfreyes proceedings about them, I will now conclude the censure of this whole Para­graph; that directly it containeth nothing which requires so exacte a discussion as I haue made of it. And that I haue oftentimes mar­uailed why the reformers should stand so per­emptorily [Page 283] against the Communion in one kinde, supposing that euen according to their owne principles, neither the words of Christ nor the intention of the minister, nor both these together, are of force and efficacy to make any change or alteration in the matter of the Sacra­ment, but that when they haue said and done all they can, they shall remaine bread & wine as truely as if they had receaued them in the tauerne; especially if we consider yet far­ther that, according to the reformed doctrine, the intention of the minister is not necessarily required to the constitution of any Sacrament; and yet without the same it is cleerly vnpossi­ble to conceiue how the Eucharist can be re­ceaued by them in remembrance of the death and passion of Christ more in both the formes of bread and wine then in one alone, especially supposing that by virtue of the institution and commaunde of Christ each of them in parti­cular is to be receiued in memorie of him. And this I say hath caused me many times to won­der, euen yet persuading my selfe the Nouel­lists can haue no other motiue then the satisfa­ction of their owne contentious spirits, to stand so nicely vpon this puntillio with the Church of Rome; which refractory proceeding of thē in this matter may yet seeme more vnreasonable to the reader if he consider that, altho' Vasquez and some other Romane diuines are of opinion [Page 284] that greater fruites of grace are reaped by the communion in both kindes then in one, yet doth it not thence followe that the communion in one kinde cannot be lawfully practized, as our Precisians will needes haue it, nor yet that the communion vnder one kinde is but a halfe Communion, as the knight doth heere mali­tiously inculcate; but in either of the two kinds it is most euident there is a perfect and intire Sacrament according to the true definition thereof, in regard there is found in either of the consecrated formes a visible signe of an inuisi­ble grace instituted by God: as also because the body of Christ euen according to the tenet of our aduersaries being truely, really and sub­stantially receiued vnder the forme of bread onely altho' they meane onely by faith; it doth follow infallibly that vnlesse they graunt that Christ can dye againe by separatiō of his bloud from his body, or that his perfect and intire body is not there receaued but onely a part of it: it doth I say necessarily follow that vnder the forme of bread alone there is Christs bloud with his body, and so a perfect communion of them both receaued in that one kinde.

The Parahraph following is about prayer and seruice in an vnknowne tongue, in which point Sir Humfrey saith true in that he affir­meth that the Roman Church celebrates Masse and publick seruice in Latin, and it is also true that the Councell of Trent hath de­clared [Page 285] it not to be expedient that it be celebra­ted euerie where in the vulgar language. But yet it is false to say that either the Church or Councell hath commaunded it to be celebra­ted in an vnknowne language; for Latin can­not trulie be said to be an vnknowne language, but rather it is a generall language, a knowne speech, more vsed then anie one language in the world: And altho' it be not vnderstood of the ignorant sort of people, yet it is lesse vn­coth vnto them then anie other language ex­cepting their owne mother tongue, yea then anie other publike language, I meane then ei­ther hebrew or greeke, and finallie it is a lan­guage fitter for mutuall communication in re­ligion then anie other tongue, and among the more learned sort of people of all nations, the most familiar of all. And I would faine knowe of the reformers what they haue to doe to call that in question which hath binne generallie practised in the Church for manie hundred yeeres before they and their reformation were hatched. Who appointed them for iudges in this matter? Let them meddle in their owne affaires, their cause is not ours, we are all one both in our religion, and in the forme, and rites of our religion; we communicate with all the members of our Church euen in the same ex­ternall Ceremonies in what place soeuer they be, and they with vs. But you in England haue [Page 286] built a new Church different euen from the rest of the pretended reformed Churches of o­ther Countries; you are not vniforme, neyther in doctrine nor Ceremonies, and so it is not amisse for your purpose that you vse a language in your publick seruice in which you as little agree with your brothers as in your religion: Nay in my opinion supposing your separation in communion of religion, you haue taken a politick course to separate your selues also in the language of your seruice, otherwise it might happen vnto you and your French and dutch brothers, as it hath donne alreadie betweene the Gūmarists and Arminians, (espe­ciallie now whē Arminianisme begins to spred itselfe) who are knowne to haue entered into the Church with zealous communication one with another and yet the feruour of their spi­rits hath so much increased, that before the sermon was ended, there hath appeered good store of broken pates and perhaps worse; for auoyding of which inconueniencies our En­glish Nouellists as it may be supposed haue their seuerall Churches and formes of seruice, and doctrine for themselues, the French, and the Dutch: whereas one the contrarie the pro­fessours of the Romane Church by reason of their publick seruice or Masse is in a common language, are put to no such shifts, but where­soeuer they meet, they finde meanes to serue [Page 287] God and to communicate together in the verie same manner they doe in their owne Coūtries, whether they be old or yong, learned, or igno­rant; of which great comfort the reformers by reason of their new forme of seruice in the vulgar tongue, in manie occasions doe wilfully depriue themselues. To say nothing of the dignitie which the seruice of God receiueth from the grauitie of the Latine tongue, and the disparagement which it suffereth by a vulgar language, supposing also that by that meanes euen the secret misteries of the Christian faith come to be as familiar in the mouthes of euerie apish boy as they be to the greatest Do­ctour of the Church, a thing both much re­pugnant to the practise of auncient times, and also which giueth great occasion to manie to vilifie, and disesteeme the sacred wordes of God included in the publike seruice; yea and oftentimes the thinges themselues by the wordes signified, as experience doth daily teach vs: to omit the alteration & corruption which it is more subiect vnto in a vulgar tongue then in Latine which is alwaies the same, as the same experience doth make manifest.

But Sir Humfrey goeth on, and tells his reader, that some of the Trent Bishops adiud­ged the first part of the decrec of the Councell to be questionable, for that it seemed to con­tradict itselfe in that it affirmeth the Masse to [Page 288] containe much instruction for the faithfull, and yet commaundeth that parte of the seruice to be vttered with a lowe voyce, and in an vn­knowne tongue, and for this, for want of better authours, he citeth the historie of the Councell of Trent. But all this is but a meere cauill grounded in the relation of a false historiogra­pher: for that if anie such thing had happened after the foresaid decree was once confirmed, it is not so long a time since the Councell was finished, but that the fact of those Bishops would haue binne knowne to the world, yea and their punishment for such their temeritie, if they had remayned refractorie, would haue binne so published, as at the least some one or other writer would haue taken notice of the same, as well as the authour of that relation: neyther is their anie contradiction in the said decree, in regard it is manifest that by the in­struction of the people, the Councell meaneth eyther wholie or cheeflie the epistle & Gospell of the Masse; as also for that the same Coun­cell withall doth expresselie giue Order that the Pastours of the Church interpret and de­clare the misteries of the Masse to their paris­honers, which order taketh away all colour of contradiction which can be imagined in the wordes of the decree; especiallie supposing that in what language or with what voice so­euer the Masse be celebrated, the foresaid ex­position [Page 289] will supplie all the obscuritie which from thence can arise. But how be it this which I haue said is true: yet I haue discouered by reading that passage in the foresaid Historie, that it doth not so relate it, but quite in an o­ther manner, for that historie doth not affirme that the Tridentine Bishops made that doubt or question of the decree which ordaineth the celebration of Masse in a lowe voyce and vn­knowne language as ambiguous in the con­struction: Mandat sancta Sy­nodus pa­storibus & singulis curam a­nimarum gerentibus vt frequē ­ter inter missarum celebra­tionē vel per se vel per alios ex ijs quae in Missa leguntur aliquid exponant &c. Con­cil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 8. but the historie saith expresselie that the Protestants made that doubt by way of obiection, to which the Bishops ansered in that forme which the same historie relates. Which is so foule a falsification in Sir Humfrey that I confesse I had smale mynde to make anie fur­ther examen of the rest of the citations of this booke if otherwise I had not alreadie so farre engaged my selfe. Let the reader suruey the 650. page of the Trid. historie printed in Latine at Franckford 1621. and he will easilie finde the deceipte. And now you see this is but a fiction of a contradiction deuised in discredit of the do­ctrine of the Councell in this point either by the knight, or some other Sycophāt of whome he receiued it vpon truste. Besides that if anie such thing had happened in the time of the dis­cussion of the doctrine of the Councell, yet certaine it is that all such doubt was cleered and quite taken away by the establishment of [Page 290] the decree itselfe; whence it also appeereth how false a consequence Sir Humfrey dedu­ceth out of the same decree, to wit that because the Councell affirmeth that the Masse doth affoard great instruction to the people, and for that end ought to be interpreted vnto them, therefore sayth the knight the Fathers of the Councell doe consequentlie affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the edifica­tion of the Church. For it is manifest out of the verie same place cited by our aduersarie himselfe that the Councell of Trent doth com­mand that the Pastours doe frequently expoūd some parte of those things which are read in the Masse, not for that it hauing decreed the contrarie, could possiblie hold it better to haue the Masse in a vulgar language then otherwise, but because that, supposing for other rea­sons it was better for the Church the Masse should not be in a vulgar tongue, and that besides this, it includeth matter of great in­struction for the faithfull people, therefore the Councell prudentlie decreed not for one onelie, but for both these causes, that it should oftentimes by the Pastours and Preists be de­clared to the common people for their greater edification and better vnderstanding of the do­ctrine contayned in it. And this is all that in substance the Councell eyther sayth, or from [Page 291] the wordes of the decree can be trulie inferred; and so, that from the Romanists owne con­fession it can be gathered that the seruice and prayer in the vulgar tongue was better for the edification of the Church, is but such a dreame as Sir Humfrey vseth to haue the night before whensoeuer he citeth the Councell of Trent in fauour of the reformed doctrine.

After this the knight endeuoureth to proue that the Masse ought not to be celebrated in a silent and vnknowne voyce, because sayth he the Apostles were cōmanded to showe forth the Lords death till his comming: and to this end he citeth Haymo vpon the 14. chapter of the firste to the Corinth, and Iustinian the Em­perour in Nou. Const. out of Cassander, also the Greg. Decet. Tit. 31. de Off. Iud. Ord. cap. 14. But to this I answere that both the knights reason and the testimonies of these authours are impertinent, because the command layd vpon the Apostles was not that in this misterie they should shewe forth Christs death in words, but principallie indeedes, and therefore our Sauiour in the institution of the Eucharist did not bid his Apostles, say it in remembrance of him, but doe it in remembrance of him. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Otherwise the Sectaries themselues should be conuinced to violate Christes commaundement, since that those who receiue their communion say [Page 292] not one worde. In like manner let the reader veiw and vnderstand perfectlie the sense of the the wordes cited out of other authours, and he will easilie perceaue there is not one sillable in them against Latine seruice or prayer as con­demning it eyther for vnlawfull in itselfe or o­therwise contrarie to the commandement of God. Haymo doth onelie comment vpon that passage of sainct Paul 1. Cor 14. If I am ignorant of the virtue of the voyce, I shall be to him to whome I speake barbarous, onelie declaring in playner words that which the Apostle spea­keth breiflie and obscurelie, but sayth not a worde against the office of the Church in La­tin. Iustinian (if anie such constitution he made, of which it is much doubted, by reason this clause is not founde in the auncient translation, neither is it expounded by Cuiacio) ordaineth onelie in generall that Bishops, and Preists ce­lebrate the oblation, and minister the Sacra­ments of Baptisme and the Eucharist non tacito modo not secretlie, but with a lowde voice; but he speaketh not in particular of all partes of the Masse, and at the least he speaketh not of the Canon except he meanes of the wordes of consecration which the Romanists doe not denie but the Grecians haue a custome of pro­nouncing them loude. And as for other partes of the Masse, the most of them are pronoun­ced commonlie in the Romane Church so that [Page 293] the auditours may heere. And according to this Iustinian peraduenture might aduise the Preistes of his time to doe, when neuerthelesse it is certaine the Masse was in no vulgar lan­guage. The decretalls speake not of anie vul­gar tongue but onelie of Greeke and Latin, as, the decree of Innocent the third which may be seene in the ninth chap. of the Generall Councell of Lateran, doth declare. Neyther doth the Roman Church so strictlie command that the publike seruice be ministred in the La­tine tongue, that she doth condemne eyther the Greeke or Syrian Church for vsing the Grecian or Caldaian tongue in the diuine of­fices or publike seruice, but onelie comman­deth as more couenient that they be not per­formed in a vulgar language.

Lastly Sir Humfrey citeth some eight or nine Romanists who confesse (sayth he) that in the first ages publike prayers were vsed for the vn­derstāding of the people. But to omit that he v­seth no great sinceritie in the citation and tran­slatiō of the testimonies of some of the authours he citeth in this paragraph, as may appeere par­ticularlie in the quotation of Waldensis; I say not to stand here vpon this which I shall more conuenientlie examen afterwardes: I answere, that those authours affirme that which we doe not denie, to wit, that perhaps (which worde Sir Humfrey deceitfullie leaues out in [Page 294] his translation of S. Tho. testimonie cited out of his 3. lection vpon 1. Cor. 14.) In 1. Cor. 14. lect. 3. the case of the primitiue Church was different from the practise of the ptesent time in this matter: yet withall the same authours doe affirme that the alteration was made vpon iust causes, which causes are so sufficientlie deliuered by Bellar­mine and others, euen those whome the knight heere citeth, that I need not rehearse their rea­sons they being so easilie to be found as they are to those that reade their bookes: And al­tho' sainct Thomas aduertiseth his reader, that it might haue seemed madnesse in the primitiue Church to haue performed all the Ecclesiasti­call offices in the Latine tongue, for that they were rude & ignorāt in the rites of the Church and ceromonies, yet doth he adde that now all are so well instructed that tho' it be in Latine, the people vnderstands what is donne in the Church: whose saying is most true, at least in generall yea and in particular so farre as is ne­cessarie for euerie person, state, and vocation; for that throu' the diligence of their pastours and preachers, and their owne industrie, they may haue sufficient instruction. Howbeit that if it were necessarie for euerie one that prayes or sings to vnderstand all they say, the Puritans themselues might put vp their pipes, it being most certainely true that there be manie things in the psalmes which they sing so merilie, and [Page 295] in the scriptures which they read so readilie, Conscqui­tur ergo Canonem clare & a­perte le­gendū vt ad gratia­rum actio­nem Sa­cerdotis populus respōdeat, Amen. Cassander. ex Gerar­do Lori­chio p. 65. which by reason of their great obscuritie they cannot possiblie vnderstand euen in their owne mother tongue. And from hence I passe to a breefe Suruey of the rest of the authors cited 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 [Page 296] 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 cō ­suetudo in Ecclesia vt pronūtia­to litera­liter Euā ­gelio 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 [Page 297] 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 [Page 298] 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 tē ­pore quo lingua La­tina erat multis gē ­tibus vul­garis, aut valde cō ­munis, 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 vocē ­que suam cum Sa­cerdotum vocibus coniun­gant. Quae admoni­tiones iu­stissimae erant quā ­doquidem lingua au­ditoribus non igno­sa omnia peragebā ­tur, & cō ­suetudo ita ferebat vt tota ec­clesia si­mul psal­leret. Nūc alia est ra­tio anti­quato vul­gari lin­guae Lati­nae vsu, quam lin­guā prop­ter inter­missum communē vsum, ex Ecclesia diuinisque osficijs minime conuenie­bat extur­bari, inque locū eius vulgares & verna­culas sub­stitui. Mul­ta etiam dicta Pa­trum &c. Gretzerus defens. lib. 2. c. 16. and how repugnant Gretzerus is to Sir Humfreys tenet in this particular as pro­fessedly he must of necessitie be, as being a pro­fessed defender of Bellarmins doctrine in mat­ters of Controuersie. But now because I haue already treated in part of this before, and breifly giuen sentence already of that which Sir Hum­frey produceth for the defense of his doctrine, I will include the contents of this whole para­graph in the same censure, and so passe along to the next which is of the worship of images, [Page 300] where we are to examine whether the knight bringeth any sounder matter then he hath donne heere, where (as I should haue noted before) he falsely relateth a historie of certaine shepheardes out of his false frend Cassander, which shepherds he affirmeth according to his emendicated relation, to haue transubstantia­ted bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ by pronuntiation of the words of conse­cration which they had learned; whereas in­deed the authenticall historie of that strange accident written by Sophronius, saith onely that the bread and wine were suddenly burnt by fire from heauen and the shepheards stru­ken speachlesse for a time. But this howsoeuer it happened, being it can serue Sir Hum­frey for no greater purpose then to replenish his pages, I leaue it to the reader to consider of this his proceeding as he pleaseth.

Presently in the entrance of the 7. Paragraph Sir Hūfrey pronoūceth a very sharpe sentence against the Coūcell of Trent for decreeing that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to the images of Christ and his Saintes, condem­ning it for a wicked and blasphemous opinion. Loe heere the sentence of condemnation, which is to be iudged so much the more rash and temerarious in respect the peremptorie Iudge leaueth out the greater part of the do­ctrine he censureth, which if he had added at [Page 301] large as it standeth in the Councell it would sufficiently haue iustified it selfe: and because Sir Humfrey for reasons of state would not take so much paines, I will doe it for him.

The Councell therefore in the 25. Sess. page 202. decreeth in this manner, The images of Christ the Virgin the Mother of God and o­ther Saintes are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained, and due honour and veneration is to be giuen vnto them, not that it is beleiued there is in them any diuinity or virtue for which they are to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or that confidence is to be put in them, as in times past the Gen­tiles did who put their trust in Idols, but be­cause the honour which is exhibited vnto ima­ges is referred vnto the Prototipes which they represent, so that by the images which we sa­lute, and before which we vncouer our heads and kneele, we adore Christ and reuerence the Sainctes whose similitude they haue, that which by the decrees of councels especially of the second Nicene Synod hath binne establi­shed against the oppugners of images, thus the decree of the Councell of Trent; in which we finde not one word either wicked or blasphe­mous, nay rather euery word soundeth nothing but piety and religion towards Christ and his Sainctes, whom it will haue honoured not only in themselues but also in and by their images, [Page 302] which manner of honour as it is declared by the Councell is not onely not contrary to scriptures as Sir Humfrey falsely affirmeth, but also very conformable to them, both in regard the scriptures make mention of honour due vn­to materiall things for the relation of represen­tation which they haue to God or other his holie creatures: Psal. 95. Matth 5. as also for that we vse no other reuerence to images thē the Church doth teach vs, whose authority the same scripture com­mendeth and commandeth vs to follow and obey, & more then this the Coūcel is so farre frō attributing to images anie vnlawfull manner of honour, that it doth not once vse either the worde worship, or adore, except where it spea­keth of Christ himselfe: which wordes neuer­thelesse if they be taken in the sense in which diuines doe commonlie take them, include no offence at all, as signifying an exteriour action of honour indifferent euen according to the phrase of scripture both to God and creatures, and being distinguished onelie according to the diuersitie of the internall affection, and submission of the minde, which submission and affection in the honouring of an inanimate creature, as an image is, is neuer by the wor­shipper exhibited to the image it selfe, but onelie to the thing it representeth: nay nor yet the exteriour signe of adoration as genuflectiō, or inclination of the bodie, is giuen to the image [Page 303] itselfe for itselfe and to remaine in it, but rather by the image which we salute, or before which wee prostrate our selues, the same signe of ho­nour is transferred ioyntelie with the affection of the mynde to the thing which is adored. Which doctrine is both so cleare in itselfe and so plainelie declared by the Councell expreslie teaching that the honour exhibited vnto thē is referred to the Paterne, Cōc. Trid. Sess. 25. de­cret. de imag. that a verie child may conceiue it to be free from all superstitious worship and adoration, in so much that it is but grosse ignorance, malice, and madnesse in our aduersaries to exclaime against the Romanists as idolaters for the honour they giue to images. And I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey or anie other of his reformed companions in what place of scripture this proposition. The images of Christ and his saints are to be duelie honou­red: is condemned for wicked & blasphemous? and the same I say of the auncient Fathers. And if they cannot produce as much as one onelie place either out of scripture or Fathers which doth truelie serue to that purpose, I meane which doth truelie condemne the foresaid pro­position in that manner, as I knowe neither they nor the knight can performe, let him con­fesse that is censure of the Romanists is teme­rarious and false, and nothing els but a reno­uation of an old Iewish complainte against the Christians of more auncient ages.

It is true I knowe the reformers vse com­monlie to alledge for their denyall of honor to images both scripture and Fathers as also Sir Humfrey doth in this paragraffe, and particu­larlie they vse to produce the wordes of that which they call the second cammaundement, to wit, thou shall not make to thy selfe anie grauen image. But touching this I haue showed aboue In the 4. Period. that according to the doctrine of S. Au­gustin there is no such second commaunde­ment, those wordes being onelie a parte of the first. Secondlie, howsoeuer the matter stands, certaine it is that except the sectaries will turne Iewes or Turkes they ought not to take those wordes in that rigorous sense which they doe, for so by consequence if they tye themselues so strictlie to the letter of the text, they must doe the same in the commaundement of the Sa­baoth and so they will be come Sabatizing Iewes indeed. Wherefore except Sir Humfrey will turne plaine Talmudist, he can proue no­thing against Christians out of the foresayd wordes.

Now touching authorities of auncient Fa­thers he confesseth that hee for beareth to cite anie in particular, and what soeuer he falselie pretendeth, the true reason was because he founde none to cite except hee had produced such places as they vse onelie against the ido­latrie of Gentils and Ethnikes as, Chamier lib. 21. de imag. Daniell Cha­mier [Page 305] and others of the reformed Doctours commonlie doe, which places neuer the lesse secluding their owne glosses vpon them doe not in anie sorte fauore their cause. And so Sir Hūfrey insteede of Fathers hee cites Iewes and Gentils in whose doctrine touching this point, hee showeth himselfe to be more con­uersant then in Christian writers as finding more for his purpose in them then in these, and therefore also as I imagin hee vseth no other answere to Bellarmin affirming that the ma­king of images is not absolutelie prohibited by the lawe of God because God commaunded images to be made, the knight I say vseth no other anser then the anser of the Iewes, to wit that God did laye a generall commaunde vpon them, and not vpon himselfe: and so I say no more of it, but leaue to the reader to iudge howsolid and good such an ansere may be, and whether it sauoreth not much more of Iu­daisme then of Christian religion.

True it is hee cites diuers authours which haue writ since the Councel of Francford, but some of thē as Agrippa, Erasmus, Cassander & Chemnitius, are of no authority with vs, others are suspected of corruptiō, I meane to haue ben corrupted by malignant publishers, as Polidor Virgil and Agobardus. Others are impertinēt­lie alledged in regarde they eyther speake onelie of the image of God himselfe as Philo [Page 306] Iudeus and S. Augustin, or of the manner of worship not of the substance of the honor, as Peresius Bellarmin. Wicelius, Hincmarus: for that they eyther onelie condemne the adora­tion of pictures takeing the word adoration for that kinde of honour which is due vnto God onelie, or els they speake onelie of the priuate errous of some simple people: of which sorte is Polidor & Biel when they reprehend the abuses and superstitions of some simple people, who out of ignorance giue more honour to images then eyther they ought to doe or the Church alloweth, yet doth Polidor expresselie approue of due honour of the same as his owne wordes declare euen in those places where he vseth that reprehension: for thus he saith after he had made relation of diuers images of Christ and his Apostles mentioned by Eusebius and others euen in the most primatiue yeares of the Church. Hinc igitur natum vt merito tam ipsi Salua­ri quā ei [...] diuis sta­tuas in templis po­ni & vene­rationi ha­beri consue­uerit. Polid lib. 6. cap. 5. Hence therefore grewe the vse of put­ting in Churches and honoring as well the sta­tues of our Sauiour, as his Saincts. And he adds Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tamque audacia prae­ditus est qui velit possitne dubitare seu aliter som­niare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe Sanctissimorum Pa­trum decreto constitutum.

By which wordes it is manifestly conuinced that is other wordes razed by order of the In­dex haue either beene foisted in by the new [Page 307] sectaries, to wit those which auerre that till the time of S. Hierome all the auncient Fathers reiected worship of images for feare of ido­latrie; or els he meanes onelie that they durst not practice the same least their action might seeme idolatrous either to the ignorant Gentils, or to such as were then latelie conuerted from Gentilisme and as yet but infirme in faith, and easilie scandalized in this nature. All which neuerthelesse cannot possible preiudice the do­ctrine and practice of the Church it selfe in ge­nerall: So that neither anie of these authours seuerallie nor all of them together proue that absolutelie to honore the images of Christ and his saints is wicked or blasphemous, which is the assertion the knight here maintaines; and yet he is not ashamed to call their testimonies the confession of his aduersaries, among which also that his impudencie might more clearelie appeare, he foysteth in to that rancke Bellar­min and Vasquez, which authours if the reader be not ouer grosselie ignorant he will easilie perceiue, at the least by the rest of their workes, that they cannot truelie fauore Sir Humfreys tenets in this point of Controuersie, they ha­uing both writ professedly of it against the re­formers doctrine and in defense of the practise of the Roman Church touching the vse and honour of images.

And as for the Emperours Valens and Theo­dosius [Page 308] whome he citeth out of Crinitus saying they made proclamation to all Christians a­gainst the images of Christ. It is false that those two Emperours euer published anie decree a­gainst the images of Christ, but expresselie in honour of of the same by establishing by lawe that the image of the Crosse of Christ should not be framed vpon the ground, as vpon the stones of sepulchers or graues where it might easilie be prophaned by the feet of those that passed ouer them, and that this is the trueth of that passage of those two Emperours, or at the least of Theodosius, Crinitus his verie wordes would haue plainelie declared if they had not shrunke in the wetting I meane if they had ben intirelie related by the knight who is not the first that hath corrupted the te­nour of Theodosius his lawe by leauing out the worde, humi, vpon the grounde for the wordes of the foresaid lawe being thes, let not the Crosse of Christ be painted vpon the gro­unde, or some such like, by leauing out the wordes, vpon the grounde, the sense as you see cometh to be quite contrarie, that is the sense falleth out to be this, let not the Crosse of Christ be painted, which trick of the sectaries was discouered long since by Alanus Copus in his 4. Dialogue the 11. chap. to their vtter shame and discredit. And yet besides this, I maruell greatelie that either Sir Humfrey or [Page 309] his predecessours offer to make vse of the foresaid wordes of the lawe which as they are cited by him are so generall that they quite cōdemne the practice of the reformed brothers themselues, none or verie few of them being as yet mounted to that degree of puritie as ex­presselie to proclame a generall lawe against the pictures of Christ as not to be painted or grauen at all, and so I conclude that either those wordes of the two Emperours are to be read as the Romanists doe vse to read them, and then they plainelie prooue the reuerence of the Crosse to haue beene practized in auncient times: or if they be to be read so generallie as the sectaries will haue them, then if they proue anie thing, they doe no lesse then reproue euen the Puritans themselues and their practice in that particular.

To the testimonie of Tertullian whom also so the knight produceth l. de idolat. c. 5. saying. Thou hast his law make thou no image. And presēt­lie after, make no image against the law vnlesse God commaunde the as he did moyses: I answere first that if it be against the lawe to make anie image at all, then be these wordes of Tertul­lian as much against the reformers as the Romanists. For both the Church of England and all the Lutheran Churches at the least, make both the images of Christ and his Apo­stles. And I know a famous Puritan I meane [Page 310] a pure Caluinist (whose name is Daniell Cha­mier) who expresselie defendes that images are not absolutelie prohibited by that precept which he calleth the second commaundement, Chamier lib. 2. de imag. but onelie to the end to honore them reli­giouslie. So that the wordes of Tertullian must of necessity be either otherwise tempered then they be by Sir Humfrey, or they will fall vpon his owne Church, as well as vpon the Roman Church.

Wherefore I answere secondlie that Tertul­lian speakes onelie against idolatrous images, or Idols, as the verie argument of his booke doth shewe, which is intituled against idolatrie not against Christian images, as is manifestlie conuinced out of an other worke of his, De Pudi­citia. in which he maketh expresse mention of the pi­cture of Christ himselfe grauen in the chalices of his time, which he also mētioneth as a thing frequentlie practized: so that vnlesse Sir Hum­frey will say that Tertullian plainelie contra­dicted himselfe, he cannot possiblie be imagi­ned to haue spoaken against the images of Christ and his saincts, but onelie against such as the Gentils in his time, or the Iewes made in time of the old Testament contrary to the lawe of God as being representations of false and fained gods and godisses as is owne wordes in his booke aboue cited plainelie testifie, where thus he discourseth against the Christian ma­kers, [Page 311] of Idols. Potes vnum Deum praedicare qui rantos efficis? Canest thou preach one God who makest so manie? Tot a die ad hanc partem zelus fidei perorabit ingemens Christianum ab idolis in Ecclesiam venire, de aduersaria officina in domum Dei. The zeale of faith will plead all the day long on this side lamenting a Christian to come from idols into the Church, from the aduerse officine in to the house of God. And a little after: to reach those handes to the bodie of our Lord, which giue bodies to deuils. Eas manus admouere corpori Domini quae dae­monijs corpora conferūt.

The same I say of Origē cited out of Cassāder by Sir Hūfrey, whome they both abuse in that they vse his testimonie against the veneration of images in the primatiue Church. For I haue diligently read his 7. booke cited by thē wher I finde him to speake much against idols but nothing against Christian images his wordes are these. Illarum enim gentium nemo ab his alie­nus est quod vereatur numen ob viles has ceremo­nias detrahere quae versantur circa aras & mate­rias effigiatas varijs imaginibus, nec quod intelli­gat daemonas inhaerere certis locis & statuis siue in­cantatos quibusdam magicis carminibus siue alios incubantes locis semel praeoccupatis vbi lurconum more se oblectant victimarum nidoribus volupta­tem captantes nefariam & vetitā diuinis atque na­turae legibus. Caeterum Christiani homines & Iu­daei sibi temperant abhis propter illud legis: Domi­num Deum tuum timebis & ipsi soli seruices. Et [Page 312] propterillud non erunt tibi dij alienipraeter me, & non facies tibi simulachrum nec vllam effigiem &c. Non adorabis ea neque seruies illis. Aliaque multa his similia quae adeo nos prohibent ab aris & simulachris vt etiam emori iubeant citiùs quam cotaminemus nostrā de Deo fidem talibus impieta­tibus. Et postea. Liquet enim haec dedicari ab ho­minibus falsam de Deo opinionem habentibus. For none of those nationes is free from these things be­cause they feare to dishonore the diuine power in respect of thes vile ceremonies which are vsed before the altars, and tables carued with diuers images: For that they neyther vnderstand that deuils inhabit in certaine places, and statues either inchaunted by certaine magicall verses, or others lying in places once preoccupated, where they delite themselues life gulliguts with the sauore of the sacrifices, taking nefarious delyte prohibited both by diuine lawes, and the lawes of nature. But Chri­stians and Iewes temper themselues from these for that of the lawe: Thou shalt feare thy lord God, and shalt serue him alone. And for that. Thou shalt not haue strange Gods besides mee. And. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe anie semblance, or anieli­kenes &c. Thou shalt not adore them nor serue thē. them, and manie o her things like to these which so debarre vs from altars, & likenesses, that they com­maunde vs sooner to dye them to contaminate our faith of God with such impieties. And afterwardes he addes. It is cleare that these things are de­dicated by men which haue a false opinion of God [Page 313] &c. Thus origen aboute the end. By whose owne wordes the reader may euidentlie per­ceiue, he discourseth onelie against the images and altars of false Gods. Which authors wordes I did therefore so largely relate that he himselfe might demonstrate howe much he is abused both by Cassander and Sir Humfrey touching this matter. And indeed I haue often times much wondered to see the great stupiditie of the sectaries in this point, and especiallie the most learned sorte of them, in they be either so sotishlie ignorant or so Iewishlie super­stitious and blind, that they are not able to di­stinguish betweene the honour which Chri­stians giue to the picture of Christ true God and man, and the worship which the Gentils giue to the images of their imaginarie and counterfeit Gods. Not ceasing either in their sermons or ordinarie discourses to compare most grosselie the one with the other, and to pronounce sentence of idolatrie against them both a like, and applying most absurdelie vnto the condemnation of the reuerence which the Romanists vsuallie practise towardes the fo­resaid images of Christ and his saincts those same sentences of scripture and Fathers which by them were onelie spoken against the per­nicious errour of the Pagans, whereas in truth there is as much distance betwixt the one and the other as there is betwene Heauen and [Page 314] earth, God and the deuill, Christ and Belial. the person represented by the picture of Christ being both capable and worthie of honour, but the persons represented by the images of the false gods being neither capable nor worthie of worship as being either wicked men or plaine deuills. And moreouer, the honour ex­hibited to the picture of Christ being not gi­uen to the picture for the picture or by the pi­cture itselfe I meane nor without relation to the Prototipe, nor yet in the picture perma­nentlie, but rather to the Prototipe in and by meanes of the picture or by the picture transi­torilie: not much vnlike to an arowe or darte which altho' it passeth by the ayre and in the ayre, yet doth it not stay there but in the marke onelie: whereas one the contrarie the Gentils went grosselie to worke, for the ho­nour which they gaue to the statues and fi­gures of their Gods the same they gaue to the images themselues by themselues and for them selues attributing diuinitie, or at the least di­uine operations vnto them, and adoring them with actions of honour proper to the true God alone as sacrifices, and the like, all which is so farre different not onely from the pra­ctice, but also from the cogitations of anie Christian man, that it can be esteemed no lesse then most grosse ignorance in the reformers to bring it in question.

And altho' it is true that the leight of na­ture onely is not sufficient to establish the ho­nour of images which the Councell of Trent decreed as the knight doth captiously inferre out of the wordes of a moderne diuine whom he citeth: neuerthelesse the leight of nature doth sufficiently teach vs the difference be­tweene true and idolatrous worship of ima­ges, and doth also plainely dictate vnto vs that those are both ignorantly blinde who are not able to conceiue it, and temerarious and rash who not being able to conceiue it, condemne it as contrary to the lawe of God, our as sectarie commōly doe. And thus much for the answere to the testimonie of Tertullian and to shewe that antiquity is neither for the reformers nor against the Romanists in this matter, as the knight doeth vanely indeuour to prooue, but expressely for them in regard that as I haue shewed out of the same authour euen in those most pure and primatiue times ther was vse of the picture of Christ, yea and of a grauen image (which is that the reformers most dire­ctly impugne and exclaime against) and that euen in the chalices where of necessitie it must needs haue beene honoured, the same authour further affirming that the foresaid image was much vsed in his time being the second hun­dreth yeare after Christ our Sauiour when ido­latrie was not yet extinguished, which is an ar­gument [Page 316] cōuincing that it was not a thing then first inuented but long before established, nor offensiue to the most sincere and intire Chri­stians of those prime ages as nowe it is to the Nyce nouelists of our dayes, many of which are so superstitiously precise that, as an honest Protestant writer affirmeth, Sir. Th. Ouerb. Caract. of a Precis. they had rather see Antichrist then the picture of Christ in the Church Windoe. And now let this suffice for a breefe Scantlin of the antiquitie of the reuerent vse of images to omit others, as S. Augustin who in his booke of the Trinity cal­leth images religious signes. Lib. 3. cap. Greg. l. 7. epist. 53. And S. Gregory who speaketh of prostration before thē which is one of the greatest actions of honour that the Romanists vse to exhibit towarde any image. So that by this the reader may plainely see the Romanists want neither antiquity nor vniuer­salitie for their doctrine in this point as contra­riwise the misreformers want them both, for their pure negation of the same.

And if they demaunde scriptures of vs be­sides that which I alledged before, we may truely answere them as a graue diuine in the se­uenth Synod answered the heretikes of that time. If they aske vs (saith he) in what place of scripture we read that the picture of Christ is to be honoured, we answere that there where we read that Christ himselfe is to be honoured.

And if nowe the reformers demaunde of vs what reason we haue for the honour of the images of Christ and his Saincts: we may answer them that we haue the same reason that they haue to honore the image of their King or his dearest fauorits. For as in ci­uill honour, to respect or honore the Kings pi­cture, doth not diminish the honour due vnto the King himselfe, but increaseth it so it passeth in the worship of the image of Christ, and if the Puritans deny this, there we leaue them as guiltie of treason against God and man.

And now here before I conclude I must of necessitie aduertice the reader of such abuses as Sir Humfrey hath committed in his citations of some of the authours he produceth in this place. Wherefore in the first place I put the two councells he alledgeth as being as I sup­pose of greatest authoritie in our aduersaries conceipte. The one is the Councell of Franc­ford which because it is corruptedlie rehearsed by Chemintius, we may iustelie disclame from it, if ther were no other reason. Yet Sir Hum­frey knowes besides this that the Romanists hould that councell for illegitimate. As for the Councell of Eliberis, it is not absolutelie reie­cted by Romanists, yet they knowe it was but Prouinciall consisting of 19. Bishops which whatsoeuer they defined in this matter which as yet is vncertaine, yet could it not be anie [Page 318] Generall doctrine or practise for the vniuersall Church, but at the most for their owne whole Countrye as the circunstances of that time, and place required. But of what authoritie soeuer they were, neither of those two coun­cels condemned the adoration of images as it is vnderstanded and vsed in the Roman Church, for vnlawfull and much lesse for wicked and blasphemous as the knight here contendes: but if they truely condemned anie worship of images, it was onelie diuine not honorarie worship they condemned, and so they neither of them preiudicate the antiquitie and vniuer­salitie of the Roman doctrine in this point, and much lesse doe they establish the anti­quitie or vniuersalitie of the misreformed Churches, which for the most parte will not suffer anie images either painted or vnpainted to appeare in their sinagoge, either vpon walles or windowes. And yet besides this, it is well knowne the Councell of Nyce as consi­sting both of Latin and Grecian Fathers, was much more generall then either the Francfor­dian or Eliberitan Sinod; and in the Nycene it is certaine that the honor of Images was de­fended, and established, as our aduersarie not vnwillinglie confesse, and the decrees of it plainelie testifie; wher as in the other two it remaines doubtfull and ambiguous euen till this day what was truely deliuered in them [Page 319] touching this point, ther being onelie some cer­taine fragments of them extant touching this matter: out of all which incertaintie it is plaine that no assured antiquitie or vniuersalitie can be extracted for Sir Humfreys cause.

In the citation of Clemang is he takes onely that which seemed most for his purpose, and couninglie left out that which makes against him: Postquam vero satis in fide (Christia­ni) imbuti, satis cōfir­mati fue­runt, salu­berrima rursus ra­tione visū est illud statutum debere a­boleri, & per gene­ralē decre­tū est Sy­nodū ima­gines at (que) picturas in Eccle­sijs fieri, quae á lai­cis & sim­plicibus pro libris haberētur. Clemang. de nouis celeber. non inst. for also that author affirmes that the vniuersall Church induced by iust occasion did decree in the Primatiue Church that no Images should be placed in Churches in re­garde of those who were cōuerted from Gen­tilisme to Christian faith (which how true or false it is importeth not much for the present dispute) yet the same Clemangis presently after affirmes also that the same Church did alter that lawe and ordaine that Images should be vsed in Churches for the instruction of the vulgar sorte and for memorie of Christ and his saints, and yet further adding that he brings this but for an example to showe that this being but an Ecclesiasticall lawe it may be chā ­ged at the Churches pleasure: so that if Sir Humfrey had cited this author home, he could haue founde nothing to proue his position to wit that the doctrine of Image-honor is a blas­phemous opinion, but rather the contrarie is expressed sufficiently by Clemangis, for that to set Images in a holie place that is in the temple [Page 320] of God, as he expressely affirmes the same Church did for most holesome reasones, is one of the greatest acts of honour that the Romanists exhibite vnto them. And by this we se that our aduersarie hath neither dealt sincerelie in the alledging of this author, nor in the rehearsall of his wordes in which he passeth in silence the cheefe parte of them viz: those in which he shewes that prohibi­tion of the primitiue Church which he men­tiones touching the placing of pictures in Churches, to haue beene onely an Ecclesiasti­call precept and changeable, yea and de facto changed by a generall Councell, as his wordes related in the margen declare. That which Cas­sander also doth plainely insinuate when in his consultation of the vse of images, he saith (tho falsely) the Fathers in the beginning of the Church did abhorre all veneration of images: yet afterwardes in the same treatise, he graūtes conuenient, and due honor, vnto them as in another place I will shewe by relation of his owne formall wordes. So now this being all which I need to speake of this matter seeing that by this I haue saide it will manifestly ap­peare that Sir Humfrey hath fayled both in the authenticall proofe of the antiquitie, or vniuersalitie of his owne position touching the vse of images, and in the disproofe of ours, I [Page 321] passe to the next paragraph in the which doctrine of Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church is impugned by him most coura­giously by virtue of an old chalenge made in Martin Luthers dayes but as yet neuer perfor­med, therefore let vs see howe our newe Cham­pion Sir Humfrey vseth his armes.

First he relates the decree of the Tridentine Councell Sess. 25. yet in a some thing different manner then it runneth there. But the true te­nour of it is this in substance: that whereas by Christ the power of Indulgēces was graūted to the Church & that shee hath vsed that power deliuered vnto her by diuine ordinance euen in the most auncient times, the sacred Synod doth teach and commaunde that the vse of them as verie prositable to Christian people, & approued by the authoritie of sacred Coun­cells ought to be retayned, and doth condemne those with a curse who either affirme them to be vnlawfull, or denie that there is in the Church authoritie to graunt them: this is the true tenour of the decree which Sir Humfrey hath not so sincerelie rehearsed as he ought to haue done, which whether he did it to aduan­tage his cause or onelie out of an ill custome he hath gotte by his frequent exercise of such trickes in diuers places of his booke, I knowe not; onelie of this I ame sure, that he produceth nothing of anie force for the im­pugnation [Page 322] of it in all his paragraffe, not­withstanding he bouldlie auerreth that it will be founde (I knowe not where) that neither Christ nor the primatiue Fathers euer knew, much lesse euer exercised such pardons as are nowe daylie practized in the Church of Rome. this he affirmeth most stronglie, but proueth his affirmation so weakely that its hard to iudge whether his temeritie in affirming, or his defectiuenesse in prouing that which he affir­meth, be more excessiue, how be it most cer­taine it is that neither the one nor the other can be iustified, for that if he had vsed the least circumspection in the world, he might haue founde not onelie in Bellarmin, and other di­uines but also in the Councell of Trent which he citeth, mention both of scripture & Fathers copiouslie cited & quoted for the proofe both of the power and vse of Indulgences in the Church from time to time, of which as it seemes he durst not take anie notice, but pas­sed it ouer in silence, to the ende his greate wordes which he vttered in the beginning might carie a fairer colour of trueth, which other wise would presentlie haue discouered themselues to be false.

True it is he describeth one kinde of miti­gation or relaxation of punisshment imposed vpon offenders for denyall of their faith, or sacrificing to idols, which he graunteth to haue [Page 323] beene called by the name of pardon or Indul­gence, and to haue beene deriued from sainct Paule who released the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication, all which tho' it be true in itselfe, yet is it but an eua­sion which he vseth to the end he may with greater colour reiect those pardons which are truelie and properlie Indulgences that is a re­laxation from a temporall punishment due vnto a penitent sinner according to Gods iu­stice for satisfaction of the paine of his offenses alreadie remitted touching the guilt and eter­nall punishment of the same, by vertue of the keyes, that is by the power of bynding and loosing sinnes which Christ gaue to his Church, and in her particularlie to the cheefe visible pastour thereof. Of the power and practize of which Kynde of pardon, if Sir Humfrey had not beene disposed to cogge, he might haue found good store of testimonies both out of scriptures, Councells, and Fathers alledged for the same by Roman diuines.

And as for scriptures there are two places especiallie which doe plainelie enuffe conuince the foresaid truth of Indulgences if they be reight vnderstanded according to the interpre­tation of the auncient Fathers. The one is that generall sentence of our Sauiour Math. 18. in which he giueth an illimitated power to his Apostles and in them to their lawfull succes­sours [Page 324] for binding and loosing without anie restriction either to this or that one matter, or to this or that manner of remission, and conse­quentlie in that most generall power is inclu­ded the authoritie of remitting the temporall punishment due to sinnes which is that we call the power of Indulgences of which generall power graunted to Preists we haue diuers testi­monies of Fathers and particularlie of S. Aug. who vpon those wordes & iudicium datum est Apoc. 20. Sayth: Non hoc putandum est de vl­timo Iudicio dici, sed sedes Praepositorum est, & ipsi Praepositi intelligendi sunt per quos Ecclesia nunc gubernatur. Iudicium autem datum nullum melius accipiendum videtur quam id quod dictum est: quae ligaueritis in terra ligata erunt & in Caelo: & quae solueritis in terra soluta erunt & in Caelo. [...]ug. lib. 2. [...]e Ciuit. c. [...]9. idem: [...]act. 49. [...] Ioan. [...]d. tract. [...]. Vide etiā [...]il. can. [...]8 math. [...] Hier. in [...]p. 18. [...]ath. The like he hath vpon the Gosp. of S. Ioh. Ideo cum processisset mortuus adhuc ligatus, confitens & adhucreus vt soluerentur peccata eius ministris hoc dixit Dominus, soluite illum & sinite abire quid est soluite & sinite abire. Quae solueritis in terra so­luta sunt in caelis. S. Ambrose also speaking of the same power l. 1. de Paenit. c. 2. saith: Deus di­stinctionem non facit qui misericordiam suam pro­misit omnibus, & relaxandi licentiam Sacerdotibus suis fine vlla exceptione concessit. God, saith S. Ambrose, makes no distinstion, who promised his mercie to all, & gaue to his Preists licence to re­lease without anie exception. Neyther can anie reason be assigned why the pastours of the [Page 325] Church should haue power to applie the me­rits of the passion of Christ for remission of the guilt of the sinnes themselues with the eternall paine and yet not haue power to applie the same for the remission of the temporall punishment as due vnto them, after the remis­sion according to the order of Gods iustice, as the eternall punishment was due before it, especiallie considering that the temporall paine as being farre inferiour in nature and qualitie to the sinne itselfe, it requires much lesse power and fewer conditions for its remission then doth the guilt of the sinne and eternall paine to the guilt annexed.

The other place of scripture is not onelie for the proofe of the power to graunt Indulgences, but also of the practice of the same by S. Paule himselfe the 2. chapter of the second epistle to the Corinth. where speaking to the same Corinthians, he sayth of himselfe: And whome you haue pardoned anie thing, I also. For, my selfe also that which I pardoned, if I pardoned anie thing, for you in the person of Christ that we be not circumuented of Satam. Which wordes altho' they be obscure in the Gramaticall con­struction, yet doe they sufficientlie declare those partes and conditions which are found in such Indulgences as are now practiced in the Roman Church that is to say power in the col­lator or giuer, pietie in the cause, and grace in [Page 326] the receiuer. S. Paule sheweth his authoritie in that he affirmeth he gaue perdon to the ince­stuous Corinthian in the person of Christ that is by authoritie from him receiued: he sheweth the cause to haue beene the common profit of the Corinthians themselues, to wit least they should be circumuented by the deuill so that they in the like occasion might fall in to des­peration by ouer much rigour as the incestuous man might haue done if he had not beene par­doned in the performance of some parte of the punishment due to his offense. Lastelie he in the precedent wordes sheweth the receiuer to haue beene in the state of grace in that he sig­nifieth his sorowe and pennance to haue beene so great that he was readie to haue beene swa­lowed vp by the excesse of it. And so by this we may perceiue howe deceitfullie Sir Hum­frey proceedeth in his 220. page where he in­sinuateth that S. Paule in the place now cited did onelie release the incestuous Corinthian from the bonde of excomunication, whereas indeede the Apostle did not onelie that, but also did absolue him from that temporall pu­nishment & affliction in which if he had plea­sed he might haue constreined him to continue longer, and so supplyed by his authoritatiue and suffragatorie pardon that parte of satisfa­ction which otherwise remained to haue beene performed by the continuation of the punish­ment [Page 327] imposed and due to the penitent accor­ding to the exaction of Gods iustice, he sup­plyed it I saie by application of the merits or satisfactions of Christ, which application also, and not onelie the authoritie by which sainct Paule did it, is included in those wordes, in the person of Christ. Theod. in 2. Cor. 2. That which by the comen­tarie of Theodoret vpon this passage doth plai­nelie appeere who discreetlie noteth that saint Paul is said here to pardone the incestuous Co­rinthians sinne because it was greater then his pennance. And S. Ambrose lib. 2. de Paenit. cap. 2. speaking of the same matter, saith of S. Paule: Donauit Corintho peccatum per paeniten­tiam. And a little after: Etenim qui de remit­tenda praedicauit paenitentia, debuit & de ijs qui iterandum putant Baptismum non silere. By which testimonies of these two most famous and aun­cient authours Sir Humfreys euasion saying that the Apostle did onelie free the incestuous Corinthian from the bond of Excommunica­tion, doth euidentlie appeare to be false & fri­uolous. And thus we see that not onelie the relaxation of a punishment enioyned, as the knight would haue it, but also the same or very like forme of pardon which the Romā Church vseth at this present tyme, was practiced by S. Paule himselfe in the foresayd case.

And in trueth supposing at the least certaine receiued maximes of diuinitie which might [Page 328] easily be demōstrated by scriptures if the place did serue for it: to wit that after the guilt of sinne is remitted, some temporall punishment remaineth which according to the exigence of iustice must be remoueed before the soule can attaine to perfect blessednesse, either by iust indurance or mercifull remission: and more ouer that the same temporall affliction which many suffer in this life euen after their sinnes be intirelie remitted, is not for corre­ction and commination onely (as the secta­ries doe friuolouslie contend) as appeareth plainelie in the example of Dauid who altho' he knewe from the mouth of a Prophet that the guilt of his adultry was pardoned, yet vnderstanding neuerthelesse by the same Pro­phet that ther remained no smale punishment behinde to wit no lesse then the death of his dearest child, and that as the scripture it selfe te­stifieth neither for correction nor commina­tion onely, but because by his scandalous actiō he had caused the enimies of God to blaspheme his name and as the text declareth in the 2. Booke of the Kings the 12. chapter, propter ver­bum hoc that is for this thy fact taking word for action as it is most frequently taken in the scriptures: and yet besides all this the same Da­uid did voluntarie pennance composing the whole miserere Psalme and crying out with an amplius laua for a perpetuall testimony of the [Page 329] same. And now supposing as I say all this, the doctrine & practice of Indulgēces now vsed by the cheefe Pastours of the Roman Church is so well groūded that except onely in those in whom obstinacie reigneth more then reason, it admit­teth no trergiuersation in the credibilitie and faith of it. For as God is infinitly not onely iust but also mercifull in himselfe by essēce, so hath he cōmunicated to the gouernours of his church a kind of participatiue mixture of both those at­tributes betweene which according to that of the psalme iustitia & pax osculatae sunt, he hath made a most louing league to the end that ac­cording to diuers causes and occasions his spiri­tuall officers may so vse them in earth as the vse may be approued in Heauen, sometimes v­sing rigour of discipline for the satisfaction of Gods iustice, other times lenity for the exercise of his mercy.

But now touching the confirmation of this doctrine by the authority of Fathers I will o­nely produce the testimonies of Tertull. and S. Cyprian who being both so ancient as they are knowne to be, they may iustely serue for sufficient witnesses of the ancient practice of the same in those primatiue times.

Tertullian therefore in his booke to the Martirs and first chapter speaketh of the re­mission of the paine due to sinnes which the Bishops gaue vnto the sinners either at the [Page 330] petition of martyrs, or for other causes, calling it by the name of peace. Which peace faith he some that haue it not in the Church are accu­stomed to aske it of the martyrs in prision, and therefore you also (meaning the Bishops) ought for that cause to haue, norish, and keepe it in your selues to the end that if perhaps you may communicate it to others. where Tertul­lian by the worde peace vnderstandes the Bishops absolution at the least frome some parte of the sinners pennance by application of the superabundant satisfactions of the martyrs which application is also in the worde peace included, as manifestly may be gathered out of the same Tertullian, who afterwardes falling in to heresie in his 22. chap. of his booke of cha­stitie recalled that which he had tought before, to wit that indult could not be giuen to those that had fallen, at the petition of the martyrs, because saith he (now turned Heretike) there remaine no satisfactions of martyrs, (which satisfactions hee calleth oleum faculae) which can suffice for themselues & others. All which as the reader may clearelie perceiue is nothing els in substance but such an Indulgence as is now practiced by the Bishops of Rome, of whome and others by their comission, the fore­sayd authour doth speake in the place rehear­sed.

And the same saith S. Cyprian in his last [Page 331] Sermon de lapsis saith, paenitenti, operanti, ro­ganti, potest clementer ignoscere, potest in accep­tum referre quicquid pro talibus & petierint mar­tyres, & fecerint Sacerdotes. To the working or laboring penitent (the Bishop of whome he speaketh as I suppose) may clemently pardon, & accept as receiued whatsoeuer the martyrs demaunde, & the Preists doe, or performe. And the like the same S. Cyp. hath l. 3. epist. 15. or 11.

I omit Sainct Gregorie whome yet both S. Thom. and Atisiodorus his predecessour te­stifie to haue graunted Indulgences in forme, which altho' it is not founde in his workes now extant, yet it is farre more credible, and certaine that those two authours would not haue vsed that testimonie with out infalible grounde that it was S. Gregories, then that it was feigned because kemnitius and other no­uellists reiect it as suppositious. And if they will not admit of this testimonie because they see it not. At the least they must of necessitie admit of that which being yet more auncient is to be seeme in the Chappell of S. Crosse of Hierusalem in Rome written in legible letters, that S. Siluester who was Bishop & Pope aboue 1200. years paste did consecrate that Chappell and adorne it with maine reliquies of saints and indulted diuers perdons to the visiters of it. I could alsoe cite the Popes which since the time of S. Greg. in seuerall ages haue very [Page 332] frequentlie graunted Indulgences, but because I knowe our presumptuous aduersaries con­temne their authority (tho' iniustlie for that they haue ben of as great authoritie as their anticessours) I will saue the labour, and onely aduertice the reader that ther is farre greater reason for a prudent man to giue credit vnto them in the affirmatiue of this question then there is to rely vpon the authoritie of the sectaries for the negation, in regard that euen by their owne confession the affirmatiue hath ben tought and practiced publikelie in the Christian world at the least for the space of 400. years euen according to Kemnitius, who (tho' most falsely for that it may be proued That Leo the third who liued in the 8. or 9. hundreth yeare gaue pardons according to the manner of those our times) affirmeth that Indulgences began aboute the yeare 1200. who neuertelesse on the contrary contradic­ting himselfe graunteth that the first denyers of the same were the Waldenses, a company of pore ignorant beggarlie fellowes. From whence we may inferre how impudentlie the kinght affirmeth antiquitie & vniuersalitie in his owne Church for the denyall of Indulgen­ces, yet dinying the same in the Church of Rome for her defence of them: supposing he could not produce as much as one authour ei­ther more or lesse auncient for the negatiue [Page 333] parte liuing before the pore men of lions, who hauing no other saint for their founder then one waldo a verie idiot, appeared aboute the yeare of our Lord 1170. that is manie hundreths of yeares after Indulgences had beene pra­ctized in the Christian world euen accor­ding to the forme now vsed. It is true Sir Hum­frey alledgeth diuers Roman diuines as he vseth to doe, but it is but a meere shift he vseth to colour his position as being destitute of all other auncient authoritie & proofe. For I haue examined those authours & I finde there is not one of them which is not a zelous defen­der both of the power which Christ gaue vnto the Church to graunt Indulgences, & al­so of the lawfullnes & profit of them; nor doth anie one of them confesse the want of an­tiquitie & consent of the same: but some of them onelie confesse indeed there is no certai­netie of their beginning, or when the vse of them came into the Church in the manner they are now vsed. To which purpose the te­stimonie cited out of B. Fisher may seeme to serue, who yet doth not say (as the knight falselie relates) that it is not sufficientlie manifest from whome Indulgences had their Originall, but he onelie sayth non certo constare a quo primum tradi caeperunt, that it is not certainelie apparent who first began to giue them. And altho' that au­thor hath the rest of the wordes which Sir [Page 334] Humfrey cites, yet hath he others in the same place which doe sufficientlie declare his mea­ning in that manner of speech; for he presentlie addes that S. Gregorie is sayde to haue graun­ted Indulgences, & they saye (saith he) that there was some most auncient vse of them among the Romans which the stations of the Citie, giue vs to vnderstand. And hence it is that the same Bishop in the same place turning his speach to Luther his aduersarie, sayth vnto him, wherefore thou art a meere imposter, or deceiuer of the people, not the Popes to whome (in this point of Indulgences) both the Gospell fauoreth, and a generall Councell subscribes, & also the vniuersal companie of moderne interpreters vpon those wordes of Christ math. 16. whatsoeuer you shall bynde in earth shall be bounde in heauen, & whatsoeuer you shall loose in earth shall be loosed in heauē thus hee. So that it is plaine that Bishop Fisher neuer duobted of the power of Indulgēces, or that the vse of them is not lawfull or profitable, as nei­ther doth he bring in question whether the auncient Fathers & diuines did denie, or not acknowledge these particulars, but as I saide before, he onelie treates of the antiquitie of the vse of the same, as manifestlie appeares euen by the same wordes which the knight cites where he sayth that, Indulgences began not till a while after the sainte, or tremble of Purgatotie. [Page 335] By which also it doth further appeare that in his passage that renowned Prelate who not onelie with his pen, but also with his sacred bloud defended the Roman faith as well in this as all other points, is not sincerelie dealt with, nor pertinentlie alledged to the true state of the question proposed by our aduersarie.

Now other authours which Sir Humfrey cities, onely affirme that much can not be said of Indulgences of certaintie, & as vndoub­tedly true seeing scriptures speake not of them expresselie as Durand affirmes: to which purpose also Antoninus speakes, & yet neither of them say that nothing can be spo­ken with certainetie of them. Which is not contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists who, altho' they beleeue there is sufficient grounde of the power & truth of them in the Bible, yet they willingly graunte with all, that diuers particulars concerning them are disputable among diuines. And it is cleare that Durand & S. Antoninus as they say onely that pauca fewe things can be sayde with certaine­tie of pardons or Indulgences, & that the scripture doth not speake expressely of them, so by the same reason euident it is that the same authours graunte that both some things may be pronounced certainly of them, & also that at the least, ther is implicit & vnexpressed mention or containement of them in the scrip­ture: [Page 338] [...] [Page 339] [...] [Page 334] [...] [Page 335] [...] [Page 336] to wit of power of the Church to graunt & vse them, which a lone is sufficient to shewe that they consequētly maintaine the vniuersalite & antiquitie of the Roman do­ctrine in this point & impugne the contrarie position of the false reformers who absolutelie & obstinatelie denie such power to reside in the Church of God. And as for that which Durand affirmes, that diuers of the auncient Fathers make no mention of Indulgences, yet he doth not say that it doth thence followe that they did reiect the power or vse of them in the Church, & much lesse doth Durand affirme that other auncient Fathers did not mention them; yea if he had affirmed this, yet he him selfe kewe well enuffe that this being but a negatiue argument at the most, it proueth nothing. But that which followes of those auncient Fathers silēce in this matter, is that they had not occasion to speake of them as others had, or at the most, that In­dulgences were not much in vse in their tymes which doth not contradict the Romanists, who doe not stand vpon defense of the fre­quent vse of them in the Primatiue Church, but of the power which they maintaine to be as auncient as the spirituall power of binding & loosing giuen by Christ him selfe to the Pastors of his Church in most generall and ample manner. Mat. 16. And to this I adde that which Sir Humfrey for his owne aduantage omitted [Page 337] in the citation of both Durand & Antoninus, to wit, that they both alledge the testimonie of S. Gregorie for the vse & actuall graunte of Indulgēces, Gregorius tamen lo­quitur qu [...] etiam In­dulgentias Rom [...] iu­stituit in­stationibus, vt dicitur. Durand. id 4. sent. d. 20. q. 3. which Pope, say they is reported to haue instituted the Roman stations, which wordes of Durand, & the like of S. Antoni­nus if the knight had rehearsed as he ought to haue done according to the lawes of plaine dea­ling, the vse of Indulgences would haue appeared not to be so newe as he indeuores to persuade his reader.

Touching the citation of Caietan Sir Hum­frey proceedes no lesse insincerely, for in the same place which is his 15. Opuscle, Ex his hā ­betur tex­tibus non solum quod Indulgen­tiarū gra­tia antiqua est in Chri­sti Ecclesia & non no­ua inuētio, sed haben­tur clarè quatuor &c. Caiet. Opusc. 15. c. 1. he addes that in the fourth of the sentences it is alled­ged by S. Thomas that S. Gregorie did insti­tute the stations of Indulgences, & producing manie other testimonies out of the Ecclesiasticall decrees he concludes thus. Out of those texts it is had that the graunte of Indulgences is not onely auncient, but &c. Where also the reader is to be aduertised that Caietan is corrupted by Sir Humfreys translation of the worde hunc or hanc, them, which the author referres to the begining, or certaintie of their begining, not to the Indulgences themselues or power to gra­unte them.

And doubtlesse siluester Prierias had the same meaning where he sayde, if so he sayde, that Pardōs are not knowne vnto vs by the autho­ritie [Page 338] of the scripture but by the authoritie of the Church of Roman, for the sense is that they are not expressely declared & deliuered vnto vs by the text of the scripture in plaine wordes but by the Church whose office it is to propose such doctrine in particular to the faithfull as she findes not so plainely deliuered in the scripture as they themselues can without her directions come to due knowledge of it. And surely this athour is so farre frome denying the Antiquitie of the power & vse of perdons that he professedly defended the same against his professed aduersarie Luther.

And the same I saye of Eckius & Tecelius, who as Sir Humfrey can not be ignorant were also Luthers Antagonists euē in this particular, to omit that he cites those two authors onely v­pō relation of the Councel of Trents historie in English to which as I haue alreader noted we giue no credit. Nay & since I writ this at first, I finde that Prierias Eckius & Tecelius are falsely charged by the same false historie of Trent to haue layde for their grounde of Indulgēces the Popes authoritie in their impugnation & con­uincement of Luther. Pag. 6. And the marginall note of that place is yet more false, then the text, saying that the aduersaries of Luther proued the doctrine of Indulgences by com­mon reasons onely. And as for Eckius I haue read his whole treatise of Indulgences & so I [Page 339] ame sure he foundeth them not vpon the Popes autheritie either onelie or cheefelie, but principallie vpon scripture, for so he sayth page 313. Indulgentiarum figurae fuerunt Iubilei in veteri Testamento. De his sumus contenti eo quod habeamus solidum S. Paul [...] fundamentum ne credamur diligentiores in lucrosa. Porro &c. 2. Cor. 2.

And to the sense of these authors may be re­duced that which Cunerus sayth of the doubtfull manner of writing of some Ca­tholike authors, of Indulgences, if the place be sincerely related which a man may iustely suspect especially for that the knight hath it out of Chamier & at second hand. And in deed the truth is if that authors sentence had not ben violentlie abrupted before the end of the same period which he deliuered with one breath, it would haue plainelie declared that there is nothing for Sir Humfreyes purpose of prouing that neither Christ nor the Primatiue Fathers (as he speaketh) euer knewe or ex­ercised such pardons as are now dayly practi­sed in the Church of Rome. For the wordes omitted are those. Cunerus declam. Cum in clauibus Ecclesiae & symbolo Apostolico clarissime fundatae deprehen­dantur. That is since that (Indulgences) are most clearely discouered to be founded in the Apostolicall symbole or Creed, & in the power of the keyes of the Church &c.

And so now we see that those testimonies [Page 340] doe not proue want of antiquitie or consent in either scripture, Fathers or schoolemen for the doctrine of Indulgences themselues, but onelie at the most in some accessorie points of that Controuersie, yet not one of them prouing anie such want in the maine of the question aboue declared, no more then he should be thought to proue want of antiquitie & vniuer­sallitie in the doctrine of three persons, & one God, who should affirme the same not to be in expresse termes contayned in the scripture, Fathers, & schoolemen iuste in that manner in which the Church beleeueth & defendeth it. And yet graunting neuerthelesse that it is true­lie contained in the same scripture in an other equiualent manner, or inexpresselie.

As also the same doth yet more plainelie ap­peare euen by those same wordes which Sir Humfrey cites here out of Alfonsus, which altho' they be not sincerelie related by him, as leauing out that which most conduceth to the explication of that authours true meaning, to wit that, who but an heretike can denie transub­stantiation, the procession of the holie Gost & Purga­torie because they are not mentioned by auncient authors sub his nominibus, by these names or wor­des. And after: what maruell therefore is it if it happened in this sorte of Indulgence that, saith Castro there be not mention made of them in the auncients. By which wordes it is [Page 341] plaine this author speakes not absolutelie of the substance of Indulgences or of the autho­ritie to graunte them which indeede is the cheefe question of Controuersie in this place, & of which he makes no doubt but that it is sufficientlie contayned in scripture & Fathers altho' as he saith minus expresse lesse expresselie. But he onelie speakes of the name as his wor­des now related doe testifie; or at the most of the antiquitie of their cōmon vse, which not withstanding it is no matter of faith, yet doth he shewe it not to be so new as the sectaries of our times will haue it: & therefore he addes by way of conclusion. Quod non est tam recens Indulgentiarum vsus quantum isti haeretici (mea­ning the Lutherans) exprobrant, nam apud Ro­manos vetustissimus praedicatur earum vsus vt ex stationibus Romaefrequentissimis colligi vtcum­que potest. Et de Beato Gregorio huius nominis pri­mo fertur quod aliquas suotempore concesserit. And in the same tenor of wordes he adioyneth that, et si pro Indulgentiaram approbatione sacrae scriptu­rae apertum testimonium desit, non tamen ideo con­temnendae erant quoniam Ecclesiae Catholicae vsus à multis annorum saeculis receptus, tantae est au­thoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur &c. By all which it is euident that nothing can be proued by the wordes of Al­fonsus against the substance of Ecclesiasticall Indulgences nor contrarie to the antiquitie & [Page 342] vniuersalitie of the Roman doctrine in that point, but rather Sir Humfrey & his brothers are manifestlie conuicted of heresie for con­temning the same. Now Maior in 4. d. 2. q. 2. is impertinentlie alledged for he onelie affir­mes that it's harde to founde authenticallie in scripture iuste that manner of Indulgence which is vsed at this day in the Church: & that some of the auncient Fathers made no mention thereof, which the Romanists doe not denie for they saye difficilia quae pulchra. And so that which is hardelie founded is truelie founded. Yet the power & vse of Indulgences euen as they are now practised the same Maior defen­des as well as other moderne diuines, yea & deduceth the vse of them from S. Gregorie the great, & thus this author is excused & the citer reprooued.

Touching Siluester Prieras altho' I cannot haue that same worke of his which Sir Hum­frey cites. (if anie such be extant now in the world) yet I haue viewed the treatise of Indul­gences which he hath in his summe, & there I finde that he doth not saie all that with which our aduersarie doth charge him, nay nor scarce halfe so much, for he neither excludes scripture from the grounde of Indulgences, 2. Cor. 2. but expres­selie cites the same place of S. Paule for them which others cite, altho' it be with a licet at the and. And much lesse doth he affirme that the [Page 343] authority of the Church of Rome & the Popes is greater then the authoritie of the scripture, which proposition if he had vttered & defen­ded obstinatelie in my opinion he had deser­ued the fygot almost as well as his aduersarie Martin: but I persuade my selfe the discre­tion of Prieras was greater then so. And in the same manner. I vehementlie suspect our aduer­saries hath vsed some of his Gipsian sleights in the citation of the place he quoteth. But yet is meaning is onely that Indulgences, that is the present vse of them, is not manifestlie declared vnto vs by scripture & Fathers as his wordes cited here in the margen insinuate, absolutelie graunting both the power & practise of them. Indulgētia nobis per scripturā minime innotuit: licet indu­catur il­lud. 2. Cor. 2. Si quid do­naui vo­bis; sed nec per dicta antiquo­rū docto­rum, sed moderno­rum. Dici­tur enim Gregorius indulgen­tiam sep­tennem in stationibꝰ Rome po­suisse. Et quia Eccle­sia hoc fa­cit & seruat credendum est ita esse quia regi­tur Spiritis Sancto. Syl­uester in sum. verbo Indult. Bell de In­dul. l. 2. c. 1.

Lastely touching Bellarmine & Valētia, I saye they are neyther of them cited by Sir Humfrey either with any great sinceretie, or to any great purpose. For altho' Bellarmin doth insinuate that there are not manie of the more auncient authors which make mention of Indulgences; yet he doth not affirme that there is want of antiquitie & consent in the Fathers in this matter as Sir Humfrey doth falselie deduce out of his wordes, but onelie insinuateth that the defect of number of the more auncient Fathers which mention Indulgēces, is sufficientlie sup­plyed by the vse & custome of the Church without writing, by reason (saith he) that ma­nie things are retayned in the Church by that meanes onelie.

And as for Valentia who as he is cited by the knight, relates out of S. Thomas the opi­nion of some who called Indulgences a pious fraude to allure men to the performance of those pious workes which are requyred in the forme of the Indulgence graunted, it is true there was such a tenet in those dayes: but as it is true that S. Thomas relates it, so is it also true that he condēnes the same for verie dangerous, that which our aduersarie if he had dealt ho­nestlie ought not to haue omitted. And yet not obstanding, he could not but see that po­sition censured by S. Thomas in the verie place cited by Valentia, as also he censureth another little better, to wit that by virtue of the Indul­gence itselfe no punishment neither in the iudgement of God, nor the Church could be remitted: notwithstanding all this I saye, yet Sir Humfrey subtillie let it passe, making by that meanes his reader beleeue that the fo­resaid tenet was long before the dayes or Lu­ther according to the relation of Aquinas (as he saith) an vncondemned opinion of some di­uines, & reiected as erroneous by Valentia alone: who neuerthelesse expresselie affirmeth it to haue beene an opinion hised at by all Or­thodox writers, opinio ab Orthodoxis omnibus ex­plosa. Nay & which is yet more grosse, Sir Humfrey leaueth quite out some parte of the [Page 345] wordes of the foresaid opinion as it is rehearsed by Valentia, to wit those which mention satis­faction made to God by reason of the deuotion of the gainer of the Indulgence & value of the pious workes in ioyned him for the obtaining of the same, all which because it sounded con­trarie to the doctrine of the pretensiue refor­med Churches, it struct Sir Humfrey deafe one that eare, & so he left it out.

I omit diuers particulars which our aduer­sarie vtters here & there in the progresse of his Paragraffe. Because they either consiste of some inauthenticall relations aboute the vse or rather aboute the abuse of some particular graunts of Indulgences as that out of the office of Saram & out of Guitcherdin: or els they cōsiste in his owne plaine calūnious vntruthes, as that Indulgences are graunted onelie to drawe money frome the grainers: & that the Romanists pretēd vniuersalitie of Fathers for euerie point of faith: & that the article of Indulgences wantes authoritie of scripture, of all this I saye I need to make no further dis­cussion in regarde the apparent falsitie of it doth sufficientlie confute it selfe & shewes that it proceeds rather frome a man malitiouslie affected & ignorant of the state of the que­stion, & more disposed to cauille then care­full to attaine to the truth of the doctrine. For suppose the abuses were neuer so true (which [Page 346] as in all other things so in this I confesse there haue ben some especiallie in the questors or inferior administrators of Indulgences, & may be more: neuerthelesse these abuses of particu­lar men, doe not impeach the power, & autho­ritie, & lawfull vse of the same, which onelie is that which my aduersarie & I haue now in question.

And so now for conclusion of this matter we may hence inferre how impiouslie the se­ctaries proceed in the denyall & impugnation of the Indulgences vsed in the Roman Church, which altho' they had no other vtilitie or pro­fit in them then to induce people to the exercise of such pious workes as are requyred in the te­nor of them, that is fasting, prayer & almes so heighly commended in the scriptures, & recei­uing of the Sacraments, yet in common reason ought they not to be reiected, but rather maintained & sought for with great zeale & deuotion. And so now let this suffice for the intyre discussion of this paragraffe, in which I haue founde nothing to the excuse the author frome the same censure I haue layd vpon him in the precedent matters.

THE IX PERIOD.

VVE are now come to the 10. section of the booke in which Sir Humfrey produceth the testimonies of the Romanists touching the infallible certaintie of the Prote­stant faith, & the vncertaintie of the Romish. this is his designe, but I ame verily persuaded he will fayle of his purpose. I will examen parti­culars that the truth may appeare. But before this I must aduertise the reader that in this se­ction ther is litle substance to be founde, & it consists cheefly in a large recapitulation of the supposed confessions of the Romanists: as that they haue confessed that iustificatiō is by faith onely, that the conuersion of the bread in to Christs bodie, was not generally receiued by the Fathers, that the certaine & definite number of Sacraments was vnknowne to scripture & Fa­thers, & that the Indulgences now vsed, haue no authoritie from scripture or Fathers, & the like all which particulars we haue allreadie dis­proued in their seuerall places. In substance a great parte of it is but an idle repetition of those falsities which the kingh hath vttered before, with some newe additions to make the number of his lyes more ample & complete & this he performeth with great abundance of wordes of amplification: & thinking to make all sure [Page 348] calleth to witnesse both men & Angels: And thus for space of a leafe or two, he bringeth nothing but verbal discourses which with the very breath of any iudicious reader presently vanish away, & so they need no other confu­tation. Afterwardes he comes to some parti­culars which I haue not yet touched & of these I will make a breefe examen.

And to omitte those points which I haue before discussed, in his page 242. he indeuo­reth to proue out of Bellarmin that the Church of Rome hath ouerthrowne in one tenet all certaintie of true faith, & he performeth it very solidly, because for sooth Bellarmin affir­meth that none can be certaine by certaintie of faith that he receiueth a Sacrament by reason of the vncertainty of the intention of the mini­ster without which the Sacrament can not be made. And the argument the kinght framed of the doctrine of the Cardinall is this. It is a posi­tiue grounde of the Romā Religiō that a Sacra­ment can not be made without the intention of the minister but the intentiō of the minister can not be knowne by faith, therfore the Church of Rome hath ouerthrowne in one tenet all cer­taintie of true faith. I ansere first that altho' this is the forme which Sir Hūfreys argument must be reduced vnto if anie it cā haue, neuerthelesse if we should examen it according to the rules of logique ther will scarcely be founde either [Page 149] forme or figure in it, yet least the knight should hould himselfe too rigorously delt with as not making profession of that arte, I am con­tent to let that passe and answere secondly that I graunt the maior in this sense viz. That whensoeuer the Preist doth administer a Sa­crament it is required that he intends at the least in generall to doe that which the true Church vseth to doe in that action I meane either formally or virtually, & this is defined by the Councell of Trent as a certaine trueth. But in the minor there lyeth secretly a certaine false supposition which is this. That to the faith of a Sacramēt is necessarilie required that the intention of the minister in particular cases be knowne by faith which is not true, nor de­fined by the Councell; because to the faith of a Sacrament is sufficient that faith by which a Christian beleeueth that euery one of those visible signes which the Church propo­seth to the people to be beleeued & receiued as Sacraments of the new lawe are instituted by Christ to conferre grace to the receiuers, & that to euery one of them is required a sincere intention to administer or performe that particular action as is was instituted, or as the Tridentine decreeth, intentione saltem fa­ciendi quod facit Ecclesia, that is at the least with intention to hoe that which the Church doth; & that seriously & not in mockrie: but notwith­standing [Page 150] it is not necessary that either he that performeth that ceremonie, or he that re­ceiues the same, haue certaine knowledge of faith that this or that indiuidual Sacramēt hath ben instituted with the forsaid intention, but to this a morall certaintie doth suffice both in the minister & in the receiuer, & the reason is because to know whether one hath receiued, or doth truely receiue a Sacrament or not, fal­leth not vpon the essence, or making or mar­ring of a Sacrament as a thing necessarily pre­cedent vnto the constitution of it, but it is onely a thing consequent or following the same as seruing onely to rectify & quiete the consciences of those that either administer it or receiue it, to the which as being but a morall matter, morall certainty onely is required. And surely if all true faith should therefore be ouerthrowne, as Sir Humfrey infereth because of wāt of certainty of faith in the receiuers that they receiue true Sacraments euerie time they reciue thē, then should it followe by an argu­ment ad hominem, that the faith of the refor­mers were also ouerthrowne; for that they themselues neither haue nor can haue any such certaintie of faith: or if they say ther is no faith of any such intention of the minister in their religion, so doe we say the same of ours: for altho' it is a matter of faith in the Roman Church that the intention of the Preist is ne­cessary [Page 351] in generall to the constitution of a Sacrament, yet that intention is not necessarily knowne by faith in euerie particular case, & in this consisteth the equiuocation of the whole argument, & if the knight had distinguis­hed between the intention & the faith of the intention, he might easilie haue perceiued that his discourse was founded vpon a false foun­dation. To say nothing of the conclusion which although the premises were neuer so true, yet had they not ben able to inferre such à vast consequence as is the ouerthrowe of all certaintie of true faith, precisely in respect of the supposed want of faith of intention aboute the Sacraments.

And now by this generall ansere may be solued what soeuer Sir Humfrey saith after­wardes of the intention required to the Sacra­ments in particular. To which I alson adde that if certaintie of faith were required in the receiuers of the Sacraments that as often as they receiue them, the receiue true Sacra­ments hic & nunc, & that as often as they want that faith they ouerthrow all certaintie of true faith, then the reformers themselues were in a more pitifull case then the Romanists, in re­garde that it is vnpossible for them to knowne more then either by their owne seight, or by relation of others, that the true matter & for­me of the Sacraments, be truelie applyed vnto [Page 352] them: & yet certaine it is that vpon neither of these two knowledges anie supernaturall faith can be founded, but onely either a kynde of naturall cognitiō or knowledge at the most, taken from the senses, or a certaine morall cer­titude proceeding from the relation of their parents or others, all which is farre inferior to the knowledge of faith as no man can denie.

That which may by a speciall reason be yet more plainelie vrged against the receiuers of the Sacraments in the reformed Churches, in regarde they are so farre from certaintie of faith of the trueth of their Sacraments in par­ticular, that they cannot possible haue as much as a morall certaintie of the same nay nor mo­rall probabilitie I meane such an one as may iustlie moue a prudent man to giue credit, by reason they haue no certaintie, nor yet pro­babilitie of the trueth of the vocation & ordination of their ministers, without cer­taintie of which two conditions, it is well knowne on both sides, that no certaine know­ledge of the truth of indiuiduall Sacraments can possiblie he had. And so we see that whe­reas Sir Humfrey thought he had framed a stong argument against the doctrine of Bel­larmin, he onelie heapeth coles vpon his owne head. And from hence also we may gather an easie solution to that which he addeth against the necessitie of the Preists intention in some [Page 353] of the Sacraments which he specifieth as bap­tisme, Order, & Matrimonie.

Touching which matter I desire the iudi­cious reader consider whether it is not much more conformable to reason, to the dignity of the Sacraments, to the honour of Christ who instituted them, & to the confort & securitie of the receiuers, that a sincere intention of the Preist Gods substitute, be required to the truth & due administration of them as the Roman Church doth teach & ordaine: or onely so, that if the receiuers take them in the name of God, as the reformers speake, it is sufficient for the minister to performe that externall actiō which Christ did institude, tho' he doeth it in iest or morkery as Luther teacheth, or animo illusorio, that is with an intention or meaning to delude as kemnitius affirmeth, or to haue no intention necessarily required as Sir Humfrey here pro­fesseth: this I say I leaue to the iudgement of any indifferent man to discerne whether the Romanists or the reformers proceed more sa­fely & religiously.

And as for the illations which the knight deduceth out of the necessity of the intention of the minister in administration of Sacraments they are so ignorant & sotish, as I ame asha­med to rehearse them, for example when he sayth that if the Preist fayles in his intention at the tyme of solemnization of matrimonie [Page 354] the maried people liue all their dayes in adul­trie, or fornication: which is a most grosse er­rour in the knight: for that the Romanists & the reformers agree in this that altho' Matri­monie were no Sacrament, & consequentlie that the maried people should not receiue it as a Sacrament, yet were it sufficient to free them from adulterie, in regarde they receiue it at the least as a ciuill contract, whatsoeuer the Preists intention bee. And if it were not so, certainely all sectaries of this time, & particularilie Sir Humfrey himselfe for one should liue perpe­tuallie in that damnable state of adulterie which he mentioneth. And yet this sequele I am sure it importes him to denie as earnestlie as he can if it be but onelie for the conseruation of his owne, & his wifes honour.

And the like foolish & false inferences he ma­kes aboute all the rest of the Sacraments, as also aboute the succession of the Popes & pastours of the Church as if by the confession of Roma­nists themselues there were no certaintie in anie of them: whereas yet he himselfe citeth Bellarmin in this verie place as teaching that in all these things there is at least morall & suffi­cient certaintie of their reall existāce & truth. Certitudine autem moralem & humanam quae sufficit & vt homo quiescat ex Sacramētis, habemus etiāsi pen­diāt ab in­tentione al­terius. Bel. de Sacr in genere li. 1 c. 28. So that all these deductions are voyde of all sēse reason, & trueth, meerlie framed by the knight out of the superfluitie of his braine, & ob­truded vpon his reader as confessions of his [Page 355] aduersaries in a peremptorie & odious man­ner in disgrace of that Church whose doctrine he is not able to impugne in anie more substan­ciall manner.

In a semblable fashion doth he also prose­cute the like captious kinde of argument against diuers other points of the Roman do­ctrine, as for Example because he findeth in Biel & Peter Lombard that they speake not with anie certaintie of the manner how Saints doe vnderstand the prayers of their supplicāts, he inferreth that the Romanists are vncertaine touching the doctrine of inuocation of Saints it selfe, which neuerthelesse is a most false illa­tion for that although there be some vncer­taintie in what manner or by what meanes the Saints doe come to knowe our prayers by rea­son of the diuers opinions of diuines in that particular, yet as well those who Sir Humfrey citeth as also all the rest of the Romanists agree and hould for certaine that Saints are piouslie & profitablie to be inuocated & prayed vnto, all without exception teaching & in­culcating the same expresselie in their bookes & writings. Gabriel Biel is so plaine for the doctrine of the Roman Church, that if the knight had not corrupted him both in wordes & sensc, he could not haue alledged him with anie coulorable pretense: For in the verie pre­cedent lection to that which he cites against vs. [Page 356] Biel resolues the question in our fauor saying. Whence it is apparent that our prayers, & hope of obtaining beatitude by the mediation of the Saints, are not voyde in Heauen: but by order constituted by God himselfe; we ought to recurre to their helpe, & assistance: & perpetuallie implore them with due veneration that we may be saued by their merits. In which wordes, & the rest following, I am sure there is sufficient to make the author a plaine Papist, yea & much more then Sir Hum­frey desires to heare in fauor of the Roman doctrine & so it is cleare he hath corrupted his sense. And nowe for his wordes, he hath li­kewise corrupted them most peruerselie, by displaceing, & tranferring them from one pur­pose to an other. For these wordes: non est certum per omnia: By which Biel ansers onelie to that question, whether it pertaines to the accidental Beatitude of the Saints to heare our prayers (which question as you see is onelie aboute the manner, or qualitie of the Saints vnderstanding our petitions, not of the maine substance) he respondes: Non per omnia certum est. It is not altogether certaine. And yet Sir Humfrey applyes this, as if Biel had said, that it is not certaine that the Saints heare our pray­ers at all. Yet further connecting vnto the same, those other wordes: vnde probabiliter dicitur: Which he also soma't. Insincerelie Englisheth: it may seeme probable: & rehear­sing [Page 357] them in one series, or tenor, whereas yet they are vttered by their author, manie lynes after, & to an other purpose, where ansering to the question before proposed he said thus: Vnde probabiliter dicitur &c. Whence it is proba­bly said, that altho' it doth not necessarilie followe the beatitude of the Saints, that they heare our pray­ers: by congruitie, yet God almightie reuelles vn­to them all that is offered vnto them by men. All which particulars concerning the corruption of this place by the guilie knight, may more plainelie be perceiued in the author himselfe, then I can possible here expresse.

As for the Master of sentences, & Scotus in the 45. d. of the fourth booke, altho' perchance they seeme to one that reades thē superficiallie, not to speake with certainetie of the inuoca­tion of Saints, yet to the anttentiue reader it ap­peares clearely they both suppose for certaine, & of which they frame no disputation, that the Angels, & Saints heare our prayers, & that we lawfullie & profitablie praye vnto them, of which points it is most vndoubtedlie to be sup­posed that those two authors could not be ignorant, nor maintaine the negatiue parte, in regarde the publike letanies in which the inuo­cation of Saints is expresselie included were vsed in the Church long before their dayes, as histories so commonlie testifie that I need not produce them. Besides that the writings of [Page 358] the ancient Fathers whose sentences Peter Lombard professedlie collected, as much as was for his purpose, & of which Scotus could not be ignorant, are full of the same doctrine as in our Catholike Controuertists may easily appeare to the reader.

And therefore whereas the Master vses the wordes: non est incredibile, & scotus probabile est, they speake not eyther of the absolute in­uocation of Saints, or of our prayers vnto them of which neyther of them proposes the que­stion: but they applye those wordes to the manner onely of their vnderstanding our inter­cession. And therefore the Master puts the title of the question thus: Quomodo Sancti glo­rificati au­diunt pre­ [...]es sup­plicantium Magister in [...]it. quaest. [...]. 45. in 4. [...]ent. quomodo? how or in what manner, or, by what meanes doe the Saints heare our prayers, & how they interced for vs vnto our Lord? To which he ansers, it is not incredible that the Saints which in the secret of the face of God, inioye the illumination of the true leight, vnderstand in contemplation of him so much as appertaines eyther to their owne ioye, or our assi­stanse. For as to the Angels, so to the Saints who assiste in the Seight of God, our petitions are knowne in the eternall worde. In ab­scondito facie Dei. By which it is euident that Lombard speakes onelie of the meanes by which the Saints vnderstand the prayers of faithfull supplicants. And there being two se­uerall wayes cheefelie where by the Saints may vnderstand our prayers: the one by ver­tue [Page 359] of their beatitude, or beatificall vision by which they see the prayers directed vnto them by seeing God: the other by special reuelation accidental to their blessednesse. The Master is of opinion, they see them in the worde by ver­tue of their vision of God, as I conceiue: But Scotus seemes to hould that, the knowlege that Saints haue of our prayers, doeth not ne­cessarilie followe of their beatitude, but is one­lie accidental, & by congruitie: & therefore he sayes in his anser to the question. Dico quod nrn est necesse ex ratione beatitudinis quod beatus vi­deat orationes nostras. Neque regulariter siue vni­uersaliter in verbo, quia non est necessaria fequela beatitudinis, neque quod reuelentur, neque talis re­uelatio necessario sequitur beatitudintm: Beatitudo enim in obiectis creatis, non transcendit quiditates seu illa quorum essentia visa est necessaria ratio videndi: tamen quia congruum est beatum esse coadiutorem Dei in procurando salutem electi eo mo­do quo hoc sibi potest competere, & ad istud requiri­tur sibi reuelari orationes nostras specialiter quae sibi offeruntur quia illa specialiter innituntur meritis eius tanquam mediatoris perducentis ad salutem quae petitur, ideo probabile est quod Deus beatis re­uelat de orationibus sibi vel Deo in nomine eius oblatis. That is in English. It is not necessarie by the nature or state of beatitude that the blessed see our prayers, neyther regularlie or, vniuersallie in the diuine worde, because that [Page 360] is not anie thing which as is it were a necessary sequele of beatitude. Nor that they ar reueiled because neither such a reuelation necessarilie followes bertitude: for the beatitude of the vnderstanding in created obiects transcendes not the quidities, or those things the sight of whose essense is the necessarie cause of seeing. But because it is congruous or conuenient that the blessed man be Gods cooperator in pro­curing the Saluation of the elect, in that man­ner in which it grees vnto him, and that to this is required that our prayers be reueiled vn­to him especiallie those which are represented vnto him, for that they especiallie are foun­ded in his merits as a mediator conducting to the saluation which is asked. Therefore it is probable that God giues a reuelation to the blessed of the prayers offered to him, or to God in his name. Thus Scotus. By which it is manifest he onelie here discusses the diuers wayes by which according to the diuersitie of opinions in diuinitie, the blessed Saints in Hea­uen vnderstandes the prayers of vs that liue in this world, houlding for probable that the knowlege which they haue of our supplica­tions vnto them is not by any other meanes but by reuelation from God. And in this sense he speakes when he saith probabile est it is probable, & not because he held the inuocation of Saints it in selfe as a matter onelie probable, [Page 361] this being quite contrarie to his cited wordes as being aboute the manner of the saints vn­derstanding our prayers which necessarily im­plyes that the prayers them selues directed vn­to them are lawfully made. And so now it clea­relie appeares by all these wordes & circum­stances that these two famous diuine are as ranck Romanists as the rest in this particular, in regarde they call not in question the law­fulnes of prayer to Saints in it selfe but onelie the condition or qualitie of it.

And this I haue added of the doctrine of Scotus not as vsed or abused by my aduersarie but onely the better to declare the true mea­ning of the Master of sentence.

And as for Caietan whome also Sir Hum­frey produceth to the same purpose, it is mani­fest euen out of the wordes cited by him, that he onely speaketh of some want of certaintie in the miracles which the Church vseth as an argument in the Canonization of saints by reason that altho' as he confesseth expres­sely, they be most authenticall, yet are they not saith he, omnino certa altogether certaine, because the credit thereof depends vpon the reportes of men. But for all this neither doth he affirme absolutelie that miracles are the grounde wherein the Church foundes the Canonization of the saints (as Sir Humfrey affirmeth most corruptelie translatinng his [Page 362] wordes omitting those. Quae maxime authentica sunt: & for ab Ecclesia suscipiuntur, putting in Inglish wheron the Church grounteth the Cano­nization, and detorting them to that sense as the reader may clearly perceiue by conferring the translation with the quotation in Latin) nor yet doth the same Caietan either in this or anie other place of his wordes deny either the certaintie of the doctrine of the inuocation it selfe, or yet the doctrine of the certaintie of the Canonization, but he onely, at the most, sayth that the Church cannot receiue full, but onely humane certainty from such mira­cles alone as she hath by relation of particular men, not euidentlie operated in the eyes of the whole Church.

And according to this we may easily answere to the saying of S. Augustin, that manie soules are tormented in hell whose bodies are hono­red in earth, for this S. Augustin speakes onelie of certaine suppositious saints whome the cō ­mon people honored for true saints, as it is ma­nifest by the example which the same S. Aug. produceth out of Sulpitius who relateth how the vulgaritie did long celebrate one for a mar­tyr who afterwardes appeared & tould them he was damned. And the like is related of a discouerie which S. Martin made of a false martyr: which particular examples of errour in the common people ought not in common [Page 363] prudence to preiudicate the certaintie of the doctrine of honour due vnto such as the whole Church in all succeeding ages hath honored for true saints & blessed freinds of God. Neither doth S. Augustin in the cited place speake to anie such purpose of calling in question the generall doctrine & practice of the Church in the points of honour or inuoca­tion of Saints as may appeare by that in other places of his workes he expresselie auerreth the same as in his first sermon of S. Peter & Paule, & in his 44. ep. where he hath thes no­table wordes. In Petro quis honoratur nisi ille qui defunctus est pro nobis? Who is honored in Peter but he that dyed for vs? And in his 84. treatise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth. At the table we doe not so remember martirs as we also praye for them, but rather so that they praye for vs. And in his booke de cura pro mortuis Cap. 14. he expresselie speaketh of the prayer of Saints for those that are buried neare vnto their tumbes. All which sayeings of S. Au­gustin are plaine enuffe, & yet our noble aduersarie turnes the cat in the pan & persua­des his reader that he flatly denied inuocation of saints, but to conuince him & his followes yet more plainelie I will conclude this point with the wordes of the same S. Augustin in psal. 99. where speaking of the worship of [Page 364] Angells against the Gentils, he sayth: vtinam & vos colere velletis, facile enim ab ipsis disceretis nō illos colere. Would to God you also would wosship them for you might easily learne of them not to wors­hip them. That is not to adore them as Gods but as saints. To this I adde that Bellarmin pro­fesseth he could neuer finde the foresayd wordes in S. Augustin, neither could I hauing deligently searched for them; euer finde them. In this same manner Sir Humfrey proceeds in the matter of Purgatory. For wher as S. Augusitn in his 69. chapter of his Enchir. speaking not of the existēce of Purga­torie but onelie of some particulars which are consequent vnto it propoundeth a question whether the soule seperated from the bodie be subiect to those inordinate affections to temporall things to which shee was subiect when shee was united to the bodie, to which question because Sainct Augustin answe­reth doubtfully & with vncertainetie, the kinght handleth the matter so nimblie & cun­ninglie that the reader may easilie be persuaded by him that S. Augustin was doubtfull of the existence or being of Purgatorie it selfe & so for the greater furtherance of this persuation, wher S. Augustin speaking onelie of the fore­sayd question saith▪ it is not incredible that some such thing should be aftfer this life, honest Sir Humfrey to make his market the [Page 365] better foysteth in the word Purgatory in the beginning of the sentence as if that were it of which S. Augustin saith quaeri potest, it may be questioned, & so deludeth his reader egre­giously with the falsification both of his wordes & sense.

Some other particulars touching this same metter Sir Humfrey addeth partely imper­tinent & partilie false. Impertinent, for example, is that passage of his 248. page. in which he affirmes that Bellarmine saith it is dpubtfull whether the punishment of Purgatorie be by materiall fyre, or some other meanes? For what incertaintie so­euer there were in the Church aboute this point: yet this being I say not touching the paine it selfe but onelie the qualitie or maner of the paine, it is out of our controuersie in this matter, which is not here of the circumstances of Purgatorie, but of the existence or being of Purgatorie it selfe: the manner, continuation of time, & instruments by which the soules are punished & the like, being left to Catho­like diuines to dispute at there pleasure. And so this allegation of Bellarmin by the knight against the certaintie of the Roman doc­trine concerning Purgatorie, is as farre out of quare as if he had alledged eyther our diuines or his owne to proue there is neyther Hell nor Hea­uen, because they make disputable questions [Page 366] or doubts, concerning the paines of the one, & glorie of the other.

And yet besides this, it is not true that Bellar­mine makes any such doubt of the materialitie of the fire of Purgatorie, but he expressely auerres that the common sentence of diuines is for it. Adding that it is not in deed a mat­ter of faith, because it is in no place defined by the Church. Yet saith he, it is a most probable opinion (besides other reasons he alledges) in regarde of the cōsent of the Scolastikes, which cannot be contemned without temeritie. And now supposing the Cardinal speakes so plai­nelie: Sir Humfrey proceeded not sincerelie in that he insinuates the contrarie by a defe­ctiue citation of his wordes.

Secondlie he falsely affirmeth that S. Greg. gaue the first Credo to Purgatorie, & that he learned it by reuelations, insinuating also that the Roman Church groundeth the faith of Purgatory vpon the spirits & apparitions of dead men, which is all false & calumnious, for that neither S. Gregorie nor any other Roma­nists euer founded anie doctrine of faith vpon such groundes, but onelie at the most, vse them for confirmation & illustration of those arguments which are founded in scripture for that purpose as their writings make mani­fest.

And that S. Gregorie was not the first esta­blished, [Page 367] or gaue the first Credo (as the knight speakes) to Purgatorie, it is manifestly con­uinced by the testimonies of such Fathers as liued long before him, & make expresse men­tion of it. And to omit others yet more aun­cient, S. Gregorie Nyssen in his oration of the dead, hath these plaine wordes▪ Non poterit à corpore egressus diuinitatis particeps fieri nisi maculas animo immixtas purgatorius ignis abstu­lerit. The departed can not be partaker of the diuinitie, vnlesse purgatorie fyre take away the spots residing in his soule. adding after wordes: alijs post hanc vitam purgatorio igne materiae labes abstergentibus. Others clensing after this life the corruption of the matter with purgatory fyre. I indeed finde these words smat different in an other translation, as also the wordes of an other pregnant place of the same author to the same purpose in his prece­dent page aboute the midest of the oration: but the sense is the same in all places & ver­sions,

S. Austin also in the 16. of his 50. homilies saith thus. Qui temporalibus paenis digna gesserunt per ignem quendam purgatorium transibunt, de quo Apostolus ait▪ saluus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem. Those who haue done things deser­uing temporall paines, shall passe by a certaine purgatorie fyre, of which the Apostle saith: he shall be saued, yet so as it were by fire. So that [Page 368] all this which the kinght vtters of S. Grego­rie, is friuolous, & vntrue, as these testimonies conuince.

Onelie one place which Sir Humfrey ci­teth out of S. Augustin, carieth some more apparence then the rest. Where in his booke de vanitate saeculi the first chapter he saith thus. Knowe that when the soule is separated from the bodie, presentlie it is either placed in Para­dise for it good workes, or cast headlong in to the bottome of hell for it sinnes. To which I say First, that booke attributed to Sainct Austin is not founde in the Index of his seuerall workes collected by Possidonius nor cited by Beda in his commentarie vpon the Apostles of S. Paule consisting of the sentences of S. Aug. Wherefore it is noted by Bellar. de scrip. Ec­cles. not to be his: yet because it is printed a­mong his workes & perhaps composed by some ancient author: I answere Secondlie that suppose it is his worke yet S. Augustin spea­keth onelie of those that either dye in mortall sinne, or of those that die quite free from sinne & all punishment due vnto it, as martyrs doe.

Thirdlie I answere that S. Augustin spea­keth there onelie of those two places to which all soules are finallie destinated, and to one of which generallie speaking, & for the most parte, euerie one presentlie passeth, yet as there is no rule so generall which doth not admit ex­ception [Page 369] so doth this generall sentence of sainct Augustin include those onelie who dye in ei­ther of those states which he mentioneth in that place, that is either absolutely in such good workes as presentlie deserue paradise, or els in such ill workes as presentlie deserue the paines of hell; & yet it admitteth an exception in o­thers who passe out of this world in neyther of those two states, but are of those whome the same S. Augustin in an other place calleth nec valde bonos nec valde malos: or, mediocriter malos & mediocriter bonos. Enchyr. c. 110. & lib. de cura pro mot. cap. 1. Neyther verie good, nor verie euill, and of whome he also meaneth when in his first booke of care for the dead he sayth non dubium est orationem prodesse de­funstis, it is no doubt but prayer is pro­fitable to the dead, which speaches hee would newer haue vttered if hee had euer de­nyed the faith of Purgatorie & that this is S. Austins true sense, it is plaine in regard it was sufficient for his purpose in that place, whose intent is onely in generall to persuade to virtue & good lyfe, that when men come to die they may be found in state rather to go pre­sentlie to heauen thē to hell, to which purpose of his because it was impertinent to mention Purgatorie, therfore he passed it in silence, wher as yet in other places where it cometh in his way, he doth not omit it.

Lastely I aduertise the reader of the smale fi­delitie [Page 370] which Sir Humfrey vseth in the citation of this place of S. Austin traslating those words pro meritis bonis: for his good merits, his good works, flying from the worde merit out of his Puritā ­nicall spirit as a beare doth from the ring.

Frō hence Sir Hūfrey passeth to proue the vn­certaintie of Indulgēces & honour of images by the testimonies of the Romanists, but the trueth is none of them proue anie vncertainlie amōg the Romanists touching the substantiall points themselues, for all the authours which he citeth here for this purpose doe vniformelie consent in both those particulars of exhibition of honour to images, & aboute the power & lawfullnesse of the vse of Indulgences as wee haue showed before.

And onelie ther is some vncertainlie in that which is not determined by the Church, as for example how farre Indulgences are extended, & aboute the begining of the practise, what maner of honour is due to images, & the like, which questions are out of the subiect of this section the title of which is, if Sir Humfrey remembreth, of the certainlie of the reformers faith, & vncertainlie of the Romish faith, & not of such disputable questions as the Roma­nists in the cited places speake of. Wher also it is to be noted by the way that the kinght ahuseth S. Thomas, first in that he affirmeth him to teach that the image of Christ is to be [Page 371] adored with diuine honour. For although it is true that S. Thomas sayth that seeing that Christ is adored with adoration of latria, it is consequent that his image is to be adored with adoration of Latria: neuerthelesse the same S. Thomas addeth afterwardes, non propter ipsam imaginem, sed propter rem cuius imago est, meaning that altho' both Christ & his image be adored with the same externall action of diuine honour which he calleth adoration of Latria, yet is not the Latria it selfe or diuine honour in spirit & truth attributed or exhibited to the picture, but onelie to Christ himselfe by reason of his diuinitie, which diuinitie as S. Thomas knew it not to be truelie & reallie in the picture, so knew he also that diuine wor­ship ought not to be giuen to the same not as much as by accident, but onelie that the exter­nall adoration, or externall action of Latria or the matter of it was so to be exhibited to the image that the formall parte ther of, that is the affection of the mynde ought wholelie to be cast vpon Christ himselfe represented by the same.

Secondlie I say that the knight abuseth S. Thomas in that he calleth him the founder of image worship, whereas yet he himselfe had cited the seuenth Synod immediately before which vseth the same terme of adoration, and that which is more the foresayd Synod is al­ledged [Page 372] by Sir Humfrey in another place for the authour of idolatrie, which neuerthelesse was celebrated some hundreths of yeares before Sainct Thomas of Aquin was borne. And altho' this doctrine of his is some what obscure in the termes which he deliuereth it, & soundeth har­shelie in the eares of the common people, yet as it is true in the sense he speaketh it, so may it also be so explicated by pastours, & prea­chers, that euen children themselues may be capable of it, especiallie if first they be tould in generall that no picture is to be honored by it selfe, without relation, or reference to the pro­totype, or thing it represents, or for itselfe; & that whensoeuer they exhibit anie act of ho­nour towardes an image, they must withall fixe their mynde & affection vpon that onelie which it representeth, referring the whole action finallie & lastelie not to the picture, but to the thing pictured: euen as they doe who bowe or make courtisie to a man whome they salute & honour by touching his garment (as the fashion in some places) in which action of honour altho' the exterior signe is directed as well to the apparell as to the man him selfe, or rather more immediatelie to the apparell then to the person, yet the internall affection of the saluter is settled vpon the person onelie where finallie it stayeth & remayneth. An so it is in the worship of the images of Christ & his [Page 373] Saints, in which there is no more daunger or showe of idolatrie then there is danger of ex­cesse of ciuill reuerence towardes him whose garment is honored in the manner before des­cribed. And according to this if Sir Hum­frey & his blynde mates had but light of vn­derstanding to conceiue it, they should not need to feare anie danger of idolatrie in the Romanists, tho' they were neuer so ignorant, or simple, but those might more iustlie feare spirituall idolatrie in themselues who doe so much adore the Idol of their owne priuate spirit that they will not yeald to the iudgement of the most vniuersall Church, and to those who are both farre more in number, & incom­parablie farre more learned & religious then all the impugners of honor due to the images of Christ and his Saints.

And yet vpon supposition of this same false idol of his owne conceite that all kynde of re­uerēce done to any kynde of image is idolatry, Sir Humfrey doth most shamefullie calum­niate Gregorius de Valentia affirming him to maintaine that there is a kynde of lawfull ido­latrie. Whereas the foresaid learned diuine onelie sayth that a man might not obscurelie gather out of S. Peters wordes in his first epistle chapter 34. vers. 3. that he insinuateth that some worship of images to wit, of sacred ima­ges, is lawfull, & reight, by reason that sainct [Page 374] Peter speaking against idolatrie, he calleth it not absolutelie worship of images, but vnlaw­full worship of images, illicitos simulacrorum cultus. Which discourse of Valentia how well grounded it may seeme, I will not dispute. But this I assure my selfe that defence of idolatrie was so farre from the toughts of that pious man (as plainelie appeareth by the rest of his doctrine euen in the place cited) that if Sir Humfrey either had not beene verie full of corrupted meaning, or had not had great want of matter for the finishing of his false dealing in this section, & for his last plaudite there in, hee would not haue had the face to abuse so much the innocencie of so sincere a writer. Especiallie considering that altho' Valentia had committed such a grosse errour as to de­fende some kynde of Idolatrie to be lawfull, yet had his errour ben wholelie impertinent to proue the vncertaintie of the Romish faith in the doctrine of honour of images, which is the point here in controuersie; of which Valentia being knowe not to haue euer doubted in anie parte of his workes, whatsoeuer orher absur­ditie he might be supposed to haue taught in that matter, it can not argue anie disagreement from the rest of the Romanists in this parti­cular.

The knight also citeteth Bellarmin & Ca­nus But I haue before sufficientlie declared [Page 375] their meaning in an other occasion, and as for Canus, he by laboring to establish his owne singular opinion that matrimonie is no Sacra­ment but onelie a ciuill contract except it be celebrated by a Preist with sacred & solemne wordes as he is an Ecclesiasticall minister, one­lie alledgeth the vncertaintie of the doctrine of diuines touching the determinate matter, & forme of that Sacrament, and aboute the man­ner how it giueth grace, or rather when it gi­ueth grace & when it doth not, by reason he holds it vncertaine amōg diuines whether it be a sacramēt or not, except in those cases in which it is celebrated by the Preist, & by cōsequence he holdes it vncertaine among diuines whether in those occasions it conferres grace to the re­ceiuers, which he will not haue for a matter of faith, nor yet more then the more common opinion, Si hoc, (ma­trimoniū) inquā, ar­gumētētur Sacramen­tū Ecclesia non esse, tūc Catho­licus respō ­deat fiden­ter, animo­se defendat, secure con­tra pugnet. Canus l. 8. c. 5. & therefore he saith. Nego scholae cer­to constantique decreto definitum matrimonium sine Ecclesiae ministro contractum, esse vere & pro­prie Sacrnmeneum, nego eam rem ad fidem & reli­gionem pertinere. Yet notwithstāding all diuines agree & Canus with them, that matrimonie is truelie one of the seuen Sacraments: & conse­quentlie that which Canus sayth in the place cited is not for the knights purpose. And so now I will end this section in which our aduer­sarie in steed of prouing the infallible certaine­tie of the reformed faith as he promised in the [Page 376] beginning, by reason of his vnfaithfull procee­ding he hath lost all certaintie of his owne hu­mane faith for which he deserueth a most ri­gorous censure.

The X. PERIOD.

THIS Period shall conteine the eleuenth section of the knights booke, in which. He indeuoreth to proue by the testimonies of his aduersaries that there is greater benefit, confort & saftie of the soule in his faith, then in the Romish. And this his taske he beginneth with great grauitie saying that he proceeds from the certaine way to the safe way. A­gainst which position neuerthelesse if one were disposed to proceed according to rigour of Phi­losophie, he might easilie demonstrate a plaine impossibilitie in it by an argument ad hominem. For if as Sir Humfrey houldes there is no certaintie in the Romish faith & way, & that all the certaintie is in his owne as he hitherto hath labored to shewe, then can he not truelie say that his way is the safer way, for that the worde safer inuolueth a comparison betweene two which are both safe, because a comparison as Philosophie teacheth, cannot be but betwixt things of the same common nature, comparatio non est nisi inter resciusdem generis. Wherefore since that according to the tenet of Sir Hum­frey [Page 377] there is neyther certaintie nor safetie in the Romish faith, & yet that, as he supposeth, they are both in his owne, it is consequent that altho' it were a safe way, yet vpon his supposi­tion it cannot possible be truelie called either a safer way, or of more confort & benefit then the Romish way. To say nothing of our knights presumption & folly in offering to call that a more safe, more confortable, & more profitable way to the soule, which as yet he hath not shewed with anie probabilitie either before or now in this section, to haue anie one of those attributes in it, but hath beene rather by mee alreadie conuinced to be voyde of them all. Ad altho' this generall ansere might serue for all Sir Humfrey bringeth in this place, as being in substance but a newe repetition of the same points of doctrine of which he treated in seuerall places before: yet to giue him fuller satisfaction, and because tho' the doctrine be the same, yet the application is different: I will descend to particular examen of it.

He begins with Bellarmin whom he citeth as a confesser of the all sufficientie of scripture as he tearmeth it, but it is as cleare as day that Bellarmin made not anie such confession ther being not anie such worde or sense to be foūde in his workes, but rather the quite contrarie is founde euen in the same booke which Sir Humfrey here citeth, in which he expresselie [Page 378] confesseth & professeth traditions to be neces­sarie besides the scriptures, yea & in the very-next wordes to those which the knight citeth he addeth that all other things (meanig besy­des those which the Apostles publikelie & commonlie preached to all men) are not writ­ten. His wordes are these in Latin. Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria, & quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicauurunt, alia autem non omnia scripta esse. I say that all those things are written by the Apostles which are necessarie to all men, & which they openlie preached to all vulgarlie or commonlie, but all other things are not written. Which last wordes not with standing they are a parte of the same positiō or sentence, & conteine the very point of difficultie in this controuersie: yet by a notorious imposture Sir Humfrey left them out, & so at one stroake quite corrupteth both Bellarmins sense & sen­tence. 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 [Page 379] 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 [Page 380] 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; [...]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 [Page 381] 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 writtē 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 [Page 382] Father then to adore the Sactamentall bread which depends vpon the intentiō 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, whe [...] 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, [Page 383] doth not so much depend vpon the intention of the Preist, but that sufficiēt 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 safer way to attribute them who­lelie to God, because although we will, yet it is God that worketh in vs to worke. All which is quite out of this matter, & serueth for nothing but to stoppe holes with a vaneflorish graunded onelie vpon the wordes safe way which the knight founde in S. Augustin to sounde to his owne tune & ther vpon founded a verball argument. And the like dictionariall maner of proofe doth he vse wherby to showe his safer way in the points of priuate Masse & communion in both kyndes but most redicu­lously.

For whereas he findeth in some of the Ro­manists [Page 384] that the Masse as being not onelie a sacrifice but also a Sacrament is both more commendablie administred & more frutfullie receiued when both Preist & people together are partakers of it, Sir Humfrey applyeth this to the Raphsodie of the reformed Churches: which neuerthelesse hath not a scrap in it ei­ther of true sacrifice or Sacrament, but is onely a pore hungerie scamling of bread & wine not conformable either to the forme of the ancient Lythurgies of S. Chrysostome or S. Basil, nor euer heard on in the Christian world before the dayes of Luther, and of so smale estimation euen among themselues that if it chance to fall, they will scarce take paines to take it from the grounde, as may appeare by a prittie passage of that nature which not manie yeares past I re­ceiued from the mouth of one who was then of the ministrie, what he is nowe I knowe not, who tould me that coming in to a certaine Church, the minister as he deliuered the com­munion to his parishoners did let a peace fall from him, but there was not one in the whole congregation excepting a dogge that showed so much deuotion towardes their vnuenerable Sacrament as once to offer to take it from the grounde. It is true he tould me with all that the honest minister by tasting a little to often of the cup was some what distempered in his head, but that me thought was but a pore ex­cuse [Page 385] for a man of his coate, & a teacher of re­formed doctrine, especiallie at such a tyme & in such an occasion. Which want of respect in the reformed brothers towards their commu­nion, doth yet further appeare if we compare it with the extraordinarie great diligence & care which the Preists & people vse in the Ro­man Church for the auoyding of all Kynde of irreuerence towardes the holie Eucharist as both the rubrickes of the Missal, the ancient Canons, & dayly practice testifie, in so much that one, & perhaps the cheefest reason of the restrainte of the Sacramentall Cup to the laytie was for the auoyding of such irre­uerences as might easilie haue happened amōg such multitudes of people as vse to Commu­nicate at one tyme in the Roman Church. So that now we see it was great absurditie in Sir Humfrey to argue the greater saftie of the do­ctrine of his Church out of that which the Romanists speake onelie of their owne, espe­ciallie considering there is not one worde of safetie to be founde in anie of the places cited by him, the authours of them not intending to show anie lesse safetie to be foūde either in the doctrine or practice of the Roman Church concerning priuate Masse & single cōmunion, but onelie at the most, that some more spiri­tuall profit would redounde to the people then nowe doth, if either their deuotion were so [Page 386] farre extended as that in euerie Masse some would communicate, or that the Church, in other respects had greater reason to permit the vse of the Chalis to the laitie then not to per­mit it, alwayes supposing as a certaine trueth that not withstanding in some respects the contrarie to that which is nowe practized might be more profitable yet, that all circum­stances considered that is the safest for mens consciences which is done according to the present custome of that Church which is knowne euen by our aduersaries to haue visi­bly succeeded from the Apostles, at the least personallie, & is also knowne euen by Iewes & gentils to be the most vniuersall Church in the Christian world. And let this be sufficient to redargue the proceedings of the knight in this matter, yet not omitting that two of the authours he citeth for Romanists to wit the Apostata Deane & Cassander, are not such, & that in the citation of Bellarmin he vseth one of his accustomed trickes, & whose wordes al­though he rehearseth them truelie in the mar­gen, yet he translateth them corruptedlie. For whereas Bellarmin saith that the Masse in which communicants are present, is more per­fect & legitimate, ex hac parte, that is in as much as it is ordained to the spirituall refectiō of the people, the knight omitteth in his translation the wordes ex hac parte, & by that tricke doth [Page 387] notablie peruert Bellarmin's meaning, making the reader beleeue he affirmed that absolutelie, which neuerthelesse he did expresselie & pur­poselie vtter with limitation, with an intention to showe that altho' in one respect priuate masse is lesse perfect, & lesse conformable to the ancient custome of the Church in regarde of the profit of the people, yet that absolutelie in it selfe it is as perfect & lawfull as that in which communicants are present.

Furthermore touching the mariage of mi­nisters, Sir Humfrey sayth it will appeare by the confessions of the Romanists that it is the safer way to liue chastlie in matrimony thē by a single life to hazarde their soules by incontinē ­cie, thus the knight which if he meanes of the ministers of his owne misreformed Church onelie, I will easilie graunt that supposing their slipperie inclination to lecherie, and the smale meanes they vse for mortification of the flesh & conseruation of chastitie, it is a safer way in my opinion for them to marrie then to liue a single life, especillie considering they are no true Preists but onelie equiuocall Clergie men both in Order & function, & that if they had not wiues it is to be doubted the maydes of their parishes would scarcelie liue with out danger among them. But if Sir Humfrey speakes of Roman Preists which haue true vo­cation, true ordination & sacred function, then [Page 388] I will say with diuers graue authors that if the Preists of the old testament obserued those dayes continencie in which they sacrificed by their turnes, then ought the Preists of the new testament to obserue chastitie euerie day, be­cause, they euerie day offer sacrifice. Hier. [...]. tit. [...]os. l. [...]fi c. [...] ve­ [...]. [...]. [...] ca. [...]c.

And therefore the Roman Church hath most religiouslie ordained the lawe of perpe­tuall chastitie of Preists, for that altho' perhaps it may seeme more safe for some particular per­sons to marrie supposing their negligence & frayltie in that nature: & abstracting from a vowe alreadie made, & the lawe of the Church in that particular, yet althings cōsidered, & for as much as euen the most inclined to vice may liue chaste with Gods grace if they will make vse of his gifts, & of such meanes as the Church hath ordained for that end & purpose; it is to be iudged better, safer, & greater honour to God, that the whole state of Preisthood or Sacer­doce should be tyed with the sacred band of perpetuall chastitie. [...]e non [...]ius [...]otes [...] plu­ [...] [...]orati [...]am [...] sal­ [...]tur [...]cerdo­ [...] [...]uga­ [...] [...]i in [...] pre­ [...]atu [...]ātur. [...]as [...]. l. 2 de [...] con. [...]. [...]nder. Neither doth all nor anie of the authors which the knight citeth abso­lutelie confesse the contrarie to be safer then this, but onelie (they being but three in num­ber) one of them with a perhaps it were not worse, an other with an it were good, & holesome, & the third (who yet is no Ro­manist) with a may be thought necessarie, but showe their particular dictamens, & being so fewe as they bee, thou' they were the [Page 389] greatest Oracles in the world, they could not possible cause anie safetie in the consciences of those who shall followe them against the streame of all other diuines, nor can they in any true sense be sayd to be the confession of the Romanists as the knight doth affirme, since that two or three cannot in anie case carie the name of the whole nor iustelie preiudicate the weight of their authority in case they did agree with the misreformed doctrine in this particu­lar as yet they doe not.

And touching Panormitan whome Sir Humfrey calles a great Canonist I will not examen how great he was in that science: yet I doe not see why his authoritie should be acco­unted great in the Roman Church, suppo­sing he was onelie a Scismaticall Cardi­nall of the scismaticall Pope Felix. Second­lie suppose he were as great a Canonist as the author of the Canons himselfe, yet doth his great authoritie fauore Sir Humfreyes cause neuer a iot in regarde he doth not affirme, as the latter parte of the 32. article of the English Creed doth, that it is lawfull also for Bishops, Preists & Deacons, as for all other Christian men to marrye at their owne discretion: But Panormitan onelie sayde (to vse his owne wordes) I beleeued it were a holsome statute for the good & health of soules) that these who will containe, & merit more maybe lefte to their owne [Page 390] wills: but those that ar not able to containe, may marrie. Because experience tsacheth that the quite contrarie effect followeth of that lawe of continencie. In which saying altho' I must needs confesse, he erred in presuming to pre­scribe a new rule to the Church, yet is it plaine he differs frome the faith of Sir Humfrey in this point in diuers respects. First in that he vttered not this as a matter either of faith, or yet of morall certaintie, but onelie deliuered it as his owne priuate opinion. How be it Sir Humfrey hearing the sounde of the worde Credo (as it seemes) he presentlie conceiued it to be as certaine as the Apostles Creed it selfe or at the least desired his reader might so ap­prehend it. Secondlie Panormitan doth not affirme absolutelie that it is either holsome or yet as much as lawfull for Preists to marrie notobstanding the precept of the Roman Church to the contrarie (as our nouelists doe who also condemne that lawe of single lyfe for iniuste, [...]rte quod [...]erdoti­ [...] inter­ [...]tum fuit [...]iugium, [...]factum [...]impia [...]annide, [...]. [...]l. Inst. l. [...]. cap. 12. [...] 23. & tirannicall) But he was onely of opinion that it were good for the health of the soules of some particular persons, that the same Church should alter her course, & make such a statute for the time to come. Thirdly Panor­mitan if his wordes be duelie ponderd, doth not affirme that the Church might doe well to constitute that Preists with the restriction of Sacerdoce or Preisthood, I meane after they haue receiued orders, may marrie, but he [Page 391] meanes onelie that Preists with ampliation, that is such persons as intend to be Preists may marrye if they fynde themselues not able to liue chaste: wher as the pretented reformers hould it lawfull not onelie for Preists but also euen for such religious persons as haue made a speciall vowe of perpetuall chastitie, to marrie at their pleasure, as the verie author & Ante­signane of their sect did both in wordes & ex­ample teach them. By all which particulars it is manifest that Panormitans case is farre diffe­rent frome the doctrine & practise of the mo­derne sectaries especiallie of the Church of England; & consequentlie his testimonie can not possible proue anie safetie for Sir Humfrey in this parte of his way, as being quite an other extrauagant way which neither meets with his nor ours. More ouer for conclusion I wish the reader to take notice that I neither fynde in Panormitan those formall wordes which Sir Humfrey cites, nor anie others intyrelie equiualent vnto them, nor yet are they intyrelie & continuatlie rehearsed by the knight but with interruption, as the authors owne wordes which here I truelie quote in the margen will declare. Credo pro bono & salute ani­marū quod esset salubre statutū vt volentes continere, & magis mereri re­linquere voluntati eorum: non valētes au­tem conti­nere, possint contrahere quia expe, rientia do­cente con­trarius prorsus ef­fectus se­quitur ex illa lege cō ­tinētiae. &c. Panor. 3. p. c. cū olim de Cler. coniug. And besides this the faithlesse knight in steed of the wordes non valentes puts non volentes, & for the worde Credo (which denotates the weakenesse of the authors dictamen, signifying therby that it [Page 390] was onelie a particular credulitie of his owne) he translates, it were good, & behouefull, & attrihutes the surmised Licentiousnesse of the Catholike clergie to the lawe of celibate it selfe, whereas the author onelie saith. sequitur ex lege, the contrarie effect followeth of the lawe.

And by occasion of this passage, the reader may reflect what a pore shifte Sir Humfrey was forced to vse for excuse of the falacitie of his misreformed ministrie when he cat­ched at the authoritie of this one Apo­chryphal Cardinall, who neuerthelesse vpon due examen appeares to haue so much fru­state his sinister expectation.

Now for Aeneas Syluius, the doth lesse fauore Sir Humfreys tenet, nay not at all, as his owne wordes aboue quoted in the margen doe manifest to the reader. He onelie speaketh by a perhaps it were not worse that verie manie Preists had wiues: & yet this he recalled of his owne accorde after his assuption to the cheefe Pontificall seat or Popedome, by a speciall Bull of retractation of that & some other immature positions vttered in his youth. So that the kinght was farre out of his way, when for the safetye of this parte of his new diuised way, he produced these authors, & if he haue no better garde & defense for it thē the testimonie of thē (as in truth he hath not) then ought euerie one to take heed of it, & auoide it as a most vn­quoth, & perilous path.

And so to conclude this I may not vnfitly say with Erasmus: quae malum est ista tanta sala­citas in nostris uouis Euangelistis vt sine vxoribus esse non possint? what in the mischeefe, saith Erasmus, a great inclination to lecherie is this in our newe Euangelists that they can not be with out wiues? An I say further that if they persuade themselues they can not possible containe, & therfore must needs be marryed; at the least why doe they reprehend Ro­man Preists who haue the contrarie per­suasion, for obledging themselues to a single life? If they vpon supposition of such carnall conceits hould they can not goe safe to Hea­uen without wiues at their heels, why should those be condemned who hould it safer to goe without them? An oculus tuus nequam est quia ego bonus sum? wherefore doe the ministers cen­sure the Roman Preists so seuerlie for that which is a virtue in them? But in deed it is to be feared that those who can not possible liue chastelie without a woman, will hardlie con­tent themselues with one in all cases, but rather some times make bould with their neibours, or at the least fall to that large axiome of le­cherous Luther, si non velit vxor, veniat ancilla, in which I knowe not what safetie can be found for the soule, except Sir Hum­frey houldeth that for the safest which is most agreable to the delights of the bodie.

Wherefore if we will discourse rather like men then blatter like beasts, the onelie safetie that can be had in this matter, especiallie for Preists, is to follow that melius facit of S. Paule 1. Chorinth. 7. I meane that statute of a chaste harte which there he mentioneth, and this sta­tute being once well & firmelie made, the me­lius est nubere hath no place, but then the spiri­tuall mariage of the soule with Christ her sponse is made, & then it is to late to vse that violent medicine; an other antidote must be vsed for the cure of that surfetting Vri, to wit mortification of the bodie, which medi­cine the same Apostle prescribes in an other place saying, castigo corpus meum. And if the reformed ministers would make vse of this, then perhaps they would change their opinion & account the way of single life safer then the way of mariage, & that way which as S. Hie­rome saith filleth Paradise, Contra Iouin. not that which fil­leth the world, & finallie that which S. Paule counselleth absolutelie, not that which hee onelie permitteth as a remedie for a supposed imperfection, which permission tho' it be the easier way, & therefore perhaps is more wil­linglie imbrased by Sir Humfrey in fauor of his deformed Clergie, as a man not ignorant of their imperfections in that nature, yet was the other euer commended as the safer way both by God & his Saints, & generallie imbra­ced [Page 395] by the Church an clergie before the daies of Luther.

Aboute prayer in an vnknowne language none of the authours the knight citeth, affir­me that it is the safer way to pray in a vulgar tongue, or yet, that it is absolutelie better, but onelie secundum quid, that is for the edification of the Church as Caietan speaketh, yet not meaning but that is the best & safest all things considered which the Church doth practice: which practice as the same Caietan well kewe (as being a Cardinall of the Roman Church) is to haue the publike seruice in Latin rather then in the mother tongue for such reasons as I haue deliuered in an other place. And tou­ching the testimonie of S. Thomas whome here the knight produceth in his commentarie vpon the 14. chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians (as I suppose, for he quotes not the place) as affirming it is manifest that he receiues more benefit who prayes & vnder­standes what he sayth, because the mynde of him who prayes & vnderstandes not, is with­out frute & refection. To this I anser, that S. Thomas doth not meane by this that it is better that the publike seruice of the Church be in a vulgar language which is that wee here haue in question, & not the priuate prayers of euery particular person, of which S. Thomas onelie speakes, as his owne wordes doe testifie [Page 394] in that place which I haue exactelie read & duelie pondered. Euer supposing that manie things may be profitable for single persons which yet in cōmon are esteemed much worse yea and in some circumstances absolutelie ill, as by examples which passe in the lawes of tem­porall Republikes may plainelie appeare. That which S. Thomas did doubtlesselie persuade him selfe to be true whome the world knowes to haue dailie celebrated Masse in Latin not in anie vulgar language. To omit that euen those simple people who praye in the Latin tongue altho' they want that particular instru­ction of the vnderstanding which the learned receiue in prayer, yet sans doubt they often tymes performe that action with greater de­uotion & feruor in their wills & affections then the greatest schollers in the world: God al­mightie by reason of their pious & humble de­sires supplying as it were in one power that which wantes in an other.

And the same I say to the wordes of Lyra & Caietan who speeches to the same purpose which S. Thomas doth & vpon the same place of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. where altho' Caie­tan extendes his speeh euen to publike pray­er of the Church: yet is it manifest that the same Caietan doth neither condemne the contrarie practise of the Roman Church, nor yet houldes it absolutelie better or safer that publike pray­ers [Page 395] were (especiallie in these our tymes) not in Latin but in the vulgar language. But he onelie meaneth that it were better in that one respect of edifying the Church if other circum­stances did also in like paritie concurre, or if there were not more prepondering reasons for the present practise of the Church. And the­refore Caietan presentlie after the wordes ci­ted by Sir Humfrey addeth others which if they had not ben omitted by him, they had quite cleared this difficultie, for so he procee­deth saying. Et ne intelligeres reprehendi a Paulo eiusmodi diuinas laudes (to wit such prayers as are made in an vnknowne tongue) subiun­git: nam tu quidem bene gratias agis: by which wordes it is plaine that Caietan was not of knight Humfrey opinion in this particular.

Lastelie the Rhemes Testament cited by Sir Hūfrey vpon the same passage of S. Paule con­fesseth the same that S. Thomas sayth of a particular mans priuate deuotion, that in deed it is not so fruetfull for instruction to him when he prayes in a stange longuage, as when he vnderstandes his prayers, yet the authors of the note adde an other clause which if the kinght had proceeded like a freind, he ought not to haue omitted, to wit that the Apostle forbides not such praying neither: confessing that such a mans spirit, harte, & affection prayeth well towardes God tho' his mynde & [Page 398] vnderstāding be not profited to instructiō, as o­therwise it might be if he vnderstood the words: neither doth he appointe him to translate his prayer into his vulgar tōgue &c. Thus the Rhe­mists, Which as the reader may easilie perceiue doth quite contradicte Sir Humfreys purpose, & the doctrine & practise of his Church.

Sir Humfrey also falsifyes Gabriel lect. 12. in Can. or at the he least he falsely & igno­rantlie vnderstāds him, when in his owne 265. page he cytes him, affirming that he diliuereth there seuen reasons why vocall prayer should be vnderstanded by the people, For Biel tea­cheth not there in what lenguage vocall pryer ought to bee, but onelie proueth that it must not be meerelie mentall but so vttered & pro­nounced as it may be knowne for such by the people, vt innotescat populo, which wordes doe not signifie (as the kinght falselie English them) may be vnderstood, but may come to the notice or hearing of the people in regarde it is vocall prayer in what language soeuer it bee, Hebrewe, Greke, or Latin. Circa pri­mum an o­ratio debeat vocaliter perfici? — Tūc dicitur ad dubium quod oratio publica ne­cessario est vocalis. O­portet enim quod talis oratio inno­tescat popu­lo pro quo offertur. Biel. in Can. lect. 62. f. 124. So that the reader may perceiue that this author is neither pertinently nor sincerelie produced by our aduersarie.

For the greater safatie of his reiecting the wiship of images he produces expresselie three onelie authors, two of which neuerthelesse are no Romanists, one of them being the dimi-Romanist [Page 399] Erasmus, the other Cassander neither of whose authorities we admit for current. It is true the same Cassāder brings out of Biel some­thing to the same purpose, who supposing he be truelie alledged, yet it must alwayes be true that one suallowe makes not summer, & so what soeuer he sayth his authoritie alone can not ingender safetie. And since I writ this by taking a viewe of the authors themselues, I fynde that Sir Humfrey hath thryse corrupted Cassander by omission of some of his wordes which he rehearses out of the 979. page of his consultation of images: for all that clause of Cassander: imaginum moderato vsu pacis & tranquilitatis causa: conseruato: Sir Humfrey lets quyte drop out of his pen, which wordes not withstanding are of so much importance to haue ben trulie related that togither with some others in the same page (which he also pretermits) they be the onelie wordes which most declare the authors meaning touching the honor due to images. The wordes are these. Non tamen haec quae diximus eo pertinent vt imagines sanctorum si in ijs modo decorum seruetur non aliquo honore illis conuenienti, & de­bito affici possint, videlicet si vt signa & monu­menta sanctorum honorifice habeantur & in gra­tiam illorum quos significant & referunt, reuerenter conspiciantur & tractentur, modo ab eximo cultu temperetur, & nihil diuinitatis & virtutis illis [Page 400] tribuatur, sed eo tantum loco habeantur quo litterae & voces quae rerum absentium quas diligimus & veneramur gratam memoriam suggerant. All which long sentence as being much disagreea­ble to Sir Humfreys Precisian spirit he made shifte to passe ouer in lurchers sylence. And in deed in my iudgement the foresayd wordes taken as they stand in the text, are so plaine for the worship of images in that sense in which the Roman Church houldes it lawfull to honore them, that I can not easilie preceiue in what they differ from the tenor of the decree of the Tridentine Councell in that point.

In the other place Sir Humfrey likewise omits the latter parte of Biels sentence as it is cyted by Cassander, & as the wordes are founde in Biel himselfe, the wordes which Sir Hum­frey scips are these, quia qualitercumque conside­retur imago est res quaedam insensibilis & crea­tura cui adoratio latrie minime exhibenda. Which wordes in deed are those by which both Biel & Cassander cheefelie declare what they denie to be lawfull in the due worship of ima­ges that is adoration of Latria or diuine ho­nor: And yet both of them graunte an other inferior worship or honor due to them, so that the industrious knight to saue labor falsified these two authors both at once. And altho' Biel doth reprehend & that most iustelie, the blockish error of some ignorant people (of which perhaps some there may be some times in [Page 401] the vniuersall Church) that beleeue some di­uine virtue or sanctitie to reside in images, yea & in one more then an other, & the like sotish conceites, yet doth it not followe out of this reprehension of Biel that he denied it absolu­telie to be lawfull to worship images in due manner, as our captious knight would haue it: Nay Biel is so farre from this that in the verie same place quoted by Sir Humfrey he expres­selie defēdes adoration of the images of Christ euen with Latria improperlie or per accidens, which is as much as anie Roman diuine graun­tes to anie image what soeuer. To which we may adde that the same Biel doth in expresse termes put for conclusion of his 59. lection these wordes. Haec de imaginum adoratione ratione re­presentationis. This of the adoration of images in respect of their representation. By which wordes it is cleare that is author this grosselie abused in that he is cited by our aduersarie a­gainst honor of images, he being so plaine a defendant of the same that he doubts not to vse the words Latria & adoratio.

Erasmus & Cassander are also here produced by our aduersarie against the vse of images pra­ctised in the Roman Church. But these two altho' I doubte not but both of them in their writings incline much more to Catholike Re­ligion then they doe to Protestancie: yet abso­lutelie they are but neutrals who followed [Page 402] more their owne wandering wits then anie other certaine rule of faith. And so their te­stimonies are not admitted by vs for Orthodox and authenticall. And therefore Sir Humfrey committes an error as often as he vseth them for Romanists.

Against the safetie of inuocation of Saints he produceth S. Augustin saying. Tutius & iucun­dius loquor ad meum Iesum. But this sentence he cites he knowes not where, and it proues he knowes not what, nor I neither. S. Augu­stin truelie affirmeth that he speaketh more safelie & delighfully to Iesus thē anie other, & so doe I, but as hee doth not say that he spea­keth not to his Saints also, no more doe I. Tract. 84. in Ioan. And as Saint Aug. tract. 84. in Io. sayth that wee make commemoration of the Saints at the table that is at the altar, to the end they may pray for vs, so doe I. the knight citeth also for his purpose Chemnisius & Cassander, but I care not for them, their testimonie is neither safe nor sound.

Against the saftie of the doctrine of merits he citeth also S. Bernard saying that, dāgerous is the habitatiō of those that trust in their owne merits. But here the knight rides beside the saddle, for S. Bernard speakes not directlie of merits but of cōfidence in merits, which we Romanists graūt to be vnsafe by reason of the vncertaintie of them in this or that particular man. In an other [Page 403] place the same S. Ber. sayth he duelleth in the woundes of our Sauiour with more saftie: which saying we graunte also to be true in the highest degree, but what is this to the denyall of true merits grounded in the mercie & grace of God? of which the same S. Bernard sayth in an other place, indeuore, or procure to haue me­rits, but when thou' hast them acknowledge that thou hast them giuen thee. merita habere cura, habitadata noueris. And the trueth is that by reiecting the counsell of holie S. Bernard in this particular, the reformers commit a most pernicious errour in regarde that by houlding all merit of man with God impossible, they come to neglect the exercise of virtue & those good workes in which both merit doth con­siste, & without which the Kingdome of Heauen is not obtained, which doctrine howe domageable it is to the Saluation of soules let the indifferent reader consider.

Sir Hūfrey cytes also frayer walden whome he most falselie affirmeth to agree with the Protestants in the doctrine of merits. For as appeareth by those same wordes which he ci­teth here, he doth not denie all merit, as they doe, but at the most such a kynde of merit in particularie: that is, that no man simpliciter, simplie meriteth the Kingdome of Heauen, which merit yet he doth not absolutelie denie, but onelie sayth that no man can merit it but [Page 404] by the grace of God or will of the giuer, which are his owne expresse wordes as they are re­hearse by our aduersarie, and in a sounde sense doe not differ a iot from the doctrine of other diuines. In fine he doth with the rest of the Ca­tholike diuines expresselie teach that the good workes of the iust performed by the grace of God are absolutelie meritorious of the King­dome of Heauē, yet he is opiniō that the words ex condigno & congruo, are not to be vsed; in which he differeth in deed from the opinion of most diuines, but not from the Roman faith which standes not vpon those termes, but one­lie vpon true merit, as may be seene in the Councell of Trent. ses. 6. Can. penult. p. 48. Which Councell vseth not those tearmes, but onelie the wordes vere mereri, that is to merit truelie. And consequentlie fryer walden agrees with the Councel of Trent but not with Sir Humfrey and his precise brothers who flie the verie name of merit, as deuils flie the Crosse. And to descend, to a more particular discussion of fryer waldos meaning touching the doctrine of merits of which the knight subtillie conten­des to make him a flat denyer.

I say in primis, waldo in the place cyted by Sir Humfrey disputes against Wiclef, who thought such confidence in proper merits that he seemed to exclude the merits of Christ, & his saints. And therefore speaking of his per­uerse [Page 405] tenet he sayth thus. Maledicta ergo doctri­na Wiclef quae potius confidere iubet in merito, & hoc proprio, vt Christi, & Sanctorum videatur excludere, quam in oratione humili pro Christi gra­tia. That is: Maledicted or cursed be the doctrine of Wiclef which rather commaundes to confide in merit, & that proper, so that it may seeme to ex­clude the merits of Christ, & his Saints: then in humble prayer for the grace of Christ: Now this Kynde of confidence in merits, as our aduersa­ries themselues can witnesse if they please, is not anie parte of the Roman doctrine, but ra­ther we Romanists concurre with fryer waldo in his approued cursse. Yea & we are so remote & auerted from the doctrine of Wiclef in this point, & from teaching such confidence euen in true & approued merits, that we cantelously aduise the members of our Church as the sa­fer way not to relie vpon them but vpon the mercie of God as in an other place I haue more largelie declared.

More hauing most attētiuelie read his seueral treatises vpon that subiect, I plainelie perceiue that religious, & zealous defender of the Ro­man doctrine against Wiclef, did onelie reiect such merits as either excludes, or at a the least preferres not the grace of God before them, or admits not grace as the foundation of merits. For touching merits founded, & performed by the concourse of Gods grace, fryer waldo ab­solutelie [Page 406] grauntes both in this same chapter ci­ted by our aduersarie, where he mentiones both the merits of Chtist & his saints & par­ticularlie of Sainct Paule in these wordes. Whence it is that neyther the Apostle did applie anie thing to his owne merits but by premitting or preferring the benefits of God, according to the psalmist saying. Because he would so haue me. As also more clearelie in his tenth Title & 98. chapter where he most professedlie defendes against Wiclef, the verie participation of me­rits especiallie among religious persons. Which doctrine of participation of merits necessarilie supposes a graunt of merits themselues, as common sense doth easilie apprehend. Not to let passe, that some of the authours owne wordes in that same place, euidentlie conuince the same to be true: For that thus he questiones his aduersarie. cur merita non ijs partimur quos reddimus bene meritos nostris meritis? Why doe not we parte merits with them whome we make well merited by our merits? By which wordes waldensis appeares to be so cleare from denial of merits maintained by the Roman Church, that he rather heapeth merits vpon merits in defense of the same. And in the 8. chapter of his first Title he speakes most expresselie euen of merit of eternall life saying. Sed noueriut vitam aeternam dari nobis pro meritis si cum meri­tis ipsis numeremus & gratiam sine qua nec ipsa [Page 407] sunt merita, quia nec Dei dona. But let them knowe (sayth walden) that eternal life is giuen vs for merits, if with merits we number grace, without which neyther are they merits, because they are not the giftes of God.

And by this it further appeares most manife­stly that those wordes of waldensis alledged by Sir Humfrey & with which he makes his flo­rish, to wit. I repute him the sounder diuine, & more consonant to sacred scriptures who simply denyes such merit: in reallitie ar not for his purpose, in regarde that ther is not in them anie denyal of that merit which the Romā Church defines & appooues: no not the merit of eternal life: but the author of them, onelie reiects from the desert of eternal life tale meritum, that is merit as it is signified by those tearmes de condigno, And, de congruo, vsed among diuines both in his time, & at this pre­sent: from the vse of which according to his priuate dictamen, it were more confor­mable both to diuinitie, & the scripture to refraine, to the end (as he after addes) they might by the auoyding of those termes, be founde both to accorde better with the former saints (he meanes the ancient Fathers of the Church) & with the phrase of the Apostle saying: 1 Cor. 3.5. sufficientia nostra ex Deo est: our suffi­ciencie is of God. As also for that in respect of the grace of God, they might be founde more [Page 408] disagreable (as in their doctrine so in their manner of speech) from the Pelagians, & wic­lesists who (as the same walden saith) either conceile or denie the grace of God, & wholely confide in the merits of men: Qui gratiā Dei, vel tacent vel abnegāt, & in meritis hominum omnino cō ­fidunt. Ibid. so you see that all the controuersie which fryer walden hath with our Roman deuines is onelie a boute the vse of those two phrases: meritum de condigno, and, meritum de congruo: as persuading the foresaid diuines that when they dispute of merits, they neuer silence the grace of God, but either expresse grace & not merits: or else preferre grace before meritis: and as he saies in Latin. exprimentes gratiam, silentes de meritis, aut gra­tiam meritis praeferentes. All which is but que­stio de nomine: a nominal or verbal disputation, or aboute what manner of speech may seeme most fit to be practised in this point for a voy­ding offense in the heares: yet walden & those same diuines vniformelie according in the sub­stance of the doctrine of merits themselues as I haue said once before. And so now let this be sufficient to declare vnto the reader how farre out of square our Crosse aduersarie hath detorted the true sense of this religious diuine, to make him seeme to teache according to his owne newe diuinitie in the matter of merits. I confesse I haue inlarged my selfe much more then the matter requires: if otherwife I had not considered how much it importes in all [Page 409] occasions to daunte the audaciousnes of a pre­sumptuous aduersarie, who by making most plausible vse of that is least for his purpose maintaines the smale reputation of his owne newfashioned religion cheefelie by the ruines of other mens honor: not sparing this his owne renowned contriman indeuoring by in­direct meanes to make him speak against his owne faith & conscience among the rest: of which I could not possiblie be insensible: but was obliged euen according to the rules of natural affection, to labore to cleare him of such a foule & iniurious aspertion.

But now I come to a conclusion, where yet the reader if he please may further take notice of some other more triuiall abuse offered to this same famous diuine by the sliperie knight by leauing out the aduerbe igitur in his trans­lation of the Latin in to English, which in reason he ought not to haue omitted in re­garde it necessarilie implyes a relation or reference to the authors former discourse in which he argues against merit without mention of grace, & of which he speakes in his subsequent wordes, tale meritum &c. al­ledged by Sir Humfrey in a cōtrarie sense to his meaning. Besides this, the same Sir Humfrey hath not a little transposed some of waldens wordes in his recital of them in English. Con­necting to these: or will of the giuer: those, as [Page 410] all the former sants, (vntill the late schoolemen) & the vniuersal Church hath written. Which neuerthelesse, he ought to haue set immedia­telie after those other which followe in the authors text: to wit: inuenirentur esse discor­des: they might be founde disagreable. But because in deed I doe not perceiue it could much importe our aduersarie to proceed in this manner; therefore I charitablie persuade my self it was not done of malice, but rather of ill custome.

Lastelie Sir Humfrey produceth Bellarmin for the safety of his way in this same point. But he that should haue read his fift booke of Iu­stification, would iudge that man fitter for Bedlam or Bridwell then for the schoole of diuinie, that would offer to cite Bellarmin a­gainst the doctrine of merits. The wordes & meaning of him I haue declared in an other place & so hould it in diuers respects superflu­ous to repeate them. He cites also S. Austin out of chemnitius as it seemes, as saying (I knowe not where for he quoteth not the place) that he speakes more safelie to Iesus, tutius & iu­cundius loquor ad meum Iesum. But what is this to the purpose of denying inuocation of Saints. For besides that this comes onelie out of a iu­glers bugget & so may iustelie be supected for false wares, yet admit S. Austin sayth so, what Romanist is there who doth not say the same [Page 411] yea & practise the same daylie in their prayers▪ While they acknowledge with all submission & humilitie that all their saftetie & conforte of conscience proceedes from Iesus as the foun­taine of their Saluation, as the conclusion of all or most Catholike prayers demonstrate: Yet not so but that they may crye also vnto his freindes & seruants as being more neare allyed vnto him both in place, fauour, & merits then we our selues, that they interced & mediate for vs for the obtaining of that which wee our selues are not worthy either to obtaine or craue at his hāds. Which kinde of inuocation of Saints, S. Austin himselfe doth approue in diuers places as tract. 84. in Io. Ser. de verb. Apost. & de cura pro mart. cap. 4. And so these being all the authors which Sir Humfrey hath produced in this section, I will conclude the censure of it in this manner. That whereas he promised in the begining to shewe the grea­ter saftie of the Protestant faith then of the Roman by the confession of the Romanists themselues, he hath shewed no saftie at all, but onelie trifled in the wordes & meaning of his aduersaries doctrine, & that onely in some fewe negatiue articles of his faith omitting all the rest, & so he hath performed iust nothing which may serue for the demonstration of anie way at all, & much lesse of a safe & perfect way, but onelie hath brought him selfe & his reader [Page 412] further into the laberinth of his wandering wits.

THE XI. PERIOD.

IN his 12. section Sir Humfrey tells his rea­der that the Church of Rome doth seeke to elude the recordes, & reall proofes in the Fathers, & other learned authours, touching the cheefe points in controuersie betwixt vs. This accusation no doubt maketh a foule noise in a pulpit, but let vs see how the knight will be able to iustifie it.

For his first witnesse he produceth S. Chry­sostome Hom 49. operis imperf. where it is sayd that, the Church is knowne onelie by the scriptures. But first the verie title of the treatise showeth this testimonie to be of smale authoritie as being opus imperfectum an vnperfect worke, & so it ought not in reason to be admitted for a sufficient proofe: especiallie considering that Sir Humfrey alledgeth no other witnesse; & yet on the contrarie wee knowe that our Sa­uiour sayd. In ore duorum, aut trium testium stet omne verbum, in 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 [Page 413] 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 its 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 [Page 414] 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 [Page 415] 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 [Page 416] 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 [Page 417] 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 [Page 418] honoreth this foundation vpon which the alti­tude of the Ecclesiastici structure ariseth. And by this S. Augustins faith of S. Peters souera­nitie in the gouerment of the Church most clearilie appeares, so that no other peculiar opi­nion of his cōcerning the sense of those wordes super hanc Petram, could possible preiudicate his owne constant doctrine in the substance of this matter in it selfe, as neither could stapleton or anie other Catholike diuine by their taxation of him.

And yet neither did S. Augustin in deed reproue the common opinion of diuines in ex­pounding that place of S. Mathewe of the person of S. Peter: but expresselie remittes the choyse of the one or the other to the iudgement, or affection of the reader, as is manifest by his owne wordes vpon this same subiect in his retractions concluding his dis­course aboute the two seuerall opinions in this manner. Lib. 1. re­tract. c. 21. Harum. autem duarum sententia­rum quae sit probabilior eligat lector. Of these two opinions let the reader make choise of which is more probable. And so this allegation is nothing to the purpose of Sir Humfreys ma­litious indeuors in prouing the euident testimo­nies of ancient Fathers to be eluded by Roma­nists, as being neither anie euident testimonie in it selfe, as I haue declared, nor yet within the sphere of faith, or including the point of con­trouersie [Page 419] in the matter proposed by our aduer­sarie in this passage, as he falselie supposeth: out of which compasse euerie one may lawfullie a­bounde in his owne sense: as well the Fathers in the deliuerie of their priuate opinions, as al­so the moderne diuines in passing their cen­sures of the same as occasion serues, So it be performed with discretion & modestie, as here it was by learned Stapleton, as his wordes doe shewe.

And besides this, altho' we should admitte the foresayd wordes of the Euangelist may di­uerselie be expounded either of our Sauiour or of sainct Peter, or both: neuerthelesse the Popes supremacie cannot suffer therby anie preiudice, as being sufficientlie established both by other wordes of the same passage, & by other places of scripture, particularlie by that of S. Iohn 21. pasce oues meas &c. Feede my sheepe. Which wordes are so forcible for the proofe of saint Peters supreme authoritie ouer all Christs flocke that they alone with the circumstances of the text, were sufficient to conuicte anie rea­sonable persons iudgement.

Thirdlie concerning the communion of the Cup he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying in his answere to the wordes of S. Ignatius one cup is distributed to all, that in the latin bookes is not founde distributed to all, but for all. But first I say that why should Bellarmin be produ­ced [Page 420] for an eluder of the Fathers recordes for telling the trueth? or for reporting that which he did see with his eyes, & perhaps without spectacles. And if it be founde by eye witnesses to be otherwise in the Latin copies then in the Greeke as truelie it is, as also it is founde that the Greeke copies are not sound in diuers o­ther particulars in which they are discouered not to agree with the citations of S. Athana­sius & Theodoret, What sinne did Bellarmin commit in vttering the same? But howsoeuer it bee good Sir Humfrey, doth Bellarmin relie onelie vpon that anser, nay doth he not giue two other more cheefe ansers then that? both which you dissemble. And yet more then this, you haue shamefullie corrupted that one ansere which you cite. For Bellarmin sayth not that S. Ignatius hath the wordes distributed for all, but, one chalis of the whole Church, vnus calix totius Ecclesiae, meaning that there is one com­mon chalice because it is offered to God for all. Nay besides this, Bellarmin yet further addeth, that the Magdeburgers read those wordes of S. Ignatius as the Romanists doe, of which also craftie Sir Humfrey taketh no notice: so that the reader may see that Bellarmin is here diuerslie abused by the false knight, & yet is he no more guiltie of eluding of the Fathers recordes in this particular then the foresayd Lutherans them selues, that is nothing at all.

Fourthlie he taxeth Sixtus Senensis for saying he suspecteth Origen to haue ben corrupted by the heretikes where he sayth: Thus much be spoken of the typicall & symbolicall bodie. But what if Senensis vtter his opinion in that man­ner of that place of Origen. For doth not ey­ther he, or at the least, a number of other di­uines giue other solid ansers to the same as may be seene in Bellarmin & others. As that it is not certaine that workes is trulie Origens: & that those wordes are not spoaken of the Eucharist, but of the bread of the Cathecumes which we commonlie call holie bread, that Origen tearmes the bodie of Christ Sybolical & Typical because it is present in the Sacra­ment as a type or signe of the same bodie of Christ as it is vnited to the diuine worde in the mysterie of the Incarnation in a visible māner. For in that place Origen compares the bodie of Christ as it is in the Sacrament with the same as it is in it proper existence.

And so in like manner sanders and Baronius for diuers reasons hould the wordes cited by Caluin out of the epistle of Epiphanius to Iohn of Hierusalem touching the cutting of a vayle with an image of Christ, or some other man, which he founde at the entrance of a Church; for suppositious as being added after the whole epistle was ended. And yet notobstanding, they relie not intirelie vpon this answere, but [Page 422] yeald others also which, supposing the foresayd addition were truelie the wordes of that holie Father, yet those same authors abundantly cleare the difficultie & declare the trueth of his meaning in the controuersie of honour of images. As also doth Valentia aboute the wordes of Theodoret touching transsubstan­tiation, who sayth that the substance of bread & wine ceased not in the Sacrament. To which both Valentia & other diuines, (not­obstanding they kewe by that which passed in the Councell of Ephesus, Theodoretus au­thoritie not to be great, or at the least not to be so great as that hee alone could or ought to preponderate the rest of the Fathers, Vid. Greg. de Val. l. 2. de tran­sub. c. 7. & Suarez de. Eucha. D. 46. sec. 4. I haue giuen other solide answeres to his wordes besides this which is related by the knight, as that he calleth the accidents of the Eucharist by the name of the substāce of bread & wine attributing to the naturall properties of nature or substance, the name of nature or substance it selfe, as both the scriptures & other Fathers in the like occasions vse to doe, Gelas. ep. & par­ticularlie Gelasius whome the reformers vse to cite against the trueth of transsubstantiation, he onelie taking the worde substance (which is ambiguous & signifieth both the interior substance itselfe, & the externall signes of the same) for the second, not for the first: all which may be easilie perceiued by him who [Page 423] shall read the authours them selues with atten­tion & care. And as for Theodoretus, Iames Gordon in his fourth Controuersie of transsub­stantiation noteth that if he be trulie translated according to the force of the Greeke wordes, all difficultie touching his true meaning doth presentlie cease. And thus much for Theodo­retus who is no way eluded by Valentia, but truelie & sincerelie expounded.

As for Bellarmin whome when he answereth to the testimonie of S. Cyprian aboute tradi­tiōs, the knight seemeth to taxe for attributing error vnto him. It is not true that Bellar. sayth that he doth not maruell that S. Cypriā erred in reasoning, as Sir Humfrey affirmeth, but the Cardinall onlie sayth of S. Cyprian, ideo non mirum si more errantium ratiocinaretur: therefore it was no maruell if he should argue after the manner of those that erre, because he writ that passage to which Bellarmin doth ansere in the place ci­ted by the knight, when he defended his er­rour aboute rebaptization against S. Augustin. But withall Bellarmin addeth that S. Cyprian reiected not all traditions as the reformers commonlie doe, at the least in faith & manners: but onelie he disalowed that tradition in parti­cular which S. Augustin alledged against his error, & onelie for that reason because he con­ceiued it to be cotrarie to scriptures, which yet afterwardes appeared not to be so by the de­finition [Page 424] of the Church not to be. So that Bel­larmin is both here falselie accused to haue ab­solutelie affirmed S. Cyprian to haue erred in reasoning, & also it is false that his testimonie touching traditiōs in generall is by him eluded, which is that Sir Humfrey ought to proue if he speakes according to his owne purpose in this place.

And not much vnlike to this is the same Bellarmin falselie accused by the knight to haue affirmed that S. Chrisostome exceeded the trueth when he sayd. It is better not to be present at the sacrifice then to be present, & not comunicate, for Bellarmin sayd not that sainct Chrysostome exceeded the truth, but onelie that he spoake by excesse, per excessum ita esse locutum, or amplificandi gratia, as he sayth after­wardes, which is not to exceede the truth but to vse a tropicall speech by which the trueth is as farre extended as may be possible within her boundes but no further. And more ouer Bellarmin addeth so much besides to this an­sere to Saint Chrysostomes wordes, Vide Bell. l. 2. de Mis­sa. cap. 10. § Porro Chrysost. as takes all difficultie quite away touching his meaning in the point of Priuate Masse.

Neyther is Sir Hūfreys complainte against Bellarmin lesse vniuste, where he sayth, yet not specifiing aboute what matter, that the Cardinall affirmes Prudentius to playe the poet, for why should anie man be reprehended [Page 425] for attributing to a Poet that which is proper to all those of his profession that is to speake by way of fiction or to vse poeticall licence. The trueth is I can finde no such wordes of Bellarmin as Sir Humfrey citeth, but suppose he speaketh in that manner of Prudentius, yet I hould it to be no greater an extenuation of his authoritie then it were an extenuation of Sir Humfreys honour to say he vseth his weapons dexterouslie or plaieth the Champion coura­giouslie. But yet worse then this doth Sir Humfrey deale with Bellarmin aboute his ansere to a certaine testimonie of Tertullian. For whereas he onelie sayth that Tertullians authoritie is of no great accounte when he con­tradicts other Fathers, & when, as S. Hierome speaketh, he was no man of the Church: the knight to saue labor, but not to saue his ho­nestie, leaueth out that speeche of S. Hierome & putteth the whole censure of Tertullian vpon Bellarmin onelie, notobstanding it ap­peares plainelie that the greater parte of it is taken out of S. Hierome, & so consequentlie if anie proofe or recorde were eluded in Ter­tullian, Sir Humfrey might more iustelie haue accused him, then the Cardinall. But it seemes the knight proceeded in this as those that in cases of reuenge either for want of wit, or va­lour, still strike their next fellowe whether he be in faulte or no.

In conclusion Sir Humfrey had no reason to stand vpon Bellarmin's ansere to those two authours, I meane Prudentius & Tertullian; for that neither of them in the places cited speaketh of anie point of doctrine defined by the Church, but of other matters in which as it was free for them to speake what they pleased, so was it also free for Bellarmin to ansere what he pleased, especiallie supposing that Tertullian speakes but doubfullie in the matter for which he is taxed by the Cardinall, that is in the manner of Christs penetration of his mothers wombe: & if he held he was borne according to the course of nature, he contra­dicteth the rest of the Fathers, in which case no one Father hath the credit of an absolute testi­monie amongest the Romanists, neyther can he or anie for him iustelie complaine if he be disesteemed in such a case.

Now for the censure which Riuera giueth of Origen to wit that he was full of errours which the Church hath alwayes detested, it is so manifestlie true that no man that will not dogmatize with him can denie the same. And the truth is that the reformers make as little, yea & much lesse account either of him or anie other ancient writers, then the Romanists doe, as the world knoweth, especially when they finde them contrarie to their positions. And not of one, two, or three dissenting from the [Page 427] rest, but euen of the torrent of their consent of which ouer plaine testimonie is extant in Lu­ther, Caluin Kemnitius, & Chamier. Vid. Luth. de capt. Babyl. c. 1. Calu. 4. Instit. c. 18 Kem. pag. 798. Cham. de descens. Chr. ad Inf. And yet for all this the knight could produce nothing in particular in which he could accuse the Ro­manists to haue reiected the recordes of the foresaid authours at the least in matter of faith.

As for S. Hierome whome Canus affirmeth to be no rule of faith. I would knowe what reformer will maintaine the contrarie? And if they hould him to be a rule of faith then a dieu their all-sufficiencie of scripture. Besides Ca­nus yealdes a pregnant reason why S. Hie­rome was not to be followed in that particular of which he speakes in that place, to wit in the assignation of the Canon of the old testament, because sayth Canus he followed Ioseph the Iewe, but S. Austin followed the Christians in that point of doctrine: which reason of Canus Sir Humfrey ought not to haue omitted if he had dealt sincerelie.

As impertinent as this also is the taxation of Bellarmins answere to Iustin, Ireneus, Epipha­nius & Oecumenius who seeme to haue held that the diuells are not to be tormēted with the paines of hell before the day of Iudgement. For this is so absurde a position that I thinke fewe or none of the misreformed Churches defend it, & so I see not why Bellarmin can iustelie be reprehended for saying that he seeth not how [Page 428] 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 [Page 429] 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 [Page 430] 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 [Page 431] 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 [Page 432] 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 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 [Page 434] 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 its 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 [Page 435] 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; [Page 436] & 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 [Page 437] 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 [Page 438] 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 testifies in these wordes quoted in the margen. In Thomae Caietani commenta­rijs in D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 122 art 4. omnino cor­rigantur er­rores qui fraude hae­reticorum irrepserunt, vt notatur in expurg. Index lib. prohib p. 89. Geneu. impres.

The Epistle of Walricus is suppositious, which is paoued to be so because it is superscri­bed to Pope Nicolas to whom according to the computation of times, the first Pope Nicolas was before Walricus was borne, and the second Nicolas was not borne till after he was dead. Neither is it any way probable that such a holie Bishop as Walricus was, should commend marriage in other Preists, who liued and dyed in vnmarried chastity himselfe, and so the fore­sayd Epistle being a false record, as containing an improbable yea a morally impossible rela­tion, it was iustely condemned with a deleatur. To omit that if this Epistle wer authenticall, the reformers would gaine nothing by the bargen for that it teacheth expressely that the Roman Bishop is head of the Church, and that Preists at the least after ordination cannot lawfully marrie.

Sixtly it is false that Bertram's whole booke is condemned, as may appeare by [Page 439] the iudgement of the Vniuersitie of Doway ap­proued by the Censurers of bookes inserted in the Index of Quiroya published by Ioannes Pap­pus a reformed deformed diuine with certaine odious prefaces of his owne coyning, & prin­ted at Argentin 1609. In the 17. page of which Index it is manifest that the whole booke was not commaunded to be blotted out, but onely some fewe things to be corrected, or altered in the reading, or to be expounded benigneously. And as for the doctrine of transsubstantiation, the foresaid Doctours of Doway expressely de­clare that Bertram often times in the first parte of his disputation teaches Catholike trans­substantiation plainely enuffe, vsing the words conuertere, mutare, commutare, permutare trans­ponere creaturam in Christum, in corpus Christi &c. in so much that Illiricus compelled with the plainesse of those wordes, confesseth there are in Bertram semina transsubstantiationis, seeds of transubstantiation. And also the same Dowa­cene Doctors conclude that those difficult places which are founde in him touching the reall presence, which cheefely are two, to wit that he seemeth to haue ben of opinion that Christs bodie is no more in the Eucharist then the bodie of the people, and that that thing which is celebrated or done in the Church cā ­not be called God; are either to be vnderstood of the externall formes of bread and wine: or [Page 440] els that those sentences be inserted by heretiks who printed that booke first at Colen. 1532. & after at Basil. 1550. & 1555. so that this is no re­corde of the reformers, except it be vpon sup­position of their owne corruptions or false glosses added vnto it; but rather may serue for a pregnant testimonie against them, and con­sequētly he that should haue blotted it out, had done them no iniurie but a verie great fauor.

Seuenthlie I say to the sentence taken out of the booke of baptizme vnder the name of Anselme, that manie passages be blotted out by the Censurers of bookes, by reason they are such as may easilie be taken in an erro­neous sense, & so scandalize or giue occasion of errour either to the simple, or malicious reader, which neuerthelesse in a sounde sense containe no false doctrine, & so might be lefte vncorrected if it were not for the corruption & malignitie of the tyme. And of this nature be the wordes of the booke of the visitation of the sicke & Baptisme, if they be ritely recited by Sir Hum. Doest thou beleeue that the Lord Ie­sus Christ dyed for our saluation, & that there is no meanes to be saued by owne merits? Which sen­tence in a true meaning is no recorde of the re­formers, & in a false meaning, it is better blot­ted out thē lefte in. And such diligence argueth no ill conscience, but a motherlie care of the Church towardes here children.

8. We haue sayd sufficient alreadie touching the credit of Cassander, whose doctrine the Ro­manists hould for false recordes either in parte or totalitie. And he maketh such preposterous glosses vpon the Ecclesiasticall himnes, as the Index noteth in one place, that all his whole scholium is repugnant to the same like a com­mentarie contrarie to the text. Yet to giue the reader a taste What truelie this man was, who is so farre in Sir Humfreys bookes: I say that altho' we hold not Cassander for a Romanist, as being in the Index of prohibited bookes for diuers singular positions, neuerthelesse the knight cannot iustelie brag of him in regarde it is manifest by his workes which I haue seene & read in parte, that he expresselie defendes the Roman doctrine in most points of Cōtrouersie betwixt vs & the Reformers: as also because in a greater parte euen of the same places which Sir Hum. cites in his fauour, he is not a little abused & either corrupted or detorted by him cōtrarie to his meaning. Howbeit in respect he professeth the parte of a Pacifer & mediator betwixt vs, he could not but leane some thing to their side, yet is it so little that I perceiue by one of his writings that he had smale thankes for his paines from some of the faction, & therefore was most sharpelie handled by them accusing him of dissimulation, imposture, interruption [Page 442] of the course of the Gospell & the like. An infortunate man who by his great labours & earnest endeuours to content both parties, con­tended neither: a iuste punishment due vnto such as destitute of true knowledge in diuinitie (which he himselfe in parte confesseth in his generall Preface) presume to treat of those su­blime subiects sans a guide.

The Basilean edition of Polidor virgill prin­ted in the yeare 1544. compared with other former & the most ancient editions is founde to haue ben corrupted by the sectaries & so no true recordes can be taken out of it for Sir Humfrey & his confraternitie. And such is that passage which the Inquisitours comman­ded to be blotted out, which is this. All most all ancient Fathers condemned images for feare of idolatrie. This sentence as false & foysted into the foresayd Basilian edition, is iustelie cast out as none of the authours doctrine, or at the least vehementlie suspected for none of his. And touching the doctrine of honour of ima­ges it selfe, it is cleare that he can aforde no re­corde at all for the reformed diuinitie, for that he expresselie relateth the vse of images in Churches deduceing it historicallie from the most primatiue tymes. Langius or Langus is of no authoritie among the Romanists & so he yealdes no recordes of credit. And at the best he is but a pedanticall Annotator, & as I take [Page 443] it a Lutheran, that is neither of Sir Humfreys religion nor of ours.

As for Ferus certaine it is that some of his editions haue ben founde to be mightilie cor­rupted particularlie that of Mogunce. Which the knight citeth & so the recordes drawne out of him are of no authoritie. But suppose Cephas did indeed not signifie the head, yet what great recorde I praye can that be for Sir Humfreys Church? And so whether Cephas signifie the head or the feet, & whether ri­diculum est be in, or out of the bookes, it auayles him nothing but some smale matter to quarell aboute: yet the truth is that the most authenticall edition of Anwerpe 1585. hath the same wordes which Sir Humfreyes cites out of the Roman print: in such sorte as one may rather much more suspect those wordes, it is ridiculous: to be falselie added in the Mogun­tin edition then detracted in the others.

Finallie whether the wordes of the Coun­cell of Laodicea be that wee ought not to leaue the Church of God & inuocate Angells, as Sir Humfrey will haue it, & also some Catholike copies haue: or whether in steed of the worde Angells wee reade angles or corners, as some other editions haue, the matter is not great so the decree be reight vnderstood, that is so that the sense bee this: we ought not to leaue the Church of God & inuocate Angells supersti­tiouslie [Page 444] as some did in those tymes. For this being the true meaning of the Councell as it appeareth by the subsequent wordes which are those, and make congregations of abominable idolatrie to the Angells, it is more then plaine that no recorde can there be founde for the do­ctrine of the reformed Churches. But onelie it serues Sir Humfrey to make a plausible flo­rish to the simple reader, to the end that by working vpon his weaknesse by falselie taxing his aduersaries, hee may make his owne impostures saleable, which otherwise would putrifie & spoile for want of vtterance.

Lastelie for proofe of his accusation, Sir Humfrey after all this sturre he hath made, produceth onelie one witnesse, & that a false one: and altho' for the greater credit of his cause, he held it expedient to giue him the de­cree of a diuinitie reader & professor, & Deane of Louaine, yet hauing examined the matter, I founde by better information then Sir Hum­frey can haue, that Boxhorne before his re­uolte had onelie the place a certaine of obscure Deanrie: which function altho' it be a place of some credit, yet it is farre inferiour to the dignitie either of a Deane of a Capitall Church, or of a publike professour of diuinitie in the vniuersitie of Louaine, both in learning, honour, & profit. And yet this man as I re­ceiued by authenticall relation of the Deane of [Page 445] S. Gudula Church in Brussels, & others: after some extraordinary familiarity which out of his ouer amorous nature he vsed to a domestike maide seruant of his owne, & out of an vnset­lednesse of his lubrik mynde, began at first to defend that, it was not necessarie for the Preist to prononce the wordes of consecration orally, but onelie to speake them mentallie, & after­wardes (as nemo repente fit malus) Boxorno once a pet­tie-master. by degrees falling into plaine heresie, founde oportunitie to passe into the land of libertie, I meane into Holand, with bag & bagage, I meane with his Sacrilegious spouse & the sacred spoiles of his Church. Where from the place of a fu­gitiue Pedant, he is preferred to the dignitie of a new Euangelist, & is become a blostering trumpeter in the pulpits of the misreformed congregations.

And this is the onely man which Sir Hum­frey could bring for a witnesse against the pra­ctice of the Roman Church in her manner of censuring bookes or correcting the same, or approuing them according to the order & de­cree of the Councell of Trent, which collapsed Deane being so infamous in his life as by this which I haue specified, and more which I could relate, doth appeare, and being also now a pro­fessed enimy and Apostata from his mother Church, let the reader iudge whether in reason his testimony ought to be admitted against her: [Page 446] and let him withall be pleased to consider that Sir Humfrey in lue of conuincing his aduersa­ries of ill conscience, he hath by his owne bad proceeding in this section conuinced his owne to be the worst of all, & so is fallē in to the same pit he prepared for his enimies incidit in foueam quam fecit, by forgeing of false recordes, & hath incurred a farre deeper dungeon of cēsure then hitherto he did, in which he must remaine ei­ther till he hath payde a double fine, or put in suretie for the amendment of his manners.

THE XIII. PERIOD.

IN His fourteeneth section Sir Humfrey in­deuoreth to conuince his aduersaries of the defence of a desperate cause by their blasphe­mous exceptions, as he calleth them, against the scriptures, by which we see that as his boo­ke increaseth in number of leaues so he increa­seth in multiplication of his malicious and false accusations, and these being the cardes he playeth with, let vs examen his gaime.

He continueth confidently his allegation of his false Deane of Louaine for a witnesse against the Romanists, whose worde notwithstanding ought not either in reason or according to the course of lawe to be admitted for recorde a­gainst those from whose religion he hath re­uolted. And so whereas he accuseth the Romā [Page 447] Church of poyson in religion & tiranny in the common welth, it is to be taken as proceeding from a poysonous minde, which being once corrupted hateth the truth as much as an ill stomake loathes dainty meates.

As for the scriptures, it is false & slaunderous to affirme that the Romanists refuse to be tryed by them so they be taken together with the authoritie of the Church which the same scri­ptures commende, as Saint Augustin speaketh against his aduersaries, and in a true sense with­out which as one of the auncient Fathers saith, verbum Dei male intellectum non est verbum Dei that is, the worde of God ill vnderstanded is not the word of God. Quamuis certum de scripturis non profe­ratur exē ­plum tamē earundem scripturarū à nobis te­netur veri­tas cum id facimus quod vni­uersae placet Ecclesia quam ipsa­rum scrip­turarum commēdat authoritas. Aug. lib. 1. cōtra Cres. c. 33. And according to this not that sacred Bible which was in the Apostles till the dayes of Luther without alteration, is as you calumniously affirme, ranked by the In­quisitors inter libros prohibitos, among the pro­hibited bookes, but your execrated Bible I meane your execrable translations and annota­tions, & mutilations of the most holy Bible, are those that are registred in the censure, where whether it haue, as you affirme, I knowe not certainely, but I am sure it deserueth the first place, because as the Philosopher saith corruptio optimi pessima, and so as your Bible-corruption is in the highest degree of badnesse, so ought it in reason to be ranked in the highest station of such false wares as that Catalogue condemnes.

And of the censure of your owne abuses I graunt you may with shame enough to your selues be eye witnesses, but if you meane you are eye witnesses of the censure of the true scriptures it is most false & calumnious that either they, or the authours of them be called in question: and yet more false & slaunderous it is that Christ and his Apostles are arraigned & condemned at the Popes assises (as you o­diouslie affirme) of obscuritie & insufficiencie in their Gospell. Bibliorum versiones tam vet. quam noui Test. à di­ctis (dam­natis) au­thoribus e­ditae, generaliter pro­hibentur. Index ex Purgato­rius. Re­gul. 3. For that neither Pope nor Prelate of the Roman Church euer vttered more of the sacred scriptures in that nature thē that which S. Peter himselfe affirmeth, to wit that in the epistles of S. Paule there are manie things hard to be vnderstood, or that which S. Augustin saith in generall of the written worde. That is, that certaine obscure speeches of the scripture bring a most dense or thicke miste vpon them. And that they are deceiued with many, & manifould obscurities & ambiguities that rashly reade them, vnderstanding one thing for an other. Lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ. c. 6.

And as for the Gospell of Christ & his Apo­stles, neither the Pope nor anie other Roma­nist euer condemned it of anie insufficiencie or defect, but onelie teach with the same scripture itselfe that it doth not containe all things ne­cessarie so explicitlie that they suffice for the instruction of the whole Church according to all states of people & in all particulars without [Page 449] traditions, as appeareth by the saying of sainct Paule 2. Thes. 2. Therefore brethren stand & houlde the tra­ditions which you haue learned whether it be by worde, or by our epistle. Which wordes of the Apostle neither can truelie be verified nor his commaund obeyed, except we graunt that he deliuered more to the Church of the Thessalo­nians then he left in writing. Neither doe the Pope & Romanists anie more condemne the scriptures of insufficiēcie by denying that they containe clearely all things necessarie, or by affirming that diuine & Apostolicall traditions are also necessarilie required, then the refor­mers them selues, who besides scripture pro­fesse at the least in wordes to beleeue the Apo­stolicall, nycene, & Athanasian Creed: not no more then that man should be thought to condemne the common lawes of insufficiencie who besides them iudgeth it also necessarie to obserue those ancient customes which the lawes themselues commend as by the legisla­tors & first authours of the same deliuered to the people by worde of mouth. And so to con­clude, touching the scriptures thus vnderstood, the Romanists are so farre from refusing to be tryed by them that they flye vnto them with sainct Chrysostome in all occasions as to most hight montaines in which they finde a most comodious place to plant their ordinance a­gainst the enimies of the faith, & particularlie [Page 450] against the sectaries of this our present age, as is most euident in the late Councell of Trent all the decrees of which renouned Synod are founded vpon those heigh hills of the written worde of God according to the true sense & meaning of the same. And as for Causabon & Agrippa whome the knight citeth, he & they may goe together for their authoritie viz. in lying. Agrippa & Causabon are alreadie re­gistred in the Predicament of Nouelists, Vide Indi­cem lib. prohib. & al­thou' the knight as yet is not preferred to that honour, yet his deserts are such as he may iu­stelie expect the like aduauncement.

You aske vs, Sir Humfrey, whether the worde of God is subiect to alteration or nee­deth & Index expurgatorious, but to this your wise demaunde I anser, that the worde of God in itselfe is wholelie immutable, so pure that it can need no purifying, yet as it is & ex­pressed by artificiall caracters for the vse of man, so it is not onelie mutable & corruptible, but also de facto it is & hath ben corrupted, wit­nesse your owne Bibles in England. And wit­nesse that renowned King Iames your owne soueraine & best defender of your faith, who was so ashamed of the translations which he founde at his arriuall to the English Crowne, that he presently sought a remedy for the same (tho' he founde it not, as appeareth by his new translation which yet is not as it ought to be) [Page 451] publikelie declaring in the Conference of Hampton Courte, Anno Do­mini. 1624. & ingenuouslie confessing that he had seene no true translation, & that the Geneua translation is the worst of all o­thers.

Neither ought the corruptions founde in the reformed Bibles to be called peccadillos or smale faultes as Sir Humfrey would haue them to the end they may be the more easilie win­ked at: for suppose they were neuer so little in themselues, yet are they to be esteemed great & horrible abuses in regarde of the great re­uerence which ought to be had towardes those sacred volumes of the worde of God, it being treason in the highest degree to offer to falsifie or alter them anie way whatsoeuer. And let the reader be iudge whether it be but a smale faulte to translate images for idols, as the English bible of the yeare 1562. hath in the text: or as an other of the yeare 1577. hath in the margen vpon the first chapter of the Epistle of S. Iohn, in the last wordes. Or as the same, or other editions vpon the wordes of Iacob. Gen. 37. v. 35. descendam ad filium meum Iugens in infernum, hath translated the worde infernum, hell, into the worde Sepulcher, or graue: notob­standing both the Hebrewe worde Seol & the Greeke worde adis signifie not the graue but either properlie hell it selfe, or some parte of the earth farre deeper then the graue. And in [Page 452] this manner Beza hath done vpon those wor­des of the psalme. non relinques animam meam in inferno, translating for animam Cadauer & for inferno, sepulchro, & so Metamorphizeth Christs soule into his bodie, & hell into his graue. And vpn the 22. of sainct Luke where according to the Greeke text, the sentence is, This is the cup of my blood which cuppe is shed for you: Beza to eneruate the force of the argument for the reall presence, purposelie translateth the wordes thus. This is the cup of my blood which blood is shed for you. Also the English bibles, whereas sainct Peter in the first chapter of his second epistle v. 10. saith, brethren labore the more that by good workes you make sure your vocation & election. Least here, it should appeare that good workes are auayleable or necessarie to saluation, they leaue out in their translations the wordes: by good workes, notobstanding the Latin copies haue them vniuersallie, & some Greeke copies also, as Beza confesseth. And if these be the faults which Sir Hūfrey calleth but peccadillos, surelie he hath a conscience as large as a fryers sleeue: & if these be his smale faults doubtlesse according to due proporrion his greater sinnes are abomination. And this is that Bible which the Romanists say needeth an Index expurga­torie, not that Sacred Bible which is truelie & sincerelie translated according to that text which hath ben at the least since the tyme of [Page 453] S. Augustin commonlie vsed in the Church, as appeareth by the Rhemes Testamēt, which because it is founde to haue ben rightlie tran­slated, is not arraigned by the Pope, but expo­sed to be read euen by the laitie, at the least by licence & aduise of their Confessors.

Further more in regarde of the foresayd cor­ruptions & manie other which for breuitie I omitted, made by heretikes in the holie scrip­tures, those moderne authours which Sir Hum­frey citeth (if they be trulie cited) haue ben in­duced to vtter some such speeches concerning the same as, if they be not trulie & piouslie in­terpreted, may giue occasion of offence to the reader: for example when they affirme (as he sayth) the scriptures to be dead caracters, a dead, & killing letter &c. such phrases neuer­thelesse (as it manifestlie appeareth by the rest of their doctrine & discourse in those places) are not vsed by those authours with an intent in anie sorte to disgrace or diminish the dignitie of the true worde of God, but onelie by those comparatiue speaches, to declare how subiect the scriptures are to be corrupted & detorted to the defence of heresies & errours if they be considered preciselie as they are the externall written letter, & interpreted otherwise then by the authoritie of the visible Church in all ages, the ancient Councells, & Fathers, they haue ben vhderstood. Wherefore those Ro­manists [Page 454] which the knight citeth as if they had spoken irreuerentlie & blasphemonlie of the holie scriptures doe no more iniurie vnto them then S. Paule did when 2. Cor. 3. he sayth of them, litera occidit, the letter killeth, Lib. de Sy­nodis. or then did S. Hilarie when he teacheth that manie he­resies haue their origin from scriptures ill vn­derstood, or then Martin Luther who called the Bible liber haereticorum the booke of here­tikes. None of which speeches as I suppose Sir Humfrey will dare to condemne either of blasphemie or irreuerence, nay if he haue his senses aboute him he will easilie perceiue that those & other such like phrases are not meant actiuelie of the worde of God, but onelie passi­uelie, that is that throu' the malice of the false interpreter it is so irreuerentlie detorted & abu­sed as if indeed it were as flexible as a nose of waxe. And according to this we see that none of that which our aduersarie produceth here out of the Romanists is anie argument of irre­uerence against the trueth, & inuiolabilitie of Gods worde, but a calumnious accusatiō quite contrarie to the sense & meaning of the fore­said authours, who had not anie intention to taxe the scriptures but the corrupters & false interpreters of them, such as you pseudorefor­mers are your selues.

And now altho' by this which I haue sayd in generall touching this point of blasphemie [Page 455] against scripture supposed to be perpetrated by the Romanists, the authors by the knight cyted remaine sufficientlie cleared from the imputation which he layes vpon them in that nature: neuerthelesse because by the particular examen of the places cyted I haue discouered that either all or most of their wordes, be ei­ther corruptedlie rehearsed, or their sense de­torted, & abused, therefore I will seuerallie re­peate their passages, & declare in what respects our aduersarie hath deceitfullie traduced them.

And to begin with Lindanus, his stromata in deed I could not haue, but I haue read the place cited out of his Panoplia, where I finde that when he names the scripture a dead & killing letter, he onelie alludes to the wordes of S. Paule 2. Cor 3. for the letter killeth, but the spirit giue liues. Sicut illud eiusdē au­thoris dog­ma in mor­tuas, imo ceidentes adeo literas relatum. Panop. lib. 1. c. 44. Neither speaking nor mea­ning worse of the same scripture then the Apo­stle himselfe: & affirming at the most, that the bare letter of the worde of God ill in­terpreted doth kill the soule, but reight expounded according to the tradition of the Church, it doth reuiue & nourish it, & brings it to eternall lyfe: yea & hauing bet­ter pondered his wordes in the end of the chapter quoted by Sir Humfrey, I perceiue the doth not absolutelie call the scriptures a dead & killing letter, but onelie that the do­ctrine of that author (meaning the holie Ghost [Page 456] as I conceiue) is put in to dead & killing letters. As his wordes quoted in Latin in the margen declare. And in this same sense I may iustelie & truelie suppose the same authour speakes in the place quoted out of his other worke if any such saying he hath, in regarde that a graue & learned man as he is knowne to haue ben, is euer iudged to be sutable to himselfe in all times & places. Which learned diuine is yet further cōuinced, neuer to haue spoakē other­wise then reuerentlie of the scriptures in that in euerie seueral place cited by our aduersarie, he stileth them sacrae litterae. sacred letters. And in like manner I conceiue of Charon, who as being of the same faith & religion he neither did nor dared to speake otherwise then with the same due respect which the Romā Church commaundes the Romanists to vse towardes the holie written worde of God.

Canus in his 3. chapter of his second booke is abused by the knight, Nec esse eas volunt ce­reum quen­dā nasum in sensum omnem fle­xibiles, sed potius esse per se expositas & in promptu cuique sine magistro & docente pa­tere Canus lib. 3. ca. 7. f. 176 edit. Louan. by his imposing vpon the Romanists that which Canus speakes of the Lutherans saying, that they will not haue the scriptures to be like a nose of waxe subiect to diuers senses but rather plaine for euerie one to vnderstand without a master or teacher: & thus the preposterous kniht doth positiuelie & affirmatiuelie impute that to the Romanists which Canus onely relates to be negatiuely asserted of the scriptures by the Lutherans.

Turrianus agregiously abused in that he is accused to call the scriptures a Delphick sword, the riddles of Sphinx and the like: for he doth not absolutely say they are such, but onely saith that if Christ had left in his Church that rule onely which the pretended reformers receiued from Luther, to wit that scriptures are easie to be interpreted and vnderstanded, and according as they haue hitherto expounded them in their owne sense, then saith Turrian, what els should we haue of them then a Delphick sworde? In which wordes you see he doth not affirme absolutely that the scriptures are such a sworde, but onely that according as the sectories handle them in their false manner of expounding, they may be so compared: and for this cause he puts for his marginall note, how to interpret scriptures ac­cording to ones owne proper sense is as to haue a Delphick sworde: & so by this & the authors wordes which I quote in the margen in Latin, his meaning is sufficiently declared together with the knights calumnious proceeding against him. Vos enim sicut a Lu­thero didi­cistis scrip­turas san­ctas faciles ad intelli­gendum & interpretā ­dum esse putatis, & sic eas ha­ctenus ve­stro sensis intellexistis & inter­pretati estis. At si hanc solam regu­lam fidei Christus in Ecclesia re­liquisset, quid aliud quam gla­dium del­phicum ha­beremꝰ &c. Quomodo interpretari scripturas ad libidinē proprij sen­sus sit vt habere Del­phicū gla­dium. cōtr. Sad. p. 99.

Lessius is ill cited, for in his 11. reason he hath none of those wordes quoted by Sir Humfrey, yet in his table he hath those. Scriptura quâ ra­tione nasus cereus, regula lesbia &c. nuncupetur. Cyting for this, his owne page 130. of his con­sult. Where yet he hath not those formall wordes which Sir Humfrey cites, but onely [Page 458] some others to that sense: yet the truth is he doth not applye either the words or the sense to the Romanists, but to the nouelists saying of them and their interpretation of scri­ptures by their priuate spirit. Scripturam autem quisque pro suo captu & iudicio intelligit, vnde cum se putant scripturam habere, regulam credendi, loco scripturae habent imaginationem propriam &c. So that here we finde no blasphemie in Lessius, but imposture in Sir Humfrey.

It is true, Lessius in his disputation of Anti­christ hath those formall words cyted by Sir Humfrey, in his page of the same number wher he saith: the scripture is called by Catholikes a nose of Wax & a Lesbious rule &c. but he pre­sently explicates in what sense, to wit when it is taken for the bare wordes or letter onely se­cluding the sense of the Church & the inter­pretation of Fathers as saith he, it is taken by heretikes. So that it is plaine that Lessius doth not say that Catholikes calle the true scripture together with the true sense, a nose of Wax, but onely the naked text & as it is abused by corrupters. Lessius demonstr. 15. p. 131. An non regula illis Lesbia quam omni­bus suis imaginationibus quantumuis absurdis ac­commodant & seruire faciunt, qui per Antichristū designari volunt non vnum hominem, sed plurimo­rum seriem &c. And presently. Apud Catholicos non est regula Lesbia quia est animata vero nimi­rum sensu qui contrarijs placitis aptari nequit [Page 459] Among Catholikes, saith Lessius (the scri­pture) is not a lesbie rule because it is animated with true sense which cannot be applyed to contrarie opinions. By which wordes it is eui­dent that this author is mightely wronged being he hath the verye negatiue proposition to that is imposed vpon him.

In the citation of Pighius Sir Humfrey ought to haue continued his rehearsal from the beginning of his wordes to the end of the period of the authors whole passage, & then it would haue appeared plainelie howe fal­selie he is accused. For so he discourseth. But because (saith he) no place of scripture is so plaine or open as it can defend itselte from the iniurie of the heretikes who adulterate, depraue, & detort it to their owne sense, for they (as one no lesse truelie then merrilie hath sayd) are euen as a nose of wax which doth easilie suffer it selfe to be fashioned & drawne this way, & that way, & which way thou wilst, & like a certaine leaden rule vsed in the buildings of Lesbos, which is not harde to be accomodated to what you will; there must be a line ioyned vnto it, such a one as is not as flexible as it selfe, but firme & stiffe, I say that pillar, that firmament of Catholike trueth, that is the common sense & sentence of the Church, then wee shall be certaine & sure of the true vnderstanding of the scriptures, if it [Page 460] be consonant in all things to her which as she giues Canonicall authoritie to the scriptures, so is she truly the Lydius Lapis or touche stone of the true & Orthodox interpretation of the same &c. Pighius l. 3. Hierarc. c. 3. Thus farre, Pighius. Where he puts also for his marginall note. Scriptures ab haere­ticorum vi & iniuria se prorsus vindicare non posse. That is: the scriptures can not vendicate or free them selues from the violence, & in­iurie of heretikes. By which note alone, if his wordes in the text were not so plaine as they bee: yet is it clearer then the leight, that the comparisons which Pighius vseth be not ap­plyed by him to the scriptures absolutelie but onelie as considered according to their bare caracters & letter, & as they are subiect to be corrupted by false interpretations: neither is he who vsed such speeches onelie with relation to the abusers of scripture more guiltie of iniu­rious proceeding against the scriptures them selues as truelie they are the worde of God: then those are esteemed to be iniurious to the writings of S. Thomas, & Aristotle, who by rea­son they are expounded in cōtrarie senses occa­sioned by their obscuritie, affirme their exposi­tors make them a nose of wax, or compare them to some such other flexible matter, mierly in that respect.

And conformable to this also which wee haue said because the Romanists know by ex­perience how falselie the misreformers vse to [Page 461] deale in their citations as partelie hath been conuinced in diuers places of this censure, the­refore & not for anie other cause doe they some tymes if they cite the Fathers, iustelie reiect them as by them corrupted or falselie cited. And so if they cite Berengarius & the walden­ses they iustelie reiect them as heretikes: If they cite reformers for Romanists they iustely reiect them for none of theirs. If they cite Ca­tholike authours impertinentlie, corruptedlie, or in a false sense, they iustelie reiected them as abused by them & so remit them to the Cen­surers purgatorie. If they cite scriptures either falselie translated by addition, or detraction, or falselie interpreted, or falsified, they iustelie re­iect them as imperfect, & as made by them a couerture for theeues, & an officine or shop of heretikes, And yet notobstanding all this it is manifest both by an expresse decree which the Councell of Trent made in the fourth ses. a­gainst the profaners of the sacred scriptures, Decret. de edit. & vsu sacrorum l. vers. fin. as also by some ceremonies of the Masse it selfe, that the Romanists giue farre greater reue­rence euerie way vnto them without compari­son then the Reformers. And the same I say of the ancient Fathers whō the Romanists as it is well knowne, respect so much that they ac­counte it plaine temeritie in anie writer to teach anie doctrine contrarie to the common consent of them: Whereas one the contrarie, [Page 462] there is nothing more ordinarie among the writers of the misreformed Churches thē to re­iect the authoritie of the ancient Fathers, or at the least to vilifie them & speake contemptu­ouslie of them as diuers of their workes doe testifie.

But for all this Sir Humfrey is still har­ping vpon that string that the Roman Church houlds the scriptures to be imper­fect: but I knowe none that makes them so imperfect as the misreformed Churches by cutting of diuers partes of them, and con­demning them for Apochripha in their consistoriall sessions, & by corrupting the text by false translations & erroneous interpreta­tions as I haue aboue declared. And touching the Roman Church I haue alreadie tould him that he belyeth her. For neither she here selfe nor anie of her members euer defended that tenet absolutelie that the scriptures are imperfect. But onelie some Romanists affirme the scriptures alone to be no perfect rule of faith, yet they neuer say they are imperfect. For one thing it is to be perfect in them selues, & an other thing to be perfect as they be a rule of faith. The first is absolutelie true & maintained by all Romanists; the second is but true secundum quid, & with restriction, as be­fore hath ben declared, or as it is but one parte yet the cheefest & the farre more perfect & [Page 463] noble. Wherefore the Romanists as the rea­der may perceiue hould both the scriptures & Fathers for perfect & campleit absolutelie speaking, wher as the reformers whatsoeuer they say in wordes, yet indeeds they doe man­gle & martyrize them most cruellie, as a booke published by a reformed minister, called the censure of the Fathers doth giue ouer plaine testimonie. Censura Patrum. And thus handled by thim I graunt the reformers may chalenge them for theirs, but taking them in their compleit & perfect latitude & puritie, the Romanists my iustelie say all myne, in which action notwithstanding there is no police vsed to deceiue the ignorant, as the reformers vse to doe, but plaine dealing for their true instruction.

And to say the Romanists silence scriptures, it is so manifest an vntruth as it needs no other confutation. But by the lye. Neyther doe they otherwise purge either them or anie learned writers, but onelie, or at the least cheefelie from such darnell as you eni­mies to the Crop of Christ vse to sowe by night in the feild of faith. According to the sentence of the authour of the Impect Com­mentarie of S. Mathewe hom. 44. speaking of hereticall Preists, whose wordes altho' the knight world faine applie them against the Romanists, yet they can not possible be so trulie & fitlie accommodated to anie as to his [Page 464] owne ministers & Bishops, whose common & knowne practice is by seueritie of lawes & all fortes of punishment & not by their bookes & writings to musle the Romanists mouthes, be­cause (to vse the wordes of the foresaid author) they knowe that if the truth be once layd opē, their Church shall be forsaken & they from their Pontificall dignitie shall be brought downe to the basenesse of the people. And now we see by the examen of this whole sectiō howe false Sir Humfreyes cardes haue proued & how plainelie he hath lost the game not­withstanding all his iudling tricks & counter­feit shuffling, of which sleights there are such great store in this section that there is no place for anie matter of substance but onelie verball florishes to giue colour & countenance to his fained & calumnious accusations.

THE XIV. PERIOD.

SIR Humfrey tells vs that in this section following there are contained allegations collected out of Bellarmin for testification of the truth of the reformed doctrine in the cheefe points of controuersie.

I haue alreadie declared that the Romanists reiect not either true scriptures, or Fathers; nor yet anie other authours of the Roman Church, but onelie as either corrupted by he­retikes, [Page 465] or els onelie where we finde them to haue some singular opinion, or tenet against the vniforme doctrine of the rest in matters of faith manners, or Ecclesiasticall practice or discipline: or els in some particular points not then sufficientlie declared & determined by the Church when they did so vtter their opinions; of which sorte of writers neuerthelesse there neuer were anie such either in number or qua­litie of doctrine as could either make or marre the antiquitie & vniuersalitie of the Church in that nature.

And as for Bellarmin whome Sir Humfrey citeth in this section, we are so farre from ta­king exceptions at anie thing that he euer writ & published, that we all hould him for a most faithfull & diligent defender not onelie of the principall points of our faith but also of euerie one of them in particular, & of the whole Ro­man doctrine in so much that I accounte it no lesse then plaine madnesse in that man whoe shall offer to make vse of his testimonie for the contrarie, knowing for certaine that if he be sincerelie alledged & rightlie vnderstāded, no­thing can be founde in him for the aduerse par­te. And to the end that this may more plainely appeare I will breeflie examen those particular places which Sir Humfrey produceth, for the contrarie.

First therefore he citeth Bellarmin as con­fessing [Page 466] the vncertainty of all the Trēt Sacramēts (as the knight termeth thē) because forsooth in his third booke of Iustification the 8. chap. he graunteth that none can be certaine by the certaintie of faith that he receiueth a true Sa­crament, in regard in depends vpon the inten­tion of the minister. But this testimonie I haue alreadie shewed to be delusorie, & it is wholie impertinent to the purpose, for that the que­stion aboute the necessitie of the knowledge of the intention of the minister by faith, is no principall controuersie betwixt vs but rather meerelie incident. Neyther yet can the refor­mers finde the contrarie position in anie place of scripture by that meanes to make it a point of faith for themselues.

Secondlie he induceth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. touching the reformers de­nyall of transsubstantiation. To which place I haue also ansered before; & it is not for this purpose, in regarde there is no mention of anie denyall of the trueth of trassubstantiation, or confession of the Reformers tenet in that point: but onelie of an other incident question, viz. whether transsubstantiation can be pro­ued by expresse wordes of scripture. And at least touching the maine point (to omit the o­ther as impertinent & disagreable to the title of our aduersaries questiō which is of principal points of controuersie,) it is too cleare that [Page 467] Bellarmin defended the affirmatiue in terminis, in plaine tearmes. And so this is no such con­fession as Sir Humfrey seekes for in this place. Besides that all Bellarmins confession is but one pore non est improbabile:

Thirdlie he citeth Bellarmins confession against priuate Masse lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. & 10. But the latter place I haue examined before & founde it corrupted by Sir Humfrey both in wordes & sense neyther are the wordes since­relie recited by omission of omnino, & sine de­claratione Ecclesiae, & transposition of the text. And here I further adde that neyther of the places is to this purpose, because they proue no vnlawfulnesse, or absolute imperfection in priuate Masses, but onelie at the most their lesse lawfulnes, their lesse perfection, or their want of frequentation in the primatiue ages: which is no principall point of controuersie betweene the Reformers, & Romanists, nay none at all.

And touching Bellarmins confession con­tained in the first place, viz. That we read not expressely, but gather by coniectures that the ancients did sacrifice without communion of some person, or persons, I say it is imperti­nent in regarde it inuolues no disproofe of pri­uate Masses, as our aduersarie counningly in­deuores to persuade his vnaduised reader. It being sufficient for the instification of the pra­ctise [Page 468] of them, that besides the authoritie of the present Church which approues them, not anie worde either of scripture, or ancient Fa­thers can be produced in which they ar con­demned for vnlawful, or repugnant to Christs institution, or commaunde. And if more then this were required for matters of practise in this nature: certaine it is the pretensiue refor­mers of the Church, would neuer be able to iustifie their owne order, and prescription of cōmunicating at Easter, or some twise or thrise more in the yeare: or their newe prohibition of not receiuing their communion euen at the point of death without a competent number: of neyther of which they haue not as much as one pore instance, or example in the prima­tiue Church. By which it appeares that Bellar­mins confession is in this passage preposterously alledged by the knight both in respect of the Roman Doctrine against which it concludeth nothing, as alsoe in respect of the inconuenien­ce which by sequele and illation it induceth to his owne: whoe yet offers the Cardinal some further abuse by omission of the worde facile, in the recytal of his text. Tamen id possumus ex cōiectu­ris facile colligere. Bellar. supra.

Where the reader may yet once more reflect, that altho' Bellarmin in his modestie tearmed the examples of antiquitie which he produ­ceth for the practise of priuate Masses at the least in some particular cases, no more then [Page 469] coniectures: yet if some of them be duely pon­dered & vrged with their circumstances, they may iustely passe for solid reasons: as that S. Chrysostome diuers tymes reprehending the people most sharpely & vehemently for ma­king the Masses priuate by their not commu­nicating in them: yet doth he not once either condemne such Masses in them selues, or he him selfe euer ceased to celebrate them dayly euen then when he most preached against the negligence of those whoe were present in them without receiuing the sacrament with the preist. Which doubtlesse is a morally conclu­ding argument that Masses without commu­nion of the people were vsed and esteemed lawful euen in those more primatiue & an­cient ages. To which may not vnaptely be ad­ded for confirmation of the same discourse by way of aduertisment, that S. Chrysostome ne­uer affirmed in these occasions of complainte of the people, that Masses in which commu­nicants ar wanting, be euill or contrarie to Christs ordinance or precept, but the most he said was, that the oblation is frustrate when ther be none to participate: which wordes of his ar soe farre from reprouing the practise, & vse of Masses without comunion of the people, that they necessarily implye that the sa­crifice was in realitie cebebrated, notobstan­ding the people did frustrate the intention of [Page 470] the preist in that by their want of deuotion they receiued not the Communion which he had prepared for them: supposing it is absolu­tely inpossible to conceiue that the Masse or oblation could be frustrated for wante of par­takers, except it were in it selfe a Masse or obla­tion truely & really performed by the sacrifi­cer.

Fourthlie it is true that Bellarmin confesseth that in the primatiue Church, because the Christians were but fewe, they did all sing & ansere in the diuine offices. But he affirmeth not that either it then was, or now is vnlawfull to haue the publike, or priuate prayer in an vnknowne tongue, which is the onelie point in controuersie, the reformers defending touth & naile the affirmatiue, & the Romanists the negatiue. Nay Bellarmin is soe farre from con­fessing the reformers doctrine in this particu­lar, that he expresselie affirmeth in the same place that the diuine offices in those primatiue times were celebrated in Greeke which all the people did not vnderstand, & yet cleareth this whole question so farre that if Sir Humfrey had vsed anie sparke of sinceritie in citing Bel­larmins wordes home & truelie, they would haue taken away all doubt concerning his meaning: Whereas by leauing out deceitfullie the latter parte of his clause, he caused in his reader a preuidicate opiniō of the true sense, tou­ching [Page 471] which, and the faithlesse proceeding of our aduersarie about the same, the Cardinals owne wordes intirely recited will tell the truth: for thus he speakes. At obijcies sicut Apostolus &c. But (saith Bellarmin) you will obiect. As the Apostle would that the people might sub­ioine, Amen: so also he was to ordaine that the diuine offices should be celebrated in the vul­gar tongue that the people might answer, A­men. Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei. c. 16. I anser by denying the consequence, be­cause the diuine offices were performed in the Greeke tongue which manie of the people did vnderstand, tho' not all, & this was sufficient; for the Apostles will was not that all should anser. Besides this, because then the Christians were fewe, they all sung together in the Church, & ansered in the diuine offices: but af­terwardes the multitude increasing, the offices were more diuided, & it was left to the sole cleargie to acomplish the common prayers, & Laudes in the Church. Thus plainely doth the Cardinall declare himselfe for a ptofessed ad­uersarie of Sir Humfrey & his comperes in this particular euen so farre as to solue their greatest obiection which they vse to frame against the practise of the Roman Church.

Firstlie touching the allegation of Bellar­mins confession of the reformers tenet aboute the Communion in both kyndes, it is most false that Bellarmin confesseth it in the point in con­trouersie, [Page 472] Bellarmin. l. 2. de ver­bo Dei c. 16. I meane it is false that he confesseth either Christ to haue commaunded the com­munion in both Kyndes, or that the ancient Church practized the same onelie in both kyn­des, both which points Bellarmin so expresselie declareth that Sir Humfrey could not possible haue found anie colour to haue alledged his confession for the contrarie if he had not man­gled his wordes as he did in truth most shame­fullie as may appeare most plainelie to him that will take paines to examen them as they are by him deliuered towardes the end of the chapter cited by the knight, where it is eui­dent that the Cardinall proceedeth diametrally contrarie to the reformers doctrine in the prin­cipall point of this question according to his owne expresse wordes quoted in this my margen. Idcirco quaerendū superest v­trum saltē diuino prae­cepto positi­uo eiusmo­di obliga­tio (com­municandi sub vtra (que) specie) in Ecclesia sit nos enim negamus, illi (sectarij) asserunt. Bellar. lib. 4. de Eu­cha. c. 24.

Sixtlie touching the confession of Bellar­min aboute the duall number of proper Sacra­ments, we haue alreadie shewed him to be quite opposite to the reformers doctrine, & also haue examined the same place which Sir Humfrey citeth here and founde the sense of the Cardinall to haue ben egregiouslie by him transuerted & corrupted, & so here is no confession of anie principall point of controuer­sie made by him in fauour of his aduersaries, but a new repetition of an old imposture of the knights owne making.

Lastelie the knight citeth two places, of Bellarmin. The first out of his 3. booke of Iustification the 6. chapter, is touching the reformers faith & good workes which he af­firmeth Bellarmin to confesse. But what a ri­diculous allegation is this? For it is true Bel­larmin confesseth in the place cited that the re­formers hould faith & repentance are requisite to iustification & that without them no man can be iustified, but this is no principall point of controuersie: nay no question at all betwene the Romanists & the reformers, but onelie a point of doctrine which the reformers doe commonlie teach & the Romanists doe not denie. So that this is impertinentlie alledged out of Bellarmin for faith & good workes since that in the wordes cited out of him there is not one sillable of good workes, but onelie of faith & repentance as the reader sees. But yet that which is most absurde of all is that Sir Hum­frey haueing here cited Bellarmins confession that the reformers hould both faith & repen­tance to be required to iustification, yet pre­sentlie after he citeth the same Bellarmin as concluding with the reformed Churches iusti­fication by faith onely, so that within the com­passe of one page the knight out of the pro­funditie of his great head peace resolueth in fauour of his owne cause out of Bellarmin both that without a liuely faith & an ernest re­pentance [Page 474] no man is iustified, & also that accor­ding to the doctrine of the reformed Churches mans iustification is by faith onelie. Let the reader if, he be able couple these two together, but if he can not let him hould for certaine that Sir Humfrey line was farre out of quare when he vttered such disparates. Now the second place of the two laste is touching iustification by faith onelie. But this hath ben examined before, & founde to containe no confession of iustification by faith onelie (as the knight will haue it, vnaduisedly contradicting himselfe out of an inordinate desire to make Bellarmin seeme to stand for the doctrine of his Church) but onelie that Bellarmin speaketh there of confidence in merits according to the sense a­boue declared.

And thus Sir Humfrey hauing cited all he can, which all neuerthelesse is iuste nothing, he addeth for all this that he wondreth why the Romanists should send out such Anathemas & curses against all or anie of those that denie their doctrine. But I wonder more that he who hath produced nothing either in this chapter or in the rest of his booke out of Ca­tholike authours which in his sense & mea­ning doth not rather deserue to be hissed at, then to be admitted for anie proofe of his do­ctrine, yet should not be ashamed to affirme that the best learned of the Romanists confesse [Page 475] that manie principall points of their owne re­ligion & manie articles of their faith, are nei­ther ancient, safe, nor Catholike. And suerlie I can not conceiue but that both he & who soeuer els should vse so much false dealing as he hath done, in propugning their owne tenets especiallie in matters of religion, deserue the Anathema in the highest degree, that curse being the proper brande of the defenders of erroneous, hereticall, or scysmaticall doctrine. And indeed it seemes Sir Humfrey had not verie great conference in the industrie which he hath vsed in this his worke. For notob­standing it appeareth manifestlie that he put­teth the greatest streingth of his proofes through out his whole booke in the multitude of authours especiallie Romanists, whome by way of emendication or begerie he alledgeth as confessers of his faith, yet he here flyeth to the little flock & to the paucitie of beleeuers & to the simplicitie of babes as to speciall cara­cters of the true Church, & vtterlie disclaming from humane wisdome, power, & nobilitie: a pore refuge after so manie great boasts & bragges of the victorie obteined (as he imagi­neth, but falselie) by meere authoritie & mul­tiplicitie of testimonies piled vp both in text, & margin; now to plead paucitie, simplicitie & want of power, & wisdome. And as for your paucitie in number Sir Humfrey I will not [Page 476] stick to graunt in regard that how great a shewe soeuer you haue made to the contrarie, yet I knowe you to be most pore & beggerlie in that nature, but yet I denie that to be a spe­ciall & infallible marke of the true Church as you insinuate, no more then the paucitie of Manicheans or Donatists was a marke of the truth of their Churches. And the same I say of the want of might, wisdome, nobilitie, I meane of true, power, wisdome, & nobilitie, for of power, wisdome & nobilitie of the flesh you must needs haue much more then the Ro­manists, in regarde it is well knowne you both handle & eate farre greater quantitie then they doe, witnesse your little abstinence & the rest which modestie causeth mee to passe in silence: And touching your simplicitie except by sim­plicitie you meane plaine ignorance, you haue no colour here to bragge of it, for that there was neuer flock in the world, in my opinion, so full of all sortes of duplicitie as your owne. Neither hath anie man greater reight to be a sheepe of that fould then the noble knight Sir Humfrey, who out of the abundance of his double dealing euen in this place, to say no­thing of that which is paste, hath made choise of as false & fallacious markes of his owne Church as he hath calumniouslie fained mar­kes for ours to wit counterfeit miracles which neuerthelesse wee disclame from & detest more [Page 477] then he and all his consortes. And if they will needs medle of these matters, let them reflect vpon their Master Caluin how faine he would haue confirmed his newe Gospell with a for­ged resuscitation of a pore man who by his instructions, fained death, but the false Prophet fayling of his purpose committed a murder in steed of a miracle.

The knight saith further that we beleeue lyes: But I say that he doth not onely beleeue them but makes them, as appeares by this his pamphlet in which, as we see, ther is great store. In Deut. 14. We doe not deny with Lira but that some times in the Church there may be great decep­tion of the people among the Preists in fained miracles: but these miracles if anie such ther be, are in the Church & in the Preists onely, as Lira discretely insinuate, not approued by the Church, & the Preists or their companions for lucre, as the false knight iniuriously affirmes, most corruptedly omitting in his translation of Lyra's wordes both the worde aliquando in the begining, & also the end of his sentence to wit: Lyra in c. 14. Dan. & talia exstirpanda sunt à bonis prelatis sicut ista extirpata sunt à Daniele. De ciuit. l. 2. c. 8. And we yet further affirme with S. Augustin that he that seeketh to be confirmed by miracles nowe, is to be wondered at most of all himselfe in refusing to beleeue what all the world beleeueth besides himselfe. But in those wordes S. Augustin doth [Page 478] not deny but that true miracles may be in the Church, nor yet that they were not in his time, Lib. 22. c. 8. for in his bookes de Ciuit. he affirmeth expres­sely that Christian doctrine, not onely in the begining but also in the progresse, of the Church was confirmed by miracles, as besides other places the very title of that same chapter rehearsed in my margen makes appeare to which these his wordes in the discourse fol­lowing plainely agree. De miracu­lis quae vt mundus in Christo cre­deret facta sunt, & fic­ri mundo credente nō desinunt. Tit. c. 8 li. 22. For (saith S. Augu­stin) euen at this present time miracles are operated or done in his name: (in the name of Christ) either by the Sacraments, or by the prayers, & memories of his saints. And the same S. Aug. in the same place further relates one famous miracle in par­ticular done at the bodie of S. Geruase, & Pro­tase in Milā where he himselfe remained at that present time. And by this it is euident that S. Aug. in the other place produced by Sir Hum­frey onely condemneth him whoe for want of miracles should refuse to beleeue, to which we Romanists most willingly agree. And by this it appeareth that S. Augustin is here imperti­nently alledged by the knight. But the trueth is that because these companions haue no mi­racles in their owne Church, they striue by all meanes possible to obscure the miracles of the Church of Rome & crye out like Bedlames: ther is no need of miracles.

And now to come to a conclusion of this se­ction, [Page 479] & the censure of it, I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey what is all this discourse of mi­racles to the purpose of testifying his doctrine by the confession of Bellarmin, surely nothing at all. & I persuade my selfe the knight was mightly distracted when he penned it, and so I leaue him till he returnes to his more perfect senses.

THE XV. PERIOD.

SIR Humfrey playeth the parte of a Char­latan so farre that he is not content by his prestigious trickes & sleights to laie clame to ancient Fathers & moderne Romanists for confessors of his owne faith, but also out of the groasenes of his education, in this section he presumeth to laie his greasie handes vpon those holie primatiue martyres, & champions of Iesus Christ ingrossing & conueying those sacred wares into his owne stincking store-house, which neuerthelesse all ages, all Chri­stian people, all nations haue till the dayes of Luther proclamed & testified to pertaine to the renowne & glorie of the Roman Church. And altho' he would seeme to proue that the fore­said prime martyrs doe not belong to the Church of Rome, yet his cheefe proofe is but prating & an idle application of his owne te­nets alreadie examined & confuted in their se­uerall [Page 480] places, where they haue ben all founde either plainelie false, or at the least equiuo­call & founded vpon false suppositions vpon which no true argument can be framed: which being so I may iustelie saue labour to descend to particulars, yet one onelie wil I specifie which is so shamefullie impertinent that it is sufficient alone to shame the rest.

He sayth therefore that Father Garnet being demaunded whether if he were to consecrate the Sacrament that morning he should suffer death, he durst after consecration affirme vpon his Saluation that the wine in the cup conse­crated was the verie blood of Christ which flowed from his side, he made ansere it might iustelie be doubted. This is the wise storie which Sir Humfrey telleth vs out of Bishop Andrewes, which altho' wee are not bounde to beleeue as being iustified onelie by our aduersaries, yet suppose it is as true as their Gospell, it maketh not anie thing for this purpose, for that Sir Humfreys taske in this place was not to medle with mar­tyrs of these later ages, but to demonstrate that those ancient martyrs of former ages did not die for that fayth which the present Ro­man Church professeth, & so what soeuer he or his Prelate can faigne of Father Garnet is but a fooles boult which flying at randome co­meth not neare the marke. Father Garnet [Page 481] sayth hee, durst not pronounce openlie ouer the cup after he had consecrated it, this is the bloud of Christ, ergo neuer anie martyr did take it vpon his death that the consecrated bread is the corporall & reall flesh of Christ. Behould I praye this most subtill Logike of a knight & admire it. Or if you list rather laffe at it as I did when I founde it out, & so I lefte it with­out anie further confutation, imagining that perhaps Sir Humfrey lōg before he was borne did miraculouslie speake with some of those ancient souldiers of Christ, & so came to knowe that none of them euer gaue their liues for the reall presence. Which in deed is the point in question, & not whether a man can lawfullie pronounce vpon his Saluation whe­ther this or that hoste in particular after conse­cration, containeth the bodie of Christ, as the knight captiouslie supposeth

But yet shewing vs some more graines of his follie he sayth further, that it is vndoubtedlie true that the ancient martyrs could not dye in that fayth nor for that religion which was alto­gether vnknowne to their church. O ingenious gētilman! but yet I pray tell me if the fore sayd martyrs dyed not for the Romanists religion because as you faigne, they dyed not for the profession of the reall presence, For what re­ligion did they dye? Suerlie not for yours, be­cause if our religiō was vnknowne vnto them, [Page 482] much more was yours vnknowne to their ages which was not in the world before the daies of Luther, except perhaps your 39. articles were knowne vnto them by extraordinarie re­uelation before they were coyned. It is true here we haue Sir Humfreys ipse dixit for con­firmation of his tenet, & so it must needs be doubtlesse, his authority is so excessiuely great. Sir Tho. Ouerb. in his caract. of a Puri­tā or Pre­cisian. And so I graunt the hypotheticall to be most true: And me thinkes it is not much vnlike to an other such like position of the Puritans, who vse to say: it is vnpossible for a man to be damned in their religion, & so a facetious Pro­testant confesses for certaine, as long as heli­ues in it, but if he dyes in it, ther's the question. Wherefore since all is but trifles that Sir Humfrey bringeth, I wish the reader of his booke to consider with himselfe how smale probabilitie there is to imagin that those glo­rious champions of Christ who so valerouslie suffered torments & died for him in the Ro­man Church, & manie of them at Rome it selfe, could possiblie belong to anie other Church in the world, then to that Church which as in that tyme it had the name of Ro­man Church so doth it still remaine with the same appellation not otherwise then by a con­tinuall succession of the Popes of Rome, three & thirtie of which (as eloquent Campian tru­lie obserueth) were put to death for their faith, [Page 483] which their faith as it is manifest partlie by their owne workes, & partelie by the authen­ticall histories of their martyrdomes, was the verie same according to the manner I haue be­fore declared, which nowe is tought in the present Church of Rome.

And if this be not so, if those glorious mar­tyrs were not defenders of that Roman faith which by succession of pastours is deriued & arriued to this our time, I demaund of our ad­uersaries of what other faith they were, for of the reformed faith they could not possible bee in regarde that none of them either tought in their life, or died for the defence of Iustification by faith onelie, or for the deniall of the reall presence of the bodie & blood of Christ in the Eucharist, nor for denying that there is anie other worde of God but onelie scripture. Nor for affirming that the images of Christ & his Saints are Idols, or that they who honore them adore idols, or stickes & stones, or that the Pope was Antichrist: nor doe wee finde in anie historie either anie of this, nor yet that the foresayd martyrs suffered for these, or anie o­ther point of the reformers doctrine which is contrarie to the faith of the present Roman Church. Wherefore the sayd reformers must necessarilie confesse that the ancient martyrs died either for ours or for no other Chri­stian doctrine, & consequentlie that they are [Page 484] eyther ours or no martyrs at all.

And if they were Popes of Rome as you Puri­tās your selues cānot denie, how could they pos­sible be yours who beleeue the Pope is Anti­christ, & are so farre from that kynde of gouer­nemēt that you doe not willingly admit eyther Pope, Prince, or Prelate, but onelie a consisto­riall Anarchie without head or feet. And he that shall duelie ponder these particulars, doubtlesse his conscience will tell him howe vniustelie Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to wreist from the Roman Church those rich prises. And let this suffice for the censure of this se­ction & to shewe that the Romanists by their claime to the martyrs of the primatiue Church pretend nothing but their due.

THE XVI. PERIOD.

THE 17. section containeth an ansere to an obiection of the Romanists drawne from the opinion of Protestants touching the Saluation of professed Romanists, where Sir Humfrey telleth vs, he is come to the greatest wonder. And I confesse the wonder which the knight proposeth is great, but it being of his owne making, it is not hee that ought to wonder at it but rather in my opiniō he should leaue that to others. And truelie it is most wonderfull to mee to heare that the Romanists [Page 485] themselues should confesse their owne do­ctrine to be different from the ancient Church in manie principall points of faith, but this hauing alreadie ben demonstrated to be false & feigned by Sir Humfrey, the greatest won­der of all wonders is that he should haue the face to make a wonder of his owne so often re­peated vntruthes. It is true the Romanists constantlie hould that neyther Lutheran nor Caluinist, nor anie other heretike or Scisma­tike dying in his heresie obstinatelie can be sa­ued, for so they say with him that could com­mit no rashe iudgement, he that doth not be­leeue is alreadie iudged. Qui autem non credit iam iudi­catus est. Ioan. 3.18. Neuerthelesse wee Romanists doe not denie but that probably some simple people may liue in heresie, & yet not be damned at the least for heresie, & yet be saued by ignorance if with all they be free from other mortall sinnes, eyther because they neuer lost their baptismall grace, or if they lost it, by contrition they recouer it againe; which altho' it be not impossible, yet is it verie full of dangerous difficultie morallie speaking, & almost a Metaphisicall case, & for such I leaue it.

Sir Humfrey proceedeth on babling aboute a Citie seated vpon seuen mountaines which he fondelie houldeth for a marke of the false Church & applyeth it to the Roman Church. But if Rome were the seate of the false Church because it is planted vpon seuen mountaines, [Page 486] then how scaped it from that staine all those fiue hundreth yeares in which the reformers themselues graunt it was the mother Church? Iacobus Rex epist. monit. Neyther hath the Roman Church anie such marke of assuming supreme authoritie ouer Kings & Princes as the knight doth odiouslie affirme, but onelie with due respect & humility vseth that authoritie ouer them which Christ himselfe did conferre vpon her, in such manner as is most conducing to the Saluation of their owne soules & their vassals according to the rules of Christian prudence, & the precept of charitie. Yet not to dominier ouer them, or their subiects in anie sorte, & much lesse to approue or allowe of their oppression either by Massacre, or anie other vnlawfull meanes, as the sectaries & especiallie the Puritans doe vse calumniouslie to obiect, notobstanding that none in the world are more guiltie then them selues in those practices, of which we haue too manie examples in Scotland, France, & other places euen against Kings, & Princes, which doubtlesse caused King Iames of great Britanie to speake so plaine as he did both in his bookes & ordinarie discourses, of that particular. Nihil nisi calumniam & seditio­nem spirā ­tes Basilic. dor.

After this Sir Humfrey descends to diuers particulars & demaūdeth whether he & his fel­lowes be accursed for maintaining them or no? and whether the Romanists be blessed for such [Page 487] & such points which they defende against the sectaries? And thus he runneth a long betweene blessing & cursing till he concludes casting the curses vpon the Romanists & the blessings vpon his owne Congregation. But because ther is little or nothing but such false stuffe as I haue alreadie examined & cēsured, & because I haue quite surfeited with so frequēt repetitiō of the same subiect: I onely saye in generall, as he is blessed whoe heareth or obeyeth the Church in all things in regarde that by obeying the Church he obeyeth Christ whoe blesseth them that obey him: So contrarily he that disobeyeth the Church in one onely thing he is accursed according to the wordes of Christ him helfe, if he will not heare the Church let him be vnto to the, like an Ethnike or Publi­can. Mat. 18. And so Sir Humfrey had no reason to maruell if the Romanists accounte him & his fellowes accursed because they refuse to imbra­ce & obey anie point of that doctrine which the most vniuersall Church of the worlde pro­poseth vnto them as doctrine to be receiued, beleeued, or practized by all faithfull Chri­stians. And as S. Augustin in the 41. of his fiftie homilies saith. Whosoeuer is separated frome the Catholique Church that is to say that Church which spred in ouer the whole worlde (as he specifieth in the precedent wordes) how laudably soeuer he thinkes he [Page 488] liueth, for that onely sinne that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ he shall not obteine life eternall, but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him. In which wordes as the reader may see according to the sentence of S. Augustin, separation from the obedience of the vniuersall Church is sufficient to bring the curse vpon anie man notobstanding in other respects he liueth neuer so virtuously.

And according to this the Romanists may bouldly say they are accursed whoe deny all merit in workes proceeding from the grace of God, Scr. 68. in Cant. & they blessed with Sainct Bernard (whom Caluin himselfe calleth a holye & pious man) that affirme with him that it is a pernicious prouertie to want merits, & yet espe­cially at the houre of their death for humilitie with the same S. Bernard put all their con­fidence in the mercy of God; that which the Romanists doe much more then the reformers, notobstanding their defence of meritorious workes.

They are accursed whoe otherwise then Christ tought or affirmed, teach & affirme it vnlawfull for the laitye to communicate in one kynde: And they blessed whoe with Christ & his Church take it for a thing indifferent of it selfe to receiue in one or both kyndes, & stand to the ordināce of the most vniuersall Church without contention, according to the diffe­rence [Page 489] of times, places, & persons.

They are accursed whoe being vnlearned read scriptures & interpret them falsely for the maintenance of their errours, according to that of S. Peter saying: Epist. 2. c. 3. ther are certaine places in S. Paules Epistles which the vnlearned de­praue to their owne perdition: but blessed are they whoe read them as the Eunuch did, that is with a S. Philipe, I meane with one to shewe them the true sense, & as S. Basil & his brother Nazianzene did, Lib. 11. cap. 9. (whoe according to Rufinus) read the scriptures following the sense of them not according to their owne presumption, but according to the writinges of their predeces­sours, notwithstanding they were both, verie famous, & renowned in learning.

They are accursed whoe either prohibit ma­riage or meates as ill in them selues as some ancient heretikes did, or absteine not frome them both at such times & in such cases as God & his Church ordaineth them to ab­steine: And they are blessed whoe according to the order of the Church directed by the spi­rit of God remaine with S. Paule vnmaried, & refaine from eating flesh at such times as the same Church appointeth.

Those are accursed for contemning of Christ in his Church, whoe contrary to her appoint­mēt, doe schismatically administer the publike seruice & Sacraments in the vulgar tongue, [Page 490] erroneously defending the same to be com­maunded by the scriptures: & blessed are those whoe for reuerence to the holy scriptures & conseruation of the dignity of the diuine of­fices, & other iust reasons, hould it fitting to administer publike seruice & Sacraments in a language most common to all nations, to wit in the Latin tongue.

They are accursed whoe loue Christ & his Saints so little as they accounte it idolatrie, & contrary to the scriptures to honore their images, notobstāding ther is no place of scrip­ture truly interpreted to be founde against them: & those are blessed according to the same scriptures whoe to shewe their exteror­dinarie affection to Christ, duely reuerence both the images of him & his blessed seruants.

They are accursed that refuse either to a­dore Christs bodie whersoeuer he affirmeth it to bee, or account it idolatrie or superstition to honore the Saints who he him selfe saith he honoreth with a crowne of glorie: & blessed are they that performe his pleasure in both by adoring his pretious bodie & blood in the sacra­ment, & by honoring his Saints in Heauen where he doth honour them as his seruants & freinds. Si quis mihi mini­strauerit honorifica­bit eum Pa­ter meus &c.

They are accursed who contrary to scrip­ture reiect such ancient traditions as the most vniuersall Church approueth: & blessed are [Page 491] those who with due obedience obserue the same.

Accursed are they who reiect charitie frome the formall cause of iustification, Maior au­tem horum est charitas. 1. Cor. 13. which not­obstanding according to the Apostle, is grea­ter then either hope or faith: & blessed are they who admit it in iustification as well as faith & preferre it before faith with the same Apo­stle.

Accursed are they that by denying with the Iewes the bookes of the Machabies to be Ca­nonicall scriptures, denie Purgatory & prayer for the soules departed: & blessed are they who with the Church & S. Augustin hould the foresayd bookes for canonicall scripture, & say with him it is an vndoubted thing that prayer doth profit the dead. Non dubiū est oration prodesse de­functis. Aug. de cura pro mort. c. 1.

And in this māner, if need were I could passe throu' all the rest of the points of controuerted doctrine, & easily showe the curse to fall vpon the misreformed brothers for their obstinacie & disobedience to God & his Church.

Sir Humfrey would faine seeme to beare a charitable minde towardes the Romanists in regarde he saith, he dares not pronounce dam­nation vpon their persons, and yet he proclai­meth confidently & opēly to the whole world that their doctrine is damnable, to which it is necessarily consequent that all such as die ob­stinately in it are directly damned: & so if Sir [Page 492] Hūfrey proceeds cōsequenter to this his tenet, he must necessity iudge the same of at the least in generall of those which dye in the fore­said obstinate manner & with out inuincible ignorance end their liues in it. But if this be that which he calls greater charitie them Ro­manists haue, & all the fauour he doth vs, we thanke him not for it, & such charitie he may better reserue to himselfe & his brothers who in my opiniō haue no more thē they can spare. And if this be all the difference which can be foūde betwixt the proceeding of the Romanists & the reformers in this particular, then I say that notwithstanding Sir Humfrey much la­boureth to make his reader beleeue that he & his reformed brothers are more charitable thē the Romanists in iudging of the state of the soules of such as departe in each religion: ne­uerthelesse it is manifest he quite faileth of his intent: supposing that the Romanists doe not vse to iudge but rather suspend their iudgment of particular persons, except they haue some speciall reasons prudently & morally to per­suade themselues that this or that partie died in actuall obstinacie & defence of his erroneous faith, otherwise 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 [Page 493] 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 [Page 495] 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 [Page 496] 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 you in some points of faith, so in like manner might we de­duce a proofe of the greater saftie of our way from the certaintie of those points of faith in which you agree with vs, all which is but nu­gatorie, friuolous, & absurd in regarde that as, a parte ad totum, from a parte to the whole no lawfull deduction can be made, so neyther can it be inferred that because one parte of the ob­iect [Page 498] of a mans faith is true, therefore the whole obiect of is faith is true by reason that notob­standing one parte of the obiect be true, yet there may be in the whole obiect or matter trueth & falsitie mixed together, of which we haue instāces both in diuine & humane matters.

And more then this, Sir Humfrey must giue vs licence to tell him that he was to forward in the proofe of his tenet. For before he went aboute to proue his way to be safer then ours, he ought first to haue conuinced his owne way to be a true & perfect way, & not to haue gi­uen his reader a parte for the whole by a false Senecdoche, or contrarie to the Grammer ru­les to obtrude vpon him a comparatiue with­out a positiue, that is a safer way were no way is to be found at all, or at the least no safe & in­tyre way. And yet more ouer it is to be obser­ued that besides those positiue points of do­ctrine in which he sayth that both partes agree, there be also diuers negatiues which they quite distinguish one from an other, which negatiues neuerthelesse are parte of the reformers faith as well as their positiue doctrine, & so in this parte of their Creed they stand single as well as we, & consequentlie if standing single, as he auerreth or at the least supposeth, doth hin­der the safetie of our way, the same effect it must of necessitie haue in theirs, & according to this ground of Sir Humfreys it is manifest [Page 499] that the reformers can neuer haue the safer way till we ioyne with them in euerie point thereof by that meanes to hinder their single standing, which yet we assure our selues will neuer come to passe, except God almightie re­duce them to vs from whome they once de­parted, as we greatlie desire & daylie praye.

And according to this wee may breeflie an­sere to all the rest of the instances which the knight produceth. And so we Romanists con­fesse we stand with the reformers in the affir­mation of heauen & hell, but we stand not with them in the deniall of Purgatorie & lim­bus. We stand with them in the affirma­tion of the merits and satisfactions of Iesus Christ: But we stand not with them in the negation of the merits & satisfactions of those that liue in the grace of God, & by the virtue of the same & the cooperation of their owne free will, performe good workes of charitie, mercie, iustice, & the like, houlding for cer­taine with S. Augustin that he who created vs without vs, will not saue vs without vs: yet further assuring our selues that God doth not operate with bests & men both in one manner. We stand with them in the defence of Bap­tisme & Eucharist so farre as they Orthodoxlie maintainte them, but we stand not with them in the impugnation of the other fiue Sacra­ments. [Page 500] We stand with them in that they af­firme that the images of Christ & his Saints are ornaments & memorialls of the absent: but we stand not with them in their denyall of due honour to be exhibited vnto them for the great loue & reuerence we beare to Christ & his Saints. We stand with them in the defence of the diuine worship of God: but we stand not with them in the denyall of intercessiue inuo­cation & honour of his Saints. We stand with them in that Christ is the prime mediator be­twixt God & man: but we stand not with thē in their denyall of the secondarie mediators, or intercessors which are his seruants & frends. We stand with them in that Christ is head Monarch of the whole Church triumphant & militant: but we stand not with them in their denyall of the visible & Vicarious head the Pope or cheefe pastour of the visible Church in earth subordinate & subiet to Christ in the gouernement of the same. We will not refuse to stand with them in that they graunt that S. Peter had a Primacie of Order: but we stand not with then in that they denie his Primacie of power & Iurisdiction. We stand with them in that they teach there are 22. bookes of Ca­nonicall scripture: but we stand not with them in the refusall of the booke of Tobie, Iudith, two first bookes of Machabees, the booke of [Page 501] wisdome, Esdras & Baruch the Prophet. We stand with thē in that they affirme the scripture is the rule of faith: But we stand not with them in their denyall of diuine traditiōs, not properly added to the scriptures but commended by them & included in them in a general manner. We stand with them in that they say there are twelue articles of the Creed: But we stand not with them in their denyall of the rest of the doctrine defined in generall Councells: as nei­ther doe we ioyne with them in the defence of all the 39. Articles of the English faith or Creed.

And so now by these particulars the iudi­cious reader may euidentlie perceiue that by reason the Romanists agree with the knight onelie in some parte or partiall of his doctrine, he could not possible proue by their confes­sions the greater safetie of his way, as both in the title of this his last section, & also in the title of his whole booke he did propose. Nay he is so farre from the proofe of this, that he hath most apparentlie fayled in the proofe of the verie argument of his whole worke which to the end it may more plainelie appeare I will reduce to this Sylogisme.

That faith is the safe way leading all Chri­stians to the true, ancient & Catholike faith, which is proued by the confessions & testimo­nies [Page 502] of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther. But the faith now professed in the Church of England, is proued by the confes­sions & testimonies of the best learned Roma­nists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther. Therefore the faith now professed in the Church of England is the safe way leading all Christians to the true, ancient, & Catholike faith.

Now there being contained in the minor of this Sylogisme the whole argument, purpose, & drift of Sir Humfreys whole booke, & yet neuerthelesse it hauing ben by mee in this my censure demonstrated not to haue ben proued and made good by anie argument by him produced, all he produceth to that purpose being voyde of force as by the discussion of the particulars of euerie section the reader may ea­silie vnderstand, it followeth by a necessarie sequele that his way can not be safe, but is to be auoyded with most great care & circum­spection as a false & erroneous path, by all those that tender the safetie of their soules & eternall Saluation.

And thus hauing now resolued the man into his principles or prime matter I meane into the dust & ashes which he casteth in his reader eyes: & hauing passed throu' all the passages of [Page 503] his imaginarie safe way, I haue founde it & shewed it to be no way at all, but an intricate diuerticle or obscure path leading pore distres­sed trauellers quite out of the true royall street with an impossibilite euer to come to the end of their iourney, that is to the true ancient Catholike faith, which faith altho' the knight both in the title of his booke & in diuers other places of it, hath seriouslie promised to shew it to be the same which is now professed in En­gland, euen by the confession of the Romanists yet haue I made it manifest that no true Ro­manist that is no authour which is acknow­ledged by the Roman Church for a member of the same, did either in generall or in parti­cular euer confesse the foresaid faith of En­gland to be the ancient Catholike faith, or that did euer, absolutelie & in the same sense in which the reformed Churches doe, defende anie one article of the pretensiue reformed do­ctrine in matter of faith or generallie defined manners. In regard of which & because my cheefe intent was when I first resolued to vn­dertake this busines out of a tender compassion to free the readers from the great & generall delusion which I vnderstood this pamphlet of Sir Humfreys had caused, or might hereafter cause in the myndes of manie, & especiallie the more vnlearned sorte of people, altho' in [Page 504] verie truth in itselfe it containeth nothing worth the labour of a scholler, I doe now ad­uertice them as they esteeme the saftie of their soules, to beware of it as of a shop of most de­ceitelie & poysonous drugges of which they cā not safety taste without an antidote, I meane the illiterate or vnexperienced persons in this kynde of studie, can not securelie reade the the booke except with all they view the ad­uerse parte, & so by detection of the authours fraudes, & couning deceipts they behould the truth discouered, which otherwise as being most subtillie inuolued & mixed by him with abundance of plausible vntruthes, equiuo­cations, false suppositions & Sophismes, can hardlie be founde out euen by those of greater learning & capacitie then ordinarilie the laytie vse to be.

And as for Sir Humfrey him selfe, altho' I haue smale hope of his reclamation in regard of the great arrogācy which I perceiue in him, as being mightily blinded with the vanity of his owne conceite, If truly the worke is this. yet will I not omit to crie a loude vnto him with the sacred psalmist, vtinam saperet & intelligeret, ac nouissima pro­uideret, would to God he would seriously con­sider that there will come a time when his booke shall passe a farre more strict examen & sentence of condemnation then here it hath [Page 505] passed, or can possible passe in this mortall life. And yet if perhaps he findes in the answere of it, any more sharpe or vnpleasing speaches then he would willingly heare, I earnestly intreate him to account them not as spoken against his person, but precisely as he is infected with the spirituall plague of schisme & heresie, and as whose conuersion to the most vniuersally florishing Church an faith (notobstanding whatsoeuer wordes haue passed in heate of disputation) I earnestely desire & praye for. And with this desire & affection I commend him to the infinit goodnesse & mercy of all­mightie God.