bragge for from the tyme you haue begunne to be against it you are not of it And soe much for that 18. Now for these points of Doctrine by you named wherein you agree with vs and which you hauing no Succession of your owne you cannot haue it by any other meanes but by and from vs which therefore are ours and not yours we doe not question you for your antiquity and vniuersality but for these other points wherein you disagree as when you deny the doctrine declared by the Councel of Trent when you deny our seauen Sacraments deny the truth of one of these two Sacramēts to wit the real presence of our Sauiour's body bloud necessity efficacy of the other to wit Baptisme Deny our canon of scripture our number of Councels our traditions c. For this is your faith properly as you are a distinct company or Church Shew your doctrine in all these points that is your deniall of them to haue beene anciently and vniuersally taught or euen before Luther's tyme and you haue said something which you not doing I cannot but wonder to see you soe silly and senselesse to vse your owne words as to thinke you haue said something to the purpose We aske you the antiquity of your doctrine that is wherein you disagree from vs and you answeare vs with the antiquity of soe much as agreeth with ours which is to answeare vs with the antiquity of our owne You haue beene pleased to shape your selues a religion out of ours and you pleade the antiquity of ours But that will not serue your turne that shape which you giue it is the forme and essence of your religion soe long then as that is new your religion is new Neither can you say the same of our points defined in the Councel of Trent as you seeme to say by asking Where our Church was◠where our Trent doctrine and articles of the Romane Creede were receiued de fide before Luther this you cannot likewise say to vs for the defining made not the Doctrine new but bound men by authority of a Councel to beleeue what they did beleeue plainely by tradition Vinc. Lerin cap. 32. as Vincentius Lerinensis saith that the Church by the decrees of her Councels hath done nothing els but that what she had before receiued by tradition onely she should also by writing consigne to posterity Nec quicquam Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit ecclesia nisi vt quod prius a maioribus sola traditione susceperat hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturae chirographum consignaret Of which see more in the first chapter heere 19. After this you aske againe if your doctrine lay inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church which say you no Romanist can deny if it became hidden as good corne couered with chaffe or as fine gold ouerlayed with a greater quātity of drosse whether it must bee therefore new and vnknowne because the corne was not seuered from the chaffe the gold from the drosse before Luther's tyme and then you bid vs because we call your Doctrine nouelty to remoue the three Creeds the two Sacraments the 22. canonical books the 4. first generall Councels apostolical traditions and see whether our Church wil not proue a poore and senselesse carcasse This is your learned discourse Sir Humphrey to which I answeare asking First what Romanist doth acknowledge your doctrine to haue layen inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church Did euer any man write soe did euer any man say soe vnto you nay what Romanist hath euer forborne vpon occasiō offered to deny and deny it againe you teach not onely those bee two but that there be but two Sacramēts which what Romanist euer acknowledged to haue beene taught in the Romane Church one of your Sacraments is an empty peece of bread and a supp of wine which what Catholique will euer say was Taught in the Romane Church you allow 4. Councels and but 4. you allow 22. books of canonical Scripture and but 22. will any Catholique euer allow this to haue beene Catholique doctrine take away your but and then it may passe but then you take away your religion But heere is one thing that giueth mee much cause of wonder which is that you talke of traditions as distinct from Scripture which is a thing that I did little expect from a man of your profession and I euer tooke you to be soe fallē out with them that you made the denial of them a fundamental point of your Religion and that therefore you would not endure the word traditions euen in holy Scriptures where it might be taken in a good sense but alwaies translated or rather falsifyed it into ordinances though both the Latine and Greeke word did signify traditions most expresly But this your allowing of traditions is not a thing that I reprehend in you though some Puritane Ministers may perhaps not let you passe soe gently with it but that that followeth to wit that you should bee soe vnaduised as to acknowledge your Church or Doctrine which you simply and confusedly take for the same being very different as I haue often said to haue beene inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church and to haue become hidden like good corne couered with chaffe and like gold couered with drosse till Luther's tyme and yet to say that it was visible before that tyme is the corne seene when it is couered with chaffe the gold when it is couered with drosse Answ to Cooks rep ep dedicat nu 20. 20. My Lord Cooke shewed himself somewhat wiser when asking himself the question which we aske you to wit where your Church was before Luther he answeared it made no great matter where it was soe hee were certaine it was confessing thereby that his Church was indeede inuisible but yet in being which because it seemed hard to perswade any man he brought a fine similitude of a wedge of gold dissolued and mixed with brasse tinne and other mettalls which he said did not therefore loose his nature but remained gold though we could not determine in what part of the masse it was contained This was somewhat more like for a man by such a similitude to goe about to proue that a Church might subsist inuisibly for the which neuerthelesse a Catholique Diuine told him his owne very soundly but for you Sir Knight to proue the Visibility of your Church by such a Similitude it were not to be beleeued vnlesse a man did see it in print You labour to proue your Church to haue beene visible before Luther's tymes and yet you confesse her to haue begunne her Visibility by Luther for thus you aske was there noe good corne in the granary of the Church because for many yeares space till Luther's dayes it was not seuered from the chaffe to seuer the corne from the chaffe wherewith it was couered is to make it visible if then Luther did first seuer it he
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
by your example in his false beleife I shall not much reguard it or any thing els which you shall say in that kind for your deeds giue mee assurance of deepe malice and peruersnes soe grounded in your hart as that they hinder you from beholding the light of truth for which cause I cannot but reckon you in the number of them of whom S. Paul lamentingly saith 2. Cor. 4.3 Quod si opertum est euangelium nostrum in ijs qui pereunt est opertum in quibus Deus huius saeculi excoecauit mentes infidelium vt non fulgeat illis illuminatio euangelij If our Ghospel be couered or hidd in them that perish it is hidd in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of the vnfaithfull that the light of the Ghospel may not shine vnto them For otherwise how were it possible that in such great aboundance of Catholique authors now in this age prouing the verity of the Catholique faith some by way of controuersy some by way of history others by way of chronology others by way of authority others by way of schoole diuinity you should come to aske for one in euery age what is Gualterus his whole chronology but to proue twelue verityes now adayes most controuerted by the testimonyes of Fathers and Doctours in euery age Doth not Genebrard in his chronology at the end of euery 100. yeares note the antiquity of the Catholique beleife in most of all these points citinge the places where the Fathers and Doctours their testimonyes and proofes are to bee found 14. But you say they were not taught de fide as points of Faith what is that to say that they were neuer defined all in any general Councel I grant you that but what then must they not therefore belong to Faith how many points be there that were neuer soe defined will it not serue your turne that they were commonly beleeued without contradiction of any as all these were or if some one Doctour should bee singular in his opinion yet soe as to be ready to submit his iudgment to the definition of the church what would this hinder nay would it not much helpe to proue the continual Visibility supereminent authority of the Church which is the question now betweene vs but of this more afterwards Now for our Doctours whom you will confesse to be mistaken in witnessing the antiquity of your doctrine I wil say nothing heere but in dew place wil shew how notoriously you falsifye some impertinently alleadge others and eyther very maliciously or very ignorantly bring condemned knowne Haeretiques against vs for authors of our owne 15. In which reguard I cannot but admire to heare you soe hypocritically to conclude your Epistle saying that though by the prouocation of a Iesuit you haue putt your sickle into another man's haruest yet you witnesse a true confession before God and Man that you haue neither wilfully not wittingly falsified any one author eyther in citation or translation in this treatise What execrable periury this is I shall after demonstrate Prius vos ostendens fabricatores mendacij First shewing you to be framers of lyes as I may say to you Sir Humphrey with soe much more reason then Iob did to his freinds by how much they did vrge him not with any false doctrines but onely mis-applied truths Whereas you offend in all kind of falshood For euen where you happ to cite a place truely for soe much as pertaineth to the words you doe it soe cleane kam from the authors meaning and discourse that euery man may see how euidently false and consequently how iniurious both to God and Man that profession of yours is wherein you call them to witnesse your truth honesty in the citing of authors 16. And therefore whereas you seeme to attribute the slipps if there be any to your owne weakenesse which you are content ingenuously to confesse if they be shewed you moderately plainely and faithfully I must deale freely with you Sir Humphrey and tell you that indeede I take your weaknesse or ignorance to be noe whit lesse if not more then you seeme to acknowledge both by what I find in this treatise by what I heare from some that know you well and verily thinke you scarse skill euen of ordinary Latin much lesse of such other Learning as is needfull for writing books of this nature Wherevpon they conclude this booke to be none of yours but some Ministers who hath borrowed your name and title to countenance his worke withall and that you being somewhat greedy of glory were content to lend it not considering that by soe doing that is by fathering such a booke you are to vndergoe all the reprehension and shame which shall ensew vpon the discouery of the author's ignorance and weaknesse whosoeuer he be But because this is but a probable coniecture I will not build vpon it but taking you for author seeing it beareth your name I shall discouere not onely your great weaknes and ignorance which you acknowledge but greater obstinacy and malice soe as thereby it may plainely appeare that your faults are not soe much to be termed slipps of ignorance or weaknes as slowes of malice of purpose to plunge your Reader and make him sticke fast in some myre of mis-beleife and infidelity with your selfe 17. Which obstinacy and malice to be the true cause of all your errours whatsoeuer you may pretend to the contrary doth yet farther appeare in that hauing receiued a foile or two and together with them good admonitiōs A plea for the reall praesence by I. O. A defence of the appendix by L.D. you neither take notice of the one in your writings nor shew the fruit of the other in your manners And therefore for the answeare which hath beene hitherto differred because noe man of learning could thinke it worth his paines to make you any and should still haue beene differred were it not more for other men's sakes then your owne you are to expect it as you desire faithfull and plaine and though it must of necessity bee a little round sometymes yet I hope to any indifferent man it will also seeme moderate that is much within the compasse of your deserts 18. Now lastly whereas you craue a fauourable acceptance of these your beginnings promising vs some farther fruits of your labours if you remember your self well these are not your first fruits for you translated and published heeretofore with a preface of your owne a certaine treatise of one Iohn Bertram an ancient obscure author whereby you haue giuen to the world sufficient triall as well of your talent in translating as of your ignorance and corruption whereof you were most plainely conuinced in a particular treatise of that matter called A PLEA FOR THE REALL PRESENCE BY I. O. Whereto you neuer hauing replyed one word for clearing your self of soe foule a tax it is wonder you could thinke of publishing any farther fruits of your
thou art not to be the author but the keeper not the institutor but a scholler not leadinge but followinge Soe as by Timothee the whole Church being vnderstood as the same author saith or especially the whole body of Pastors it followeth that the Church createth not anie new articles of faith but teacheth onely that which she hath learned of the Prophets and Apostles 6. From which followeth that other thing which I meāt to tell the Knight for his learning which also I touched before in a word to wit that when points of doctrine before in controuersy and vndefined come to bee defined by the Church the doctrine is not therefore new because it is de fide or matter of faith now which it was not before as he most falsely and fondly supposeth for an vndoubted truth and vpon this his owne idle fancy buildeth many goodly arguments like soe many castles in the ayre For out of this hee thinketh it to follow that we vary in our doctrine that because forsooth there be many things now de fide which were not before and whereof Doctors did dispute which seing we may not now doubt of therefore the faith is in his iudgment altered But this sheweth nothing but the poorenes of his iudgmēt For by this he might proue that the sunne as it riseth higher and higher and by spreading his beames giueth light in some places att noone where it did not in the morning that therefore it is changed in it selfe then which what can be more absurd 7. And that it is the same of the Church and the Sunne Cant. 6.9 appeareth by that place of the Canticles Quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens pulchra vt Luna electa vt sol terribilis vt castrorum acies ordinata Who is she that goeth forward as the morning rising faire as the moone chosen as the Sunne terrible as an ordered army of tents Which words noe man euer doubted to be literally vnderstood of the Church Euen then as the Sunne may goe spreading his beames more and more with out increase or change of it owne light in it selfe soe may the Church goe more and more spreading the beames of her diuine faith with out increase or alteratiō of the faith in it self And as the Sunne beame may shine in a valley or roome of a house where it did not shine before soe may the Church spread the light of her faith shewing such or such a point to be a diuine truth which before was not soe knowne to bee or which though it were a diuine truth in it self yet it was not soe to vs. 8. For more declaracion whereof I may yet bring another more scholerly example which is of the principles of seuerall sciēces which are to bee the premisses in demonstratiue arguments of those sciences in which principles or premises are contained diuers truthes which may be drawne out of them by many seuerall conclusions one following of another these conclusions were truthes in themselues before though they did not soe appeare vnto mee till I saw the connexiō they had with the premisses and how they were contained in them And by the many seuerall conclusions which are soe drawne the truth of those principles and premisses doth more shew it self but not receiue any increase or chāge in it self thereby Euen soe we say in the prime principles of our Faith reuealed immediately to the Prophets and Apostles and by them deliuered vnto the Church are contained all truths which any way belonge to our Faith ād whereby the Church hath in succeeding ages destroyed seuerall haeresies as they haue risen without creating or coyning new faith or altering the old but out of the old grounds and premisses drawing those conclusions which destroy new haeresies and shew them to be cōtrary to the ancient faith And in that manner the Church hath growen and increased in knowledge by degrees and shall still goe growing and increasing to the end of the world Greg. moral lib. 9. cap 6. as sheweth S. Greg. his discourse vpon those worde of Iob. Qui facit Arcturum Oriana Hyadas c. Where he saith thus Vrgente mundi fine superna scientia proficit largius cum tēpore excrescit As the world draweth to an end the heauenly knowledge profiteth and with tyme increaseth Wherein also she resembleth our B. Sauiour her cheife Lord and heauenly Spouse who though in grace and knowlegde he neuer receiued the least increase from the first instant of his Conception Luc 2.52 yet the Scripture saith after proficiebat sapientia aetate gratia apud Deum homines To wit because he shewed it more in his words and actions 9. This is farther confirmed by the manner and practize which our Catholique Doctors and Fathers euer obserue in and out of Councells in prouing or defining points of faith to wit by hauing recourse to the authority of scripture and tradition beleife and practize of the Church in the searching whereof the holy Church ioyneth humane industry with God's holy grace and assistāce For when any question or doubt of faith ariseth particular Doctors seuerally dispute and write thereof then if farther neede require it the holy Church gathereth together her Pastors and Doctors in a Councel to examine and discusse the matter more fully as in that first Councel of the Apostles Act. 15.6 whereof the Scripture saith Conueneruntque Apostoli seniores videre de verbo hoc The Apostles ad Ancients assembled to consider of this word The Pastors coming soe together and hauing the presence of our Sauiour according to his promise and his holy Spirit out of the Prophetical and Apostolical Scriptures and Traditiōs ioyning therewith the authorityes and interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors out of praecedent tymes she doth infallibly resolue and determine the matter not as new but as ancient orthodox and deriued from her Forefathers making that which was euer in it self a diuine truth soe to appeare vnto vs that now we may not make farther question thereof 10. Vinc. Lerin cap. 27.28.29 seq And this being the common doctrine deliuered by our Catholique Doctour I thinke it not amisse somewhat farther to confirme and authorize the same by an excellent discourse of that holy and ancient Father Vincentius Lerinensis not reciting his very words because it would bee too long but onely the substance which is this Hauing proued by the word Depositum out of S. Paul that a Pastour Priest Preacher or Doctour there meant by Timothee must onely deliuer the doctrine which is deposited with him or in his hands not found out by him which he hath receiued not inuented whereof hee is not to bee author or beginner but the Keeper or Guardian hee saith that if such a man haue abilityes for it hee may like another Beseleel adorne sett out and grace the pretious iewels of diuine faith by expounding more clearely that which before was beleiued more
obscurely that posterity may reioyce at the cleare knowledge of that which antiquity did reuerence euen before it came to be soe knowne that in fine he must soe theach which he hath learned that though he deliuer it in a new manner yet hee deliuer not any new matter And then asking a question by way of obiectiō whether Christia religiō doe not receiue any increase or profit hee answeareth yes verily but in such manner as it may bee truely called increase not change For increase importeth an amplification or enlargement of a thing in it self Change importeth a turning of one thing into an other And soe he saith the vnderstanding knowledge and wisedome both of euery man in particular and of the whole Church in general may receiue increase but soe as to persist in same doctrine sense and iudgment which hee declareth by the similitude of a man's body which though it be greater when he comes to be a man then when hee was a chile yet all the parts and limbs are the same soe as though it receiue increase yet noe change the same hee declareth by another similitude of a graine of wheate cast into the ground which though it multiply in the growth yet it multiplieth onely in the same kind of graine Wherevpon he concludeth that the Church being a diligēt and wary keeper of the doctrines committed to her custody doth not adde diminish or any way change doth not cut of what is necessary nor adde any thing superfluous but with all industry soe handle all ancient doctrines as if any haue not receiued their full shape and perfection to polish and perfect them if any be throughly searched and expressed to cōsolidate and strengthen thē if any be cōfirmed and defined to keepe them adding withall that the Church hath neuer endeauoured any thing els by her decrees of Councels but onely that which was simply that is without questioning beleeued before should after bee more diligently beleeued that which before was preached more slackly should after bee preached more earnestly that wich before was more securely reuerenced should after be much more carefuly garnished or adorned and that the Church being excited by the nouelties of haeretiques hath done noe more but consigned to posterity in writing that which before she had receiued from her ancestours by tradition onely and for more cleare vnderstāding thereof many tymes expressed the ancient sense of faith by the propriety of a new appellacion that is by a new word then inuented to expresse the ancient beleife 11. This is the discourse of this Holy Father which I haue sett downe the more fully in reguard it containeth the cleare decision of this whole matter For out of it together with what hath beene hitherto said it may bee gathered first that the Church createth not any new articles of faith but onely that she deliuereth vnto vs those articles of ancient faith which she hath receiued from them by whom she was first plāted and taught that faith Much lesse doth she deliuer vnto vs any new faith For though she should haue new distinct reuelations yet would it not follow that the faith were new soe long as those it followeth that he that denieth the explication doth deny the article and consequently frame vnto himselfe a new beleefe 12. And that the absurdity of Sir Humphrey's argument may yet appeare more manifestly I add that any haeretique that euer was may by the very same maner of argument chalenge antiquity to himselfe and accuse vs of nouelty For he may say such a thing was not de fide before such a Councel ergo it is new and that he beleeues onely that which was beleeued before that Councel ergo he beleeueth the ancient Faith Which argumēt if it be good in Sir Humphrey is good in them and cōsequently he must disallow the decrees of all Councels as nouelties and approue all haeresies for the ancient beleefe Which being soe great and manifest an absurdity he will not sure for shame admitt and consequently must allow of Vincentiu's his authority and the answeare out of him to wit that Councels in defining matters of faith doe not coyne a new faith but declare explicate and define the old Which that Sir Humphrey may the better conceiue I shall heere in a word vrge him with an example of his owne Church thus The Church of England admitteth of diuers books of the new testament for canonical whereof there was doubt for three or fower hundred yeares togeather in the Church of God as the Epistle to the Hebrewes the second Epistle of S. Peter the Ep. of S. Iude the Apocalypse of S. Iohn and some others which were after admitted for Canonical Now I would know of him whether vpon the admittance of them there were any Change of faith in the Church or whether euen those books haue receiued any change in themselues hee cannot say they did and there by he may answeare himself and see plainly that the change which seemeth to be is not in the things to be beleeued but in vs that are to beleeue them because vpon such definition or declaration of the Church we are obliged to beleeue them which it may be we were not before And this may suffice for this matter of new articles of beleife which Sir Humphrey would faine father vpon vs. 13. Another thing which hee much buildeth vpon and whereby he thinketh to preuaile against vs in the authority of some particular Doctors or Schoolemen of the Church differing among themselues in some points not defined by the Church at such tyme as they did dispute thereof though afterwards they were But any man of iudgment will presently see that this is but to delude the simpler sort of people of his owne side whom he thinketh to make beleeue any thing For who doth not know that Catholiques binde themselues onely to defend the Catholique faith which neyther doth nor can depend vpon the iudgment of any one priuate Doctor how learned soeuer for neyther is any thinge counted faith till it bee taught by the authority of the Catholique church or common cōsent of Doctors Vinc. Lerin cap. 4. for soe saith Vincentius Lerinensis expressely that wee are to beleeue without doubt not what one or two Maisters teach but what all with common consent hold write and teach planely frequently and perseuerantly Vinc. Lerin cap. 39. And this as he saith els where Non in omnibus diuinae legis questiunculis sed quidem certe praecipuè in fidei regula Not in all small questiōs of the diuine Law but cheifely in the rule of faith Which Sir Humphrey cannot be ignorant of but onely that he lifteth still to be limping and wilfully dissembling the truth For if he had taken notice of this he would haue had lesse to say though he say not much euen now with all the dissembling he can deuise 14. Neyther will it serue his turne to say that we vrge him and his Ministers out of their
owne authors and why may not he doe the like to vs for the reason is cleane different They haue noe publique authority which can define what is Faith and what not but that is left not onely to euery priuate Doctour or Minister but to euery priuate Lay man and Woman And though it be true that it is noe conuincing proofe to vrge one particular Protestant Doctor 's authority against another there being not two among them of one opinion wholy much lesse one bound to answeare for the other Yet we are faine and may with good reason vse it because they haue noe certaine rule of Faith wherewith we may vrge them Authority of Church they haue none Scripture they haue indeede but soe mangled corrupted peruerted by translation and misinterpreted according to their owne fancies that as they haue it it is as good as nothing Traditions they haue none Councels they haue not any among themselues nor will stand to ours Consent of Fathers or Schoolemen they care not for Consent of Doctors they haue not among themselues nor can haue without an heade neyther if they had would any man thinke himself more bound by that then by consent of Fathers what then is left but to vrge them with the authority of such as they acknowledge for their brethren But with vs the case is farre different for we haue diuers infallible rules of faith though all with some reference to one principal rule As Scripture in the plaine and literal sense which is out of controuersy tradition or common beleefe and practize of the whole Church Councels either general or particular confirmed by the See Apostolique the authority of that Holy See it self defining ex cathedra though without either generall or particular Councel the common and vniforme Consent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoolemen deliuering any thing vnto vs as Matter of Faith 15. All these six rules of faith we acknowledge wherewith let this Knight or any Protestant in the world vrge vs we flinch not wee doe not deny the authority but are ready to make good whatsoeuer is taught anie of these wayes What folly then is it for a man to stand vrging vs with the authority of any one priuate man who may straggle out from the rest though to goe farther then we neede in such great liberty as wee giue Protestants wee giue them leaue to vrge vs with the authority of any one single Doctour in a point wherein hee is not contradicted by other Catholique Doctours or which other Catholiques doe not wholy disauow What more can a man desire And yet againe though the Knight or any other Protestant should bring such a single author for his opinion yet is there such a maine difference betweene him and them that noe Protestant can iustly pleade that single Catholique author to be wholy of his opinion or beleife in that point to say nothing of others wherein they differ For the Protestant holdeth his doctrine stifly not meaning in any case or for any authority to change or leaue it which is it that that maketh a man properly an Haeretique Whereas the Catholique euer holdeth it with indifferency ready to leaue it whensoeuer the Catholique Church shall determine otherwise Which if Sir Humphrey will be but content to doe wee will beare with all his errours because then they will be soone amended What little helpe then is hee like to haue from Catholique authors or what likelyhoode is there for him to make good his paradoxes or rather his most absurd heresies out of our owne Cardinals Bishops Doctors Schoolemen c. whom he putteth all in the plural number as if the number were to bee very great Whereas God knoweth they come very poore and single as shall appeare and some bee Cardinals of his owne creating only as I shall after shew but this hee doth for credit of his cause though it bee with losse of his owne 16. And all this which heere I say is to bee vnderstood supposing that indeede he cite Catholique authors and cite them truely as heere hee promiseth which promise for as much as concerneth true citing how hee performeth I shall afterwards make manifest heere onely I shall adde a word concerning his authors who he promiseth vs shal bee Catholiques Whereas indeede for the most part they are either knowne Haeretiques or some such men as though with much adoe they may passe for Catholiques as Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Cassander and the like yet they gaue themselues soe much liberty in they writings as they came to bee noted for it and their works forbidden Of which I will not therefore make any account as noe other Catholique doth But when I come to such authorityes as there be many in this booke I meane to make noe other answeare but that the author is condemned or booke forbidden in the index librorum prohibitorum the table of forbidden bookes Wherein I cannot but note Sir Humphrey's ill fauoured and dishonest dealing in pretending to cite only our owne Doctors and Schoolemen and yet afterwards obtruding such as he knoweth to bee subiect to soe mayne exception and soe to bee by vs disauowed and reiected as incompetent Iudges or witnesses 17. But there is noe other to bee expected at such a man's hands and therefore I will neyther looke for better nor say more of it but by this occasion adde a word or two concerning the Index expurgatorius which soe much troubleth the consciences of these men Which being rightly vnderstood noe man of reason and iudgment can be offended with it For it is nothing but a continuance of the same care which hath beene euer obserued in the Church of God for preseruing of the Catholique fayth and integrity of life from the corruption of Haeretiques and other wicked men who by bookes bring great preiudice both to Faith and manners vnlesse special care be vsed for praeuenting thereof Of the necessity and iustnes of which course there be whole books written by diuers learned Catholique Doctors neyther can any body dislike thereof but onely Haeretiques who indeede find themselues mightily aggreiued therewith as being by this course depriued of a chiefe meanes of spreading their wicked doctrine by books though indeede they haue noe more cause to complaine then Necromancers Iudiciary Astrologers Southsayers Witches Magicians and euen bad Catholiques who publish naughty and lasciuious books for this care of the Church doth extend to all whatsoeuer may be offensiue or hurtfull eyther to faith or good manners 18. But because Sir Humphrey will needs haue it that the bible is also forbidden and the Father's writings appointed to bee corrected and rased I answeare that for the Bible indeede it is not permitted in the vulgar language to euery body without any reguard or distinction of persons as it neuer was nor ought to bee as is well proued by authority of Fathers and reason in the preface of the Rhemes testament But yet it is not soe forbidden but that it
is in the Bishop's power to grant leaue if vpon conference with the Parish-Priest or Confessor of the party that desireth leaue hee find him to bee such an one as may not incurre danger of faith but be like to increase in vertue and deuotion by reading thereof Which with any reasonable man may bee counted sufficient liberty As for the Fathers it is most grossely false which the Knight after the ordinary ministerial tune stands canting that wee blot out and raze them at our pleasure For though for soemuch as concerneth the late Catholique authors of this last age for this our index of which is all the difficulty beginneth but from the yeare 1515. whatsoeuer needeth correction is to be mended or blotted out yet for others going before that tyme it is expressely said that nothing may bee changed vnlesse some manifest error through the fraud of haeretiques or carelesnesse of the Printer be crept in but that if any thing worth nothing occurre the new editions of the same author by some notes in the margent or at the later end the author's mind may be explained De correct lib. §. 3. 4. or the hard place by comparing other passages of the same author be made more cleare Now is heer any thing that derogateth from the dignity and authority of antiquity What is it then that these men would haue what is it they can carpe at nothing but that they themselues are stunge in that heereby they are kept either from publishing their owne wicked works or corrupting the Fathers at their pleasure and to wipe away this blemish from themselues they would lay it vpon vs. And by this that is heere said of this matter may be answeared noe little part of Sir Humphrey's booke whereof one whole chapter is of this matter beside other bitter inuectiues vpon other occasions to fill his paper though there also I shall haue occasion to say somewhat more heereof 19. The last thing which heere I meane to speake of is a certaine distinction of explicite and implicite faith wich the Knight and his Ministers cry out against and are pleased sometymes to make themselues merry withall as if they would laugh it out but it is too well and solidly grounded to be blowne away with the breath of any such Ministerial Knight as he is I will therefore only declare it in a word that the Reader may see whether the distinction or the Knight bee more worthy to be laughed at The words explicite and implicite are drawne from the Latine and they signifie as much as foulded and vnfoulded or wrapped vpp and layd open And explicite faith signifyeth a beleefe directly and expresly beleeuing a particular point of faith in it self not as it is inuolued or wrapped vpp in an other implicite faith is the beleefe of any point of faith not in it self but in some other general principle wherein it lyeth inuolued or as it were wrapped vpp as Catholiques beleeue in many thingh as the Church beleeueth though they doe not know what the Church holdeth particularly in this or that point Now all Catholiques being bound to the beleefe of the Catholique faith wholy and entirely vnder paine of damnation as saith Saint Athanasius in his Crede and all not being able to know what is taught in euery particular there must be some meanes whereby to beleiue all and this by an implicite faith including in it self a promptnes or readines of the vnderstanding and Will to obey and rely vpon the authority of the holy Church wherein noe Catholique that beleeueth any one point can haue much difficulty seeing the reason why he beleeueth that one point is the authority of God declared vnto vs by the mouth of the neuer erring Church 20. Neither is this implicite faith for the ignorant alone as the Knight saith but it is for all both learned and vnlearned for there is noe man soe learned but may be ignorant of some one point or other or at least in matters not yet defined he must haue that indifferency and readines of Will and iudgment to beleeue as the Church shall teach True it is the vnlearned know lesse of particular points though all be bound to the expresse or explicite knowledge of some articles as of the Apostles Creede of the Commaundements of God and the Church Sacrifice of the Masse of some Sacrements and euery one of soe much as perteyneth both to the common obligation of Christian Dewty and of his owne particular state and vocation For the rest it is not necessary for any one in particular to know all but it sufficeth that he haue a minde soe praepared that when he shall vnderstand more to be needfull he be ready to embrace it Which a man would thinke were but reason And for this disposition and praeparation of minde wherein the essence of implicite faith consisteth it is alike both in the learned and vnlearned The want whereof in Protestants is the very reason why they haue noe true faith at all euen in the beleefe of those mysteries which they beleeue for by this it plainely appeareth that euen in those things which they beleeue they haue noe reguard to any authority by which they are propounded vnto them but onely because they thinke good themselues and although they should beleeue all things which Catholiques beleeue but not for the reason which they beleeue but because they please themselues yet were not this faith and soe it is much better to beleeue a few things expresly with a resolution to beleeue whatsoeuer els shal be propounded by the Catholique Church then to beleeue a great many more with out this minde For that former is diuine faith this later onely humane selfe opinion and iudgment 21. Neither is there any cause why this Knight should soe cry out against implicite faith obtruded as he saith vpon the ignorant for it is not obtruded vpon any man but rather we desire with Saint Paul that all may bee replenished which the Knowledge of God and heauenly things but euery body knoweth that all men are not of capacity and vnderstanding alike And for such as are not able to attaine higher wee say it is sufficient for them to know somme few things and for the rest to beleeue as others in the Catholique Church beleeue Doth not S. Paul speake Wisedome among the perfect that is teach them the greater and higher mysteries of faith and yet to others hee giues onely milke 1. Cor. 2. that is the more easy Mysteries of faith not meate for saith he You were not yet able Were it not pretty if euery simple man should onely beleeue soe much as his owne vnderstanding reacheth vnto and for that which it cannot reach to deny it were not this a notable point of pride and yet this is that which the Knight would haue euery man to doe and derideth vs Catholiques because we will not haue Men soe to doe but with humility to beleeue what they doe not vnderstand
soe long as they haue sufficient ground to beleeue it which neuer wanteth in the Catholique Church and out of it is euer wanting By this any man may see whether this distinction of explicite and implicite faith doe not stand with very great reason and consequently whether the Knight who laugheth thereat doe not shew himself most worthy of laughter 22. Especially if wee adde withall that it is not soe much this implicite faith that hee speaketh against as diuine faith in generall for that he counteth implicite faith when a man is bound by a blind kind of Obedience as he calleth it to submitt his iudgment to the Catholique Church which is the true property of diuine faith and that is it which he countes simplicity and calleth it implicite faith to beleiue that whereof we vnderstand not the reason but heerein he destroyeth the very nature of faith expressely contradicting S. Paul's definition thereof which is this Hebr 11.1 Faith is the substance of things to bee hoped for an argument of things not appearing and S. Aug plainely saith that is faith to beleeue that which thou dost not see and S. Greg. addeth Greg. ho. 36. in Euang. that faith hath noe meritt where humane reason giueth experiēce Soe as for a man to speake against this kind of implicite is plaine infidelity and therefore I shall say noe more of it but onely supposing it as a most certaine and commonly receiued principle of the Fathers and point of absolutely necessary Christian humility for a man soe to submitt his iudgment in what hee vnderstandeth not I shall conclude with a word of Vincent Lerinensis wishing such men as haue suffered themselues out of praesumption to bee carried away with some nouell opinions out of the Catholique Church to returne therevnto by this humility of implicite faith in these words Dediscant bene quod didicerunt non bene cap. 25. ex toto ecclesiae dogmate quod intellectu capi potest capiant quod non potest credant Let them vnlearne well that which they haue learnt not well and out of the whole doctrine of the Church Lett them cōceiue what can bee conceiued what cannot let them beleeue Which authority alone is sufficient to warrant our distinction of explicite and implicite faith against all Sir Humphrey's scornefull laughter Chap. 2. And soe hauing noted thus much in this place by occasion of his praeambles I come now to the examination of his sections Whether the Church of Rome bee with out cause bitter against the reformed Churches as the knight affirmeth CHAPTER II. 1. THe Knight's first section is to proue that the Church of Rome is without cause bitter against the reformed Churches That she is bitter he proueth because wee stile him and his not onely by the common name of Haeretiques but also by other special reproachfull epithites pertayning to the seuerall Sects of Zuinglius Luther Caluin c. Secondly because we accurse and excommunicate them and will not let them liue with vs whereas wee admitt Iewes and Infidels That all this is without cause he proueth first by an authority of Theodoret which speakes of a contention betweene two factions in the Church of Antioch and the reason to allay it because saith Theodoret both parts make one and the same confession of their faith for both maintaine the Creede of the Nicene Councel Secondly by the authority of Bellarmine whom hee maketh to say that the Apostles neuer propounded as common articles of faith other things then the articles of the Apostles Creede the ten commandements and some few of the Sacraments because these things are simply necessary and profitable for all men the rest are such as a man may bee saued without them Thirdly he maketh it an vndeniable truth that the reformed Church and the Romane are two Sisters and that the Romane Church fayling and becoming an Harlott it was well done of his Church to seperate her self least she might bee partaker of her plagues And soe goeth on inueighing bitterly against the Romane Church to the very end of the Section whereof this is the whole substance which I haue brought into this methode the better to answeare it 2. That wee Catholiques stile the Knight and his Reformers by the common name of Haeretiques wee deny not that some particular Catholique authors stile some of them that is the Zuinglians Lutherans and others by other reproachfull names wee also deny not But why this Knight should complaine as if he were iniured in all the seuerall names that are giuen to the seuerall sects of Haeretiques I see not vnlesse it soe bee that hee be of all their seuerall religions which yet I see not how hee can bee they being soe many and soe contrary among themselues But be he of one or other or more and lett him but goe into Germany and professe himself a Caluinist or a Zuinglian hee shall finde soe good entertaynment and such gentle termes at the Lutheran's hands as I dare boldly say he will neuer complaine more of the bitternes of Catholiques against him and his Brethren For the word Haeretique which is the worst of all other as contayning all in it self he cannot but know that it hath euer gone with such as haue held new particular doctrines different from the common doctrine of the Catholique Church and therefore the word according to the etymology is noe word of contumely but a word signifying the nature of the thing and it is onely growne by custome to bee contumelious because the thing it self to wit haeresie is the most detestable thing in the world If then the thing ot crime of haeresie pertaine to à man and that hee be notoriously guilty thereof I see not what great bitternes it is to giue him the name of Haeretique If I would I could vrge his bitternes much more in the same kind and in this very section as for example where hee calleth the Catholique Church an harlott the whore of Babylon the Pope Anti-Christ Catholiques Idolaters and a great deale more But I lett all that passe making onely this answeare that wee doe nothing in this matter of names which seemeth to him soe great a point of bitternes but what we can warrant by very good authority and example euen of scripture Act. 13.11 2. Cor. 11.15 S. Paul called that enemy of faith Elymas the Magician Sonne of the Diuell Enemy of all iustice and false Apostles in general that is Haeretiques he calleth the Ministers of Sathan In an other place Philip. 3.2 1. Io. 2.18 Ep. Iud. he calleth Haeretiques by the name of Doggs S. Iohn calleth them Antichrists S. Iude is most vehemēt against them giuing them many bitter epithetes and comparing them to Cain to Balaam to Core Our Sauiour himself said of one of his Disciples that hee was a Diuell Ioan. 6. which hee meant of Iudas who is ordinarily and worthily ranked among Haeretiques Which considered Sir Humphrey you should neuer
is the true explicacion of this Parable not according to my priuate sense but according to the sense of the holy Fathers and our Blessed Sauiour himself who voutsafed to explicate this Parable vnto vs wherein as you see the Goodman's seruaÌ„ts marke the growing of the cockle soe must you tell vs what Pastors or Doctors did euer note any such thing in any point of our doctrine But heere Sir Humphrey what is to be thought of you that take vpon you to interprete Scripture at your owne pleasure and for your owne ends euen then where our B. Sauiour himself doth explicate his owne parable and meaning thereof What I say may men thinke by this that you will doe els where soe your chiefe gappe or euasioÌ„ for not assigning the person tyme place when our Doctrine began is stopped and the exception remaineth still in full force to wit that you must assigne the tyme place persons or els we acknowledge noe error 7. But you say it is an vndeniable truth that some things were condemned in the primitiue Church for erroneous and superstitious which now are established for articles of Faith this you proue by a place of S. Aug. saying that he knew many worshippers of tombes and pictures whom the Church condemneth and seeketh to ameÌ„d Which yet you say is now established for an article of Faith But by your leaue Sir this your vndeniable truth is a most deniable vntruth For first S. Augustine's tyme was a good while that is about one hundred yeares after the primitiue church Secondly that which S. Aug. condemneth to wit the superstitions and heathenish worshipp of dead and perhaps wicked men's tombes and pictures vsed by some badd Christians is not approued by the Nicene and Trent Councels but the religious worshipp of Saint's images reliques which S. Aug. himself practized Bell. de reliq lib. 2. cap. 4. as you may see in Bellarmine with whoÌ„ alsoe you may find other good solutions of this place which I suppose you cannot but haue seene and consequently you cannot but know that your vndeniable truth is flatly denied by him and all Catholiques 8. Diuers other things as the Primacy of S. Peter Prayer for the dead Iustification Masses Monasteries Caeremonies Feasts Images You say are otherwise now vsed then at first instituted Which for these fiue last to wit Masses Monasteries c. You proue out of one Ioannes Ferus a fryer a man much in your bookes and the books of all your Ministers but not in any of ours but onely the Romane Index of forbidde books And therefore of noe authority or accouÌ„t with vs. For the rest of these points wee haue nothing but your bare word surmize which is but a bare proofe not worth the answearing 9. After this the knight thinketh to come vpon vs another way saying that our owne authors who haue sought the tymes and beginners of our errours as he is pleased to call them confesse an alteration though they doe not finde when it beganne For restraint of Priests marriage he saith that Marius cannot finde when it came in Yet after he bringeth Polidore Virgill saying that Priests marriage was not altogether forbiddeÌ„ till the tyme of Gregory the 7. And this doctrine our knight is pleased to make all one with that absolute forbiding of marriage which S. Paul reckoneth amoÌ„g the doctrines of Diuels For S. Paule's authority it hath beene answeared more ofteÌ„ then the knight hath fingars and toe's and euery child may see the difference betweene forbidding of Marriage generally to all sorts as a thing euill in it self and vnlawfull and forbidding marriage in one particular state or profession to which noe man is bound but is left free whither he will embrace it with this condition or not And this not because it is a thing euill in it selfe but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercize of Priestly function For Polydore Virgil it is true he saith as the Knight telleth vs and eueâ— as much more besides as any haeretique can say of that matter but it booteth not that worke of his de rerum inuâ—n â—oâ—â—â—â— being a forbidden booke Conc. Nic. can 3. Carthag 2. can 2. V. Bell. lib. 1. de cler cap. 19. and the thing which he saith most euidently false as appeareth by infinite testimonies but particularly by a Canon of that great Nicene Councel 800. yeares before Gregory the 7. his tyme. And the 2. Councel of Carthage which testifieth it as a thing taught by the Apostles and obserued by antiquity The Knight may find more in Bellarmine for proofe of this point Heere I onely aske how he maketh his authours hange together Marius cannot find the beginning Polydore findeth it and yet both for the Knights purpose forsooth But for Marius his authority it is nothing against vs but for vs. For it followeth by S. Augustines rule that because it is practized and taught in the Catholique Church with out being knowne when it beganne that therefore it is an Apostolicall tradition 10. Another errour as he saith is Prayer in an vnknowne tongue wherein it is to bee wondered saith Erasmus as the Knight citeth him how the Church is altered But Erasmus is noe author for vs to answeare he is branded in the Romane Index Neither neede I say more of the matter it self in this place A third error of ours as he pretendeth is Communion in one kinde for which he citeth Val. twice once saying it is not knowne when it first gott footing in the Church another tyme that Communion in one kinde began to be generally receiued but a little before the Councel of Constance Which I see not to what purpose they are if they were right cited as the former is not For Val. hath thus much When that custome beganne in some churches Val. de leg vsu Euch. cap. 16. it appeareth not but that there hath beene some vse of one kinde euer from the beginning I shewed before Soe Valencia What doth this make for the knight nay doth it not make against him why els should hee corrupt and mangle it Doth not Valencia say he made it appeare that this kind of Communion was somewhat vsed from the beginning and that which he saith of the not appearing when it beganne is not of the Church in general but of some particular Churches Besides for a final answeare I say it is noe matter of doctrine but practice the doctrine hauing euer beene and being still the same of the lawfulnes of one or both kinds as the Church shall ordaine though vpon good reasons the practize haue changed according to the diuersity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that euer he can doe he can not refute that argumeÌ„t which wee make against him and his that our doctrine is not to be taxed of errour soe long as they cannot shew when where and by whom it beganne as wee can and doe euery day of
riffe raffe stuffe as your Ministers are wont to eeke out their books and sermons without being able to shew any bull of Pope or testimony of good author of any Indulgence soe granted which though you or they could yet were is not to the purpose noe more then your prophane iest out of Guiciardin of playing a game at tables for an Indulgence For what suppose that were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their potts haue made soe bold with almighty God himself as to drinke an health vnto him and were not this a fine argument to proue that there is noe God besids Guiciardin's history translated by Coelius Secundus Curio which I suppose you to cite for it is most like you are noe Italian is forbidden in the Romane Index that Curio being an Haeretique of the first classe But passing from your merriments you tell vs seriously that you will not say it was a strange presumption for a Councel to determine an vncertaine Doctrine vpon the Popes infallibility and opinion of Schoolemen but you venture to say it is a weake and senselesse faith that giueth assent to it without authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers Your meaning is by a fine rhetorical figure to say it is presumption by saying you will not say soe but Sir Humphrey I will goe the plaine way to worke with you and tell you it is intolerable presumption for you suppose you were a man of learning to take vpon you to censure of presumption soe great a Councel as that of Trent wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour whereof was so great that your night owle Haeretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited and promised to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish and for such a fellow as you to make your selfe iudge thereof what intolerable presumption is it it is presumption with you forsooth for a Councel to define a point of faith vpon the perpetual and constant beleife and practize of the Catholique Church vpon the common consent of Doctours being both of them sufficient rules of faith of themselues there being withall sufficient testimony of Scripture in the sense which it hath euer beene vnderstood by Catholique interpreters and yet it is not presumption for you without Doctour without Father without Councel without Scripture without any manner of authority to goe against all this authority 13. Now whereas you say it is a senselesse and weake faith that giues assent to doctrine as necessary to be beleeued which wanteth authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answeare you doe not know what you say it sheweth plainely you haue not read one of those Fathers of whom you soe much bragg who all agree that there be many things which men are bound to beleeue vpon vnwritten tradition whose authorities you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. but for consent of Fathers it is true it is requisite because we haue not the tradition but by consent of Fathers but this consent of Fathers is noe more required to bee by their expresse testimonies in writing then in the Scripture it selfe For where doe you find that the holy Fathers did know beleeue or practize noe more but what they did write or that any one did write in particular all the whole beleife of the Catholique Church the Fathers did in their writings as the Apostles did in theirs that is write of this or that particular matter as the particular occasion of answearing some Haeretique or instructing some Catholique did require and therefore mentioned noe more then was needfull for that end But the consent of Fathers is most of all proued by the practize of the Catholique Church of the present tyme seing that practize being without beginning cannot otherwise haue beene but from those that haue gone before from tyme to tyme and though you make a difference yet certainely it is the same of the consent of Catholique Doctours in the present tyme as it was of holy Fathers in former tymes who were the Doctors of those tymes and as they were Fathers not soe properly in respect of those tymes wherein they liued as of succeeding ages soe the Doctors of these tymes are Fathers in respect of those that shall come after them Neither can the consent of Doctors in the Catholique Church more erre in one tyme then another the auctority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwaies the same noe lesse in one tyme then another Tert. de praescr cap. 28. And Tertullian's rule hauing still place as well in one age as another to wit Quod apud multos vnum inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is the same amongst many is noe error but a tradition The common consent therefore of Doctors and particular Churches is alwaies a sufficient argument of tradition and antiquity and consequently a sufficient ground for a Councel to define a matter of faith against whatsoeuer nouel fancy of any Haeretique that shall take vpon him to controll the same This I doe not say that wee want sufficient proofe of antiquity for any point but to shew that we neede it not soe expresse in ancient authors but that the very practize of the Catholique Church is sufficient to stopp the mouth of any contentious Haeretique noe lesse then in ancient tymes when that proofe of foregoing Writers could haue noe place For soe S. Paul thought he answeared sufficiently for defence of himself and offence of his contentious enemy 1. Cor. 11. when he said Si quis videtur contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei If any man seeme to be contentious we haue noe such custome nor the Church of God And soe much more may we now say of our long continued customes of many hundreds of yeares Wherefore your exception Sir Humphrey against the Councel of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences without such testimony of scripture antiquity as you require is vaine as that is also false which you heere againe repeate that an article of faith cannot be warrantable without authority of scriptures For faith is more anciēt then Scripture for to say nothing of the tymes before Christ faith was taught by Christ himself without writing as also by his Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written and soe it hath beene euer the common consent of all holy and learned men that as noe lesse credit was to be giuen to the Apostolical preaching then Writing soe noe lesse creditt is still to be giuen to their words deliuered vs by tradition then by their writings the credit and sense euen of their writings depending vpon the same tradition among whom the cleane contrary principle is as certaine and vndoubted as this of yours is with you
sense for aske any schoole-boy whether cùm with the subiunctiue and indicatiue moode be all one the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine alleadgeth thus Seing saith he it is euident as Saint Hiero. speaketh that hee was noe man of the Church these being Saint Hierom's very words heere then you see againe that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reiect Tertullian nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him but almost all the Fathers Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many Vinc. Lerin cap. 24. Hilar. in comment in Math. cap. 5. and Saint Hilarius saith there that Tertullian's later errours did detract a great deale of authority from his approued writings Soe then it is noe wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers And soe you may say that S. Hierome Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reiect and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine 12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you say that if you cite him Canus makes answeare Hierome is noe rule of faith Can. de locis lib. 2. cap. 11. but you tell vs not where or vpon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome noe more then you doe the three former Fathers though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of which is the Canon of Scripture you haue Saint Hierome a little more fore you in shew then in any thing els or more then you haue any other of the Fathers yet I dare say you wil be loath to stand to his iudgment euen in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament according to the Canon of the Iewes which you also follow if a man should vrge you with S. Hieromes authority euen in this point I beleeue you would say the same or more then Canus doth to wit that he is noe rule of faith for S. Hierosme alloweth the booke of Iudith to be canonical Scripture Proef. in Iudith though it bee not in the Iewes canon which yet you reiect and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle à plaerisque reijcitur it is reiected by most Descript eccles Verb. Petrus Apost wherein yet you doe not follow him this is for the matter Now for the words you doe not cite Canus right for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is noe rule of faith though that be true as I shall shew presently but thus hauing alleadged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus For neither is it true saith Canus that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in determining the canonical books Which is most true S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church but the Church is his rule Hier. praef in Iudith as appeareth in that he reckoneth Iudith among the Canonical books vpon the authority of the Church Neither is it all one to say S. Hierome is noe rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture which not and to say he is noe rule of faith Besides if Canus had said S. Hierome is noe rule of faith he had said most true and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome and speaking euen of his writings thus Aug. ep 19 Solis eis scripturarū libris c. I haue learned to giue that feare and honour to those onely bookes of scripture which are now called canonical as to beleeue most firmely that noe author or writer of them hath erred any thing in writing but others I reade soe that though they excell neuer soe much in any holinesse learning I doe not therefore thinke it true because they thought soe but because they haue beene able to perswade either by those canonical authors or by probable reason that they say true and there he goeth on specifying euen S. Hierome himselfe and saying vnto him that he presumeth he would not haue him soe wholy approue of his writings as to thinke there is no error at all in them The like he hath in another place shewing plainely that any priuate Doctor may erre Lib. 2. de Bap. cont Donat. cap. 3 and consequently can be noe rule of faith Yet for all that the authority of any such is very great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others or is not by them gaine said For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradition and beleife of the Church which is a sufficient rule Is this then to reiect and elude the Fathers to say that one is noe rule of faith if it be then doth S. Aug. reiect and elude them it is plaine therefore you doe but cauill for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth 13. After S. Hierome you come to Iustin Irenaeus Epiphanius and Oecumenius whom say you if you cite Bellarmine answeares I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from errour Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6 Heere againe as else where you forbeare to tell vs the matter for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them For this would haue discouered your falshood and vanity The matter then is concerning the damned spirits whether they suffer anie punishment for the present tyme before the day of iudgment or not these fathers thinke not the common consent of all other fathers and of the whole Catholique Church is against them in it How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error but I pray you Sir Humphrey bethinke your selfe well and tell vs againe whether this be any point controuerted betweene you and vs I know it is a thing which you might better maintaine then most or perhaps any one point of your faith hauing these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein but yet I doe not find by your 39. articles or any other sufficient authority that you hold that error much lesse as a chiefe point of your faith Wherefore it is false that you say when you cite these Fathers For you doe not cite them neither is their errour in a matter of controuersy betweene vs I note heere also in a word that whereas Bellarmine saith onely he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of Iustin Irenaeus c. from errour you make him say the opinion of these men as if he did speake but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong For though he doe not in all things and alwaies approue the opinion of euery particular man yet doth he allwaies speake with great reuerence of the holy Fathers as all Catholiques doe 14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Salmeron the Iesuit makes answeare weake is the place which is
it against the Haeretiques which denied it And a little after againe he goeth on thus to say nothing of this Wisedome which you doe not beleeue to be in the Catholique Church there be many things els which may most iustly hold mee in the bosome thereof There holdeth me the consent of people and nations there holdeth mee authority begunne by miracles nourished by hope encreased by charity strengthned by antiquity There holdeth me the succession of Priests from the very seate of Peter to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his flocke to the present Bishoprique Lastly the very name of Catholique holdeth me And after againe These therefore soe many and soe great most deare chaines of the Christian name doe rightly hold a man beleeuing in the Catholique church though for the slownesse of our vnderstanding or merit of our life truth doe not shew it selfe soe very clearely But with you that is Manichees and I may say Protestants or any other sect whatsoeuer where there is nothing of all these to inuite and hold mee there soundeth onely a promise of truth Thus farre Saint Augustines very words by which any man will perceiue that he made soe much account of the learning of the multitude of people and nations of miracles of antiquity of Succession of the name of Catholique in our Church which you account nothing as by them to hold himself in the bosome of that Church insinuating withall that the want of them in haereticall congregations is sufficient to deterre any man from them how much soeuer they prate of Truth Safety Certainty and I know not what 5. In graunting vs therefore these things and acknowledging the want of them in your selues in the iudgement of Saint Augustine you confesse ours to be the true Church and your owne a false and haereticall conuenticle As likewise you doe in that you make the smalnes of number to bee a note of the true Church Saint Augustine shewing it to be none For whereas the Donatists did bragge thereof hee confuteth them thus De vnit eccl cap. 7. Quid est haeretici quod de paucitate gloriamini si propterea Dominus noster IESVS CHRISTVS traditus est ad mortem vt haereditate multos possideret What is it ô yee Haeretiques that you bragge of the smalnes of your number if Christ were therefore deliuered vp to death that hee might by inhaeritance possesse many And there he goeth on prouing the same farther out of diuers places of Scripture and namely by 9. or 10. most plaine places out of Esay the Prophet and then concludeth againe vbi est inquam quod de paucitate gloriamini Where I say is it that you bragge of your fewnes are not these the many of whom it was said a little before that he should possesse many by heritage but of this the Scriptures are soe full and soe cleare as I may well deny him the name of a Christian that denieth it Wherefore for that place of a little flocke which you bring in shew onely to the contrary Aug. ep 50. ad Bonif. ep 48. ad Vinc. S. Aug. explicateth it not of the Church in general but of the good who are small in number in comparison of the wicked or of Christ's flocke or church at that tyme in the beginning lib. 4. cap. 54 in Luc 12. And S. Bede expoundeth it two wayes one of the smal number of the elect in comparison of the reprobate the other of the Church in general in reguard of the humility wherein Christ will haue it to excell increase to the end of the world how much soeuer it be dilated in number quia videlicet ecclesiam suam quantalibet numerositate iam dilatatam tamen vsque ad finem mundi humilitate vult crescere For that place of S. Paul it patronizeth not your ignorance one iott For it is onely meane of those whom our Sauiour at first made choyce of to preach his faith and make knowne his name vnto the world who indeede were not many in number being but 12. nor great in wisedome according to the flesh not hauing beene brought vp in learning but to meant trades as fishing the like nor mighty nor noble being but poore and obscure for wealth and parentage and this for a speciall reason as S. Ambrose declareth in these words Aduerte caeleste consilium non sapientes aliquos non diuites Lib. 5. comment in Luc. non nobiles sed piscatores publicanos quos dirigeret elegit ne traduxisse prudentia ne redemisse diuitijs ne potentiae nobilitatisue authoritate traxisse aliquos ad suam gratiam videretur vt veritatis ratio non disputationis gratia praeualeret Marke the heauenly Wisedome he did not choose some wise or rich or noble but Fishers and publicans to send lest he might seeme to haue brought any to his grace by wile redeemed them by riches or drawne them by authority of power or nobility that reason of truth and not the grace of disputation might preuaile 6. And soe Christ made choyce of a few simple men to conuert the world that thereby it might appeare that the conuersion thereof was not a worke of any wordly or humane but of diuine power and vertue But if they should not conuert the world that is great multitudes and seuerall nations kingdomes and countries wise powerful and learned men but onely some such small handful as you would haue your little flocke to be some weake vnlearned and poore people as you will haue your Church to consist of it had beene noe wonder at all For we see many Sect-maisters draw great multitudes after them farre greater euery way then your Church of England This place therefore which you bring for defence of the smalnes of your number and want of learning in your Church sheweth it not to be the true Church which for number is to be numberlesse and for extent to be spread ouer the world Psal 18. In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum saith holy Dauid their sound went all ouer the earth Whereas you acknowledge the contrary a marke of your Church the true Church is to consist of many wise mighty and noble personages gathered and drawne to the true Catholique faith by those few vnlearned weake and ignoble people For soe S. Paul after in the same place seemeth to insinuate saying Quae stulia sunt mundi c. The foolish things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the wise and the weake things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the strong and the base things of the world and the contemptible hath God chosen and those things which are not that he might destroy those things which are Soe as you see these few weake and ignorant men were to subdue the learning might and wisedome of the world to Christ and draw it to his Church and this is that which Dauid saith that he
the doctrine of iustification and doctrine of merits as they are deliuered in the Councel of Trent euery Catholique is bound to giue his life as occasion is offered For adoration of images whereas he asketh whether any of these 33. were canonized for it it is an idle question for men are canonized not for matters of beleife onely but for practize of Faith Hope Charity and all vertues together which belong to an holy and Christian life in general and to their owne particular State and vocation and though there be noe special mention of any of those 33. their adoration of images yet defined which before was not and which then men were not soe certaine of nor soe bound to beleiue as after soe consequently men might be lesse bound to suffer death for it then then afterwards and yet be of the same faith with those that came after Soe long as they acknowledged the same Church and liued in the vnity thereof acknowledged the same power and authority to determine matters of faith as it is certaine those ancient Martyrs did as appeareth both by their owne writings yet extant and their deeds recorded by other men in good authentical history These holy Martyrs therefore are truely ours which if this Knight will disproue he must shew which of them did teach otherwise that is against that vhich we now beleiue Which till he can doe we shall still be in possession of our Martyrs and of their faith our faith testifying that wee are their Children and their bloud giuing testimony to the truth of our faith Of the 17. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 17. Our aduersaries coÌ„mon obiection drawne from the charitable opinion of Protestants touching the saluation of professed Romanists liuing and dying in their Church answeared CHAPTER XVII 1. THis section is nothing but a little of the Knight's owne natural language and therefore will soone be answeared He beginneth with a saying of Costerus that a man dying a Lutheran cannot be saued Wherevpon he falleth in to a great rage against the Roman Church and telleth vs there is a Woman a Church a Citty which reigneth ouer the Kings of the earth and hath multitudes of nations at her Command but he thanks God his Church is not such an one Neither doe Protestans as he saith account Vniuersality of nations and people to be a marke of their Church and from thence he falleth to reckon vpp diuers particular points of his Churches doctrine as disclayming of merits Communion in both Kindes reading of Scriptures and bringing a place of Scriptures for each of these he asketh very rhetorically after euery one whether they be accursed for holding them and on the other side asketh whether we can be blessed that forbid marriage meates that haue prayer in an vnknowne tongue adore images adore Saints adore the elements of bread and wine wee that add traditions to the Scriptures and detract from God's commandments and Christ's institution in the Sacrament Which discourse of his being soe foolish as it is a man may thinke it folly for mee to stand answearing particularly therefore I answeare briefly and in general first that though it take vpp half his section yet it is wholy from his purpose which he pretends by the title of his chapter which is to answeare our obiection Secondly I answeare that for those things which he obiecteth vnto vs they are all answeared before and proued some false for the things wherewith he chargeth vs all absurd if we consider the proofs of Scripture which he bringeth for example he telleth vs we forbid marriage and meats both which are most grosly false For how many Catholiques be there in England men and women married and what meate is there that Catholiques are forbidden to eate in dew tyme and season is it all one to forbid marriage to some men to wit such as haue voluntarily promised the contrary and some meates at some tymes all one I say as to forbid marriage and meates neither marriage nor meats being forbidden in these cases as ill in themselues in which sense onely Saint Paul termeth it the doctrine of Diuels but for higher ends But to make him yet a little more capable of this answeare I will vrge him with one ordinary instance which is this I presume his Father had some apprentice bound not to marry during his apprenticeship I would then know of him whither his father in that case did forbid marriage and teach the doctrine of Diuels 2. Against prayer in an vnknowne tongue he saith it is written with men of other tongues and other lipps will I speake vnto this people and soe they shall not heare mee and in the margent saith it was a curse at the building of Babel for them that vnderstand not what was spoken But by this alleadging of Scripture a man may see what a good thing it is to haue it in the vulgar tongue for euery man to read and abuse it at his pleasure when such a right learned man as this Knight doth soe strangely apply it He would make men beleiue Esay the Prophet spoke against Latine in this place but the man is quite wide of his marke but it is enough for him that there is mention of a strange tongue there for as for the sense he careth not or rather his reading reacheth not to the meaning of the place which is but this that whereas the people laughed at the Prophets that came to them with commands from God repeating their words scoffingly manda remanda Isa 28.11 expecta reexpecta c. God sendeth them word by the Prophet that because they would not heare those words nor follow the good counsel which he gaue he would speake another word vnto them that they should fall be catched crushed and carried into captiuity and there heare a language which they did not vnderstand this is the plaine and literal sense of the Prophet S. Paul indeede vseth it in another sense to perswade the Corinthians that prophecy is to be preferred before tongues because as he saith the guift of tongues is a signe for infidels that is to speake to infidels for their conuersion but prophecy that is exhortation or interpretation is for the faithful or those that beleiue already Wherein I would know according to either explication what any man can find against prayer in the Latine tongue and for the tower of Babel the Knight surely speaketh by contraries For whereas at Babel men fell from vnity of language to speake euery man a seueral language Soe as noe one man vnderstood one another by that meanes they were all dispersed into seueral nations the Catholique Church doth quite contrary drawing seueral nations to vnity of language making all to speake one and the sâ—me tongue Whereas haeretiques in seueral places by vse of other languages vnderstand not one the other and therein most perfectly resemble the Babel-builders as well in the very diuersity of tongues as in the diuersity of
all men As the articles of the Apostle's Creede and the ten cōmandements and some Sacraments For the Creede belongeth to faith the commandements and Sacraments to manners For Bellarmine speaketh heere not onely what is necessary for all men to beleeue but what is necessary for all men to doe for obtayning of saluation according to that commission of our Sauiour to his Apostles Goe teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue whatsoeuer I haue commanded you 6. I doe not say that wee are not to beleeue these things also for we cannot practise them vnlesse we know them and some we cannot know otherwise then by faith The commādements indeede are principles of reason drawne euen from the very light of nature though taught by diuine authority but the Sacraments are taught onely by faith yet soe as they are ordayned principally for practise noe lesse then the Commaundements and therefore not articles of faith but sufficiently contayned in the article of the Catholique Church for without Sacraments there can bee noe Church Thirdly where doth Bellarmine say that the Apostles neuer propounded for common articles of faith other then the things mentioned I doe not finde it but rather the contrary For besides these things which he saith were simply necessary for all and without which men of discretion were not to bee admitted to Baptisme he saith that For those other things which were not simply necessary that is without the expresse knowledge whereof they that is men of yeares might be admitted to Baptisme and saued the Apostles did preach many other things some of them to all to wit those things which were profitable for all and some againe onely to some as to Praelats Bishop's and Priests And heere alsoe Sir Humphrey yow cunningly ioyne these two things in one things simply necessary and profitable as if both were meant onely of one kind of things whereas the Cardinal doth distinguish the one from the other Which though it bee but a lesse matter yet it sheweth your corrupt minde that can relate nothing sincerely Fourthly whereas Bellarmine saith that these things by you named are simply necessary he saith with all that there bee other things not soe necessary as that without the explicite knowledge and profession of them a man may not bee saued soe hee haue a ready will to receiue and beleeue them when they shal be lawfully propounded vnto him by the Church You were pleased to leaue out the word explicite in the former part of the sentence and with it alsoe to leaue out the whole later part Bellarmine requiring an explicite faith of same things and an implicite faith of other that is a readines of will to receiue beleeue thē whē they shal be propoūded by the Church which kind of faith though you like not as being the thing that maketh a Catholique yet you should haue let it stād among Bellarmines words you haue the liberty to confute him if you can but not to put in or out what you list 7. Besides these foure corruptions of Bellarmine by putting in some words of your owne ād leauing out some of his I might tax you with corrupting his meaning for your owne purpose For by saying that the explicite beleefe of these things is necessary for all he doth not meane as you would haue him that it was free for any man to choose whether hee will beleiue any thing els of those which the Apostles preached for that were most false Neither is it his meaning though he say those things be necessary that therefore they alone are sufficient for all men and that noe man is bound to know or beleeue explicitely also any thing more For without question those things which the Apostles taught to Praelats Bishops ād Priests were to be beleeued by thē explicitely Wherefore the beleife of the Apostles Creede the ten comandments and some few Sacraments is not sufficiēt for your Ministers who pretend to be Bishops and Priests but they are bound to know and beleeue more How then will you make the beleife of those necessary things sufficient to make cōcord and vnity in faith seing some men are bound to beleeue more euē explicitely and all men bound to beleeue whatsoeuer the Catholique Church shall propound implicitely and consequently not to deny any thing els soe propounded For not onely the deniall of those but of whatsoeuer els preached by the Apostles or Church is enough to make a mā an Haeretiq Thus therefore you haue egregiously abused both Bellarmines words and meaning and consequently not proued your intent that because you retaine the Apostles Creede which you call the general cognizance of our faith therefore there is noe cause to ranke you with Haeretiques For this Cognizance was not sufficient for an Arrian with out the explication thereof in the Nicene Creede as may bee gathered out of Theodoret before cited and soe may I now say it is not sufficient to distinguish a Catholique from a Lutheran Caluinist Protestant or other Haeretique of these tymes without the explication of the Trent profession of Faith For this is now the touchstone to try who beleeueth the Apostles Creede in deede and who in words onely And this your self must confesse who terme some Sects Haeretiques and vs Catholiques Idolaters nowithstanding we and they professe the Apostles Creede which you call the cognizance of our faith 8. Now to that which you say that the Romane Church and yours are Sisters and that the Romane playing the harlott yours went out of her I answeare that this is soe farre from clearing you from the note of haeresy that it doth rather make you more guilty thereof Your Church indeede cometh out of ours as all haeretical sects haue euer come out of the Catholique Church For soe saith S. Iohn of Haeretiques ex nobis prodierunt sed non erant ex nobis nam si fuissent ex nobis permansissent vtique nobiscum sed vt manifesti sint quoniam non sunt omnes ex nobis 1. Io. 2.19 They went out of vs but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would verily haue staid with vs but that they may bee manifest that they are not all of vs And among other marks of Haeretiques S. Iude alsoe reckoneth this Ep. Iud. 19. Hi sunt qui segregant semetipsos these are they that separate themselues S. Paul saith to the Ephesians that out of themselues some should rise speaking peruerse things Actor 20. that they might draw Disciples after them S. Aug. explicateth that place of the Psalme 30 Qui videbant me foras fugerunt a me Aug. in Ps 30. They that saw mee fled forth from mee to bee meant of Haeretiques because when they saw what the Church was they went Forth and made haeresies and schismes against it and euery where vrgeth this and nothing more then this against the
first made her visible which is that we desire And soe Sir you haue spunne a faire threed You would faine make your Church visible before Luther and you make it inuisible you looke well about you meane while Now that which you say next of taking away the 3. Creeds which you professe two Sacraments 4. Councels and 22. booke of Scripture without which our Church would bee a poore senselesse carcasse is most foolish for who doth speake of taking them away who doth say they are yours you will not say your selfe but you had them from vs What then doe you talke of taking them away and whereas you are bold to say that wee now stile them chaffe and new haeresies it is to shamelesse an vntruth for any man to tell but your selfe and therefore deserueth noe other answeare but that it is SIR HVMPHREY LIND'S you vnderstand my meaning Sir 21. One little thing more there is in this Section which is that whereas some of ours haue termed your religion negatiue in reguard it consisteth most in denyall of such things as we teach as they may well call it you would retort that terme vpon vs because wee deny many things which you affirme But this is not a matter of any moment For they who call your religion negatiue doe not meane that you doe not teach any positiue erroneous point but that most of your doctrine I meane that which is properly yours not taken from vs is negatiue and euen those affirmatiue propositions which you teach if you teach any are but contradictions of other things which we teach are not or may not be done In which respect they may be also called negatiue But for ours it is nothing soe for it consisteth of positiue points deliuered not by way of opposition or denyal for it was before all haeresy though it is true that it hath many negatiue propositioÌ„s and praecepts Besides out of euery positiue point a man may inferre the contrary negatiue Which yet maketh not that a negatiue as you doe in some of those propositions which you alleadge for example you make this a negatiue point that we deny the substaÌ„ce of bread to remaine after coÌ„secration whereas that is onely a negatiue inferred out of this positiue that the substance of the bread and wine is chaÌ„ged into the body and bloud of our Blessed Sauiour which is our doctrine euer was before any haeresy arose but an haeresy arising to the contrary as that the substance of bread remaineth after consecration the Church out of that positiue point deduceth this negatiue that the substance of breade doth not remaine for destruction of that haeresy But of this there is enough and of this whole SectioÌ„ wherein the Gentle Reader may see whether you Sir knight doe not deserue the name and punishment of an Haeretique by your owne Doome not hauing proued either the antiquity or vniuersality or certainty or safety of your Protestant faith out of any author of ours or euen of your owne or any shew of reasoÌ„ or said any thing to the purpose though you haue taken more liberty to abuse those three authors which you alleadge vtter such grosse falsityes then I doe not say honesty but eueÌ„ shame would giue a man leaue but which is most to bee wondered you haue laboured to proue the visibility of your Church by such similitudes as proue the contrary Which is not any praise of goodnes for you intended it not but an argument of the necessity whereto you were driuen by the badnes of your cause and a dispraise of your iudgment in that you see not what you say Of the 9. Section The title whereof is this The testimonyes of our Aduersaries touching the Protestant and the Romane faith in the particular CHAPTER IX 1. OVR Knight hauing promised to proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his faith and nouelty of ours in generall by the testimony of our owne authors Church and performed it brauely forsooth as hath beene shewed in the former chapter he professeth now in this ninth Section Chap. 9. to proue the same in like sort out of our authors in diuers particular points as iustification by faith onely the Sacrament of the Supper and Doctrine of transubstantiation Priuate Masse c. treating euery one heere ex professo and seuerally in distinct paragraphes whose methode I shall also follow in answearing of him §. 1. Of Iustification by faith onely examined 1. This point of his Protestant iustification by faith onely the Knight proueth as hee saith out of a booke published in Anselmes tyme which is called Ordo baptizandi visitandi c. Of which he citeth two or three seueral editions to fill vpp the margents with quotations and to authorize the booke more he telleth vs that Cassander saith it is obuious euery where in libraries Out of this booke he citeth a whole page and a halfe which I list not heere stand writeing out but onely I will take the worst word in it all that is which may seeme to make most against vs and for the Knight which is this the Priest is appointed to aske the sicke man whether he beleeue to come to glory not by his owne merits but by the merits of Christ's passion and that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his Passion to which the sicke man was to answeare I beleeue Wherevpon the Priest gaue him councell to putt his confidence in noe other thing This is the vtmost he can say out of this booke and what is all this to the purpose For first the knight doth not shew vs any authority for this booke or that S. Anselme had any thing to doe with it nor telleth vs of any ancient edition before the yeare 1556. but onely a mention thereof by Cassâ—â—der a classical author indeede and of the first classe in the index librorum prohibitorum in an appendix alsoe to a forbidden booke falsely called Io. Roffensis de fiducia misericordia Dei then which hee could haue said nothing more to disgrace it 2. Besides he telleth vs that the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition willeth those words of comfort as he calleth them spoken by the Priest to be blotted out which were answeare enough seing the knight is to bring vs authority which we may not except against as I told him in the first Chapter And this very alleadging of the Index expurgatorius is a manifest proofe that it is sett out and corrupted by Haeretiques in fauour of their owne doctrine De corrâ—ct lib. §. 3. 4 For otherwise the Inquisitors can not meddle with it or any other author sett out before the yeare 1515. to change or blott out any thing therein but onely where a manifest error is crept in by fraude of Haeretiques or carelesnes of the Printer Thirdly and principally I answeare that there is nothing in this that doth not stand very well being
translate them But because your intent in this place is to proue out of this Doctor that the consecration is performed not by the words of Christ but by his blessing for els I see not what you should ayme at I will bring you a place out of himselfe expressely to the contrary which is this Tolle verba Christi non fiunt Sacramenta Christi Odo Cam. exp in can Miss dist 3. Vis fieri corpus sanguinem appone Christi sermonem Take away the words of Christ and take away the Sacraments of Christ Wilt thou haue the Body and bloud of Christ made put thereto the word of Christ In which words he sheweth that all the Sacraments of Christ are performed by words soe as without words they are not Sacraments as the Catholique Church teacheth And in particular that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the worde of Christ is that whereby the bread and wine is changed in to his body Of which change and matter he speaketh most plainely a little before in this manner In specie panis vini manducamus bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis sanguinis subijsdem qualitatibus mutata substantia vt sub figura sapore prioris substantiae facta sit vera substantia Christi corporis sanguinis In shew of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of the body and bloud vnder the same qualities the substance being changed that vnder the shape and tast of the former substance the true substance of Christ's body and bloud bee made Which words are no lesse euident for proofe of the reality of Christ's presence and change of the bread and wine into his Body and Bloud or transubstantiation then the other are for proofe that the change is made by force of the words Which declare what his meaning is in those words which you alleadge for the blessing as if that did cause this change For he as many other Fathers and Doctours call the very forme of consecration a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for soe holy an end and because they produce soe noble an effect or because they are ioyned alwayes with that benediction and thanks-giuing vsed both by your B. Sauiour in the institution of this holy Sacrament and now by the Priests in the Catholique Church in the consecration of the same You haue then Sir Humphrey gotten as little by Odo as by any of the rest 20. But after all these authors you putt one in the rere who must make amends for all that the rest haue failed you in and that is one Christophorus de Capite fontium Arch Bishop of Caesarea in his booke de correctione theologiae Who indeede speaketh plainely for you in behalf of the blessing against the words of consecration if you cite him truely as a man might well make doubt if the author were otherwise allowable but because he is not I doe not soe much as looke in him but remitt you to the Romane Index where you shall find his booke by you heere cited forbidden which may be answeare enough for you and euen the arrogancy of the title sheweth it to deserue noe better a place for it is entituled de necessaria correctione Theologiae scholasticae As if he alone were wiser then all others Schoolemen putt together Besides in the words cited out of him by you in this place there is a grosse historical error which euery man may perceiue at the very first sight to let passe his theologicall errours and it is in this that he saith that in that opinion of his both the Councel of Trent and all writers did agree till the late tymes of Caietan as if Caietan were since the tyme of the Councel of Trent Whereas indeed he died aboue a Dozen yeares before the first beginning thereof And withall you doe not marke how in citing this place you are against your self For whereas you make Cardinal Caietan and this Archbishop of Caesarea your two champions against the words of consecration as if they did both agree in the same heere this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him but onely Caietane Whom then shall we beleeue you Sir knight or your author 21. Now though you thought to conclude with this Christopherus a capite fontium as being a sure card yet cannot I omitt though after him to answeare heere a certaine authority which you bring before somewhat out of season out of Salmeron telling vs that he speaking in the person of the Graecians deliuereth their opinion in this manner For as much as the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine neither gaue he simply bread it followeth that when he gaue it the transmutation was already made and these words this is my body did demonstrate what was contained in the bread not what was made by them Whereto I answeare first that you mistake your termes when you call this an Opinion which is an errour of the Graecians Secondly I might answeare that this is not Salmeron's authority whom you seeme to cite but doe not indeed you citing onely for authour a french Huguenot called Daniel Chamier who also citeth those words out of Salmeron but without any the least mention of the place where they may be found Soe as Salmeron's works making 7. or 8. good volumes to looke for such a place as this without any light or direction is almost as good as to looke for a needle in a bottle of hay Yet I did looke in that part of his workes which treateth of the B. Sacrament where I thought it most likely to find this place but found it not Which notwihstanding I will not say but it may bee there for it is true that there haue beene some Latine authors that haue held that our Sauiour himselfe did consecrate not by those words but either by other words V. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 1. seq or by the power of his owne will without any outward signe or by some outward signe other then words or by these very words twice spoken Into some of which Doctrines it is like some Graecians might fall being soe prone to erre as they haue beene these later ages V. Aund though in other authors I doe not find this errour of theirs of the benediction before the words but rather the contrary Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 3. that these words this is my body wherewith Christ did consecrate are not now sufficient to consecrate without certaine prayers coming after in the Canon of the Masse appointed by the Church But of this it maketh not much matter and it may be some of them soe thinke and therefore I answeare thirdly for Salmeron this is noe opinion by him allowed as you would seeme by your manner of citing him to insinuate but by him condemned of errour as your freind Chamier saith expresly citing to that purpose Salmeron's owne words also euen there where
therefore correct him with one of your scorneful taunts and say he vnderstood it not whereas Maldonate speaketh onely of S. Aug. his exposition of that place of Scripture which hee doth not also condēne though he bring another more agreeable as he thinketh to the true meaning of our Sauiour in that place which truely a man may doe without any such arrogancy and scoffing as you are pleased out of your ingenuity and gentlemanly breeding to fasten vpon Maldonate 28. And soe hauing cleared the matter of S. Aug. I come now to Theodoret who indeede hath a place in shew a little hard to such as want will to vnderstand him as it seemeth you doe Sir knight For it hath beene often clearely and seuerall wayes answeared by many and euen by Valencia Val. de Transub lib. 2. cap. 7. of one of whose answeares you thinke to make your aduantage but it will proue to your disaduantage For he hauing brought two or three seuerall and substātial answeares at last concludeth somewhat roundly with the Haeretiques in this māner That if noe other āsweare will serue the turne but that they will still stād wrangling it is no meruaile that one or two he meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius who both speake in the same māner might erre in this point before it was discussed Which last answeare you onely take hold of as if that were the onely answeare not taking notice of any of the rest which as in the one side it sheweth your badd dealing soe doth it on the other shew the goodnes of his solutions to be such as you could not tell what to reply against them b. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 27. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 46. sect 4. fine Bellarmine Suarez and others answeare it in like manner diuers wayes to whom therefore I remitt you onely for the Reader 's sake not to leaue him in suspence I shall heere make one plaine and briefe answeare and as I cōceiue out of the very words which you heere obiect against vs Dialog 2. which are these Neque enim signa mystica post Sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura manent enim in propria substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur For neither doe the mystical signes depart from their owne nature after the sanctificatiō for they remaine in their proper substance figure and forme they may be seene and touched as before but they are vnderstood to be that which they are made and they are beleeued and adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee These are the words of Theodoret which Sir Humphrey you partly cite by halfes and partly corrupt by mis-translation For thus you cite him onely The consecrated elements remaine in their proper substance and shape and figure leauing out all the later part of beleeuing and adoring and all words which might signify any change as there bee many As first in that he saith the mysticall signes doe not change their nature by Sanctification which why should he deny vnlesse the Sanctification did worke some change or why should he make such a special matter of that that the mystical signes that is accidents as I shall by and by shew should not change their nature vnlesse the substance whereto they did belong did change it owne nature For it were a ridiculous thing for any man to make a wonder of that that the colour figure and tast of bread should remaine the substance it self of the bread remayning but this being changed for them to remaine is a wonder which may beseeme a wise man to speake of Secondly whereas he sayth these mystical signes may be seene and touched as before you leaue that out because it plainely shewes there is some change for a thing cannot bee otherwise then it was before without some change Now the change he saith is not in the accidents themselues or in their owne nature for that remaines therefore it must necessarily be in that their subiect as Philosophers speake or substance in which they did inhere or rest is changed Thirdly Theodoret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by sanctification and which is vnderstood and adored What is this that is made heere not the accidents for they remaine the same not the substance of the bread for that was before Neither is that said to bee vnderstood or beleeued but seene and felt much lesse is it or can it bee said to bee adored All this then you leaue out Sir Humphrey we neede not aske you why for euery man seeth the reason Thus much of your mangling of this authority 29. Now to come to your mis-translation Whereas you translate Signa mystica consecrated elements I would be glad to know in what Dictionary you find Signa to signify elements and mystica to signify consecrated For though the holy Fathers many tymes vse the word mystical when they speake of the Blessed Sacrament as being a Mystery and which indeed cannot be soe without consecration yet mystical and consecrated are two seueral things and they haue seueral relations or respects and consequently seueral Significations For consecrated hath relation to the words and action of the Priest whereby it is sanctified and changed mystical hath relation to the secrecy or hiddennesse of it as farr surpassing the knowledge or comprehension of man or as being another thing then it seemeth outwardly to bee But for the word Signa I see not what colour any man can haue to translate it elements being two such different things without any connexion For elements pertaine to the very substance of a thing they being the prime principles of which any thing is made and consisteth Signum or a Signe properly pertaineth to the accidents of a thing which are the proper obiects of our senses and which doe notify or signify vnto vs the substance of the thing bringing it soe to our knowledge and euery thing is called a Signe soe farr as it is apt to cause in vs this knowledge Wherefore this is a notable cunning tricke of yours Sir Knight by changing Signes into elements to make all that Theodoret saith of the accidents of bread to bee vnderstood of the elements or substance of the bread as if that did remaine whereas he onely saith that the accidents remaine in their owne substance that is their owne entity nature or being which to them is not accidental and therefore may be termed their substance For it is plaine that accidents haue a certaine being of their owne different from that of their subiect wherein they inhere or rest And this is that nature or substance which Theodoret saith doth remaine For as for the change of the substāce of bread besides that there is enough in this very place to conuince it I could bring diuers other plaine places out of him as
answeare is that Polydore speaketh not of the ancient Fathers of the new Testament but of those of the old whom therefore he nameth veteres patres the old Fathers and in particular nameth Moyses and Ezechias the reason indeede why they did condemne the worship of images was feare of idolatry but the reason of that feare was as he saith because noe man hauing seene God they knew not what shape to giue thim and discoursing of the brazen serpent which was a figure of Christ vpon the crosse he saith a long tyme after God put on humane sharpe and being made man was seene and knowne by mortall men and in that humble shape by his owne power wrought miracles beyond credit the same whereof made men come flocking vnto him who did soe behold and reuerence his face without doubt shining with the brightnes of diuine light that they thē first beganne to paint and carue his effigies now already imprinted in their minds And there telling to that purpose the story out of Eusebius of the hemorrhoisse and 2. pictures of our Sauiour made by himself one sent to Abagarus the other giuen to Veronica he also saith thus it is a constant opinion that S. Luke did paint in certaine tables the figure of our Lady which to this day are in some places kept most holily and worshipped most religiously Then relating out of Eusebius how the images of the Apostles were framed and kept by Christiās citeth the words following out of him Insignia etenim veterum reseruari ad posterorū memoriam illorum honoris horū vero amoris iudiciū est For the reseruing of the signes markes or thing belonging to the aunciēts to the memory of posterity is a signe of honor to thē loue in these Hēce saith Polydore is growne worthily a custome of placing in the Churches reuerencing the statues as well of our Sauiour as his SS But because by the memory of Saints as it were an exāple or sample set before our eyes which the images represent men are stirred vpp to vertue imitatiō the honour of the image passeth to the honour of the original as S. Basil saith therefore the Fathers haue not onely admitted that custome but by the authority of the 6. Synod at Cōstantinople vnder Constātine Iustinian the 2. his sonne it was decreed as may appeare by the canonical decrees that the holy images of SS should be had in Churches worshipped with great veneration being to ignorant people in place of the holy Scripture whereto also Frankincense is offered and tapers are lighted and there adding 2. or 3. Councels more decreeing the same againe he concludeth thus Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tantaque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitue dubitare seu aliter somniare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe sanctissimorum patrum decreto constitutum What man is there therefore so disolute and endewed with soe much boldnes who will or can doubt or otherwise dreame that I may not say iudge or thinke of the worship of images then at last hath beene approued by the Decree of soe many most holy Fathers Thus farr Polydore to whose demaund why may not I answeare that Sir Humphrey Linde is the man soe dissolute and audacious that dares not onely dreame but waking with all his witts and sences that he hath about him and speaking and writing dares I say not onely doubt of but absolutely deny the lawfulnes of the worship of images And not onely this but euen to bring thee ô Polydore Virgil to witnesse with him against the Romane Church that all the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church condemned the same What would this authour say to you Sir Humphrey if he were aliue to see himselfe abused by you and which is yet more euen after Dr. White was conuict of this dissolutenes and audaciousnes yet you would be at it againe Heereby a man may see there needes noe other confutation but onely right citing of your owne authours 17. For Peresius his words are nothing against vs for they touch onely vpon a schoole point whether the picture be to be adored with the same worship as the prototype or thing represented or with an inferiour worship the former opinion onely he denieth because saith he there is neither proofe out of scripture tradition of the Church common consent of Fathers or determination of a general Councel which very saying of his is enough to condemne you who will not acknowledge sufficient authority in tradition Fathers or Councel to belieue a thing which you like not But to make it plainely appeare how much you wrong Peresius in bringing him against the worship of images I will bring a place 2. leaues before that which you cite out of him it is this Manifeste habes c. Peres de tradit cap. de imag It is manifest that the vse and worship of images hath beene vniuersally in the Church from the tyme of the Apostles and that the dis-esteeme of them began from forlorne and infamous men 500. yeares after the Church was planted and truely if the worship and reuerence be done deuoutly and sincerely this institution is holy and profitable which both Apostolique tradition hath introduced the vse of the vniuersal Church affirmed the consent of very famous and generall Councels both in the East and West being added thereto which also euen natural reason doth dictate Thus farre are Peresius his owne words whereby any man may see whether Sir Humphrey you deale well with him or not to pretend his authority against our vse and worship of images Agobard de pict imaginib in bibl PP 18. Now for Agobardus whō you seeme to make great acount of if you consider him a little better you will find little cause he writeth indeede a booke de picturis imaginibus the whole drift whereof is onely against the idolatrical vse or abuse of images against which he speaketh very much by occasion of some abuses in his tyme as it is meete hee and euery good man should And for the same end he bringeth many authorityes of the ancient Fathers all which speake plainely against idolatry and likewise he bringeth that canon of the Councel of Eliberis which you bring out of him that noe picture should be painted on the walls vnderstanding it in the same sense which I alleadged in my second answeare to that Canon before to wit for auoyding superstition in some young and vnexperienced Christians conuerted from gentility But for those words which follow in your citation of him to wit these There is noe example in all the scriptures or Fathers for adoration of images I doe not find them in him this I am sure of that they are not ioyned with the former as you heere ioyne them Thus indeede he saith in a certaine place habuerunt antiqui Sanctorum imagines vel pictas vel sculptas sed causa historiae ad
may looke in Poss bibl select lib. 8. cap. 32. Nor doe I see what that meaneth that you say of men that liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church where they dwell For if it be soe that they may make shew of one thing outwardly and meane an other inwardly as I see not what you cā meane els then I say it is the most damnable dangerous dissimulation of all other the most sure way not to be saued in any religion For neither the outward profession of a religion without the inward beleife nor inward beleife with an outward contrary profession can saue a man What then is it you would say a man may see you are in straights faine you would not goe absolutely against that which many Protestants say that a Catholique may be saued in his religion yet that will not stand neither with your owne iudgement as it seemeth nor bitter speeches which you haue spoken of the Catholique church as calling it Babylon the Seate of Anti-christ and such like nor drift of your booke which is wholy to draw men away from the Catholique faith and therefore you would faine find some ignorant people who should be Catholiques and noe Catholiques liue Catholiques and dye Protestants in outward shew Catholiques in inward beleife Protestants Which are two great and grosse absurdities and withall doe not serue the turne For in neither of these two cases is that proposition verified that a man dying a Papist may be saued for he doth not dye a Papist Neither can that ignorance which you speake of alleadging the place of saint Paul saue men noe more then it could doe him who doubtlesse should neuer haue found such mercy as to be saued had he not first found the mercy to be drawne out of that his ignorance wherein he was This I doe not say that it is absolutely impossible to find one soe inuincibly ignorant as may not be saued without a distinct and particular profession of the Catholique Faith and abrenunciation of the Protestant but I say it is a metaphysical and morally impossible case For how shall a man receiue pardon of his sinnes be enabled to walke the way of God's commandments while he liueth or be armed against the combats of the Deuil at his death without receiuing the Sacraments of the Church which is a sufficient profession of faith wholy distinguishing him from the Protestant or any other sect Therefore the Knight's chiefe answeare to the argument is a plaine denial that a Papist can be saued especially in England or in any Protestant State where there is a course taken to bring him to the knowledge of the contrary though yet he doe not pronounce damnation on our persons as he saith we doe on his But wherein doe we pronounce damnation vpon their persons more then he on ours he and others of his opinion say our doctrine is damnable and consequently that noe man can be saued by it we say the same of his doctrine and that noe man can be saued by it for this or that particular man we doe not take vpon vs to giue any absolute iudgment but that we leaue to God 6. But now for that which he saith of vs that we cannot be saued and that it is farre from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points of controuersy betweene Catholiques and Protestant to be of an inferiour alloy soe as a man may hold either way without peril of saluation I will appeale onely to his owne men and to such as I presume he will not deny to be good men at lest chiefe men of his owne Church For the points therefore in controuersy as frewill prayer for the dead honouring of reliques reall presence transubstantiation communion in one or both kinds worshipping of images the Popes primacy his being Vicar of Christ and head of the Church auricular Confession and the like they are all acknowledged some by one some by another not to be material points soe as a man may without perill beleiue either way and one maine point to wit the real praesence is said by some to be but as it were the grudging of a little ague The seueral authours are Perkins Cartwright Whitgift Fulke Penry Some Sparke Reynolds Bunny Whitaker Iohn Frith in Fox in his acts and other English writers beside Melancthon Luther and other Latine writers whose names may be seene in the Protestants apology where their very words are sett downe Protest apolog tr 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. and places of their works exactly cited which therefore for breuityes sake I omitt heere to doe and shall onely content my self with citing some for the other point which the Knight denieth to wit that we may be saued First noting by the way that heere is a full iury of good men and true in the iudgment of any Protestant who giue vpp their verdict against our good Knight Sir Humphrey as honest a Middlessex Iuror as his father was and as great a freind of Iuryes as he is confessing the points in controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy to keepe his owne word of art And which is specially to be noted whereas a mayne reason why our Knight is loth to yeild the points in controuersy to bee matters of indifferency is because the fresh bleeding wounds of the Martyrs of his Church witnesse the daunger of our religion among these authours there is one Iohn Frith a famous Foxian martyr who acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth noe man of necessity to saluation or damnation whether he beleiue it or not and the like the same man also saith of prayer for the dead which Mr. Iohn Fox relating and not disapprouing he is to be presumed to approue and so both the Martyr Frith and Fox the martyr-maker whose authority me thinks should be more worth then an hundred of his Martyrs are against our Knight and notwithstanding all their bleeding wounds and sufferings will giue him leaue to thinke his points of controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy and many of them not onely soe but euen absolutely condemne his very beleife and doctrine as a man may see fully proued in the examen of Iohn Fox his Calender to which I remit him contenting my self with one onely Martyr whom I presume our Knight will acknowledge for a great one to wit V. Protest apolog tr 2. cap sect 5. Iohn Husse this man Luther saith did not depart one fingars breadth frō the Papacy Iohn Fox saith he held Masse transubstantiation vowes freewill praedestination informed faith iustification merit of good works images of Saints And indeed of the haeresies now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants he held onely one to wit Communion in both kinds in all the rest he held with vs this Martyr then must needs sooner allow vs to be saued then Protestants but heere is enough of this idle matter 7. Now therefore to the other point whether we liuing