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
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
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
Harding the godly and faithfull people since the tyme of the Primitiue church haue much complained Soe you Wherein first any man may see there is noe sense For heere is a relatiue their without an antecedent which fault if you had comitted in a theme when you were a schoole-boy it might perhaps haue cost you somewhat For you doe not expresse who it is that Doctor Harding speaketh of when hee saith it is their owne default neither can it be himself or Catholiques in generall for then he would haue expressed it in the first person saying it is our owne fault and if it bee not himself nor Catholiques in generall then can it bee noe excuse for they be Catholiques in generall or the Catholique Church which you accuse and the accusation and excuse must answeare one the other 12. Secondly it is noe excuse in reguard of the Masse for an excuse hath noe place but where the thing whereof a man is accused is acknowledged for a fault Now that is not heere for that whereof you accuse vs is that our Priests say Masse without any communicants which thing Dr. Harding is soe farr from acknowledging to bee blame worthy that hee doth expresly and stoutly maintaine it against your Iewel as a special controuersy in that whole chapter which you cite How then doth he excuse it Thirdly he doth maintaine the doctrine of the Councel of Trent in this as in all other points where this Canon is decreed Sess 22. can 8. citing also this very Decree Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter cōmunicat illicitas esse ideoque abrogandas anathema sit If any man say that Masses wherein the Priest onely communicateth sacramentally are vnlawfull and therefore to bee abrogated lett him bee anathema Fourthly in another place he denieth your very terme of priuate Masse and noteth vpon the conference betweene Luther and the Diuell which hee there setteth downe that that terme in Luther's sense and your came first out of the Diuells schoole and saith that all Masse is publique in reguard it is offered by the Priest who is the publique Minister of the Church and auaileth all not onely not communicants but euen not present Which is alsoe the doctrine of the Councel Fiftly I answeare that though you sett downe this authority lamely in this place soe as noe man can tell what to make of it yet citing the same els where you say out of him that it is the peoples owne fault and want of deuotion that they doe not communicate with the Priest Which is but the same that the Councel of Trent also saith Which is a cleane other matter For you doe not accuse our peoples coldnes of deuotion for that would fall much more vpon your owne but our Priests for saying Masse without the people communicating which is noe fault and this Dr. Harding maketh good the other hee excuseth or rather not excuseth but acknowledgeth and condemneth as a fault 13. And for his opinion of your religion in general looke but in his Epistle to Iewel before his reioynder to Iewel 's reply And there you shall find he sheweth you to haue noe antiquity For that you beganne with Luther Which he proueth by your owne confessions more then 7. tymes in the apology of your English Synagogue where you say that Luther and Zuinglius were the first that beganne to sett abroad the Ghospel and that all the light was quite extinct and that all the fountaines of the pure water of life were vtterly dried vp before they came He sheweth you to haue noe vniuersality because you seperate your selues from the vnity of the Catholique Church dispersed ouer the whole world He sheweth you to haue noe charity because charity cannot consist without vnity nor euen faith which he proueth by the authority of Saint Augustine and consequently that you haue noe hope of saluation and soe he refuseth euen to bidd Mr. Iewel farewell Haue not you then great reason to haue affiance in Mr. Dr. Harding's testimony of the antiquity vniuersality and safety of your Faith Doe not you then heerein notoriously abuse all manner of men both authours and readers but this is soe ordinary with you that there is noe wondering at it 14. Well thus much then for these three authors whom you haue soe egregiously belyed Now lett vs heare what you say of your owne or of your selfe You say our best learned yet you name none decline those our traditions which you deny and that the most ingenious of vs are ashamed of those additions which you deny Neither doe you name any of these ingenious people For example you say when we are charged with worshipping of images we deny it or excuse the manner of adoration but doe not condemne you for not worshipping thē But good Sir I pray you what Catholique denieth the worshipping of images what Catholique doth excuse the manner of worshipp Name the man if you can Our Diuines declare adoration to be dew and the manner how it is dew but to excuse this or deny that noe man doth noe man I meane a Catholique euer did noe man can euer doe Now for you can you haue the face to say that noe man of ours condemneth you for not adoring them this is to Sir Humphrey Doth none of our writers condemne you noe Bellarmine noe Baronius noe Sanders noe Alanus Copus noe Costerus noe Vazquez to omitt the more ancient Writers against the Iconomachi Doth noe Councel of Trent say anathema to you for denying dew honour and veneration to the Images of Christ and his Saints Sess 25. decr develiq Sanctoris imaginib Conc. Nicaen 2 act 7. Doth noe Councel of Nice say anathema to such as doe not salute holy and venerable images His qui non salutant sanctas venerabiles imagines anathema Was the acclamation of the whole Councel consisting of 350. Bishops and yet noe man condemneth you What shall a man say to you What answeare may a man make but onely to say that all this is your owne 15. The like I may say of all the rest of your fond accusations and more fond excused which you heape togeather which it would bee too long to stand answearing one by one Onely the last I cannot omitt which is that you accuse vs of flat idolatry not knowing that the Councel of Nice in the place last cited hath a special anathema for you for that very word and you take comfort that we cannot charge you with the least suspition thereof in your positiue points To which I answeare Sir Humphrey that if you marke the matter well you will haue little cause to take such comfort For it is a farr greater euill for you to be truely charged with haeresy then for vs to be charged falsely with idolatry And though the charge of idolatry against vs were as true as that of haeresy is against you yet would you not haue any such special cause of comfort haeresy coming
againe that S. Ambrose writing a treatise of Sacraments diuided into six bookes maketh mention but of two I would wish you to see what answeare Bellarmine maketh to Chemnitius making the same obiection you shall find there that hee telleth him flatly it is false as it is indeede For S. Ambrose maketh expresse mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation both in that booke de Sacramentis and in the other de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur And withall giueth the reason why S. Ambrose mentioneth noe more but three Sacraments to wit because his intent in that worke is onely to instruct the Catechumens in those things which are to be done at the tyme of Baptisme for to them hee writeth those bookes as the very title of the one and matter of the other sheweth For one is written to the persons that are initiated that is begunne or are entred into Christianity by the mysteries or Sacramēts the other of the Sacraments whereby they were soe initiated which are those three Baptisme Cōfirmation Eucharist which to people that are come to yeares of discretion before they are made Christians were are still to bee administred together Whereby is also discouered your grosse corruption in saying that S. Ambrose proclaimes to the beleeuers of his age Ambr. de Sacram lib. 1. cap. 1. De Sacramentis quae accepistis sermonem adorior Which say you is as much to say as I speake of those Sacramēts which the Church hath taught and declared vnto you For he neither writeth to the beleeuers of his age but onely to some beginners as I say is manifest by the very title of one of the bookes Neither doth he speake of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared but of the Sacramēts which those beginners that he spoke to had newly receiued as these very words which you bring testify wherein there is not the least mention of the Church nor of any generall doctrine of Sacraments but onely of those which as I said they that he spake vnto had receiued Which to be soe may yet more plainely appeare in that Bellarmine bringeth a most expresse authority for the Sacrament of Penance out of this same holy Father Bell. lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24 10. Now for S. Aug. it is noe lesse cleare that he neuer meant in any of those places where he speaketh of two Sacraments to restraine them to two onely for thus hee saith in one Conc. 1. in Psal 103. Respice ad munera ecclesiae munus Sacramentorum in Baptismo in Eucharistia in caeteris sanctis Sacramētis Cast thine eye to the guifts of the Church the guift of the Sacraments in Baptisme in the Eucharist in the rest of the holy Sacramēts By which words it is cleare that in S. Augustines iudgmēt there were more holy Sacraments besides Baptisme Eucharist not onely one or two more for they had beene easily added but more as that general clause of the rest of the Sacraments doth import and not Sacraments in a large sense but Sacraments in that very sense wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments as the word caeteris doth shew Neither doth that place which you cite out of the same Father lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana auaile you where speaking of the Sacramēts of the new Law as you tell vs he saith that they are but few in number easy in performance excellent in signification naming onely the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist Ep. 118. For it is plaine by the words sicuti that he bringeth those two for example onely which doth noe way restraine the number Besides this holy Father repeating the very same saying almost word for word in another place when he had brought those two Sacraments for example as he doth heere he addeth this general clause siquid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur and if there bee any thing els commended in the canonical Scriptures Which sheweth also that he did not meane to restraine his speach to those two onely Neither is his intent in either of those places to number the Sacraments or euen to speake of Sacraments as Sacraments but as they are only Signes cōparing the signes of the new testament with those of the old and preferring them for fewnesse in number and excellency in signification And therefore S. Aug. his word in this place is not Sacramenta Sacraments as you cite him but Signa panca pro multis Signes which therefore is a corruption of yours 11. This may then serue for all such testimonies eyther out of S. Aug. or any other Father Onely that it may not seeme strange why there should be such frequent mention of these two aboue the rest which might giue suspition as if they were the onely Sacramēts I adde this reason thereof to wit because they are the first most common and most necessary Sacraments The first because Baptisme is called the gate of all the Sacraments and by it men enter into the Church and become Christians With which the Eucharist was also wont to be giuen And though Confirmation be next in order after Baptisme yet was it not soe frequently giuen because it is ordinarily administred onely by a Bishop who is not alwaies soe ready at hand whereas the other two are administred by Priests They are the most common because they pertaine to all as also Confirmation doth and therefore in that respect goeth often with them They are most necessary because Baptisme is absolutely necessary or as Diuines say necessary necessitate medij that is a necessary meane without which a man cannot be saued the Eucharist is necessary by another kind of necessity to wit of praecept or command giuen by our B. Sauiour all which considerations together are not soe easily found in any other of the Sacraments Confirmation also was in those tymes necessary by force of an ecclesiastical praecept or at least custome 12. Another of the Fathers which you bring is S. Cyprian reckoning but fiue Sacraments Ser. de ablut ped and among them our Sauiour's washing of his Disciples feete for one Whereto I answeare that he reckoneth but 5. not that he thought there were no more but that it pertained not to his purpose to speake of more in that place his scope being onely to speake of such Sacraments as had relation to our Sauiour's last supper by way of institution blessing of the matter or some connexion at least with some thing which was then done As the Sacraments of Eucharist and Order which were then instituted of Confirmation because the matter thereof that is Chrisme was then blessed of Baptisme and Penance by occasion of our Sauiour's washing of his Disciples feete Which washing in what sense it is called a Sacrament by this author Lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24. be he S. Cyprian or whosoeuer els you may see in Bellarmine there find sufficient answeare He saying that it is called a Sacrament
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
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
it is soe still For as Hebrew Greeke and Latine were then the most knowne tōgues in which onely the Scriptures were written and publiquely read soe the same languages are still vsed partly because they are sacred and partly because they are most knowne What then maketh that against our Latine Masse or rather is it not a proofe of our antiquity and disproofe of his nouelty Against image-worship he talketh of the 2. Cōmaundement and the hate of the Iewes against Images Hee bringeth the testimonyes of some Haeretiques against them and the saying of some one Diuine of the manner of worshipp and the reprehēsion of others against the abuses committed in the adoration of them out of all which setting the testimonyes of Haeretiques a part I aske what he would conclude Or how he disproueth our Worship which we allow or how the reprehension of abuses in some of the simpler sort of Catholiques suppose there be some such abuses proueth the lawfulnes of his Image breaking or the truth and antiquity of his doctrine though his Doctrine in this point be but onely the denial of ours Now we proue ouer and aboue out of ancient Fathers and Councels the antiquity of our Worshipping of Saints and their pictures Lastly of Indulgences he saith out of some of our Diuines that there is noe expresse testimony of Scripture and Fathers for the antiquity of them To which wee answeare that as this notwithstanding these very men doe not deny the antiquity of Indulgences for want of such proofe soe others also proue the ancient vse of them euen out of other most ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church Howsoeuer the controuersy amongst those Diuines is not of the Indulgences themselues or doctrine but onely of the Vse of them or suppose it were soe that one or two Diuines did thinke amisse of them doth that proue the antiquity of his Doctrine may not those very Diuines be against him in other things What ancient author of authority hath he brought to proue his Doctrine not Durand nor any man els whosoeuer is by him pretended to thinke hardest of them though he had Durand wholy for him how could his bare authority or saying make the denying doctrine ancient being but 400. yeares agoe or vniuersal being but one man and contradicted by others 6. And thus hauing made a reuiew opposite to his I would faine see what any man can find should moue Men much lesse Angels to witnesse the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine nay doth not his manner of proofe rather shew the sleightnes and nouelty thereof together with the strange vanity of a brauing Knight that braggeth his Church before Luther was in Christ in the Apostles in the Fathers in the bosome of the ancient Church praetending right to the Fathers Apostles and CHRIST without shewing any shaddow of Succession that being the onely thing which he was to haue done heere and indeede the onely proper proofe for a man that will professe right to such ancestors And this was indeede the proofe which Tertullian did exact at the hands of some Haeretiques who claymed antiquity and would needs haue their Doctrine passe for Apostolique because they were in the Apostles tymes Tert. de praescr cap. 32. Edant ergo saith he origines ecclesiarum suarum euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per Successiones ab initio decurrentem vt primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis c. Let them shew the beginnings of their Churches let them vnroull or lay open the order or Catalogues of their Bishops soe running by Successions from the beginning that that first Bishop had for author or Praedessor some one of the Apostles or Apostolical men who yet haue perseuered with the Apostles For in this manner the Apostolique Churches draw downe their pedigrees as the Church of Smyrna recounteth Polycarpe placed by Iohn the Roman church Clement ordained by Peter soe other Churches shew whom they haue had placed Bishops by the Apostles as it were branches of the Apostolical seede Let the Haeretiques faigne any such thing Soe he Doe you heare Tertullian Sir Humphrey bragg then if you thinke good still we giue you leaue that your Church was anciently in Christ in the Apostles Fathers and bosome of the ancient Church without shewing any such Succession of Bishops drawne downe from the Apostles 7. Now then that you haue spoken soe well of the certainty of your owne beleife let vs heare what you say of the vncertainty of ours wherewith you begin thus That for farther proofe of your cause you will giue another summons to the prime men euen of our grand inquest who without partiality will testify on your behalfe that your Church is built vpon a more stable and sure foundation then the now Romane Church and that your doctrine is more fruiteful and profitable and euery way more safe and comfortable for the beleife of euery Christian and saluation of the beleeuer Which you proue laying way for a ground what Bellarmine saith that noe man can be certaine by the certainty of faith that he doth receiue a true Sacrament because that depends vpon the intention of the Minister whereof noe man can be certaine By which one tenet you say we ouerthrow all certainty of true faith Which you exemplify in Baptisme wherein if there want the intention of the Baptizer the Baptized is still an heathen and in state of damnation Soe of Order if the intention of the Ordainer faile it is noe Sacrament and consequenty if this intention were wanting in the ordination of Popes all succeeding Ordinations would be void soe also Of Matrimony if the intention of the Minister want it is but Fornication c. Thus you rowle on Sir Humphrey in your discourse but you must giue vs leaue to haue a word or two with you before you goe farther You giue another summōs to the prime men of our grand inquest wherein notwithstanding I doe not find that you obserue any order or number of your Iurours as is wont to be obserued in a Iury Wherevpon I began to thinke that you vsed this phrase of summons and grand inquest for the euer honoured memory of your deare deceased Father who was one of the most famous grand iury men of Middlesex in his tyme from whom it seemeth you haue learned onely the name of a grand inquest but not the right order of impanelling your iury nor euen the right number of your Iurours The foreman of your iury though you call him not soe is Bellarmine whom you make to giue vp his verdict against the certainty of our faith because he saith noe man can be certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament Which you say ouerthroweth all certainty of faith But I pray you good Sir Humphrey say truely are you in earnest or in iest me thinkes by the matter you should meane onely in iest it is soe idle but though this were your best excuse yet because you may take that ill
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
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
followed curiosities becoming Christians confessed their deeds and burnt their books Soe we see afterwards the books of Arius were commanded to be burnt and men forbidden to keepe them vnder paine of death Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 6. and soe of others which I will not heere stand vpon onely contenting my selfe with one exāple of this kind which for the antiquity and authority may be both proofe and warrant for the practize of the Catholique Church now at this tyme wherein the Haeretiques doe soe much cry out against the Inquisition and index expurgatorius 2. This example is that of Gelasius 1. Pope about the yeare 490. who in a Councel at Rome gathered for that end made a Decree to declare what Scriptures were canonical what Fathers and Doctours might be safely read and what not whereof hauing made a catalogue he addeth these words in the end Item opuscula atque tractatus omnium orthodoxorum c. Also we decree to be read the workes and treatises of all the orthodox Fathers who in nothing haue strayed from the company of the holy Romane Church nor haue been separated from the faith and preaching thereof but by the grace of God haue held with the same euen to the last day of their life and then before he come to make a catalogue of the haereticall books which he forbiddeth he saith thus Coetera quae abhaereticis c. Other things which haue beene written or preached by Haeretiques or Schismatiques the Catholique and Apostolique Romane Church doth noe way receiue of which some few that come to mind and are to be shunned by Catholiques we thinke good to sett downe heere and soe there setteth them downe Now I would know of the Knight or anie man els that crieth out soe bitterly against our Index expurgatorius what he can say against it that he may not say against this decree and Councel of Gelasius and against which we may not defend our selues by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts 3. But of this matter therefore I neede not say more it being euident by the light of nature that supposing there be a certaine rule of faith to which all men must cōforme their thoughts sayings and writings and that the swaruing from it is a declining to haeresy it pertaineth to the Catholique Romane Church which must of necessity be this rule of faith For it hath neither spot nor wrinckle as Gelasius saith which cannot be said of any Church els what soeuer to preuent the danger that may come by such books forbidding the vse of them and a more dangerous and vnnatural part it would be in her not to vse this care then it were in a Mother that should see sugar and ratts-baine lye together and seing her child going to tast thereof should forbeare to warne it but leaue the choice thereof to the child But of this matter I said somewhat in the beginning and there being diuers learned treatises of this subiect particularly I neede say noe more but remitt such as desire satisfaction to them or euen to the very rules sett downe in the beginning of the Index expurgatorius which are grounded vpō soe good reason as I presume noe indifferent man that readeth them can disallow of them I will not therefore stand particularly to examine euery particular authour and iustify the Inquisition for it would be both a long needlesse labour Onely I cannot omitt one authour called Bertram whom to turne my speech to you Sir Humphrey me thinks you among all men liuing should neuer soe much as name considering how much disgrace you haue sustained by translating his booke and venturing your owne credit and the credit of your Church vpon the faith thereof and for him I answeare that though his booke were proued plainely to containe good Catholique doctrine in the matter of transubstantiation yet because it was obscure in many places and thereby gaue occasion of erring and indeede was of vncertaine authority this onely being certaine that it hath beene in this last age published by Haeretiques we know not out of what records with some errours of their owne inserted therefore it might well be forbidden by the Inquisition but I say you should of all men liuing most labour to haue the memory thereof blotted out therewith to obliterate your owne shame 4. Another thing which I am also to note is concerning your coting of a Canon of the Councel of Laodicea in this section whereat I wonder that the inquisition hauing said nothing to it why you should reckon it heere among such authours as you say are razed or clipped by the inquisition But let vs heare what it is that you say to it you cite the Canon thus in English onely We ought not to leaue the Church of God and inuocate Angels saying withall that in the same Councel published by Merlin and Crabbe by change of a letter Angelos is turned into Angulos Angels into Angles and Corners thus that we must not leaue the Church of God and haue recourse to Angles or Corners and this say you lest soe faire an euidence of an ancient Councel should be produced against inuocation of Angels V. Bin. to 1. Concil thus you Sir Humphrey wherein first is to be noted your error in chronology concerning the tyme of this Councel which you make to be the yeare 368. which was 43. Con. Laodien can 35. yeares after the 1. Councel of Nice whereas it was celebrated before that Councel Secondly your corruption in the translation and cutting of of the Canon which is thus Non oportet relicta ecclesia ad Angelos abominandae idolatriae congregrationes facere quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultae huic idololaetriae vacans Anathema sit quoniam relinquens Dominum IESVM Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola Noe man must leauing the Church of God make congregations to the Angels of abominable idolatry and whosoeuer shal be found exercizing this secret idolatry let him be anathema because leauing IESVS Christ the Sonne of God he hath come to idols Now where in this Canon doe you find the word inuocation of Angels Which is the thing that you pretend to be forbidden and much lesse doe you find such inuocation of Angels as we vse For in this Canon is onely forbidden such idolatrical inuocation as the Simonian and other haeretiques did vse praeferring the Angels before Christ and making them the creatours of the world and the onely or chiefe mediatours without whose helpe there was noe accesse to be had to God which is the same wicked haeresy which Saint Paul speaketh against Coloss 2. as all interpreters vnderstand him By whose words it is plaine that those Haeretiques left Christ and had recourse to Angels in this sense Nemo vos seducat non tenens caput c. Let noe man seduce you not holding the head that is not holding by Christ Now where doe you finde that we by inuocation of Angels forsake Christ
Index expurgatorius you will acknowledge the nouelty of your Church and submitt your selfe with an implicite faith to the Romane Church Soe you for your counterchalleÌ„ge Sir Humphrey had you marked the challenge well you might haue spared it for the Iesuit required you to performe nothing but that which many on the Catholique part haue performed ready to your hand that is that you should bring such a Catalogue of succession for proofe of the Visibility of your Church as we did many of ours as Sanders Bellarmine Gualterus others You aske by what authority we impose new articles of beleife vpon men this question is not to the purpose but I answeare by denying your suppositioÌ„ for we doe not impose new articles vpon men but defend the old against new faÌ„gled fellowes neither is this the proper place for you to require or for vs to bring proofes out of Fathers Scriptures of particular points whereof you cannot but know that many great and learned men in the Catholick Church haue written great volumes which noe haeretique hath euer yet durst venture to answeare how then can you soe brasenly say that our owne best learned confesse that the articles of the Trent-Creede as you call them are vnknowne to antiquity what point is there defined in the Councel of Trent which is not proued by way of authority of scriptures fathers by Iudocus Coccius by way of reason and solution of arguments by Bell. by way of history by Baronius to say nothing of others some may perhaps say that some points there defined were not before defined by any general Councel but to bring any Catholique to say that they are new or that they were not anciently nor commonly beleeued I dare say Sir Humphrey is more then you can proue but suppose any one may say that there is noe proofe extant in any ancient author of this or that point must it therefore follow that it is new noe surely for all things are not written as S. Iohn verifyeth of our Sauiour's owne words and deeds how much lesse then other things which yet are generally taught and practized in the Catholique Church which very practize without farther proofe S. Augustine maketh to be an argument of antiquity Aug cont Don. lib. 4.24 but of this newnesse of faith whereof you soe ignorantly complaine and likewise of implicite faith I shall say more afterwards 10. Now for our leauinge out the second commandement wherewith you tax vs and changing the fourth from sanctify the Sabboth to Sanctify the holydayes it is pitty you are soe hard driuen as when you are called vpon to proue your Succession and Visibility of your Church to fall vpon vs for the commandements a thing of soe different nature and soe triuiall For first it is false that we leaue out that which you call the second commandment Looke in our bibles and see whether you find it not there in all Editions and translations as well English as Latine or any other language whatsoeuer How then doe we leaue it out you will say we leaue it out in our catechismes true but to leaue a thing out of a catechisme is not absolutely to leaue it out as long as it is els where But besids to answeare you another way wee leaue out many other things as that God is a iealous God that hee reuengeth the Sinnes of the Father to the 3. and 4. generation and the like though they goe intermingled with the commandements in the text and this we doe without blame because they eyther pertaine not precisely to the commandement or are sufficiently expressed in the very words of the commandement it self Soe wee say of this that it is either contayned in the first commandement being onely an explication of the same or if it be a distinct precept as some Deuines say then is it ceremoniall onely and consequently abrogated with the whole Law 11. Soe likewise for the other commandement of Sanctifying the Holy-dayes I answeare that in our bibles or text of scripture we keepe the word Sabboth and in most and best catechismes also as for example Canisius Bellarmines large catechisme and others but specially in that of the Councel of Trent sett out by authority of Pius V. Which were answeare enough to shew we make noe such mystery of it since sometymes we say Sabboth sometymes Holydayes as indeede we well may the sense being the same and we may better vse this liberty in catechismes where we stand not soe much to cite the very words of scripture as to declare the meaning of them though in the text it selfe we keepe precisely to the very words Where yet we explicate it in the same sense following therein the example of Scripture it self which vseth those words indifferently as may appeare Leuit. cap. 23. Where other Holydayes beside the Saturday or Sabboth are called Sabbata 3. or 4. tymes in that one chapter and in the beginning thereof those dayes which are called Sabbata are called twice Feriae sanctae Holydayes Soe as you Sir Humfrey in making such a deale of difference betweene Sabboth and Holyday shew your self to be but shallowly read in scripture Besids I may answeare to this as to the former obiection that this coÌ„mandment was partly ceremonial to wit for as much as pertayneth to that particular day of saturday and partly natural to wit soe farre as it obligeth to the obseruing of some daye or tyme holy indeterminately 12. But if we be such great offenders for changing â—â—e word Sabboth in some of our catechiâ—mes into Holyday what are you for changing the very commaÌ„dement while you stand working vpon Saturday and rest vpon Sunday soe changing the Sabboth it self but what stuffe is this for you to trouble your gentry Readers withall in the very beginning of your booke and in your Epistle dedicatory forsooth and not onely to touch vpon it heere but to print the commandements faire in a leafe by themselues with a marginal note of Ledaesma's catechisme of 2. or 3. editions as if you would make your Reader stand at some goodly gaze but by this a man may easily guesse what matter hee is like to find in the booke it selfe I could haue noted a thing of the same kind of yours in this Epistle in the first leafe where you say truth is iustifyed of her Children whereas the text of scripture is Wisedome is iustified c but that I did not count it worth speaking of 13. Touching your great boast that if we can shew one good author in euery age for this 1500. yeares who hath held our Trent articles as you call them de fide you will confesse our Doctours Schoolmen c. to be mistaken and to neede an index expurgatorius and that you will submitt your self to the Romane Church acknowledging the nouelty of your owne church Forasmuch as this your promise seemeth by the manner to be but a proud vaunt to delude the simple reader to make him more confident
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
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
Donatists who iustified themselues as you Sir Knight iustify your Church Much more of this might bee said but this may serue to shew you not to bee in your right witts that bragg of that which you ought most to bee ashamed of and account that to make for you which makes most against you 9. For that which you talke of goeing out of Aegipt and Babylon which you would haue men vnderstand the Catholique Church as if you were commaunded to goe out from her Doe but once shew vs that Aegypt and Babylon which the Sripture speaketh of were euer the true Church and then you may seeme to haue said some what for your Churches departure from the Romane Which impudence it self cannot deny to haue beene once the true Church You are bold indeede to say that Babylon was a true Church wherewith sometymes the faithfull did communicate but that after it was more depraued the faithfull are commanded to goe out of it But I may aske you where you reade this what Father what Doctour what man euer tooke Babylon in scripture to be vsed for the name of the true Church S. Peter in one of his Epistles speaketh of Rome by the name of Babylon out of which a multitude of Fathers and Doctours proue that Saint Peter was at Rome and now you forsooth bring some of them cited by our authors to that purpose to proue that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church Abusing all those Fathers most egregiously among all whom neuer one meant any such matter but onely by Babylon vnderstood the temporal state and gouernment of the Citty of Rome as it was subiect to those Pagan tyrannizing Emperours which persecuted the Church and people of God wherein it did resemble that other ancient and true Babylon which detayned the Iewes then the true Church and people of God in captiuity and oppression Which also S. Peter's owne words doe sufficiently shew distinguishing most plainely Babylon from the true Church For he saith thus 1. Pet. 5.13 Ecclesia quae est in Babylone coëlecta The Church which is in Babylon coelect saluteth you Not that Babylon was a true Church as your words are Sir Humphrey 10. Now whereas you say that when she was depraued the faithfull were willed to goe out of her that is out of her that was once the true Church You are extreamely mistaken For if you meane any true Babylon as that Citty of Chaldaea or that other of Aegypt or Babylon by similitude and likenes as was Rome in tyme of the HeatheÌ„ Emperours and as many Interpreters thinke towards the end of the world in tyme of Antichrist the citty or temporal gouernment thereof shall againe become of which tyme that of the Apocalypse is meant that the faithfull shall fly for auoyding of the cruelty and tyranny of the persecutours which shall then bee more cruel then euer or if by Babylon you meane the whole company of wicked men from the beginning to the end of the world as S. Aug. taketh it throughout his great worke de ciuit Dei and other Fathers and Doctours and many interpreters vnderstand that place of the Apocalypse 18. If I say you meane it any of these wayes as noe man of vnderstanding euer meant or vnderstood it otherwise then was it neuer any true Church and soe the Children and people of God might well bee willed to gett out of it either locally by motion of the body or spiritually by auoyding the maÌ„ners of the people not hauing any thing with them in their wicked wayes But if you meane as you expresse your selfe that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church and that it may bee depraued that is that the Church of Christ notwithstanding all his promises for the perpetuity thereof as That hee would bee with it to the worlds end That it was built vpoÌ„ a rocke That the Gates of hell should not preuaile against it That he would send the Holy Ghost to bee with it for euer notwithstanding that the Church is his kingdome his inheritance his mysticall body his Spouse that notwithstanding all this I say it should faile it shoull bee depraued it should bee wiolated I know not what to say but to stopp myne eares against that mouth of blasphemy of yours and heerewith end this sectioÌ„ the rest thereof being nothing but the bitter froth of a distempered stomacke and vnworthy of answeare Chap. 3. THE EXAMINATION OF Sir Humphrey's second and third Section CHAPTER III. 1. IN the second Section Sir Humphrey laboureth to proue the contention betwixt the Churches as he calleth them to proceede originally from vs and this by the confessions of our owne The third Section is to proue the corruptions both in faith and manners confessed by some of vs and yet reformacion denied by the Pope Both which are easily answeared First by asking what all this is to his purpose suppose it were true Doth this shew his Church to haue beene alwayes visible or ours to haue beene at any tyme not visible Hee was not to stand vpon matter of contention who was cause or not cause thereof or who would haue mended who not For the errors in faith which hee seemeth to tax â—s with-all in his third section if he can proue them he saith somewhat indeede though yet not soe fully to his purpose For though hee proue vs to haue had some errours it doth not soe presently follow that they of his side haue had none or that therefore their Church hath beene euer visible there is a great deale more required to it then soe And though he should proue some errors to haue beene taught by some particular men or euen in some Country professing the Catholique faith it doth not follow that the Catholique Church hath fayled in faith or ceased to bee visible 2. Secondly I answeare to his second Section which is to proue that the contention proceeded from vs which hee vndertaketh to proue by our owne confession that in all this Section he bringeth but fowre authorities to wit Cassander a Canon of his English Church out of the praeface to Iewels works Camden citing S. Bede Plessy Morney citing Michael Caesenas Of all which onely S. Bede is a Catholique and euen cited by the Protestant Camden and onely for a story which he tels of one Redwalde king of the East Saxons who being first conuerted to Christianity and after seduced by his wife had in the same Church two altars one for Christ's religion another for the Diuels out of which this knight frameth to himself a pretty fancy being desirous heereby to make men beleiue that the like happened in the Romane Church and that some adored God onely others fell to adore Saints and images and the like Which fond conceit what answeare can it deserue For it is but the bare saying of one that doth not vnderstand what he saith For otherwise how could he possibly say such a thing of himself without saying when where or how that happed
to vs or euer saying word in proofe that the case is the same I might with as much reason out of this story of Redwalde say as much of Sir Humphrey Linde that hee and his Protestants haue built a new Church a new faith erected an altar against an altar c. 3. But as I was saying of his authors they are not many as you see much lesse haue they any part among Catholiques For Cassander Michael de Caesenas and Philip Morney are in the Index of forbidden books Camden and his English Canon writers are Protestants but which is more strange not a man of these such as they are that saith any thing of that which hee pretendeth in the title of his Chapter but onely Cassander who after the fashion of Haretiques speaketh of the Pompe and pride of the Clergy and that they will not hearken to the admonitions of some godly men aduising reformation these godly men he meaneth such as himself that is Haeretiques or next doore to them though Sir Humphrey please often to call him a Learned Romanist Soe that all the cause that euen this man alleageth of the contention is because the ecclesiastical persons will not yeild themselues to Haeretiques and lett them haue the ordering and disposing of all things at their pleasures therefore they breake away and fall into contention with the Church What cause doe Clergy men giue of contention in not submitting themselues to their inferiours and to men that haue noe authority ouer them or euen if the counsel of these people were good as it is not and that Clergy men thinke not good to follow it must they therefore presently fall to schisme and haeresy tearing and renting the Church By what Law are Clergy men bound to obey such fellowes if in a ciuill commonwealth some great man should dislike the gouernment eyther because his enemyes haue the managing of matters or that he thimketh he could doe it better then they and presuming to giue counsell to the Prince and his counsel they shoull not follow it and that therefore hee should goe from court make head and raise a rebellion in the common wealth who should bee counted cause of this contention the Prince and his Counsel or hee if Sir Humphrey be iudge he must say the Prince and his Counsel if he will make good his man Cassander's discourse 4. As for Michael de Caesena whom the Knight also calleth a learned Friar it is true he was a Friar and General of his Order but for his learning I neuer heard any such commendation of it but we know why the Knight prayseth him Well be it soe but the man being excommunicated and deposed by the Pope for his disobedience and rebellion he said that particular man which was Iohn 22. was an Apostata and an Heretique and therefore noe true Pope But that he made two such Churches one of the wicked vnder the Pope another of the good without any heade as Morney makes him make and this Knight out of him I find not in any good author but rather that hee allowed of the authority of the Romane Church for he appealed from the Popes sentence to it as may be seene in Coquus his answeare to Morney's mystery of iniquity pag. 205. to 2. and in the table verbo Michael de Coesena Neither was he euer taxed with any such haeresy 5. His English Church-Canon commandeth nothing to be taught as matter of faith but what is agreable to the Old and new testament and is collected out of the ancient Fathers and Catholique Bishops but what is that to the purpose how doth this proue vs to giue the cause of Contention hee will say this proueth his men to giue none I answeare that if all the rest of their Canons and proceedings were answearable to the saying of this Canon there would perhaps bee somewhat lesse to doe Though it be not any way conformable to the Scripture and doctrine of fathers for lay authority to make Canons for Clergy men and therefore the practise shewed in this Canon is contrary to the words And soe the 2. section is answeared 6. The third section is of corruptions both in faith and manners which the Knight saith we confesse and yet deny to reforme He proueth it out of the Councel of Pisa where Alexander the 5. Concil Pisan sess 20. promised to attend to the reformacion of the Church and out of the Councel of Trent acknowledging many things amisse in matter of indulgences Masse c. To this I answeare that for matter of manners we willingly acknowledge reformacion to be needfull and such it is that these two Councels speake of and haue performed as is to beseene by their Decrees though the former be not of any great authority Concil Trident sess 22. Decret de reformat And for the later it complaineth indeede with great reason of the auarice of such as had the gathering of moneys giuen in almes by occasion of indulgences Whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors though the Councel speake not of the Pope But he out of his loue to the Pope would faine bring him in vpon al such occasions This is true but false it is which he saith that the Councel complaineth of indulgences an article of the Romane faith as his words are For as it reformeth the corruption of the officers soe doth it establish the truth of the Doctrine as appeareth by a particular decree thereof which is also acknowledged and cited els where by this Knight himself whereby hee is conuinced of wilfull corruption The same Councel likewise complaineth of many things crept in in the celebration of Masse by the fault of the tymes or carelesnesse and wickednesse of men which are farre from the dignity of soe great a sacrifice The words of the Councel are right cited by him in Latine in the margent perhaps to saue his credit by sincerity soe much promised in his Epistle dedicatory but in the English which goeth in the text he fouly corrupteth them they are thus in Latine Cum multa irrepsisse videantur Which in English is this Seing many things seeme to haue crept in which the Knight translateth thus there were many errors and corruptions crept in to the Masse which is a grosse error and corruption in the Knight the Councel speaking onely of abuses which were crept in not of errours in matter of faith The Councel likewise seemeth to acknowledge the auarice of Priests making such bargaines for the saying of Masse as was not far from Simony or at least filthy lucre It speaketh of the vse of musique where with some wantonesse was mixed as alsoe of certaine Masses or candles vsed in certaine number that number proceeding rather from superstition then true religion this is true soe farre 7. But that is not true which the Knight saith that we deny a reformation of these things for to what other end are they recounted there but to be reformed nay they are not
acknowledgeth inhaerent iustification which Caluin denieth though in this he erre that he thinketh that inhaerent iustifying forme to bee imperfect and insufficient of it selfe to make men the adoptiue Children of God without the imputatiue iustice of Christ Which alsoe is not soe much Caluinisme as Lutheranisme But bee it what it will Bellarmine excuseth Pighius in another respect to wit because he did not obstinately defend the errour as Caluin or Luther doth which is the maine difference For it is not the errour but the obstinacy that maketh an Haeretique And soe you see Sir Knight you haue not one true word in all this section But lett vs now see your next Chap. 5. The Knight's 5. Section Wherein hee vndertaketh to shew how worldly policy and profitt hindereth the reformation of such things as are vnexcusable in themselues CHAPTER V. 1. OF this Section there is not much to bee said For there is nothing in it but a little of the knights owne rauing For he telleth vs that now he seeth Trentals Masses Diriges Requiem prayers for the dead Indulgences Purgatory c. made articles of faith he despayreth of reformation To which I neede make noe other answeare but that it is a good signe that hee findes at last the strength of the Church soe built vpon a Rocke as noe tempests or winds can shake it but rather that by stormes and tempests it groweth stronger the practize of the Catholique Church being strengthned against all Haeretiques by the greatest authority on earth to wit a general Councel confirmed by the See Apostolique Againe he despaires when he seeth Maldonats saying as he telleth vs practized by the Church of Rome against his Church and Doctrine to wit hee that is Maldonate interpreting a place of S. Iohn alloweth S. Augustin's explication as most probable though hee rather approue another of his owne because it more crosseth the sense of the Caluinists This is it that driueth him in to dispaire Alas poore Sir Humphrey is all your brauery come to this what your hart faile you soe in the beginning But it is noe wonder such a cause may well make you despaire And by your despaire you shew your Doctrine to be false for true doctrine looseth nothing by being impugned but rather gaineth as experience sheweth in the Catholique faith of which is verified the saying of the Prophest Psal 11.7 Eloquia Domini Eloquia casta argentū igne examinatum probatum terrae purgatū septuplum Words of our Lord be chast Words siluer examined by fire tried of the earth purged Seuen fold Fire tries but consumes not gold but drosse it shewed to be drosse by consuming it For Maldonat hee approueth and commendeth S. Augustin's explicacion but addeth another of his owne not contrary nor disagreeing though different from it He preferreth it because it is more against an Haeretique soe it is like S. Aug. himself would also haue done if he had beene aliue in these tymes For it is well knowne how in expounding of Scriptures he still had reguard to the confutation of these haeresies which then raigned and in one place hee aduiseth Tract 2. in ep 1. Io. that those passages of Scripture be most carefully obserued and remembred which make most against Haeretiques 2. After this the Knight hath a great deale of foolish stuffe which needes noe answeare being but a bare recitall of things as for example our wresting the Scriptures his agreement of doctrine with the Fathers nothing to the purpose in this place and then he crieth out against our altering the Commandements which is before answeared Communion in both kinds prayer to Saints and in an vnknowne tongue Which shal bee afterwards answeared Onely in this place I note in a word this wise question of his What reason saith hee can bee alleadged why an ignorant man should pray without vnderstanding To which I answeare with a contrary demaund to wit How an ignorant man that is one that wanteth knowledge or vnderstanding shall pray with vnderstanding and soe I leaue him Of the 6. Section the title whereof is this Chap. 6. The common pretence of our aduersaries refusing Reformation because we cannot assigne the praecise tyme when errors came in refuted CHAPTER VI. 1. HEere the Knight is vpp againe with his reformacion and complayneth that we will not admitt thereof nor acknowledge our doctrine erronious vnlesse he can assigne the tyme and person when and by whom the errour came in Which he seemeth to acknowledge he cannot doe for he neuer goeth about it but onely laboureth to disproue our exception against him by saying that a man that is sicke of a consumption ought not to refuse the helpe of the Physician vpon pretence that he can not tell the tyme and occasion when his body began first to be distempered and out of S. Aug. he saith that when a man is fallen into a pitt and calleth to a passenger for helpe Ep. 19. the passenger must not refuse to helpe him out vpon pretence that he seeth not how he should come to fall in Hee proueth it also as he thinketh out of scripture because in the parable of the cockle it is said that the enemy sowed it when men were a sleepe out of which he inferreth that they could not see or know him Therefore he saith that this defection of the Romane Church is a secret Apostasy Matth. 13. and therein he maketh the difference betweene haeresy and Apostasy that haeresy is preached openly soe as the tyme and person may bee named but not soe this our secret apostacy haeresy worketh in the day apostasy in the night And then he reckoneth vpp some points as worshipping of images Prayer for the dead the primacy of S. Peter and some others which he saith were not soe meant a◠first as they are now practtized and beleeued in the Romane Church This is his iolly discourse framed in his owne braine panne and surely grounded as you shall finde vpon examination thereof which now I come vnto 2. Hee compareth the creeping in of errour to the growing of a sicknes in a man's body and presuming that because he sayth it we must therefore take those things which hee would haue vs for errour he would presently haue vs also fall to correct them without standing to examine farther noe more then a Physician should that cometh to a sicke man But his comparison faileth exceedingly For though there bee some little likenes betweene the creeping in of errours and growing of a Disease in a man's body because both begin little and stelingly and increase by degrees Yet to our purpose none at all For the question is not whether we should fall to cure the disease without examining the cause though by your good leaue Sir Knight good Physicians vse to enquire of the causes effects and other circumstāces of the sicknes which they come to cure but whether this that you say is a disease or sicknes be soe or noe
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
doctrine and person to bee drawne from Idolaters Haeretiques and Capharnaits Of the first of these three Theodoret saith that those haeretiques made two Christs one below another aboue of whom they say that he had dwelt in many before and at last came downe hither or as others declare it that at last he came and rested in IESVS the Sonne of MARY An haeretical fable indeede which noe man can tell what to make of but wherein is it like to our transubstantiacion these haeretiques make two Christs wee acknowledge but one and the same both in heauen and in the consecrated host Marcus as Irenaeus saith by the helpe of the Diuell through art magique changed the colour of the wine in the cup or chalice which the knights is pleased of himself to call sacramentall into seueral colours The Catholique Priest doth the cleane contrary for the colour and other accidents remayning he changeth the substance of the wine into the Bloud of Christ by the Omnipotent power of almighty God For the Capharnaits they thought they should eate Christ's body peece meale and after the manner of the flesh whereon they feede we receiue Christ whole and entire not in the forme and shape of flesh but of breade and in a spiritual though real manner What likenesse then in all these doctrines with ours to a man in his right witts 7. A third point is of the Supremacy of the Pope which he fetcheth from Phocas Emperour who he saith first gaue it to the Bishop of Constantinople 600. yeares after Christ But to giue vs more antiquity he saith the Gētils were our first founders and benefactors For which he alleadgeth the saying of our Sauiour The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship ouer thē Luc 22.25 and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactors Heere he saith we are deriued from bloudsuckers and Gentils vsurping power ouer kings in things spiritual and temporal whereas his doctrine he saith is from Christ Whosoeuer wil be great among you let him be your Minister and whosoeuer wil be chiefe among you let him be your seruant This is his discourse To which I answeare that the knight is egregiously mistaken in saying that Phocas gaue that authority to the Bishop of Constantinople though if hee should haue giuen it or rather attempted to giue that which he could not giue to the Bishop of Constantinople what is that to vs Doe we deriue our Succession from Constantinople was there not a Bishop of Rome and was hee not acknowledged for heade of the Church some hundreds of yeares before euer there was a Bishop of Constantinople or a Constantinople or euen a Constantine himself What then doth he tell vs of the Bishop of Constantinople or Phocas or any such rather the cleane contrary for all true history telleth vs that whereas Iohn that ambitious Bishop of Constantinople vt habetur in ep Pelag. to 1. Conc. would haue had that title of Vniuersall Bishop whereby hee might seeme to aequall the Bishop of Rome though in words he protested neuer to doe any thing against the See Apostolique wherein he had beene supported by Mauritius the Emperour and vpon whom therefore and all his V. Cedr Lonar alias ap Coqu cont progr 22. pag. 327. almighty God shewed the seuerity of his iudgments when Phocas came to bee Emperour though otherwise a naughty cruel mā he made a constitution declaring that the Church of Rome Plat. in Bonif. 3. which is head of all Churches should bee soe called and held by all forbidding the Bishop of Constantinople the vse of that title which he tooke vpon him of himself Out of which commonly the Protestants obiect that the Bishop of Rome hath receiued his authority from Phocas which is a most absurd and foolish conceipt For the Bishop of Rome's authority is farre greater then can be giuen by any earthly man and which being giuen by our B. Sauiour himself heere vpon earth the Bishops of Rome had possessed and exercized continually for the space of more then 600. yeares before Phocas his tyme. How then could it come from him But this sheweth the knight's ignorance and absurdity which is our busines in this place first in saying that Phocas made such a Decree in behalf of the Bishop of Constantinople which sheweth his ignorance for that Decree was made by Phocas in fauour of Bonifacius Bishop of Rome against the Bishop of Constantinople Secondly in alleadging that for a reason or ground of the Bishops of Rome's authority which is commonly alleadged euen by Protestants against it who by exalting the Bishop of Constantinople would willingly depresse the Bishop of Rome 8. As for the knigt's other argument or his place of Scripture of the kings of the Gentils I see not what it is that hee would say to the purpose Our Sauiour indeede telleth his Disciples hee will not haue them imitate the domineering manner of gouernment of those Kings but contrarywise that hee that is cheife among them shal bee as a Seruant to the rest Which Councel is hath euer beene most obserued by the Bishops of that holy See of Rome who therefore haue vsed to stile themselues SERVVS SERVORVM DEI. THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD but will this knight therefore haue it that by reason of this humility there must not bee any Superiority that because he must carry himself like a seruant therefore hee must not feede the Lambes and sheepe of Christ If he meane this as I see not what els he should meane I say noe more but that it is a conceipt worthy of him But besides what a fine line of Succession is heere Doth the Pope succeede either Phocas or any other king or kings of the Gentils to what purpose then are they named 9. But to goe yet on with his toyes hee deduceth our worship of Images from the Basilidians and Carpocratians who saith hee did worship images and professed that they had the image of Christ made by Pilate for which hee citeth S. Irenaeus in the margent His owne doctrine he deriueth from the second of the ten commandements according to his owne translation Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image Heere againe the Knight giueth yet more ample testimony of his notorious naughty dealing For why when he said that these Haeretiques had the picture of Christ made as they said by Pilate why I say could not hee haue gone on with S. Irenaeus who speaking of that and other pictures both painted and carued which they had saith Has coronant Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophoram to wit cum imagine Pythâgorae Platonis Aristotelus reliquorum reliquam obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt They crowne them and propose them with the images of the Philosophers of the world to wit Pythagoras Plato Aristotle and the rest and vse such other obseruation towards them as the
Popes one succeeding the other in place and office exercizing the same authority and iurisdiction in the sight of the whole world Now out of this personal Succession we Catholiques draw a most firme argument of Succession in faith and beleife as hee calleth it as the holy Fathers haue euer done against Heretiques of their tymes Which soe long as it standeth good it is in vaine for Sir Humphrey and such men to cry out that wee haue noe Succession in doctrine Lett them shew when where in what Popes tyme and by whom it was interrupted or broken of or els they say nothing And soe leauing him to find that out I passe to another Section Chap. 8. Of the 8. Section entituled thus The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall CHAPTER VIII 1. THe title of this Sectiō promiseth much and the beginning of the Section it self much more For in it he saith that if the Church of Rome doe not plainely confesse the antiquity of his Church his Tenets and the nouelty of her owne if she doe not proclaime the Vniuersality of the Protestant faith and confesse it both more certaine and safe hee will neither refuse the name nor punishment dew to haeresy Which how bold and vnlikely an aduenture it is I presume there is noe man of iudgment be hee neuer soe much freind euen to Sir Humphrey himself that doth not at the very first sight perceiue how shamelesse and impudent it is I doubt not but vpon a little examination I halbee able euidently to declare and consequently how truely both the name and punishment of haeresy is dew vnto him euen by his owne doome Wherein I shall craue thine attention Good Reader that perceiuing how well and truelly hee performeth this promise soe great and vpon soe hard conditions Voluntarily vndertaken in case of not performance thou maist frame a right iudgment of the whole booke by this one chapter And as thou findest him to deale heere soe to thinke of his dealing els where But not to say more I come to the triall of the matter 2. Hee pretendeth then to bring the testimonies of our authors or to speake in his owne phrase the confession of the Church of Rome touching the Antiquity and Vniuersality Certainety and Safety of his faith which whosoeuer heareth would hee not expect the man should bring some definition of a Councel approued or some Decree of the See Apostolique for that onely is the confession of the Church of Rome would not a man expect he should bring some few authors two or three at least acknowledging all these points or some one author for each point or some one author at lest for some one of them surely he would And yet doth the Knight nothing of all this he bringeth not one author I say not one for the Vniuersality or ātiquity c. of his Church Though if he should haue one two three or ten men it would not be sufficient for him vnlesse he haue the authority of the Catholique Church or Church of Rome For that is it which he promiseth But lett vs heare what he saith 3. In all this Section he bringeth onely three Catholique authors Adrian Costerus and Harding for the three seueral points of Transustantiation Communion in one kind and priuate Masse as he calleth it in this manner Hee saying of himself that when Protestants accuse vs of adoring the elements of bread and wine we excuse it by saying we adore it vpon condition and for that end bringeth these words of Adrian Adoro te si tu es Christus I adore thee if thou bee Christ Soe of Communion in one kind when they accuse vs of taking away the cupp from the Layity we excuse it and thereto hee bringeth Costerus saying that Communion vnder one kind was not taken vpp by the commandement of the Byshops but it crept in the Byshops winking thereat Thirdly when they accuse vs for our priuate Masses contrary to Christ's institution we excuse it and for that end he bringeth these words of Doctor Harding It is through their owne fault and negligence whereof the godly and faithfull people since the tyme of the primitiue Church haue much complained These three be all the authors he hath and this all he saith out of them in which any man may see whether there bee a word or shadow of a word for the antiquity or Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall as the title of his Section goeth 4. I say nothing heere of the man's notable cunning and falshood in pretending making his Reader beleeue as if we did excuse our selues in those things whereof they accuse vs whereby wee might seeme to acknowledge some fault whereas there is noe such matter in the world nor one word spoken by any man by way of excuse as shall appeare For noe Catholique but scorneth an excuse in matter of his beleife though for life some may haue some what which may neede excuse though in that case we teach an humble confession to bee the best excuse 5. But to come now to the matter lett vs heare what it is these authors say Adrian as he telleth vs excuseth our adoration of the elements of bread and wine because we adore it vpon condition if the consecrated bread bee Christ the Latine words of Adrian in the margēt are these Adoro te si tu es Christus Which words indeade Adrian hath but they are very different from Sir Humphrey's English as any man may of himself see and spoken by Adrian vpon a very different occasion as I shall now shew Hee then disputing whether a Iudge may without sinne wish he might lawfully giue iudgment against iustice and bringing arguments pro and con as Diuines doe for the affirmatiue he bringeth this That the deformity of the sinne is taken away and cleared by the cōdition which is added which hee farther proueth by two arguments the one that the Councel of Constance doth excuse ignorant people adoring an vnconsecrated host because this condition is tacitely implied if the consecration be rightly made the other that all Doctors agree that a man may auoide perplexity betweene idolatry and disobediēce when the Deuill soe transfiguring himselfe as to seeme Christ commandeth one to adore if vpon condition he adore thus I adore thee if thou be Christ This is what Adrian hath Wherein first any man may see he speaketh nothing of his owne opinion but of others and that by way of dispute only Secondly the condition which is tacitly implied in the adoration of an vnconsecrated host according to the Councel of Constance is not that which Sir Humphrey putteth to wit if the consecrated bread bee Christ but this other if it bee righty consecrated which is cleane another matter for his condition euer supposing a right consecration maketh doubt whither Christ be there or not which is most false the other condition maketh noe doubt of that but
the words the presence of Christ depēding vpon their efficacy which they haue by the institution of Christ as they are the forme of this Sacrament which might bee separated frō the signification though de facto it be not Caiet in com 3. p. q. 75. a. 1. And soe Caietane though hee thinke not the bare signification of the words without the authority of the Church sufficient to proue the presence of Christ's body in the Sacramēt yet he doubteth not to affirme with the Councell of Florence alleadging the very words thereof quod ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi substantia vini in sanguinem conuertuntur That by the power of the very words the substance of the Bread is turned into the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into his bloud Soe as Caietan is nothing for you but very much against you 14. But yet you goe on confidently telling vs that you will produce Cardinals Bishops and Schoolemen to testify that there are noe words in scripture to proue transubstantiation Secondly that those words This is my Body are not of the essence of the Sacrament Thirdly that the ancient Fathers did not beleeue the substance of the Sacramental bread to bee conuerted into Christ's real flesh Fourthly that transubstantiation was not beleeued de fide aboue 1000. yeares after Christ Which fower points how well you proue I must now see Sir Humphrey First noting by the way that though you sett them downe seuerally as if you meant to proue them in order one after another bringing one Cardinal one Bishop and one Schooleman at least for euery one yet you neither obserue order nor soe alleadge authors as shall appeare Though for the first of your 4. points you neede not many authors if you adde the word expresly thus that there bee no words in scripture to proue transubstantiation expresly Which word if you putt in your proposition may passe for true if not it is false and without author For though all Catholiques saue onely Caietan agree that the words of consecration of themselues proue the reality of Christ's presence yet all doe not soe agree that of themselues they proue Transubstantiation For some thinke they might bee verified though the substance of bread should remaine together with Christ's body Yet all agree that out of the words as they are vnderstood by the Church transubstantiation is also proued You might therefore haue spared Gabriel's authority which you beginne with in these words How the body of Christ is in the Sacrament is not expressed in the canon of the bible Which I would haue spared also but because I meane to lay open your falshood in alleadging the same by halfes Cab. lect 40. For thus hee saith Notandum quod quamuis expresse tradatur in scriptura quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur a fidelibus sumitur tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi an per conuersionem alicuius in ipsum an sine conuersione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non inuenitur It is to be noted that though it bee expresly deliuered in Scripture that the body of Christ is truely contained vnder the species of bread and receiued by the faithfull yet is it not soe expressed how the body of Christ is there whither by conuersion of any thing into it or whither it beginneth to bee there without conuersion or turning the substance and accidents of bread remayning In which saying of Gabriels as you left out the former part because it made clearely against you soe you might also haue left out the later as making nothing against vs as is euident of it selfe without farther declaration 15. Your next author is Cardinal de Aliaco who you tell vs thinketh it possible that the bread might remayne with Christ's body and that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue Whereto I answeare what then what is this to your purpose if you were a Lutheran you might haue a little colour but seing you are a Caluinist or Protestant or some such I know not what it maketh nothing at all for you not euen in shew But bee you Caluinist Protestant Lutheran or what you will it maketh not for you Suppose that may be possible more easy c. What is that to our purpose that is not matter of faith for Faith doth not stand teaching metaphysicall possibilityes or impossibilityes what may bee or not bee but what is or is not and which is chiefly to bee considered though this author thinke that way more possible and more easy to be conceiued according to humane capacity yet euen heerein hee preferreth the iudgment of the Church before his owne as his very words by you cited doe testify For he saith that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue if it could accord which the determination of the Church But what is this authority to you Sir Humphrey Which of your 4. points doth it proue Doth it say that transubstantiation is not proued out of Scripture or that the words THIS IS MY BODY is not of the essence of the Sacrament and soe of the rest not a word of all these By which it is plaine you onely looke to say somewhat but care not what 16. After this Cardinal you bring Bishop Fisher whom you might better haue called Cardinal Fisher then some others whom in this booke you call Cardinals For he was created Cardinal indeede though hee had the happines to receiue the Lawrel and purple Robes of Martyrdome in heauen before he could come to receiue the honour of his capp and Scarlet robes of his Cardinalship heere on earth But you say out of him that there bee noe words written whereby it may be proued that in the Masse is made the very presence of the body bloud of Christ You cite him in English and though in the margent you put the Latine a little more truly whereas you say in the English in the Masse the Latine is in nostra Missa in our Masse wherein you shall find some difference in this place yet you putt the whole sentence soe lamely that a man would thinke the Bishop by your citing him to be quite of another mind then hee is For you would make one thinke he did not beleeue the real presence could bee proued out of scripture Io. Roffen cont captiu Babylo c. 4. Whereas the 4. Chapter of the Booke heere cited is wholy imployed in proofe thereof against Luther out of the very words hoc est corpus meum this is my body by which hee destroyeth Lutheran companation and consequently establisheth our transubstantiation and teacheth plainely both there and throughout this whole booke that Christ himselfe did change the bread into his owne body and this out of the very words of scripture but in this 10. chapter which you cite he proueth that the true sēse of the
Ghospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of the Church then the bare words of scripture and proueth it by this that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and vse of the Church noe man can be able to proue that any Priest now in these tymes doth consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Masse that is Masse in these tymes Not saith hee that this matter is now doubtfull but that the certainty thereof is had not soe much out of the words of the Ghospel as of the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of soe long tyme which they haue left to posterity For saith hee againe though Christ of bread made his body and of wine his bloud it doth not follow by force of any woord there sett downe that wee as often as wee shal attempt any such thing shall doe it which vnlesse it bee soe said we cannot hee certaine thereof These are his very words where you see how together he deliuereth two points of Catholique doctrine the one of the real presence the other of tradition for vnderstanding of the Scriptures Neither doth he say that the reall presence in our Masse now a dayes is not proued out of Scripture but not out of it alone without the interpretatioÌ„ of the Fathers which wee acknowledge generally necessary in the exposition of Scriptures neither doe you therefore rightly argue the real presence is not proued soe much out of the bare words of Scripture as out of the interpretation of Fathers and Tradition of the Church ergo not out of scripture This I say is an idle argument For the Father's interpretation Tradition of the Church Doth but deliuer vs the sense of the Scripture 17. What then haue you heere out of Bishop Fisher to proue any of your 4. points not one word For if his words did proue any thing they should proue against the real presence not against transubstantiation which is your coÌ„trouersy And for those other words which you bring out of this same holy Bishop and Martyr for a conclusion thus non potest igitur per vllam Scripturam probari it cannot bee proued by any scripture they discouer your dishonesty most of all For by breaking of the sentence there you would make your Reader beleeue they had relation to the words next before by you cited as if the Bishop did say that it could not bee proued by any scripture that Christ is really present in our Masse whereas there is a whole leafe betweene these two places but the onely bare recital of the Bishops words shall serue for a coÌ„futation which are these Non potest igitur per vllam ScripturaÌ„ probari quod aut Laicus aut Sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguineÌ„ atque Christus ipse confecit quum necâ—stud in scripturis contineatur It cannot therefore bee proued by any Scripture that either Lay man or Priest as often as hee shall goe about that busynes shall in like manner of bread and wine make the body and bloud of Christ as Christ himselfe did seeing that neither that is contained in Scriptures By which it is plaine that his drift is onely to proue that there is noe expresse words in scripture whereby it is promised that either Priest or Lay man shall haue power to coÌ„secrate that though Christ did himself coÌ„secrate coÌ„manded his Apostles soe to doe in remeÌ„brance of him that yet he did not adde any expresse promise that the same effect should alwaies follow wheÌ„soeuer any man should offer to consecrate Which is not against vs. For we gather that power to pertaine to the Apostles Successors in Priesthood out of the words Concil Trid. Sess 22. q. 1. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem not barely but as they haue beene euer vnderstood by the Church which is so farre from being against vs that wee might rather vrge it against you vpon the same occasion that Bishop Fisher doth to wit for proofe of the necessity of traditions and authority of the Church for vnderstanding of scriptures And soe by this it is manifest how much you haue abused this holy Bishop's meaning as you doe other two Bishops that follow 18. The one is Gul. Durandus Bishop of Maunde out of whom it seemeth you would proue the words This is my body not to bee of the essence of this Sacrament For what els you would haue with him I see not but specially because hauing cited him thus in English Christ blessed the bread by his heauenly benediction and by vertue of that word the bread was turned vnto the substance of Christ's body Then you putt these words in Latine tunc confecit cum benedixit them he made it when hee blessed it Whereby you seeme to put the force of this testimony in those words as if by them you would proue out of Durandus that Christ did not consecrate by the words this is my body but by that blessing But Durand himself shall disproue you Sir Knight For thus he saith Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua conuertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM He blessed it by the heauenly blessing and power of the word by which the bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ Durand rat cap. 41. n. 14. to wit THIS IS MY BODY Hoc est corpus meum Which last words I would gladly know Sir Humphrey why you cut of but I neede not aske for any man may see it was because you would not haue that powerful benediction whereof this authors speaketh to consist in those sacred words but Durand both in this very senteÌ„ce and often in the same place attributeth most plainely that power to those very words not to any other blessing as may appeare in that he saith that wee doe blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis By that power which Christ hath giuen to the words 19. Odo Caemeracensis is the other Bishop that followeth whom for the same purpose you cite and as much to the purpose his words are these as you bring them Christ blessed the bread and then made that his body which was first bread and soe by blessing it became flesh for otherwise hee would not haue said after he had blessed it this is my body vnlesse by blessing it he had made it his body Which words you putt in the margent in Latine imperfectly and translate euen them corruptly Benedixit suum corpus You translate Christ blessed bread qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro which in true English is thus That which was bread before by blessing is made flesh You translate otherwise as may appeare by your words though I see not to what end you should soe
you must doe before your communion Annotat. after the order of administringe the communion neyther will it serue the turne to haue one or two to beare the Minister company but there must bee a competent number for example saith your booke if the Parish consist of 20. persons there must be 3. or 4. at least otherwise the Minister must not communion it And by this rule a man may say proportionably if the parish haue twenty hundred or 20000. there should be 3. or 4. thousand to communicate at once And if a sicke body would receiue he may not receiue alone but hee must haue some body to beare him company and not onely one or two but many or a competent number as your booke saith which therefore is to bee considered according to the number of Parishioners This and much more may bee said of the prettines of your seruice and good fellow communion but heere is enough of such an idle subiect and soe hauing answeared your third Paragraph of priuate Masse as you call it I come to the 4. PARAGRAPH 4. OF THE SEAVEN Sacraments 1. In this 4. paragraph which is of our Seauen Sacraments the Knight hoyseth vpp all the sailes of his eloquence and putteth to all the force of his witt as if both by wind and oare he would goe quite beyond vs in this point of our faith wherein for that cause he doth enlarge himself beyond the ordinary measure of his paragraphs and filleth his margents with citations of Fathers and of Schoolemen laying first for a foundation a wise discourse of his owne Which I will alsoe beginne with without longer prefacing with him He setteth downe first the Canon of the Councel of Trent accursing whosoeuer shall say the Seauen Sacraments of the new Law were not instituted by Christ Sess 7. caâ— 1. de Sacr. in gen or that there bee more or fewer then Seauen or that any of them is not properly and truely a Sacrament Which decree saith Bellarmine ought to suffice though we had noe other For if we take away the authority of the present Church and present Councell the decrees of all other Councels and the whole Christian Faith may be brought into doubt Which canon of the Councell and authority of Bellarmine he cryeth out against and saith it is a foundation of Atheisme for in his iudgment the word of Christ alone is sufficient for all Christians which hee proueth by those words of S. Paul I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsel of God Act. 20. And that wee may know he speaketh of the written Word he bringeth Bellarmines authority saying that those things are written which were by the Apostles preached generally to all And hee is soe confident against this point of the Seuen Sacraments that hee is content the curse shall light vpon him if any learned man shall shew it out of any Father of the Primitiue Church or any knowen author for about a thousand yeares after Christ This is his beginning whereat I will make a stay and answeare not to take too much at once Hee thinketh it then a foundation of Atheisme to say that if wee take away the authority of the present Church and present Councel wee may call in question the whole Christian Faith And why soe good Sir Humphrey What Atheisme is it to say that there is one Faith that that Faith is to bee found onely in the Church that that Church cannot fayle or erre at any time and consequently that that Faith which it teacheth cannot faile or erre and especially that then the Church can least erre when it is gathered together in a General Councel and defineth matters of Faith with approbation of the Supreme Pastor of God's church and that if such a Councel may erre the Church may erre that if the Church may erre the Faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently that there can bee noe certainty is this the way to Atheisme to teach that there must be some certaine meanes to learne true faith and beleife in God and that if there bee none such there can bee noe certainty would a man thinke that it should euer enter into any man's mind to say that the affirming of this infallibility were the way to Atheisme Whereas the denyall thereof is the most direct way that can be imagined vnto Atheisme For take this infallibility away and there is noe rule of faith if noe rule noe faith if noe faith noe right beleife in God which is the height of Atheisme 2. But because you Sir Humphrey are not capable of this Discourse as euident and demonstratiue as it is I will goe about with you another way I would know of you whither if wee should take away the holy Scripture or written word it would not follow in you iudgment that the whole Christian faith might bee called in question I say in your iudgment for whether it would or would not in myne I doe not say any thing heere certainely it would For some rule men must haue and that is your onely rule Now againe doe not you know that S. Gregory the great did often say write that he did hold the fower first Councels in the same honour that he did the 4. Ghospels which was the same as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Ghospels Why may it not then follow that vpon deniall of the authority of those 4. Councels the authority of the ChristiaÌ„ faith may be shaken as well as by deniall of the Ghospell V. Bâ—ll lib. 2. de Concil cap. 3. and this which I say of S. Gregory I may say of many other Fathers in reguard of all or some of those 4. Councels and particularly of that of Nice which whosoeuer should haue denyed was noe lesse to haue bene counted an Haeretique then if he should haue denied the Ghospell 1. Eliz 1. you your selues in your Parliament Lawes giue great authority to those 4. first Councels euen as much if you vnderstand your selues well speake consequently as S. Gregory doth for you are coÌ„teÌ„t to acknowledge for heresy whatsoeuer is condemned for such by any of them Which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith coÌ„sequently of infallible authority you ioyne theÌ„ in the same ranke with the canonical Scriptures You giue also the like authority to other general Councels but with this lymitatioÌ„ that these later must haue expresse scripture whereby to coÌ„demne a thing for heresy but which is most of all to bee noted in the same statute you giue power to the Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Conuocation to adiudge or determine a matter to bee heresy Which is the very same as to giue it power to declare faith or to bee a rule thereof which if it may agree to such an assembly or Court of a temporal Prince and Kingdome I see not why it may not agree to a
General Councel as being the Parliament of Christ his Church to which he hath promised his speciall assistance But this is by the way 3. Now out of this authority which you graÌ„t to those ancient Councels I goe a little farther with you and aske what you can say more against the present Church and present Councel of Trent then against the Church of that tyme Councels of those tymes whatsoeuer you can say of the Church now that it may erre may as wel be said of the Church of that tyme. For our Sauiour's promise for the perpetuity infallibility thereof is as much for one tyme as another for our tyme now as for those then What you say now of the Councel of Trent that it is disclaymed by a great part of the ChristiaÌ„ world may be said much more of the Councel of Nice which was gaine said both by more other maÌ„ner of men then the Councel of Trent the same may bee also said of some of the rest soe forth of any thing els that you can obiect Wherefore to conclude if it were not atheisme to say then that by questioning the authority of the Nicene Decrees the authority of the whole Christian faith might bee questioned I see not why it should bee Atheisme to say the same of the Councel of Trent But you thinke it is Atheisme to deny the Scriptures alone to be sufficient For that is the sense of your inference But it is farre otherwise For all Catholiques say they are not soe and yet they beleeue that there is a God and honour and worshipp him as their God But this of the alone sufficiency of Scriptures is a seuerall matter of it selfe Onely for your place of S. Paul it is plaine you peruert it For he speaketh not of the written word but of the doctrine of Christ by him preached as is manifest by his owne very words there Which are these Act. 20.20 Vos scitis quomodo nihil subtraxerim vtilium quominus annunciarem vobis docerem vos publice per domos testificans c. You know how I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable but that I preached it vnto you and taught you openly and from howse to howse testifying to Iewes and Gentils penance towards God and faith in our Lord IESVS CHRIST For neyther had S. Paul then writteÌ„ his Epistle to the Ephesians to whom he there spoke For he wrote it out of prison from Rome and euen the second tyme of his imprisonment which was many yeares after this speach Whereas at the tyme of this speach he was but going to HierusaleÌ„ where being takeÌ„ after some tyme of imprisonmeÌ„t hee was sent to Rome And you might as wel haue aleadged those words of our Sauiour to his Disciples All that I haue heard froÌ„ my Father I haue made knowne to you Io. 15.15 As these of S. Paul and yet is well knowne our Sauiour did not deliuer any one word in writing to his Apostles Neither doth Bellarmines saying helpe you any thing for though those things which are necessary for all in generall to know which are but few be written there bee yet many more not written which are necessary to bee knowne by some in the Church though not by all Now for the curse which you are content shall light ypon you if wee shew the number of Seauen Sacraments to haue beene the beleife of the Church for a thousand yeares after Christ bee not too forward to draw malediction vpon your self it will come fast enough to your cost It is an heauier thing then you are aware of to haue the curse of a Mother and such a Mother as the Church which doth not curse without cause nor out of passion For as the Scripture saith Maledictio Matris eradicat fundamenta Eccle. 3.11 The malediction of a Mother doth roote out the foundatioÌ„s 4. Hauing thus praefaced against the authority of the Councel of Trent you come neerer to the matter giuing vs a new definition of a Sacrament to wit that it is a seale witnessing to our consciences that God's promises are true For as you say God by his word declareth his mercie and sealeth and assureth it by his Sacraments and in the word we heare his promises in the Sacraments we see them Out of which you inferre Baptisme and the Lord's Supper to bee proper Sacraments because in them the element is ioyned to the word and they take their ordinance from Christ are visible signes of an inuisible sauing grace In which words is contained another farre different definition of a Sacrament hauing noe manner of connexion or dependence vpon the former Out of which againe you inferre that the other 5. beside Baptisme and the Eucharist are noe Sacrements not CoÌ„firmation because it was not instituted by Christ not Pennance Order because they haue noe outward element not Matrimony because it was before Christ's tyme and is common to Turks and infidells neither doe you see forsoothe how it can be a holy thing and yet forbidden as it is to Priests And from this you tell vs that if the curse of the Councel take place then Woe to all the ancient Fathers of whom you name these following Ambrose Austin Chrysostome Bede Isidore Alexander of Hales Cyprian Durand and Bessarion This is your discourse 5. To which I answeare That for your formet definition it is a senselesse one without ground in any father Lib. 1. de Sâ—tâ—r in gen cap. 14. 16. or other author but onely Kemnitius and Caluin and which is largely refuted and proued most absurd by Bellarmine to whom I remit you For how can the Sacraments be seales or giue vs aâ—â—urance of his words when all the assurance wee haue of the Sacraments is his word this is idem per idem Besides what promises are these that are sealed or if they bee seales what neede we more seales or Sacraments then one or if there may bee more why not seauen as well as two Againe how doe we see the promises of God in the Sacraments when a man hath receiued the Sacrament of Baptisme what other assurance hath hee that his sinnes are forgiuen or that he is the Child of God and heyre of his kingdome then the word of God promising that vertue to the Sacrament or how can any man see by the SacrameÌ„t that he is soe these are but foolish fancies bredd in haeretical braines and soe to be contemned For your other definition it is not much better being Melancthons Vbi supra related and refuted by Bellarm. which therefore I leaue and answeare onely that which you say that two Sacraments haue the word and element and ordinance of Christ The other 5. not For Confirmation and Extreame Vnction you cannot deny the element and word to wit oile and the forme but you deny the ordinance of Christ For proofe of which and other particulars it wil be too long to stand vpon it
se in scholae disceptationem incidisse Nec oportere CatholicuÌ„ ad eoruÌ„ argumenta respondere Sin vero argumententur matrimonium cum sacris caeremonijs cum sacra materia cum sacra forma a sacro Ministro administratum quemad modum in ecclesia Romana semper vsque ab Apostolis administratum est si hoc inquam argumententur Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter animose defendat secure contra pugnet Whither our opinion that is his owne be true or false I stand not If the Lutherans will dispute of this kind of Marriages let theÌ„ know they fall vpon a schoole disputation and that a Catholique is not to answeare to their arguments But if they argue that Marriage administred with sacred caeremonies sacred matter sacred forme by a sacred Minister as it hath euer beene administred in the Romane church euen from the Apostles tyme if I say they argue that this is not a SacrameÌ„t of the Church then lett a Catholique answeare confidently let him defend stoutly let him gaine say securely Soe hee 26. Now Sir knight with what face could you alleadge Canus against Matrimony and that for a coÌ„clusion as you say though I say noe for you haue reserued yet a farr lowder lye to conclude with all Which is concerning Vazquez whom heere you honour with an epithet calling him Our learned Iesuit You say then he knew well that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church and then you say he makes a profession to his Disciples that hauing read considered S. Aug he found that when he called it a Sacrament he spake not of a Sacrament in a proper sense that therefore he doth not alleadge S. Aug. his authority against the Haeretiques in this controuersy this you say heere whereto I will putt your marginall note which you haue pag. 145. which hath relation to this place it is this Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacrament properly Now to seuer the true from the false Vazquez indeede saith that S. Aug. speaking of Matrimony doth vse the word Sacrament but in a large sense This is true but it is but Vazquez his priuate and singular opinion not in a point of faith nor any thing neere it but onely of the meaning of one Father in the vse of a word which if it be taken in such a sense is a good proofe for a point of Doctrine if not it is noe proofe against it but there may be other proofes in the same Fathers and other Fathers may hane that very word in in the proper sense But euen this opinion of Vazquez concerning this word of S. Aug. is contradicted by all other Catholique Diuines Bell lib. 1. de Matr. cap. â—â— and Bellar. particularly by diuers good reasons sheweth S. Aug. to vse this word properly when he speaketh of Matrimony This is all that is true in your saying of Vazquez 27. Now I come to the false first asking you a question if Vazquez say Matrimony is noe Sacrament as your marginal note which I spake of before saith I would know what controuersy that is that Vazquez saith hee hath with Haeretiques and for proofe whereof he doth not bring S. Aug his authority of the word Sacrament because in his iudgment it is not effectual what thinke you Sir Humphrey is it not of Matrimony and what controuersy is it but whither Matrimony be properly a Sacrament or noe Which Haeretiques deny and Vazquez affirmes els he can haue noe controuersy with them about it See Sir Humphrey how you looke about you for in this very place and words which you bring to shew Vazquez for you he shewes himselfe against you besides Sir Humphrey looke againe in Vazquez to 4. in 3. p. and soe whether he haue not one whole disputation expresly for the proofe of Matrimony calling it a Sacrament truely and properly prouing it by the definition of the Church and by the authority of other Fathers though he forbeare to vse the authority of S. Augustine for the reason a fore said reprouing Durand's error for saying that it was not a SacrameÌ„t vniuocally with the rest Nay his expresse conclusion concerning the same is this Vazque de Matr. disp 2. cap. 3. Matrimonium est Sacramentum non solum latiori significatione pront est signum coniunctionis Christi ecclesiae fed presse propriè prout est signum gratiae sanctificantis suscipientes sicut reliqua sex Matrimony is a Sacrament not onely in a larger signification as it is a signe of the coniunction of Christ and the Church but precisely properly as it is a signe of grace sanctifying the receiuers as the other six And because you tell vs that he knew well that neyther ancient nor moderne Diuines did conclude it for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church I will add his other words in the same chapter which are these De Sacramento in hac significatione semper hucusque loquuti sumtis Scholastici loquuti sunt c. quam veritatem Graeci semper crediderunt nunc etiam credunt And of a Sacrament in this signification allwayes hitherto we haue spoken and other Diuines haue spoken which truth the Graecians haue euer beleeued still beleeue So as not himself onely but other Diuines also euen the Greeks or Greeke Church not onely doe beleeue and speake but haue beleeued and spoken of Matrimony's being a Sacrament in the proper and strict sense Which considered what intolerable impudency is it in you to tell vs that Vazque should say that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament it were not to be beleeued of any man but that we see it And with this I was thinking to end this § Thereby to leaue a good rellish in the Reader 's mind of your honest and faithfull dealing The rest being nothing but such foolish stuffe as you are wont to talke without rime or reason but onely that there occurred a place of Bellarmine which you abuse soe strangely as that I could not passe it ouer without noting It is thus 26. You say touching your two Sacraments they are knowne and certaine because they were primarily ordained by Christ touching the other fiue they had not that immediat institution from Christ Wherevpon say you the learned Card. noting Bellarmine in the margent is forced to confesse The sacred things which the Sacraments of the new Law signify are threefold the grace of iustification the passion of Christ and aeternall life Touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most euident concerning the other fiue it is not soe certaine Soe say you where in a few lines you haue soe much falshood soe patched vp together that a man knoweth not well what to begin with But to begin you say your two Sacraments are knowne and certaine you meane knowne and certaine that
seuerall places you offend in another kind For whereas the Councel saith that though Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrament in both kinds and soe giue it to his Apostles you leaue out that of the last supper and that of the Apostles both which were putt downe there for very good reasons and to our purpose That determining of the tyme of the last supper leaueth it free for vs to thinke that Christ might at some other tyme after his resurrection communicate some of his Disciples in one kind as some Fathers thinke he did his two Disciples at Emmaus or at least thereby did foreshew the lawfulnes of Communion in one kind as Suarez sheweth out of S. Aug. and others Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 71 sect 1. That word of the Apostles is likewise put downe to shew that that particular fact of Christ and command did pertaine onely to the Apostles who were then ordained Priests and in them to such as should succeede them in that office whereas you by leauing out that word would faine haue it seeme as if that of both kinds did pertaine to all Thus much then for the Councel of Trent 7. Now lett vs heare what you say against this Communion in one kind First obseruing your strange folly in saying that one that shall heare two Councels one accursing another condemning for Haeretiques such as shall deny the lawfulnes of one kind would gladly know the reasons whereas you your self note in the margent a treatise of Gersons against the haeresy of the Lay communion in both kinds acknowledging that he shewes the causes For if he shew cause why doe you call for 〈◊〉 as if there were none giuen if he doe not why doe you say he doth But to lett that passe with the rest of your non sequiturs You bring the two places of scripture before cited Drinke yee all of this and doe this in remembrance of mee Which places you may see answeared in Bellarmine with all the enforcement and vrging that Luther Caluin Kemnitius Melancthon Bell. de Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. Brentius and all the rable of them can bring The answeare in a word is this that the former words were spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests as appeareth more plainely by S. Marke who sheweth all which our Sauiour meant of Mar. 14.23 when he said Drink yee all of this For saith S. Marke and they did drinke all thereof The later words import onely the distribution in one kind being spoken as appeareth by S. Luke immediatly after the consecration of the bread Luc. 22 19. before the consecration of the Chalice And though they should haue beene spoken after both How will you proue to which action of our Sauiours for he did more then one at that tyme that pronowne Hoc had relation or which it did demonstrate The sense therefore and explication thereof is to be taken from the Fathers and Church who vnderstand noe such precept in those words as is the giuing of both kinds 8. Another argument of yours is the practise of the Primitiue Church for which you bring ten or eleuen authors which needed nâ—t For we would haue granted you that without all that labour but what proueâ—â— out that that all must doe soe now You must first proue it a practize grounded vpon some diuine praecept indispensable or els it followeth not but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practize in the vse and administration of the Sacraments as it was to change the Sabboth into the Sunday though the obseruing of the Sabboth were a diuine praecept Nay you must proue that it was general soe as none did or might doe otherwise but that you caÌ„not doe For Bellarmine euen in the place heere cited by you teacheth that euen then all did not receiue in both kinds and heere by the way I note two things One is that whereas Bell. in the place heere cited saith he proued before that all did not receiue in both kinds that of the prouing you leaue out putteing a little line which might giue a man some notice of something wanting which yet is a litle better dealing then commonly you vse though not soe good as you promised vs at first Another that whereas Bell. bringeth six maine reasons deduced out of scriptures partly out of the figures of the old testament and partly out of the doctrine and examples of our Sauiour and his Apostles in the new and in one of those reasons which is deduced out of the practize of the Primitiue Church he bringeth six seueral rites or practices which our aduersaryes cannot deny euidently conuincing the frequent vse of one kind you in your 7. Sect. heere before bring but one coniectural place which I there promised to answeare as if Bellarmine had noe more nor noe better proofs euen which coniecture you neither doe nor can impugne For it is grounded vpon two places of scripture thus Bellarmine saith it is a probable coniecture that the Nazarites among the first Christians in Hierusalem did communicate in one kind Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. He proueth it thus one scripture saith of these first Christians in Hierusalem that they were all perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles and breaking of bread which is the receiuing of the Eucharist as all agree Among these there were many Nazarites as it is most probable for there were many continually among the Iewes Which being soe there was another scripture that did forbid a Nazarite to drinke wine or euen eate a grape raisin or soe much as the stone it was not like then that they did receiue in both kinds For either they must make the former scripture false if they did not communicate at all or they must breake the command of the later by communicating in both kinds This Bellarmine doth not say is a conuincing proofe for such he hath a great many others but onely probable and such noe man can deny it to bee Why then should you stand geering at it without once saying what is false or improbable 9. Touching the rest of your authors which you bring for proofe that it was the common practise of the Primitiue church for the Layty to communicate in both kinds I allow of their authority they affirming onely that it was the practise not any command But for as much as you bring one authority to proue the more conueniency of Communion in both kinds quite contrary to the author's meaning I meane heere to haue a saying vnto you for it this author is Ruardus Tapperus whom you cite thus It were more conuenient the communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone for this were more agreeable to the institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and the Fathers of the Primitiue church Râ—ar Tapp 〈◊〉 15. the Latine being thus habito respectu ad Sacramentum eiusque perfectionem magis
way would you thinke they made you a material God Philo's authority then is not to the purpose 7. For the Iewes now adayes who Sir Edwin Sands saith are auerted from the Christian faith by hauing the Crucifix shewed vnto them I answeare it is noe wonder they that cannot endure Christ how should they endure his crosse S. Paul preached Christ crucified though he were a scandal or stumbling blocke to their ancestours and must we leaue to preach him though their children stumble at the same blocke noe Sir Humphrey we must not cease to preach Christ nor can we preach him without his crosse They goe both together noe man can loue him and hate his crosse nor hate his crosse and loue him Wherefore you in alleadging their hate of the Crosse as an argument why you should also hate the same you tacitely confesse you loue Christ as well as they doe 8. But now for your conclusion which you inferre heerevpon that it is agreed vpon on all sides that the Iewes in the old law for 4000. yeares neuer allowed adoration of images and this say you was concerning the Images of God the Father I see not what premisses you inferre it vpon nor who agreeth with you in it you name fower authours one Catholique one Iew one Magician one Protestant the Protestant to wit Sir Edwin Sands speaketh not of any picture of God the Father as you say you meane but of the Crucifix or image of Christ vpon the crosse the Magician to wit Cornelius Agrippa saith the Iewes did abhorr images but he is noe man to build vpon be it true or false which he saith all is one coming out of such a fellowes mouth The Iew to wit Philo saith that the invisible God is not painted which we graunt as I said before according to his owne nature The Catholique indeede to wit Vazq saith that Images in state of adoration were altogether forbidden but yet granteth the adoration of other things of the same kind as the arke and temple neither doth his opinion auaile you for euen according to it you must confesse that the example of the Iewes in that is noe President for our tymes but besides others say adoration of images was somewhat allowed euen then and they proue their saying by the example of the Cherubins in the Temple which were adored how then is it agreed vpon on both sides but much more I may aske how you come to say the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of images for almost 4000. yeares when as the people of the Iewes were not such a people aboue 2000. yeares V. Bell. in chronolog Moyses liued about the yeare 2403. Christ was borne anno mundi 3984 nay Moyses liued not past 1500. before our Sauiour soe that of your owne liberality and skill in chronology you haue added 2500. yeares to make your doctrine seeme ancient Lastly you doe not marke your owne impertinency and contradiction in all this which you haue said Your contradiction in that you say that this which you haue said is concerning the images of God the Father whereas your authorityes are to the contrary to wit of other images your impertinency in that you stand bringing these things against the Decree of the Councel of Trent which speaketh not of God the Father his pictures but onely of Christ and his Saints pictures against which they make nothing 8. But bethinking your self a little after you say you will descend to see what order was taken by Christ and his Apostles in the new Testament for representation of him and his Saints and all the order that you find taken or that you your self take is to say that this law of the old Testament was moral which though Vazq and other Diuines contradict yet you say Bellarmine is of that opinion Well be it soe let it be moral as you would haue it what are you the better Doth Christ or his Apostles say soe or is this the order that they haue taken if it bee not you are neuer the neerer For it is but a matter of opinion betweene Diuines in the Catholique Church farr from any such authority as you promise By which a man would haue expected some euident cleare place either of the Ghospel or Apostolical writings to proue that Images were not to be adored at all or noe more then in the old law of the Iewes But whereas this was to be expected at your hands you put vs vpon it to bring some example or precept out of the Ghospell for adoration of images but we say that needeth not for as in the old law notwithstanding that command bee it moral or caeremonial men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple the arke in the Temple and the Temple it selfe soe may wee much more in the new adore the pictures of Christ and Saints and this is enough without any new precept or example 9. Moreouer we are not to be vrged to this considering wee teach many things out of vnwritten traditions and therefore there may be some precept and example both of our Sauiour and his Apostles Io. 20.30 21.25 though not written in Scripture because as S. Iohn saith all is not written or rather a very small part is written as his words import Thirdly we say we haue the example of our Sauiour and his Apostles testified both by good authentical histories and the perpetual practize of the Church against which it is insolent madnes to dispute as S. Aug. saith Many great and graue authours make mention of 3. seueral images made miraculously by our B. Sauiour himselfe V. Durant de rit lib. 1. cap 5. Euseb Eua. Procop. Adr. 1. Damasc Const Porphyragenitus â—onar Nicep Pho. Niceph. Call one was that which he sent to Abgarus king of Edessa who had desired to see him which request of his our Sauiour did in some sort satisfy by sending him his picture another was that of Veronica which he made with wiping his face as he was carrying his Crosse and gaue to that deuout woman that tooke soe much pitty of him as to giue him a handkerchife at that tyme to wipe his face all bedewed with bloud and sweate A third was one which Nicodemus gaue to Gamaliel all which are testified not onely by graue and learned authours but I may say euen by God himselfe though not inscripture yet by great and wonderful miracles whereof there can be noe doubt in reguard both of the number and credit of the authours which report them Wee haue the example alsoe of S. Lukes painting our B. Lady which very pictures are kept to this day and authorized likewise by God himself by many and wonderfull miracles Which though you perhapps may make your selfe merry withall with your Ministers yet I hope the iudicious Reader will more reguard the authority of the lest of these authours who are not in number soe few as 20. I meane for ancient authours then the impious scornes of a hundred such yesterday people as
you and they are 10. As for that which you say out of Mr. Fisher that though there bee noe expresse practice or praecept of worshipping the image of Christ yet there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawfull it is as well and truely said by him as that is falsely foolishly impertinently which you say therevpon that from the law of God and grace we are come to the law of nature and to declare an article of faith by the light thereof Mr. Fisher saith the light of nature sheweth it to be lawfull which is true you say he declareth it an article of faith from the light of nature which is false there is great difference betweene those two to be lawful and to be an article of faith the light of nature may reach to shew a thing to be lawfull but not to make an article of faith for that must be grounded vpon the supernatural light of diuine reuelation which is farr aboue the natural light of humane reason though by your fauour Sir Knight as scornefully as you speake of the light of nature it haue somewhat more to doe also in matters of faith then you are aware of For out of one premisse reuealed and another euident by the light of nature there may be drawne a conclusion of faith or at least such as may sufficiently ground a definition of a Councel and practize of the Church and likewise the light of nature hath place also in all the mysteries of our faith in some shewing the reasons or congruences in all shewing that there is noe falshood or impossibility And the light of nature is the guift and law alsoe of God Why then should you speake soe contemptibly of it but onely that you want it in great part and consequently know not the worth thereof 11. But it is strange heere to see how though you cannot find in your hart to allow the light of nature alleadged for adoration of images you can alleadge it against them but euen as wisely as you deny it for them You say Varro an heathen Philosopher by the instinct of nature professed the contrary by saying the Gods are better serued without images The Latine is castius Dij obseruantur sine simulachris Aug. 4. de Ciuit. ca. 31. Which saying you tell vs S. Aug. comendeth and soe he doth indeede but vnderstandeth him farr otherwise then you doe For he doth take Simulachrum not for an image as you doe falsely but for an idol as it is indeede and soe commendeth Varro for coming neerer to the knowledge of the true God and going farther from idolatry in that he neither acknowledgeth any Deity in those material idols nor that multiplicity of Gods but rather alloweth the opinion of them that held that God was the soule of the world which though it were also an errour in him yet S. Augustine saith it cometh neerer to truth in that it teacheth but one God and him not a material or corporal but a spiritual and invisible substance for proof whereof Varro alleadgeth that for aboue an hundred yeares the Romanes had worshipped their Gods without those material idols which whosoeuer brought in saith hee did take a way the feare and added or increased the error he meaneth that they that brought in those idols tooke away all feare of the Gods because men seeing those idols proposed for Gods contemned them and this is that which he saith castiùs dij obseruantur sine simulachris The Gods are more chastly or purely obserued or feared without those idols Now what is this against vs. doe not we say the same thing much more amply and more fully I see not then why you should bring it vnlesse it were to vsher in a thing which you haue out of Eusebius to giue the reason as you say why these Fathers condemned the worshippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters in these words Because saith Eusebius the men of old of an heathenish custome were wont after that manner to honour such as they counted Sauiours Wherevppon you say that after images had gott footing among Christians the Bishops and Emperours by Councels and commands tooke special care to preuent both the making and worshipping them and thereto you bring a Canon of the Councel of Eliberis that noe pictures should be in Churches least that which was worshipped should bee painted on the walls And an authority out of the Ciuill law of a Decree made against adoration of images which I shall cite when I come to answeare it This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Wherein you haue giuen soe sufficient testimony of notorious bad dealing especially in the 2. places of Eusebius and of the Ciuill law that if there were nothing els falsified or corrupted in your whole booke this were enough vtterly to deface all memory of you from among honest men 12. The matter is this hauing brought onely S. Aug commending Varro his saying against Idolls you say in the plural number these Fathers as if you had brought some great number of Fathers and withall you say these Fathers condemned the worhippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters what words haue you brought out of any father one or other to this purpose from the very beginning of this § either condemning the woship of images in vs Christians or calling vs Haeretiques or idolaters for it how then can you haue the face to say it soe boldly but we must not aske you reason for any thing you say but take it as you say it Well you tell vs Eusebius giueth the reason why the Fathers condemned vs for Haeretiques and idolaters which importeth that Eusebius concurreth with those Fathers in iudgment whose fact he giues a reason for But what if Eusebius doe not condemne it can you desire to be counted an honest man I presume you cannot Well let vs then see whether he doe soe or not Making mention of the Citty of Caesarea Philippi by occasion thereof he relateth a story of the Woman which was cured by touching the hemme of our Sauiours garment Eus. hist lib. 7. cap. 14. and how coming home after her cure to Caesarea Philippi where she liued she made her selfe a brazen statua sett vpon a high stone before her owne doore as if she were kneeling vpon her knees and holding vp her hands like one praying and looking towards another statua of a man standing straight vpp with long garments downe to the foote stretching out his hād to the Woman which statua the people said was the Statua of IESVS Vpon the very basis or foote of this statua they said there grew a certaine strange and vnvsual kinde of herbe which as soone as it grew vpp soe high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment it had vertue to cure diseases of euery kind Which statua Eusebius saith continued to his tyme and that he saw it himselfe Neither is it to be wondered saith hee going on with his discourse that
wind INDVLGENCES §. 8. 1. Wee are now come to the last § of this chapter which is Indulgences which you Sir Humphrey beginne after your wonted manner with the tenth article of our Creede as you call it and the Decree of the Councel of Trent teaching that Christ hath left that power of granting Indulgences in his Church and that the Church hath vsed the same from most ancient tymes and that therefore they are to be retained in the Church condemning also whosoeuer shall terme them vnprofitable or deny authority in the Church to grant them Which doctrine you allow not of as not being agreable to Christ institution nor the practize of the primitiue Fathers You confesse indeede that in the Primitiue Church there was a power in the Bishops to remit or mitigate the seuerity of the punishment which by the Canons men were to vndergoe for certaine great crimes which mitigation you allow to haue beene called by the name of Indulgence and in that sense you take that relaxation of the incestuous Corithian by S Paul Thus farr you goe well with vs but now you say the Indulgence of the Roman Church is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ his Saints termed the treasure of the Church Which treasure you say is applyed to the soules in Purgatory and that which was formerly vsed for mitigation of punishment is now reduced to priuate satisfaction and that which was formerly left to the discretion of euery Bishop in his Diocesse is transferred wholy to the Pope and this not onely for some few yeares in this life but for many thousāds in Purgatory after death 2. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Which though you seeme to take to be a very good and substantiall one yet is it nothing soe For first it neither proueth any thing nor ouerthroweth our doctrine of Indulgences though that were true which you say of the difference betweene our Indulgence of these tymes and those of the primitiue Church for the vse of those tymes is not our onely ground for this point of doctrine but wee haue others both of scripture tradition vndoubted practice of the Church for aboue a thousand yeares at least and this of the practise of the Primitiue church in relaxation of the punishment of the poenitential canons is not vrged by vs at lest by some of our Diuines as an euidēt conuincing proofe but onely as coniectural and probable Suar. to 3. in 3. pars disp 49 sect 2. n. 4.5 s◠q. it is not then to the purpose for you to stand soe much vrging the difference betweene the Indulgences of our tymes and those of other former tymes as if by doeing that you had done all that was to be done 3. But besides to answeare Secondly you haue not done euen that for you doe but onely make shew as if you would haue men thinke they were different without shewing wherein the difference consisteth Nay euen out of that which you graunt of those ancient Indulgēces you may be disproued in what you deny of ours for to begin with the very word Indulgence you graunt it to haue beene in vse in those tymes But you say ours is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ Which though alleadged as a difference yet doe I not see wherein the difference is For theirs was an absolution because it was an vnloosing or vntying For whereas by the Canons for certaine great crimes men were bound or tyed to vndergoe such penance for example to fast with bread and water soe many dayes in a weeke for soe many moneths or yeares not to be admitted to the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Masse and the like By this indulgence or pardon which you grant they were vntied or loosed from soe much or soe little as by that pardon they were freed from and soe is it in our Indulgence wherefore the difference is not in the absolution which is nothing but loosing or vntying It can not be also in the guilt which must needs be remitted in your indulgēce as well as in ours For a man is not free soe long as he is guilty if then they were freed by that pardon the guilt was taken away thereby It is not likewise in the temporal punishmēt which is alike remitted in the one and other For it was temporal punishment or penance which men were freed from in those tymes by indulgence and soe it is temporal punishment which wee are now adayes freed from by our indulgence Wherefore I doe not vnderstand what you meane Sir Humphrey when you seeme to make a difference in this saying that Indulgences which were first vsed for mitigation of punishments are now reduced to priuate satisfactiōs For what were not those Indulgences giuen to priuate men for satisfaction or in lieu of that satisfaction which they were to make by the Canons and are not ours mitigation of the same vnlesse you put the force in this that there the punishment was onely mitigated or lessened that in our Indulgence all is taken away which yet is false on both sides for neither in ours is all the punishment taken alwayes away and in those sometymes all was taken away as we see by the example of the Corinthian whom S. Paul doth forgiue without limitation besids this I do not imagine what you cā meane in these words 4. The difference also is not in the authority or power whereby this pardon is graunted for then it was granted by the Bishops and soe it is also now For euery Bishop in the Catholique Church hath this power But you will say Humphrey not soe much now as then be it soe that is against your selfe for that is your complaint that it is more vsed now then in those tymes But you say againe the Pope hath more now then he had then and that all is transferred wholy to him To which I answeare that this later part is false all is not soe wholy transferred but that euery Bishop hath his part of this power ouer his owne subiects though with some limitation and though the Pope should take it wholy to himself and from other Bishops what is this against Indulgences doth it alter the nature of them because the Pope giueth them either more by himself or more liberally then he did heeretofore by others The power was in many before now it is in one that one then hath more power then he had before but is it not the same kind of power wherefore the difference cannot consist in this but thinke not Sir that I grant you the Popes power to be more now then at that tyme it was nor lesse then thē now it is It was the same of this power as of all other his power of binding loosing whereof this is one branch which did euer extend ouer the whole Church ouer all pastors and all and euery one of
most stronge argument of antiquity that it is the practise of the Catholique Church tyme out of mind and of consent that noe man is found to haue spoken against it but onely knowne Haeretiques such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 1 therefore you are still out of your bias when you thinke to proue the nouelty of our doctrine by our want of testimony of antiquity For though we haue such testimony for superaboundant proofe yet it is enough that such a thing is thaught and practized in Catholique Church without any memory when it beganne for that is S. Augustines rule continually to proue a thing not onely ancient but euen Apostolical 10. But now to come to your authours in particular you bring Durand in the first place saying that there can be little said of certainty concerning Indulgences ap Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 2. Whereto I answeare that it is true Durand doth not speake soe constantly and resolutely of the threasure of the Church in as much as it consisteth of the satisfaction of Saints whereon Indulgences are partly grounded but he is farr from any haeretical and pertinacious denial thereof much lesse of Indulgences for supposing them as a thing most certaine he disputeth Theological questions of them as other Diuines of his tyme did and making this the first question Dur. in 4. dist 20. q. 3. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae whether Indulgences auaile any thing after the manner of Schooles he putteth two arguments against them in the first place and then cometh with his argument Sed contra agreeing for the most part with his conclusion and agreeing expresly in this place he saith thus In contrarium est generalis consuetudo doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de poena peccatori debita On the contrary is the general custome and doctrine of the Church which would containe falshood if some thing of the punishment dew to a sinner should not be forgiuen by indulgences and then hauing sett downe his resolution that there cannot be much said of certaine because neither the Scripture maketh mention of them nor some holy Fathers whom he there nameth yet he concludeth that in speaking of Indulgences the common manner is to bee followed and soe goeth on with other questions per quem modum valeant ex qua causa vaeleant quis eas possit concedere in what māner they auaile out of what cause who cā graunt thē c. nay and for the treasure of the Church though by way of theological dispute in one place he make some doubt of it yet in others he speaketh plainely and clearely in these words Dur. 4. dist 20. q. 3. Est in ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spiritual Treasure of the Passion of Christ and the Saints who endured much greater torments then their sinnes deserued and therefore the Church may out of this treasure communicate to one or more what may bee sufficient to satisfy for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as shall please the Church to communicate this treasure more or lesse which are nothing els but the communication of the paine of Christ and the Saints to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherefore indulgences auaile by way of solucion or payment in as much as by Christ and his Saints the paine dew to vs is payd So farr this author most clearely truely Catholiquely though after againe he somewhat doubt of this treasure as I said before in as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of Saincts Now for the very place which you alleadge you committ a fault in making it seeme as if he said the ancient Fathers in general did not make any mention of Indulgences and that he did name S. Ambrose S. Hilar. S. Aug. and S. Hierome onely for examples sake whereas it is farr otherwise For presently after he nameth S. Greg. and saith of him that he did institute indulgences at the Stations in Rome Soe as it is plaine he spoke onely of those 4. not of all the Fathers in general And soe much for Durand 11. As for Alphōsus à Castro another of your authors he denieth not all testimony of Scripture as none of the rest doe but onely plaine expresse testimony and though he also confesse the vse of Indulgences not to haue beene soe much in those ancient tymes as since yet he alloweth of them soe farr as to condemne any man for an Haeretique that shall deny them these are his words Alph. a Castr de haeres lib. 8. verb. Indulgent Verum etsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione S. Scripturae testimonium apertum desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam ecclesiae Catholicae vsus a multis annorum centurijs tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur But though there want open testimony of Scripture for approbation of Indulgences they are not therefore to bee contemned because the vse of the Catholique church for many hundreds of yeares is of soe great authority that whosoeuer contemned the same is worthely esteemed an haeretique And againe in the same place Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum to wit indulgentiarum vsus vt ex Stationibus Romae frequentissimis vtrumque colligi potest Among the Romans this vse of Indulgences is said to be most ancient as may be somewhat gathered by the most frequent Statiōs at Rome Looke you Sir Humphrey what a witnesse you haue brought for your selfe Doe you not see how new he maketh this Doctrine of Indulgences Confessing euen the vse of them to be most ancient and of many hundred yeares standing nay doth he not in the same place acknowledge that S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name did graunt some Indulgences which is aboue a thousand yeares Doe you not heare how much he giueth to the Church acknowledging the practise thereof to bee of soe great authority that whosoeuer denyeth the truth of a thing soe practised is worthily to be counted an Haeretique What thinke you now of your selfe to be called haeretique out of your owne mouth as it were that is out of your author's mouth whom you bring for you For Castro his authority then though it had beene more for you then it is in this matter of Indulgences yet you had beene better haue let it alone then to haue it with such a condition The like a man may say of euery author you bring heere for the same purpose but that it is needlesse to stand soe long vpon examining euery one in particular 12. Now after such good authorityes as you bring against Indulgences you thinke you may with authority prate very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences and bringing money to his owne coffers by them but to that I neede make noe other answeare but that it is such
and yours Ministers 14. See Tert. de praescr cap. 21. Epiph. Chrisost Basil The particular testimonyes you may see in Bellarmine to whom I remitt you onely for S. Aug. I cannot omitt to make more particular mention of him in this place by reason of a certaine sentence which you haue brought in the end of this § as alsoe of euery one of the 6. Damascen alios ap Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. foregoing §§ still coÌ„cluding with this saying of that holy Father Siue de Christo fiue c. Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church or concerning any other thing that pertayneth to our faith I will not say we who are noe way to bee compared to him that said but if an Angel from heauen shall preach vnto you beside what you haue receiued in the legal and euangelical scriptures lett him be anathema And in the end of euery one for the most part adding the particular controuersy of that § as for example in this of Indulgences you say if wee or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you any thing concerning the faith of Indulgences besids that you haue receiued c. and soe in euery of the other particular points Whereby you would perswade your Reader that Saint Aug. would haue nothing beleiued but what can bee proued by expresse words of Scripture Wherein I appeale to your owne conscience as bad as it is whither this be not damnable dishonest dealing both towards S. Aug. and towards your Reader For if you haue read S. Aug. as you pretend how can you be ignorant how many points of faith he doth defend against seueral Haeretiques either onely or chiefly by the tradition and Practise of the Catholique Church De Bap. câ—nt Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7. lib. 5. cap. 23. as single Baptisme against the Donatists Consubstantiality of the sonne Diuinity of the Holy Ghost and euen vnbegottenesse of the Father the first person in Trinity against the Arrians and the Baptisme of Children against Pelagius to say nothing of prayer for the Dead Cont. Maxi. lib. 3. cap. 3. ep 174. de Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. De cura pro mortuis ep 118. Obseruation of the Feasts of Easter Ascension Whitsuntide and the like nay this truth was so grounded with him that he counted it most insoleÌ„t madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practize of the Catholique Church Which is of soe great authority with him as that he saith in one place that when we follow it we follow the truth of the Scriptures these are his words Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus c. Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 33. The truth of the Scripture is held by vs when we doe that which seemeth good to the whole Church which Church the authority of the Scriptures themselues doe commend that because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue whosoeuer is afraid to bee deceiued by the obscurity of this questioÌ„ may haue recourse to the Church the which the holy Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate vnto vs soe he there and that it may farther appeare that to deny this authority and practize of the Church is not onely to deny the authority of Scripture but euen of Christ himselfe I cannot heere omitt to note a place of the same Saint his booke de vnit ecclesiae Where hee treateth this very point very particularly and excellently soe as to take away all doubt of his opinion therein For heere he doth of purpose intend to shew that where plaine proofe of Scripture is wanting we must haue recourse to the Church prouing it thus by occasion of the question of rebaptization and supposing that there is noe proofe of Scripture either way Puto si aliquis sapiens c. I thinke saith hee if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony to wit Aug. de Vnit. eccles cap 22. of his wisedome and that he should be asked in this question we should not doubt to doe what he should say lest we should seeme to gainesay not him soe much as Christ by whose testimony hee was commended Now Christ beareth witnesse of his Church And a little after againe he saith that Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practize of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himself Who by his testimony commendeth the Church By which discourse and comparison any man may see that in S. Augustines iudgment the Churches word is warranted by Christ as much as if he should haue named any one man in particular whose words he would make good and whom consequently we should follow that by refusing or leauing him we should leaue Christ himself Soe as nothing can be more plaine and euident to declare this holy Fathers opinion in this point of the Churches authority in the beleife and practize euen of things not expressed in Scripture And this may sufficiently coÌ„uince you Sir Humphrey of malicious deceipt in alleadging that other place of this holy Father soe contrary to his meaning declared in soe many places and soe plainely 15. But because you may yet make difficulty in this testimony which you alleadge as though it alone should stand against all other that can be alleadged out of him and that noe interpretation of any man els can be able to satisfy you I will alleadge his owne words interpreting the meaning of S. Paul's words which he alleadgeth vseth in this testimony to shew that the word beside doth not import that a man must not beleeue any thing but that which is expressed in Scripture but that a man must not beleeue any thing contrary For thus he saith The Apostle did not say if any man euaÌ„gelize to you more then you haue receiued Aug. to 98. in Io. but beside that which you haue receiued For if he should say that he should praeiudicate that is goe against himselfe who coueted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith But he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was c. These are the Saint's very words in that place By which it is plaine that he taketh the word praeter beside not in that sense as to signify more then is written as you would vnderstaÌ„d it but to signify the same that contra against or coÌ„trary to what is written For otherwise there would be noe sense in his saying or opposition coÌ„sisting of two members with difference of the one from the other Which to be his meaning is yet more plaine by his whole discourse which is to shew what maÌ„ner of knowledge or priuate reuelation is to bee admitted indeede there hee alloweth of such as it not against the rule of the Catholique faith contra regulam Catholicae fidei reprehends only in Haeretiques such kind of knowledge as is also contrary or against the rule of faith and then obiecting
in the § of priuate Masse and els where 7. A sixt point of your safe doctrine is the Marriage of Priests whereof you say it is better to liue chastely in Matrimony then by single life to hazard their soules by incontinency This you proue by the authority of Aeneas Syluius Panormitan and Cassander Of which three the last is noe author to bee reguarded the first is answeared before The second onely remaineth to bee answeared heere to wit Panormitane whom indeede I find inclined in opinion for the Marriage of Clergymen Panor cap. Cum Plini de Cler. coning yet farre otherwise then you For first he putteth the question whether the Church can giue way that a Clarke may marry as the Graecians doe to which he answeareth affirmatiuely and this he saith is out of doubt with him for soe much as pertayneth to them that are not obliged by tacite or expresse vow And then he proueth it by reason and sheweth that it is not de iure diuino as we also grant And therevpon saith that he doth not onely beleeue it to be in the Churches power but he thinketh it would be a wholesome statute for the good and safety of Soules to lett such as will containe themselues and such as cannot to marry since experience saith hee teacheth the contrary effect to follow of that Law of continency seing men doe not now liue spiritually nor are cleane but are spotted with vncleanesse to their grieuous sinne This is Panormitanes discourse wherein first he acknowledgeth this whole matter to depēd vpon the Churches authority plainely sheweth by his discourse that the law of continency doth bind that it is a grieuous sinne to goe against it For which cause though his opinion indeede be that they should haue liberty to marry yet he would not haue thē marry against the Law standing in force but he would haue the Law taken away which is a farre different doctrine from yours Secondly he alloweth the obligatiō of a Vow tacite or expresse seemeth not indeede to speake of such as are soe tied now with you your Ministers that is all one wheter Chastity be vowed or not vowed nay you disallow all such vowes Thirdly he saith that where a man is bound by expresse or tacite vow the Pope cannot dispense without a great and vrgent cause which is against you who require noe dispensation nor any such cause Fourthly he doth not speake of such as are already ordained for they haue a Vow either expresse or tacite but of those that are to be ordained whereas you would haue it as free for one as for another Lastly this opinion of Panormitane pertaineth not to the point of doctrine but onely to the point of prudence or conueniency wherein he differeth from the common iudgment of Catholiques and is therefore worthily noted by other Catholique Doctors Soe as he concurreth not with you in opinion of the lawfulnes of the Marriage of Priests against the lawes of the Church but onely in this that he would haue it made lawfull by taking away the contrary law But now though it be his opinion that it is better to lett such men marry why should you thinke it safer to follow his iudgment being but one single man against the iudgment of all the other Doctors of the Catholique Church against all Fathers against all authority of Councels against the continuall practize of the Church from the very beginning Bell. lib. 1. de Cler. c. 18. 19. 20. c. lib. 2. de mona cap. 21. 22. c. Of all which you haue aboundant proofe in Bellarmine and which was neuer contradicted by any but knowne wicked men Why I say should you thinke it safer What reason or colour haue you But perhapps you will strengthen Panormitane by S. Paul who saith It is better to marry then to burne but that giues no strength for it is not safety of doctrine which S. Paul speaketh of but practical safety for matters of life or manners 1. Cor. 7.9 of this or that particular man supposing his disposition occasions and dangers and soe it is free for euery man to choose what he will doe Noe man is forced to it at first in the Catholique Church but if he take vpon him the office of a Priest or obligation of a religious state he is then forced to make good what he hath promised and to render his Vowes to God which the law of nature and moral honesty requireth Neither is it soe out of question that it is alwaies safer euen in that kind of safety for a man to marry For there is noe lesse difficulty perhapps and consequently danger for married men to containe thēselues with in the bounds of wedlock then for Priests to containe themselues within the bounds of perfect chastity as both reason and experience teach besids that though Saint Paul say it is better to marry then burne yet he saith it is better not to marry supposing euidently that a man may forbeare Marriage yet not be forced to burne Lastly in our case though the difficulty may be greater For as the prouerbe saith difficilia quae pulchra high things are hard Yet considering the helpes of almighty God's grace which are proportionable and I may also say superaboundant to the dangers of an office or state being vndertaken for his sake it becometh more easy and more safe For soe it is that the euangelical Law is more easy safe and comfortable then the old law of Moyses though the things that are required therein be farre more hard then those in the other For it is the vnction of the holy Ghost which God hath powred forth aboundātly in the new Law that makes our Sauiours yoake sweete and his burden light which because your Ministers want Chastity seemeth vnto them an intolerable burden Your way Sir Humphrey then is not more safe euen in this kind of safety nor more easy nor more comfortable Lett vs see whether it be soe in the next point which is of Prayer in a knowne tongue 8. Of this you say S. Thomas of Aquin saith it is manifest that he receiueth more benefit which prayeth vnderstandeth what he saith for the mind of him that vnderstandeth not is without fruite You bring also Lyra to the same purpose saying that people are better brought to the knowledge of God answeare Amen with greater deuotion when they vnderstand the Priest as also Caietan saying that it is better by S. Paul's doctrine for the edifying of the Church that publique prayers were made in a vulgar tongue to be vnderstood indifferently by Priests and people then in Latine With two authorityes more one of Gabriel another out of the Rhemes testament To all which I answeare that first you are mistaken in the whole matter For the question betweene you and vs is not soe much whither publique prayers in Latine be more or lesse profitable as whither they be lawful or not lawful we
Testament there where you tooke out your note All which annotation if you had read well vnderstood Annot. in cap. 14. 1. Cor. you could neuer haue said more of this matter the inconueniences are much vanity curiosity contempt of Superiours disputes emulations contentions schismes horrible errours profanations and diuulgation of the secret mysteries of the dreadful Sacraments which of purpose were hidden from the vulgar as S. Denys Eccl. Hier. cap. 1. and S. Basil de Sp. Sancto cap. 27. testify thus that note Besides the very ignorance of the Latine tongue and coÌ„sequently of all sacred learning which would follow thereof onely in Clergy men is ten hundred tymes more harme then that fruite in the Layity is good to say nothing of the vnity of the Catholique Church excellently represented and maintained heereby whereof and of other reasons also I spake before the Church therefore which is to reguard the publique good what is best and fittest all things considered might most prudently haue ordained the vse of the Latine tongue although it had not beene in vse from the beginning as it hath beene and for the common good euen with losse of some fruit to some priuate men though indeed that fruite be noe necessary or needful fruit nor euen fruit at all the inconuenience being well waighed and compared with the fruit Now of this controuersy in this manner also none of your authorityes doe vrge but onely Caietans who though he were a good a learned man yet in him the prouerb is verified quandâ—que bonus dormitat Homerus He is noted to be often mistaken in matters of Diuinity which was his proper professioÌ„ but much more in scripture wherein hee was not soe well skilled and soe committed many faults and in this particular he is greatly mistaken for he expoundeth that chapter of S. Paul to the Corinthians to be of publique prayer of the Church wherein being soe plainely deceiued noe wonder he might say it were better to haue it in a vulgar tongue soe also for that end he wishes there were not Organs nor Singing in the Church that men might vnderstand the words the better Wherein if his iudgment be good and to bee followed why haue you Organs and singing in your church neither were you soe well aduised in alleadging his authority for a Puritane may also make vse thereof against you and whereas Caietans reason is the aedification of the Church he is mistaken in the very end of prayer which is not aedification or instruction of the people but the honor of God immediatly For in prayer the Priest doth not speake to the people but to God in behalfe of the people wherein the people doth onely ioyne with him For which vnderstanding of the Priest's prayers is noe way necessary 11. But now I come to Gabriel who you say was soe farre from approuing vocal prayer in an vnknowne tongue that on the contrary he giueth 7. special reasons why it should be vnderstood by the people But this is most false Sir Humphrey for Gabriel doth not speake of prayer in a knowne or vnknowne tongue nor of publique prayer but onely of priuate prayer and of vocal prayer as it is compared with mental prayer and giueth these 7. reasons which you alleadge but not for proofe of what you say but onely to shew that beside mental prayer it is also conuenient to vse vocal prayer some of which reasons indeede haue noe place but where the words are vnderstood but yet other some haue For thus he saith Gab. in can lect 62. Sufficit oratio mentalis quoad Deum qui inspector est cordis vtilis tamen est priuata vocalis propter plures causas quas assignant Doctores Alexander Thomas caeteri Mental prayer is sufficient for as much pertaineth to God who is the beholder of the hart yet priuate vocal prayer is profitable for many causes which the Doctors Alexander Thomas others assigne theÌ„ assigneth those 7. reasons Soe as it is plaine he saith nothing in this but what others say that his question is not of prayer in a knowne or vnknowne tongue but of vocal prayer in general 12. Your 7. and 8. points of Safe doctrine of not Worshipping images and praying to Saints I putt together being short not needing much answeare For reason you alleadge none nor authority hut onely Erasmus Cassander Chemnitius Who are all of as good authority as your selfe For as for a word which you alleadge out of S. Aug. though you note not the place I say it is not to purpose for it is but this tutius iucundius loquâ—â— ad meum IESVM I speake more safely and more sweetly to my IESVS You doe not say then to whom and from hence you might as well inferre that while S. Aug. was vpon the earth he should not so much as speake to any man or desire their prayers as well as inferre there vppon that he should not pray to any Saint 13. Your last point is our doctrine of Meritts whereto not hauing said sufficiently at first you thinke to say more now but the truth is you haue more words but not more matter For heere you proue it onely out of a word of S. Bernard's saying Ser. 1. in Psal Qui habitat dangerous is the habitation of those that trust in their owne merits and soe say we but we say withall that to acknowledge that Almighty God rendereth a crowne of iustice to good works done by his grace and hyre to those that labour in his vineyard is not to trust in a man 's owne merits but to acknowledge the mercy iustice and fidelity of God For this not onely a man may acknowledge that hath good workes but also a man that hath none nor thinketh hee hath any and consequently noe whit confideth in his owne merits Ser. 61. in câ—nt Another place is out of the same Saint but out of an other of his works where he asketh what safe rest or security can the weake Soule find but in the wounds of our Sauiour And soe say we too but what doth this hinder but a man may say as I said before that God rewardeth the good works of his Seruants out of his iustice and fidelity which out of his Mercy he gaue them grace to doe but heere I note that in the citing of this place in the text you putt the two first words in Latine thus Vbi tuta as if you would make one thinke S. Bernard pointed at your Safe way may not a man without wrong to your witt thinke such a conceit might come into your head though S. Bernard were dead many ages agoe I will not say soe of you Sir Humphrey but yet thought is free as they say Well your next author is Waldensis who as you tell vs thinketh him the sounder Diuine Suar. to 3. de gr lib. 12. cap. 1. n. 2. that simply denieth such Merit but you say not
what merit but it is true Walden as Suarez well noteth though he speake not of this controuersy but against the Pelagians is somewhat too strict V. Bell. lib. 5 de iustif cap. 16. and though he acknowledge the thing yet he doth not soe well like the manner of speaking of merit as alsoe some other Diuines doe not soe approue the word meritum de condigno though in the thing it selfe they all agree to wit that aeternal life is giuen to men as the reward of their good works which is all that others meane by condigne merit Your last authority is a place of Bell. which hath beene answeared before to wit that it is most safe to trust wholy in the merits of Christ Which I wonder why you should alleadge for your doctrine against ours For it is ours as well or more then yours neither doe we cōdemne you for not trusting in your works Chap. 12. or trusting wholy in Christ if so be you doe not deny the necessity and efficacy of good works for purchasing grace and glory And that is your doctrine which you should shew to be Safe but that you cānot nor doe not soe much as goe about Wherefore to come to an end of this Chapter all your proofes sayling in euery point your vaunting cōclusion of the Safety profitt and Comfort of your beleife vanisheth into smoake as the rest doth Of the 12. Sect. the title whereof is this Our aduersaries conuicted by the euident testimonies of the Ancient Fathers either ridiculously elude them or plainely reiect them CHAPTER XII 1. IT cannot be vnknowne to any man of learning or that hath but any the lest acquaintance with the controuersies of this age what great aduantage we Catholiques haue by the writings of the ancient Fathers how highly we esteeme them what confidence we place in them and how we appeale to them for decision of our controuersies and how small respect on the other side Haeretiques shew either to their persons or writings as being in their opinions but men and subiect to errour or rather how contemptibly they speake of them For proofe whereof a man neede not goe farther then that little treatise of Campians 10. reasons the 5. of which is of the Fathers Where a man may see what the Haeretiques say of them they call one an old doting man another they call a childish writer a third they call a dolt and forsaken of God a fourth they call a fabler that knoweth not what he saith a fift they say is bewitched by the Diuell a sixt they say is as damned as the Diuell iniurious to the Apostle blasphemous wicked impious and what Fathers are these thincke you that they name thus who but Denis the Areopagite Hippolitus Cyprian Gregory Nazianzene Ambrose and Hierome and for the writings of the Fathers they say this man's are like dreames and most pernitious another hath foule wennes another writeth like a madd or frantique man another bringeth forth darnel and dreggs others haue left blasphemies to posterity and the like One haeretique preferreth one Caluin before an 100. Augustines another careth not for a thousand Augustines Cyprians Churches whose very words and places are quoted by F. Campian And yet heere is a Knight of the same broode that vndertaketh forsooth in a particular Section to proue that we establish the antiquity of his doctrine decline the certainty and safety of our owne by saying that we auoide the proofe of Fathers wherein he sheweth himself more more impertinent the farther he goeth For whereas there hath beene sometymes one father that hath erred or held some singular opinion different from the common of other Fathers one or two ancient writers that haue euen become Haeretiques because our authors note those things soe as noe Haeretique can but acknowledge that to be true which we say nay and he himself cannot tell what to say against vs he accounteth this forsooth to bee eluding of the Fathers or reiecting their euident testimonyes Neither doth he in all this Section bring one argument or one word of authority to disproue any thing that any authour of ours hath said nor doth hee alleadge euen the reasons which our authors giue of their saying whereas they giue very many solid reasons Soe that for my part I cānot tell what the man meaneth in this manner of dealing nor what to say to him for euen the words of our authours which he bringeth are very sufficient answeares soe as I see not well what more he neede to haue but because in the fashion or sleight manner of speaking he may delude some of his Readers and make them thinke the answeares insufficient I must a little more discouer his impertinency in leauing out some of the answeares and extenuating others and euen in bringing some nothing at all to this purpose 2. And soe to beginne with him he saith in the first place that touching the all sufficiēcy of Scriptures S. Chrysostome saith the Church is knowne tantūmodo onely by the Scriptures heerevpon he askes this question what say the Romanist to this authority Bell. saith hee answeareth it is probable the authour was a Catholique but it seemes to be none of Chrysost thus hee To which I answeare first that I find not this place obiected in Bellar. whereto to giue any answeare at all but there is another place not much vnlike and to that he answeareth that the worke out of which it is taken is not Chrys but another's commonly cited by the name of author imperfecti who Bell. saith was either an Arrian himself or his worke was corrupted by Arrians and this he doth not barely say neyther in his cōtrouersies nor in his booke de Scripto eccles De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. Which is the booke heere cited by Sir Humphrey where Bellarmine saith the thing but not by way of answeare as he makes him I say he doth not onely say it but also proue it by a plaine example or two of Arianisme Verb. Io. Chrysost but because he findeth Catholique doctrine in other places of the same worke and in the same points he rather thinketh the authour to be a Catholique and his worke onely to haue beene corrupted and this is most true and euident Which had the Knight but sett downe thus plainely what had there beene more to be obiected or answeared but he curtails it as if Bell. had said onely it is none of Chrys Which is also soe true plaine as he himselfe cannot gainesay it and yet he is not ashamed for the creditt of his obiection to call it Chrysostomes But the place it selfe is soe farre from prouing the all sufficiency of Scripture as it proueth nothing at all but the insufficiency of Sir Humphreys wit For how many wayes may it be answeared euen supposing that the words were S. Chrysostomes or some other good authour's being but these that the Church is knowne onely by scriptures For I aske him
what then what is this to many other points which we say cānot be knowne by onely scripture Were this a good consequence the Church is knowne by onely Scripture ergo all things els and euen Scripture it selfe is knowne onely by scripture surely noe and yet this consequence must be good or els Sir Humphrey your argumēt is not good Besids these words may be vnderstood of the Scriptures compared with other Writings that is that the Church is knowne to vs onely by Scriptures not by other Writings whereof either none speake soe clearely of the Church or none are like therevnto for authority which yet doth not exclude other proofes or markes of the Church And indeede the Church is most knowne and best proued out of Scripture of any point of our faith as may appeare by this that S. Aug. proueth the same soe notably out of Scriptures onely gainst the Donatists in a particular booke of that matter De vnit eccles Aug. in Psal 30. and in another place he saith the Scriptures speake more plainely of the Church then of Christ himself because the holy Ghost foresaw it was more to be contradicted and what might not these words be taken somewhat in the same sense but this shall serue for that place 3. You come next with two places of Saint Aug. whereof one was answeared before and it is onely where you tell vs he saith that many are tormented with the Diuel who are worshipped by man on earth to this Bellarmine say you answeareth that perhaps it is not S. Augustines making you Reader beleeue as if Bell. neither gaue other answeare nor any reason of this answeare Whereas he doth both his reason why he thinketh it not Saint Augustines is both because he could neuer find any such place in him it is like he should find it if it were there he hauing beene soe diligent a reader of S. Augu. as appeareth by his works he was Bell. de Sanct. beat lib. 1. cap. 9. as alsoe because noe Haeretique that obiecteth it doth note the place where it is to be found as they are wōt to doe in their other obiections and it is like would doe in this if they could find it but because Sir Humphrey you are a man soe well read in S. Aug. and stand soe vpon answeare of this place Doe you but tell vs where it is and you shall then see what we will say vnto you meane while looke a little better in Bellar. againe and tell vs whether there be not 3. or 4. other answeares See also before cap. 10. The other place of Saint Augu. is as you say touching the Popes supremacy because S. Augu. in those words of our Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church taketh not Peter and this rocke to be all one but the Rocke to bee our Sauiour himself and Petrus to bee a deriuatiue onely of Petra to which you tell vs Stapleton makes answeare that it was lapsus humanus for want of knowledge of the Greeke and caused by the diuersity of the two languages Latine and Greeke Which answeare though you relate in a slight fashion as if you tooke it to be in sufficiēt yet you neither doe nor indeede can say against it if you know Greeke and Latine or if you doe not goe but to some of your Ministers and get them to looke in their owne Greeke Lexicons I meane sett out by Haeretiques and see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be an adiectiue and a deriuatiue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be not a substantiue signifying the very same thing and let them looke yet farther into the original tongue it self to wit the Syriake wherein our Sauiour spake Lib. 1. Ro Pontif cap. 25. and see whither they be not more the same to wit the onely word Cephas in both places On the other side it is well knowne Saint Augu. professed noe great skill in Greeke as hee witnesseth of himselfe in many places Aug. in Psal cont Partem Donat ep 165. Besids Saint Augu. doth not bring this exposition to derogate from Saint Peter's primacy which he confesseth in 20. places as may be seene in Bellarmine and where for proofe thereof he vseth the very word Petra which heere he distinguisheth from Petrus calling the Seate of Peter this rooke Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae Reckon saith he to the Donatists the Priests from euen the seate of Peter that is the rocke which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome How then doth he deny S. Peter's primacy and perpetuity of his Sea Againe Sir Humphrey you might finde other answeares for Saint Augu. himselfe in his retractations putteth both the explications wherein the word Petrae is spoken of Christ and of Peter leauing the choise to the Reader allowing both interpretations which you doe not because one is flat against you Whereas we doe not reiect either as being against vs but onely we shew the one not to be soe good because it standeth not soe with the original tongues which that Saint was not soe well skilled in and literal sense of scripture which noe Haeretique can deny 4. The 3. place is out of S. Ignatius for proofe of Communion in both kinds Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 26 One cupp is distributed to all to which you say Bellarmine makes answeare that in the Latine books it is not found that one cupp is giuen to all but for all against which you can say nothing but giue me cause to say much against you For first Bellarmine doth not say one cupp is giuen for all but saith vnus calix totius ecclesiae One cupp of the whole Church Which is the true reading and indeede another thing Secondly though you make as if Bellarmine did onely barely say this without farther reason or proofe yet is it farre otherwise for as for the reading he saith that though the Greeke haue it as the Haeretiques commonly cite that is as you doe heere yet the true reading is as the Latine translation which we follow hath it whereto he saith there is more trust to be had then to the Greeke books of S. Ignatius which wee haue now Whereof he bringeth this proofe that the testimonies cited out of him as we find in the works of S. Anastasius and Theodoret agree better with our Latine translation then the Greeke which is now extant Which is a plaine proofe of the betternes and greater purenes thereof as being taken out of the ancient Greeke editions Besids that Bellarmine proueth this euen out of the Magdeburgians because they cite this very place at we doe Neither doth he answeare this authority onely by the variety of the reading but withall he giueth 2. answeares more one that S. Ignatius putteth all the force in the vnity of the bread and cupp thus that though many eate many drinke
are wont also to say a man were better not heare Masse at all then not to heare it deuoutly or a man is better not to doe such or such a thing then not to doe it well or willingly and the like though indeede in our iudgment we thinke it better the thing be done though with some imperfection then not at all But this we say to signify the desire we haue to see it well done or that we doe not receiue that content by the slender or sleight manner of doing it And this is the very truth of S. Chrysost saying Bell. de Miss lib. 2. cap. 10 as Bell. maketh it to appeare plainely both by an example out of scripture and by other argument's out of S. Chrysost himselfe which you may looke better vpon againe and consider well with your selfe whether you haue dealt well with Bell. in alleadging his bare words soe as if he had giuen noe reason for his saying Besids I doe not find that S. Chrysost speake the very words which you alleadge soe crudely and harshly as you make him For he doth not say plainely that it is better not to be present at the Sacrifice then not to communicate but to shew the indignity of it bringeth a similitude of a man that should inuite a freind to a feast and that freind coming should onely sitt there and not eate a bitt of meate Chrys hom 3. in ep ad Ephes he asketh whether in soe doing he doe not putt an affront vpon his freind that inuited him and were it not better saith he that he had not appeared at all wherein he saith most truely Which for all that being but a similitude doth not hold soe rigourously in euerie particular Lastly I see not what colour there is in this place to disproue that which you call priuate Masse For if Saint Chrysostome had said it had beene better for the Priest not to say Masse then not to haue some to communicate with him it had beene something but to say of the people that it was better for them not to be there then not to communicate I doe not see by what consequence it can be drawne against the Priests saying Masse without communicants especially seeing it is euident V. Durant de rit lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5. that this Saint did say Masse euery day and many of his people did not cōmunicate past twice or thrice and many also not past once in a twelue moneth 10. The 9. ancient authour is Prudentius whose words you cite not but onely say thus if we cite Prudentius Bellarmine answeares I say noe more of him but that he playeth the Poet but what I pray you Sir is the reason you forbeare to cite Prudentius his words or sense any man may easily guesse there is something in the wind something that you thinke better concealed then discouered but I shall for once supply your want heerein First putting you in mind that in the beginning of this section you told vs you would shew how we elude or reiect the testimonies of the Fathers or to vse your owne words the records and real proofes in Fathers and other learned authours touching the chiefe points in controuersy betwixt vs. Now let vs see whither that for which Prudentius is obiected in Bellarmine be such or not The question in Bellarmine is whether the damned soules in hell feele any benefitt by the suffrages of the liuing or noe For the affirmatiue he bringeth some sayings of Fathers which may seeme to insinuate as much and among others two verses out of Prudentius thus Sunt spiritibus saepe nocentibus Paenarum celebres sub styge feriae The English whereof is that the wicked spirits haue often tymes holydayes that is some ease of their paines to which Bell. maketh noe other answeare indeede but that hee played after the manner of Poets now I aske you whither this be a chiefe point of controuersy betwixt you and vs it should seeme you take it soe because you seeme in all this Section as if you alleadged onely such as make for you in your controuersyes against vs and your very words which you vse heere thus if we cite Prudentius c. import as if you did cite Prudentius for your selfe in that matter whereto Bellarmine answeareth yet it is plaine on the other side that there is not any difference betwixt you and vs in that matter For I neuer heard that any haeretique of this tyme said any such thing as that the damned find any release or ease of their paines by the prayers of the lyuing What say you then Sir Humphrey doe not you alleadge Prudentius to very good purpose doth not this shew a strange contentious spirit in you that care not what you say whether it be to the purpose or not soe it may seeme somewhat against vs though indeede it be not But now for Bellarmines answeare it is true and good and it is well knowne that Poet's words are not allwaies to be soe strictly interpreted nor truth to be altogether soe exacted at their hands as at other men's the restraint which they are faine to vse in the number of their verse giuing them a little more liberty in the matter 11. The 10. Tertullian Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 6. whose words you doe not alsoe cite but onely say that if you obiect him Bellarmine answeares his authority is of noe great account when hee contradicteth other Fathers and when it appeareth he was noe man of the Church His words I say you doe not cite but yet in saying if wee obiect him and indeede in naming him you seeme as if you had some controuersy with vs in that point for which he is cited which is of the Virginity of our B. Lady in our Sauiour's birth that is whether she were a Virgin in the birth alsoe or not But though the haeretiques of this age generally speake very meanely and contemptibly of this most sacred Virgin yet I doe not find that your Protestants are soe earnest against her Virginity as to make the contrary a point of your beleife much lesse a chiefe point as you make all that you bring ancient authors for in this place But for the matter it is this Bellarmine speaking of an authority of S. Ambrose his which might seeme at first sight to make against the same then saith that Origen and Tertull. haue something like also and soe answearing altogether he sheweth of Origen S. Ambrose that they are not against vs by expounding those places which seeme against it by other plaine places out of them For Tertullian he saith his words are obscure nor much to be reguarded when he contradicteth other Fathers and when it appeares he was noe man of the Church Which last words you translate falsely and withall leaue out an authority of special moment the words falsly translated are these Cùm constet since it appeareth Whereas you say when it appeareth Which is a different
apostasy and future damnation to each other this poore Frier repented himself and therevppon came backe to his monastery and did penance rather choosing to suffer a little outward austerity then to carry about in the bottome of his soule such an inward assured testimony and beleife of his aeternall damnation as he saw these two did I might say more of the man's fine feates but there be bookes in dutch particularly of them as I heare and soe I say noe more but that in this your learned Buxhorne whom you Sir Humphrey of Licentiate make a Doctor as in all your other learned men that blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian hit the right veyne and discouered the true cause of their apostasy when he told the Vniuersity men it was not any Charks or Hammers that held them backe as I may say also it was not any razing of euidences that made Boxhorne fall from his faith but that there were certaine Lutheran baites where-with many of them were catched which were Aurum gloria delitiae veneres Gold glory delights and Venus of which some are catched with one some with another and soe you see this your learned Professor had soe deepely swallowed the last of the fower baites that it made his stomacke turne at the Catholique faith which exhorted him to contemne some of them as gold glory and forced him to forbeare others as his base and bestial delights and soe forsaking all obedience to humane and diuine lawes at one clapp became a rebell to his Prince an Apostata to religion and enemy to the Catholique faith therefore of such fellowes there is noe other account to bee made but let them goe as the Scripture saith of one of their chiefe Leaders Act. 2.25 Vt abiret in locum suum That hee might goe into his owne place Of the 14. Sect. the title whereof is this Chap. 14. Our aduersaries conuicted of their defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture it selfe CHAPTER XIV 1. TO this section the Knight giueth a beginning by occasion of Boxhornes words in the last section of an idol in the temple Wherevppon he very wittily tells vs that when we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place we must flye to the mountaines of the Scriptures as S. Chrysostome saith but yet he thinks we will not come to triall of scriptures because saith he are we not all eye witnesses that Christ and his Apostles are called in question at the Popes assizes and there arraigned and condemned of obscurity and insufficiency in their ghospel is not the sacred bible saith he ranked inter libros prohibitos in the first place in the catalogue of forbidden books then he bringeth Corn. Agrippa complayning of the Inquisitors that they will not admitt men to proue their opinions by scriptures This is the Knight's discourse which vpon examination will proue as foolish as he thinks it witty I answeare therefore that though Catholiques hold for most certaine that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith nor that out of it alone all controuersies can be decided as for example that in particular which bookes be canonical Scripture which not Yet for most things now a dayes in controuersy many Catholiques haue offered to try the matter by onely scripture some hauing also written books of good volume Anker of Faith to shew the Scripture in the plaine and obuious sense to make positiuely for vs our Doctrine in most points against vs in none Whereof a man may also haue a briefe tast in the defence of the cēsure in the praeface in these points following of Supremacy real presence iustificatiō absolutiō Vowes traditions obseruance of the cōmandements satisfaction prayer for the dead prayer to Saints c. in which respect therefore I may aske you Sir Humphrey how you come to be soe sure that we will not come to the triall of Scriptures for though we ground many points vpon tradition and practize of the Church yet doe not we ground others vpon plaine and expresse authority of Scripture from which you are faine to fly running into this or that corner of I know not what figuratiue or tropical interpretation or euen denying the very bookes of Scripture nay what point is there that we doe not bring better proofes out of Scripture for it which yet we neede not then you can bring against it which yet is absolutely needfull on your part you standing soe vpon Scripture as you doe 2. As for that which you say of the Popes questioning Christ his Apostles at his Assizes for obscurity and insufficiency this is a speach vttered I suppose by you onely in the feruor of an haereticall spiritt wherein therefore a man is not to looke for much truth but yet I may aske wherein I pray you doth the Pope question or condemne Christ of obscurity insufficiēcy what hath Christ left written to be questioned or condemned his Apostles Euangelists indeede haue left some things in writing of which some are hard euen by the iudgmēt of Scripture it selfe 2. Pet. 3.16 for soe saith S. Peter of the Epistles of S. Paul which saith he the vnlearned and inconstant doe abuse as they doe others Scriptures to their owne perdition Aug. Conf. lib. 12. c. 14. and S. Augustine findeth soe much difficulty in the first verse of the whole Scripture which to a man seeming is as easy as any other verse what soeuer that hee is faine to acknowledge the wonderfull profoundnes thereof it is S. Peter and S. Aug. therefore that call to their assizes if you will needs haue it soe and there arraigne and condemne S. Paul Moyses of obscurity not the Pope soe for insufficiēcy if any body condemne it it is S. Iohn in saying that 2. Thess 2.14 all things are not written S. Paul in willing the Thessaloniās to hold the traditiōs which they had learned whither by speach or letter by word of mouth or writing they are the Apostles Doctors of the Church that acknowledge that hardnes of Scripture or what soeuer it is which your Worship is pleased to call insufficiency What impertinent flaunting is this then in you Sir Humphrey to tell vs the Pope questioneth Christ and his Apostles To talke thus of Assizes and arraigning as if you would haue vs know you are the Sonne of a Grand-Iuror whom it is pitty you did not succeede in the place since you haue the termes soe ready in your mouth 3. But to lett that passe I likewise answeare you for our ranking the bible in the first place of prohibited bookes as you say we doe that it is false and false againe For it is not in the catalogue of such bookes onely in the rules which concerne the index there is mention how the free vse of vulgar translations is not to bee permitted Reg. 4. but for the Latine vulgar translation there is noe manner
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
and dying in our present Romane faith may be saued or not Wherein though the Knight be verily persuaded we cānot alleadging Whitaker's authority for the same and saying that the best learned of his Church haue beene farr from granting saluation to any Papist being withall soe zealous and earnest in this beleife as he wisheth it farr from the thoughts of good men to thinke soe yet by his Worship's leaue it is the iudgment of many great men of his Church nothing inferiours in that which he taketh for learning and goodnes to Mr. Whitaker or any man els of his opinion for example Mr. D. Barrow saith he dareth not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder writers doe aknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God If the Church of God then certainely Sir Humphrey a man may be saued therein Mr. Hooker saith the Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the howse of God a lymme of the Visible Church of Christ you in the beginning of your booke bring this Hooker's authority acknowledging vs to be of the family of IESVS CHRIST in as much as we beleiue the articles of the Apostles Creede which are the maine parts of the Christian faith wherein we still persist as he confesseth beleeuing then the maine points and being of the family of IESVS CHRIST there can be question in his iudgmēt but we may be saued Mr. Bunny saith we are noe seueral Church from them nor they from vs and that neither can one of vs iustly account the other to be none of the Church of God We may then as well bee saued as you and we are as much of the Church as you D. Some saith the Papists are not altogether aliens from God's couenant for in the iudgment of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministery a true Christ c. and saith he if you thinke that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you thinke absurdly and dissent from the iudgment of the learned Protestants Loe you Sir Humphrey doe not you thinke absurdly and dissent from the learned Protestants in denying vs saluation Doct. Couel saith thus We affirme them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the church of Christ and that those that liue and dye in that Church may notwithstanding bee saued 8. I could bring others to the same purpose as D. Field and Dr. Morton saying that we are to be accounted the Church of God whose words may be seene in the Protestants apology tract 1. Sect. 6. Sub. 1. 2. 3. but these may serue the turne I hope fully to disproue your assertion Sir Knight for heere be 7. authors alleadged whom your Church of England hath euer held for good and learned men From whose thoughts it was not soe farre as you would haue it to thinke we might be saued but rather soe deepely grounded that they auerre it constantly and say also that it is the iudgment of all learned Protestants and that it is absurd to thinke otherwise Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey what a Linder you shew your self vpon one Witakers authority to determine a matter soe peremptorily against the iudgment of soe many great Doctors of your owne side and to say that it is the iudgment of the best learned Protestants and that it is farre from the thoughts of goodmen to thinke otherwise what may a man thinke by this you doe with our Catholique authors and fathers whom you neither haue soe much to doe with nor vnderstand soe well nor care soe much for as you doe for these Sage men forsooth of your owne the pillars of your Church and writing in your owne Mother tongue whereof it is to be presumed you can skill a little more then of Latine But now for the maine matter or argument which you intended to answeare how is it answeared You see soe many learned Protestāts thinke we may be saued liuing and dying in our faith without your limitation of inuincible ignorance and meerely in reguard we are a true Church the family of Christ the howse of God holding the foundation of faith and that the points of controuersy are not of such necessary consequence whose number and authority though perhaps it be not sufficient to reforme your iudgment yet to vs it is sufficient to ground this argument that since Protestant Doctors make noe doubt but we may be saued in our faith and noe Doctor of ours saith soe of your faith it is out of doubt the Safer way to embrace ours the force of which argument you goe not about to auoide otherwise then by denying that to be the opinion of learned Protestants which being proued to be so manifestly the argument still hath his force and the more because you cannot answeare it And soe I come to your last Section Chap. 18. Of the 18. Section the title being this Prouing according to the title of the booke by the confession of all sides that the Protestant religion is safer because in all positiue points of our doctrine the Romanists themselues agree with vs but in their additions they stand single by themselues CHAPTER XVIII THE substance of this section is contained in the title and in nothing but to turne the Catholiques argument mentioned in the former section the other way for the Protestant side but yet soe ill fauouredly that it may be turned backe againe with much more disaduantage of the Protestant cause For by it a man may proue any haeresy that euer was nay Iudaisme and Turcisme to bee a Safer way then the Catholique faith or euen the Knight's Protestant faith He beginneth then with putting the case we may be saued and then laying for a ground that it is Safer to persist in that Church where both sides agree then where one part standeth single in opinion adding withall that if he make not good the title of his booke to wit that he is in the Safer way hee will reconcile himself to the Romane Church creepe vpon all fower to his Holinesse for a pardon And then falleth to proue it in this manner that because Both agree saith hee in the beleife of heauen and hell and that we stand single in the beleife of Purgatory and Limbus puerorum we are not therefore in soe Safe a way soe of the merits and Satisfactions of Christ all agree that men are to be saued by them but wee stand single in the addition of the Saints merits and our owne satisfaction and soe forward of the number of Sacraments images prayer to Saints the like Which is the whole discourse of this Section 2. Whereto I answeare first that that his ground of Safety which he thinks he taketh from Catholiques is folish impertinent and without sense as se setteth it downe For thus he saith it is the Safer way to persist in that Church where both sides agree then where one part
the longe haire of a man's vpper lippe hange in the chalice and to come out with a great quantity of the sacred blood hanging and dropping from it likewise be there not many men and woemen in london after whome Sir Humphrey himselfe might perhaps be vnwilling to drinke not onely for nicenesse but for feare also of something els which besids lothsomnesse may bring daunger of health and why then for a great many such reasons concurring may not the church decree the ordinary vse of one kinde onely in such case as Christ leaueth it in her power for this authority therefore of Gerson's I see not that the Knight hath any whit mended but rather made his matters worse V. sup cap. 9. § 7. n. 14. The third place is pag. 204. in his § of images where citing an authority of the ciuill law he saith that the good Emperours Valens and Theodosius made proclamation c. in the answeare of which place beside other errors I taxed him for calling Valens a good Emperour now in this 4. edition he leaueth out the word good whether by chance or vpon better consideration I know not howsoeuer I thought fitt to note it as a thing wherein the edition differeth The fourth and last place is pag. 319. in his 17. section where explicating what manner of Papist it is that many be saued he saith out of Hooker it must not be a Pope with the necke of an Emperour vnder his feete nor a Cardinal riding his horse to the bridle in the blood of saints but a Pope a Cardinal sorrowful poenitent disrobed stript not onely of vsurped power but also reclaimed and recalled from his error whose proselytes must abiure all their heresies wherwith they haue any way peruerted the truth c. All this and somewhat more of the same kind is added which I doe not recite to answear for I haue done that fully before besids that any man may see the absurdity of it for he may as well say any Iew Turke or heretique may be saued to wit by abiuring his errors and being sory for his sinnes and soe we say Sir Humphrey Linde himselfe may be saued in this manner I doe not therefore note this to answeare but onely as I said before to shew the difference of the editions and how with the number of them the measure of the Knight's malice encreaseth and soe much for that matter Now the third thing whereof I am to take notice heere is another wise piece of worke of Sir Humphrey's called VIA DEVIA which I also neuer saw till this answeare was vnderprint which now hauing seene I finde it to be in a manner the same with his VIA TVTA and indeede soe like as I see not why he should call the one VIA TVTA or DEVIA rather then the other and therefore I presume there wil be noe farther answeare expected thereunto besides that whosoeuer shall attentiuely peruse this answeare to his VIA TVTA will soone see that there will neuer neede more answeare to any thing that he saith And soe I end once more with him FINIS Faults escaped in the Epistle dedicatory pag. 7. lin 24. of the Gentlemen cor of the Gentleman pag. 14. lin 7. her for cor her say for pag. 20. lin 12. these cor those pag. 22. lin 14. those cor these pag. 34 lin 9. some myre cor the same myre Faults escaped in the booke it selfe pag. 2. lin 12. there cor these pag. 5. lin 5. against Sergius cor against Eutiches the difference of his two wills against Sergius pag. 6. lin 1. whensoeuer cor which whensoeuer pag. 6 lin 15. words cor worde pag. 11. lin 3. out of dele out pag. 11. lin 11. Doctour cor Doctours pag. 11. lin 32. theach which cor teach that which pag. 13 lin 3. that cor that that pag. 15. lin 17. before cor before pag. 17. lin 17. in cor is pag. 17. lin 19. points cor point pag. 17. lin 21. they were cor it were pag. 2â—◠〈◊〉 23. that that cor that pag. 24. lin 7. nothinge cor notinge pag. 24. lin 7. occurre the cor occurre in the pag. 29 lin 12. implicite cor implicite faith pag. 35 lin 25. and cor are pag. 37. lin 12 knighs cor knight pag. 39. lin 30 sume cor some pag. 42. lin 18. went For the cor went for the p. 45. lin 1. thinge which cor thinge to doe which pag. 45. lin 15. wiolated cor violated pag. 48. lin 26. osten cor often pag. 49. lin 13. thimketh cor thinketh pag. 50. lin 9. Coquus cor Coquaeus pag. 54 lin 16. would all cor would haue all pag. 55. lin 1. not cor noe pag. 55. lin 13. contradiction cor contradictions pag. 58. lin 17. about cor a bout pag. 61. lin 10. Iou cor you p. 61 lin 21. it cor them pag. 69. lin 17. Prophest cor Prophet pag. 69 lin 22. shewed cor sheweth pag. 84. lin 8. great cor great churches pag. 84. lin 9. Marke heere c. vnto those words of the Apostles cor making it a marginall note pag. 85. lin 15. ardelis cor ardelio pag. 87. lin 1 considereth cor considered pag. 87. lin 31. the 666 cor the yeare 666. pag. 91. lin 11. hee hath dele hee pag. 91. lin 19. Heliesaitae cor Helcesaitae pag. 92. lin 19. the flesh cor other flesh pag. 96. lin 8 to wit cor videlicet pag. 102. lin 11. Church his Tenets cor Churches tenets pag. 106. lin 8. to adore cor to adore him pag. 109 lin 20. saith the cor saith he pag. 112. lin 19. your cor yours pag. 114. lin 11. 13. ingenious cor ingenuous pag. 114 lin 27 to cor to to pag. 115 lin 13 14 excused cor excuses pag. 116 lin 6 which cor with pag 116 lin 26. 22. books For cannonical cor 22 books for canonical pag. 119 lin 4 eight cor eighth pag. 122 lin 29 those bee cor there be pag. 134. lin 21. you cor then pag. 136 lin 2. translated cor translateth pag. 142 l. 30 not cor note pag. 145 lin 12 we not cor wee doe not pag. 152. lin 22 whereas cor for wheras pag. 156 lin 16 to wit cor videlicet p. 158 lin 27. your cor our p. 159 lin 18 others cor other p. 159 lin 27. aboud cor about p. 167. lin 12 vribarne cor as vribarne pag. 167 lin 24 acient cor ancient p. 172 lin 3 in cor on p. 176 lin 17 speaketh cor speaketh p. 185 lin 26 see cor soe p. 188 lin 3 bring cor bringeth p. 188 lin 24 priest cor priests p. 189 lin 12 sir cor sir p. 189. l. 12 is allowed dele is p. 189 l. 20 id cor it p 193. lin 4 as of cor as if p. 194 lin 9. imitation cor inuitation p. 197 lin 30 nor cor not p. 198 lin 29. 3. or 4. thousand cor 3 or 4 hundred or 3. or 4. thousand p. 205 lin 3 is cor