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
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
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
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
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
this point alone Nor did Campian meane that there was neuer any man that did agree with you in any one of your erroneous points but that there was neuer any house village or citty that did agree with you in your whole faith and religion or made the same Church with you And for the mangling and razing one of Aelfrick's latine epistles wherewith you charge vs first Sir it is not like by this that he saith in his Homily wherewith you say the Epistles agree that there is any thing against vs and if there were know you Sir it is not our fashion to deale soe with authors but if there bee any thing contrary to the Catholique faith we doe what is to bee done publiquely as hauing authority and knowing what wee doe correcting moderne authours in what they erre for ancient authours noting onely what is amisse V. reg indi de correct lib. §. 4. but not razing or blotting out any thing that corner correcting we leaue for such corner companions as shunne the light And soe your principall argument being answeared I goe on to the rest 11. First you tell vs wee are diuided among our selues touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of transubstantiation some deriuing it as you say from the words of Christ some from his benediction before the words some from the exposition of the Fathers some from the Councel of Lateran some from Scriptures some from the determination of the Church where to fill paper and make a shew you repeate againe the same things For what difference for as much as pertayneth to this matter is there betweene the determination of the Church and the Councel of Lateran betweene Scriptures and the words of Christ But to let that goe I say first your phrase of deriuing is improper as you vse it For we deriue our Doctrine by Succession from those men that haue gone before vs by degrees to the Apostles tyme shewing that in all ages and tymes it hath beene taught and beleeued but to speake properly we not deriue but proue the truth of our doctrine out of Scriptures Councels Fathers c. though the deriuation be also a proofe but yet different from that of Scriptures and Councels Secondly you speake very generally and confusedly For whereas there bee diuers things in question betweene you and vs as the realnes of Christ's presence in the Blessed Sacrament and Transubstantiation others among Catholiques themselues as whither or how farr these points may bee proued out of Scripture Tradition c. or by what words or actions this change is made you make no distinction at all of any of these things nor speake any thing certainely or constantly of any of them but runne hopping vpp and downe from one to another now forward now backward that noe mā can tell where to find you but though this confusion of yours cause a little more trouble and length in answearing yet in the end it will discouer your ignorance and vanity the more 12. To begin then with you I would know to what purpose you alleadge our authors in things controuerted among themselues onely eyther now because they are not defined or heertofore when other things then controuerted were not defined though they be since and consequently out of controuersy Doth this difference of our authors make any thing for you noe verily but much against you for their modest manner of disputeing of these things with dew submission to the Catholique Church to whose censure they leaue themselues their opinions and writings their silence as soone as She doth speake is a manifest cōdemnation of your haeretical pride that will stand to noe iudgmēt but your owne and euen those opinions of theirs which you take hold of they virtually retract soe farre as either they may bee any way against the authority of the Catholique Church or in fauour of Haeretiques which are the onely things you seeke Therefore in any thing wherein they may dissent from the common beleefe as they doe not binde vs soe they doe not fauour you But of this I said enough in the first Chapter Though in the authorityes which you heere alleadge there be not much neede of this for either they say nothing against vs or you corrupt them as I shall shew 13. And to begin with Caietan in matter of the real presence you say out of Suarez he taught that these words THIS IS MY BODY doe not of them selues sufficiently proue transubstantiation without the supposed authority of the Church and that therefore by command of Pius V. that part of his commentary is left out of the Romish edition Thus you Where first according to your vsuall liberty of falsifying you put in the word supposed of your owne to make the speech sound somewhat contemptibly of the Church Whereas there is noe such word in Suarez his Latine text which you cite in the margent Secondly you putt in the word Transubstantiation which Suarez there speaketh not of as is euident but onely of the real presence which is a distinct thing though you cōfound them And in that Suarez indeede the whole Schoole of Deuines doe worthily condemne Caietane for saying that those words THIS IS MY BODY doe not sufficiently proue the real presence of our Sauiour's body For singularity whereof Caietan is often noted in matters of such moment is very much to bee condemned in a Diuine therefore Pius V. with great reason commanded that to be blotted out agreeably to the rules praescribed in the Romane index for correcting of books Whereof you complaine much as thinking Caietane somewhat to fauour your side yet you are extreamely mistaken and by alleadging Caietanes authority in this you giue your selfe a wound For though hee doe not giue soe much to the bare words of the Scripture as to be sufficient of themselues to proue the Reality of Christ's presence yet hee saith that ioyning the authority of the Churches exposition of them they are sufficient as he saith in expresse words which your self after cite and yet you can alleadge him for you as you thinke heere and which is more impudency you are not ashamed to say that Caietan denieth the bread to bee transubstantiated by those words For where hath Caietan such a word or euen shaddow of a word You thinke perhaps because in his opinion those words doe not sufficiētly of themselues proue the verity of Christ's presence that therefore they doe not sufficiently cause it but if you thinke soe as you seeme you are much mistakē for those are two different things For example in Baptisme the words I baptize thee c. besides the clensing of the soule from sinne original actuall cause also the remission of the temporall punishmēt imprint a spiritual character in the Soule though these effects cannot bee proued out of the signification of the wordes and soe alsoe a man might say of the forme of the Eucharist the proofe depending vpon the speculatiue signification of
riffe raffe stuffe as your Ministers are wont to eeke out their books and sermons without being able to shew any bull of Pope or testimony of good author of any Indulgence soe granted which though you or they could yet were is not to the purpose noe more then your prophane iest out of Guiciardin of playing a game at tables for an Indulgence For what suppose that were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their potts haue made soe bold with almighty God himself as to drinke an health vnto him and were not this a fine argument to proue that there is noe God besids Guiciardin's history translated by Coelius Secundus Curio which I suppose you to cite for it is most like you are noe Italian is forbidden in the Romane Index that Curio being an Haeretique of the first classe But passing from your merriments you tell vs seriously that you will not say it was a strange presumption for a Councel to determine an vncertaine Doctrine vpon the Popes infallibility and opinion of Schoolemen but you venture to say it is a weake and senselesse faith that giueth assent to it without authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers Your meaning is by a fine rhetorical figure to say it is presumption by saying you will not say soe but Sir Humphrey I will goe the plaine way to worke with you and tell you it is intolerable presumption for you suppose you were a man of learning to take vpon you to censure of presumption soe great a Councel as that of Trent wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour whereof was so great that your night owle Haeretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited and promised to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish and for such a fellow as you to make your selfe iudge thereof what intolerable presumption is it it is presumption with you forsooth for a Councel to define a point of faith vpon the perpetual and constant beleife and practize of the Catholique Church vpon the common consent of Doctours being both of them sufficient rules of faith of themselues there being withall sufficient testimony of Scripture in the sense which it hath euer beene vnderstood by Catholique interpreters and yet it is not presumption for you without Doctour without Father without Councel without Scripture without any manner of authority to goe against all this authority 13. Now whereas you say it is a senselesse and weake faith that giues assent to doctrine as necessary to be beleeued which wanteth authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answeare you doe not know what you say it sheweth plainely you haue not read one of those Fathers of whom you soe much bragg who all agree that there be many things which men are bound to beleeue vpon vnwritten tradition whose authorities you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. but for consent of Fathers it is true it is requisite because we haue not the tradition but by consent of Fathers but this consent of Fathers is noe more required to bee by their expresse testimonies in writing then in the Scripture it selfe For where doe you find that the holy Fathers did know beleeue or practize noe more but what they did write or that any one did write in particular all the whole beleife of the Catholique Church the Fathers did in their writings as the Apostles did in theirs that is write of this or that particular matter as the particular occasion of answearing some Haeretique or instructing some Catholique did require and therefore mentioned noe more then was needfull for that end But the consent of Fathers is most of all proued by the practize of the Catholique Church of the present tyme seing that practize being without beginning cannot otherwise haue beene but from those that haue gone before from tyme to tyme and though you make a difference yet certainely it is the same of the consent of Catholique Doctours in the present tyme as it was of holy Fathers in former tymes who were the Doctors of those tymes and as they were Fathers not soe properly in respect of those tymes wherein they liued as of succeeding ages soe the Doctors of these tymes are Fathers in respect of those that shall come after them Neither can the consent of Doctors in the Catholique Church more erre in one tyme then another the auctority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwaies the same noe lesse in one tyme then another Tert. de praescr cap. 28. And Tertullian's rule hauing still place as well in one age as another to wit Quod apud multos vnum inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is the same amongst many is noe error but a tradition The common consent therefore of Doctors and particular Churches is alwaies a sufficient argument of tradition and antiquity and consequently a sufficient ground for a Councel to define a matter of faith against whatsoeuer nouel fancy of any Haeretique that shall take vpon him to controll the same This I doe not say that wee want sufficient proofe of antiquity for any point but to shew that we neede it not soe expresse in ancient authors but that the very practize of the Catholique Church is sufficient to stopp the mouth of any contentious Haeretique noe lesse then in ancient tymes when that proofe of foregoing Writers could haue noe place For soe S. Paul thought he answeared sufficiently for defence of himself and offence of his contentious enemy 1. Cor. 11. when he said Si quis videtur contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei If any man seeme to be contentious we haue noe such custome nor the Church of God And soe much more may we now say of our long continued customes of many hundreds of yeares Wherefore your exception Sir Humphrey against the Councel of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences without such testimony of scripture antiquity as you require is vaine as that is also false which you heere againe repeate that an article of faith cannot be warrantable without authority of scriptures For faith is more anciēt then Scripture for to say nothing of the tymes before Christ faith was taught by Christ himself without writing as also by his Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written and soe it hath beene euer the common consent of all holy and learned men that as noe lesse credit was to be giuen to the Apostolical preaching then Writing soe noe lesse creditt is still to be giuen to their words deliuered vs by tradition then by their writings the credit and sense euen of their writings depending vpon the same tradition among whom the cleane contrary principle is as certaine and vndoubted as this of yours is with you
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
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
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
this proue Succession of Pastours in his Church Chap. 4. without which noe Church can bee Visible Yt is cleare it doth not But because this is a generall fault throughout his whole booke I will not stand noting it in euery Section apart but this generall note may serue for all To beginne heere with the title of this Section if by Popery he vnderstand as I suppose he doth that Faith which we Catholiques professe vnder the Pope as our supreme Pastour then it is foolishly said of him that some haue renounced the same in part For noe man can renounce the Catholique Faith in part it being indiuisible but hee that ceaseth to beleeue one point ceaseth to beleeue any one as he should that is by way of true Diuine Faith 2. Now to proue what he pretends hee hath about againe with his reformacion and telleth vs that were it not for endangering of the Romish religion we would come neerer them in all the fundamentall points which their Church teacheth For example he saith the Councel of Basil did allow the Bohemians the vse of the cupp Aeneas Syluius afterward Pope Pius 2. saith of the Marriage of Priests that as vpon weighty reasons it was taken away soe vpon weighty consideracions it were wished to be restored For priuate Masse as he calleth it he saith that Doctour Harding saith the faithfull complaine The translation of scriptures was as he telleth vs out of Causabon to Peron and Causabon out of those of Doway importunitate Haereticorum Besides he saith out of my Lord Cook 's reports that for the first eleuen yeares of Q. Elizabeth all Catholiques did frequent their Church and which is more he will needs haue Bishop Gardener Bellarmine and Albertus Pighius dye Protestants He hath two more both Bishops to wit Paulus and Iohn Vergerius brothers which he will needs haue dye of his religion of whom because I haue not heard much nor doth hee cite any author but Sleidan and Osiander most notorious fellowes both for lying and haeresy in whom I list not soe much as to looke what they say of these two I giue him leaue to take them and make the best hee can of them Sur. comment rerum in orb gest anno 1567. onely for that Paul Vergerius I finde in Surius that when hee came to dye hee did cast forth an horrible stench and roared most fearefully like an oxe besides other things soe strange and fearefull that one Venerandus Gablerus a famous Physician and then an earnest Protestant who was with him at his death being strucken into horrour and amazement there vpon returned to the Catholique Church againe But because this knight standeth soe in neede of people as it seemeth to make vpp number and soe would faine borrow some of ours there be Apostataes enough and too many of seuerall sorts and in seuerall countries which would make a iolly shew and make his booke swell handsomely I wil giue him leaue to take them all 3. And for the rest I answeare thus first noting his fundamental points what they are to wit the Cupp the Marriage of Priest priuate Masse as hee calleth it and the translation of Scriptures into the vulgar tongue Which for all that if the Knight had wel considered he might haue found not to bee soe fundamental being matters more of practize then beleife Secondly it seemeth that for a man to incline in iudgment à little towards the Protestant's side in any one of those points is enough to make him of Sir Humphrey's Church though in all others he bee of a quite contrary opinion as we shall see The Counsel of Basil is the first that cometh neere his Church in matter of the Cupp allowing the vse thereof to the Bohemians vpon this condition as the knight himself saith out of Genebrarde that they should not finde fault with the cōtrary vse nor seuer themselues from the Catholique Church How neere then doth the Councel come to you Sir Humphrey You condemne the vse of one kinde the Councel will not haue it condemned is this neere the Councel will not haue you seuer your self from the Catholique Church you doe is not this also neere but besides these two conditions the Councel requireth a third to wit that they shall beleeue that there is noe more receiued vnder both kinds then vnder one You teach the quite contrary how neere then are you Now ouer and aboue al this you know the Councel of Basil is of litle or noe with Catholiques as being reproued by the See Apostolique 4. Your second point is of the Marriage of Priests which I see not why you should make soe fundamentall vnlesse it bee to gaine the good will of the Ministery with whom I confesse it is of great account You proue it by a saying of Aeneas Syluius whom being à Pope you would be gladd if Iou could make come neere you But he cometh as neere as the Councel of Basil For first his authority as you cite it in this place is but a saying of his related by Platina without citing any worke where out it is taken but you repeating the same againe with some little addition in your eleuenth section note in the margent his bookes de gestis Concilij Basileensis which you cannot but know to haue beene reuoked and condemned by himself in bulla retractationis and there excused by him in that hee writ it in tyme of that Councel being then a young man neyther Priest nor Diuine but onely a Grammarian and Poet and coming then newly from those studies and therefore he will haue those works counted not Pius his works but the works of Aeneas Syluius as hee saith expressely in the same Bull. Verendum saith hee Pius 2. in Bull. retracta 〈◊〉 4. Concil ne talia nostris aliquando successoribus obijciantur quae fuerunt Aeneae dicantur Pij It is to be feared least sometymes heereafter such things may bee obiected to our Successours and those things which were Aeneas his be said to bee Pius his Which therefore he reuoketh wishing others not to rely vpon or giue creditt vnto them in those things quae supremam Sedis Apostolicae authoritatem quouis pacto elidunt aut aliquid astruunt quod sacrosancta Romana non amplectitur ecclesia Which any way dash against the supreame authority of the See Apostolique or affirme any thing which the holy Romane Church doth not embrace Which yet your conscience can serue you to conceale taking the obiection which he foresaw but leauing the answeare which he made that thereby you might better deceiue men with making them beleeue as if there had beene a Pope a Protestant this is good Dealing Sir Humphrey and like you 5. Doctour Harding cometh next whom in like sort you abuse notably citing his words by halfes and making him to say the faithfull haue since the primitiue Church much complayned of priuate Masse as you call it whereas he saith onely that the godly and
And therefore all your labour is lost when by similitudes you labour to proue that we are not to putt you to the proofe of our errours by naming the authors tyme and place for vpon these circumstāces dependeth the knowledge whether it bee a disease or noe which is our questiō Neither is that authority of S. Aug. to your purpose for he speaketh of a man fallen into a pitt of whom it is euident that he is fallen into it And though you would haue it soe that the Romane Church is fallen into an errour as it were into a pitt we say otherwise and of this is the question And this we would haue you proue by assingning the author tyme place of this Change for till you can shew that we say according to S. Aug. rule that whatsoeuer the Catholique Church doth generally beleeue or practize soe as there can bee noe tyme assigned when it began it is to be taken for an Apostolical tradition Such we say are all these things which you are pleased onely because they please you not to call errours And it stands you therefore vpon to proue when they began els they must passe for Apostolical traditions not for errors as you would haue them Tert. praescrip cap. 31. 3. Besides it is Tertullians rule for discerning of heresy from truth to see which goeth before which cometh after that which goeth before is truth that which cometh after is errour Wee say then that in all these things wee goe before because wee haue antiquity they are things that haue beene euer taught and practized we pleade prescription from the beginning and wee say and proue that you come after we assigne you persons tymes places who haue begunne the Chāge it followeth thē that ours is true till you can shew vs tyme person and place when it begāne as we shew yours not to be true by the same rule Neither is it enough for you to say we are in errour you must disproue vs by shewing our prescription not to hold good which you can neuer doe without assigning of persons tymes c. If you should haue a sute against a man in Westminster-hall for land which he pleadeth to haue beene his and his ancestors for soe long tyme as is required by the Law to make prescription and that you should goe about to disproue it without assigning the tyme and manner but onely by your owne bare word would not euery man laugh at you How much more in this case and yet you thinke you haue spoken wonderfull wisely and learnedly all this while 4. Which may yet appeare more by that which followeth of your comparison betwixt heresy and apostacy In which you attribute this later vnto vs but it seemeth heereby you little know what Apostacy is Wherefore to helpe you out Apostacy is a defection or forsaking of the name of Christ and profession of Christianity as all men vnderstand it Whereof sure you cannot taxe vs soe long as we beleeue the Apostles Creede which you call the common cognizance of Christianity and which you confesse vs to beleeue How then can we be Apostata'es In no wise certainely but if we erre we erre as Heretiques if we be Heretiques you confesse you must assigne the person who first taught our heresyes the tyme place where when they were first taught For soe you say in plaine termes that heresy because it worketh openly it may be discerned the tyme and persō knowne though you bee somewhat various in this for you say a little before that whē there was any heresy that did endāger the foundation or openly disturbed the Church supposing heerein that there be some secret heresyes which doe not soe the Fathers gaue warning thereof by letters But your supposition is false and foolish False in that you thinke any heresy not to endaunger the foundation of Faith for the least heresy that can bee imagined ouerthroweth all diuine faith Foolish in that you suppose some heresies to be soe secrett as not to disturbe the Church For if they bee secret how come you to know them and to know they are heresies seing they come to haue the name of heresy onely by condemnation of the Church As for your last point of the Fathers giuing warning by letters it is true indeede and thereto you might also haue added if you had soe pleased that the Fathers did forbeare absolutely to condemne things for haeresies or to censure the authors for haeretiques V. Ep. Cyrill Alex. ad Caelest P P. in Conc. Ephes. p. 1. cap. 14. to 1. Concil ed. Post Binii and consequently to send such letters till they had acquainted the Bishops of Rome and had his iudgment As is clere by S. Cyrill of Alexandria in the case of Nestorius 5. But we haue this at least out of your discourse that seing you can produce noe such letters against any point of those which you condemne vs for that they doe not endanger the foundation of faith If not what needed you make this huge breach from vs vpon pretence of Reformacion in things of noe more moment or at least not of necessity in your iudgment but we are not to require more reason of your doings then your sayings and therefore to come to the parable of scripture wherein the enemy is said to haue ouer sowed his cockle in the night Which parable you are pleased to expound of Apostacy I answeare that this parable is vnderstood noe lesse of haeresy then Apostacy V. Tert. de praesor cap. 31. nay more For all the Fathers and Interpreters expound it of haeresy none that euer I heard of Apostacy Which therefore must bee verified of all those which you acknowledge for open haeresyes 28. 6. And therefore you are much out of the way when you thinke by that that you are not to be forced to name the person place and tyme when where and by whom our Doctrine began because as you say the seede was sowne in the night and the person not knowne For in that parable you are to know that as Christ is the Goodman of the howse who sowed the good seede soe the enemy that soweth his cockle in the night is the Diuel who indeede worketh in the night and inuisibly and he is the one singular and principall enemy of Christ and all Mankind And hee it is that soweth all the seuerall seeds of diuers haeresyes the field wherein he soweth it is the World Then it groweth vpp and appeareth when that seede of erroneous doctrine being sowed in the harts of wicked men and there taking deepe roote breaketh forth at last by their preaching and teaching thereof or this cokle are Filij mali as the Scripture it self saith euill Children then the Seruants of the Goodman who are the Pastours and Doctours of his Church presently beginne to complaine thereof and wonder how it should come c. Soe S. Aug. lib. q. Euāg in Math. cap. 11. to 4. This
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
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
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
he bringeth these which you could not but see Wherefore in this you come short of the very Minister's honesty How little then must you needs haue Lastly I answeare this very authority is against you in the two things in controuersy betweene vs to wit the real presence and transubstantiation both which it alloweth and is against vs onely in one not soe properly in controuersy to wit in that it saith this change is wrought not by the words this is my body but by the benediction that goeth before Which benediction it doth not say whether it were a word or a deede and it is as like to bee some word as otherwise but whether word or deede it is as easy to consecrate by these words this is my body as by any other words or outward deede Soe as herein Sir Humphrey you haue noe helpe from any man eyther Salmeron or the Graecians or euen your freind Chamier for he discouereth your bad dealing 22. After this matter of the Blessing you come backe againe to the proofe of transubstantiation out of Scriptures telling vs that Bellarmine saith it is not altogether improbable that there is noe expresse place of Scripture to proue it without the declaration of the Church as Scotus said for though saith Bellarmine that place which we brought seeme soe plaine that it may compell a man not refractory yet it may iustly bee doubted whether it bee soe or noe seing the most learned and acute men as Scotus haue thought the contrary In which words Bellarmine saith but what we granted before to wit that though the words of consecration in the plaine connatural and obuious sense inferre transubstantiation yet because in the iudgment of some learned men they may haue another sense which proueth onely the real presence without transubstantiation it is not altogether improbable that without the authority of the Church they cannot enforce a man to beleeue transubstantiation out of them What of all this nothing to your purpose Sir Knight though in translating this saying of Bellarmines you haue corrupted it in two places The one that whereas Bellarmine said one scripture or place of scripture which he brought to proue transubstantiation was soe plaine as to enforce a man not refractory You change the singular number into the plural as if Bellarmine had said the Scriptures were soe plaine c. Which is a corruption of yours thereby insinuating as if Bellarmine taught the Scriptures to be plaine and with out difficulty soe as euery body may vnderstand them which indeed is an ordinary saying of you Protestants but as ordinarily denied by vs Catholiques The other is that whereas Bellarmine saith men most learned and acute as Scotus was You say the most learned and acute men such as Scotus Which word the you cannot but know alters the sense much For it importeth as if the better part of learned and acute men went that way which is false and contrary to the Cardinal's words and meaning 23. You tell vs now in the next place that you will proceede from Scriptures to Fathers as if you had said mighty matters out of scripture not hauing indeede said one word out of it either for your selfe or against vs. Well let vs see what you say out of the Fathers Alfonsus a Castro say you was a diligent reader of the Fathers yet after great study and search returnes this answeare of the conuersion of the body and bloud of Christ there is seldome mention in the Fathers But Sir you are noe diligent reader nor faithfull interpreter of Alfonsus a Castro For his words as you your selfe putt them downe in Latine in the margent are thus Alphon a Castro lib. 8. verbo Indulgent De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio That is Of the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is sedome mention in ancient writers Wherein he saith true and you most false For though of transubstantiation there be rare mention yet of the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention as Bellarmine sheweth at large And herein it is that you shew your selfe a faithlesse interpreter de Euchar. l. 3. cap. 20. But if a man consider Castro his meaning he shall find you to haue abused that much more then his words For his drift in that place is to shew that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writes of a thing or plaine testimony of scripture that yet the vse and practize of the Church is sufficient bringing for an example this point of transubstantiation whereof he saith there is seldome mention and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne whereof saith he there is more seldome mention and then maketh his inference vpon it thus yet who but an Haeretique will deny these things you might then as well Sir Humphrey and better too in Castro his iudgment haue denied the holy Ghost to proceede from the Sonne then the bread to be transubstantiated into Christ's body And herein it is that you shew your selfe noe diligent nor vnderstanding reader of Castro 24. After him cometh one Yribarne a disciple of Scotus whose words you also corrupt in the translation which it is enough to tell you of For the matter he saith it was of the substance of faith in the primitiue Church that Christ was really present vnder the formes of bread and wine yet was it not soe of transubstantiation wherein he seemeth to hold with his Master Scotus Who was of opinion that transubstantiation was not a point of faith till the Councell of Lateran For which you your self confesse he is censured by Bellarmine and Suarez which were answeare enough For as I told you in the beginning wee doe not bind our selues to defend euery singular opinion of one or two Doctors contrary to the common opinion of others But besides I answeare that Scotus plainely auerreth transubstantiation and proueth it out of the ancient Fathers who vse the very word of conuersion which is all one with transubstantiation For thus he saith in a certaine place Respondeo quod nec panis manet contra primam opinionem nec annihilatur vel resoluitur in materiam primam Sâ—â—t 4. dist 1â— 9.3 contra secundam opinionem sed conuertitur in corpus Christi Et ad hoc multum expresse videtur loqui Ambrosius cuius vndecim authoritates supra adductae sunt plures habentur de consecrat dist 2. I answeare that neyther the bread remayneth against the first opinion nor is annihilated or resolued in to materia prima against the second opinion but is changed into the body of Christ And to this purpose S. Ambrose seemeth to speake very expresly out of whom 11. authorityes are brought before and more are to bee had de consecr dist 2. S. Amb. de iis qui myst initiant cap. 9 de Sacrament lib. 4. cap. 3. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1.
seeing the Man 's abhominable Lying by this one thing may giue a guesse of the rest The Councel as he confesseth in the beginning accurseth him and his Doctrine and heere he saith it concludeth with a well wishing therevnto Is it euen soe good Sir your Communion is allowed by the Councel of Trent you tell vs Newes I pray you what Canon what Chapter what Session is your Cōmunion once named in there you will say where the Councel wisheth that the people that heare Masse would cōmunicate not onely spiritually but also sacramentally is this your Communion what haue you Masse Sir Humphrey take heede id may cost you money An informer that should heare this might catch you by the backe and bring you in for soe many hundred marks as you haue receiued bytts of bread in your Church Which truely might proue a deare ordinary for you And this you must either confesse or lett alone the Councel of Trent which acknowledgeth noe Communion without Masse For if you deny your Seruice to be Masse we deny your Communion to bee Communion for no Masse noe communion therefore bethinke your selfe whither you will be content to haue a Masse or noe Trent-Communion and while you stand studying of this I will putt you another thing to consider of Which is this that it is one thing for the Councel to wish that the people would communicate because to heare Masse and receiue withall would bee more profitable another to say that if there bee noe body to communicate or that such Masse is vnlawfull as Haeretiques say the Priest must not say Masse what thinke you Sir are not these two things study the matter a while and tell vs. Doe not you then speake wondrous wittily when you say that there cometh blessing and cursing out of the same mouth as if the Councel did approue and condemne the same thing when it commendeth sacramentall communion of the people together with the Priest and yet condemneth not those Masses as vnlawfull wherein the people doe not communicate yea approueth them the like wit and lesse honesty you shew alsoe in that you say that from the Confession of a general Councell your Communion is concluded to bee more fruitfull what affinity betweene your empty communion which is but a morsel of bread and a supp of wine and the true real substantiall Body and Bloud of CHRIST IESVS which the faithfull Catholique receiueth the Councell commendeth daily receiuing of the Blessed Sacrament as more profitable therefore say you it cōmendeth your Communion which you vse once twice thrice or 4. tymes a yeare It wisheth that the people would receiue sacramentally as the Priest doth you make it say noe but that the Priest must doe as the people doth that is not celebrate but when they are disposed to receiue is it not meere madnes for you Sir Humphrey thus plainely to abuse the Councel soe contrary to the plaine meaning thereof 3. Like to this is your folly in alleadging soe many authorityes in fauour of your Communion as you thinke Which whither you cite them true or noe I doe not stand to examine for it maketh noe matter They say it was the practize of the primitiue Church to communicate euery day with the Priest I grant it What then therefore the Priest now must say Masse but once in two or three months or once in a twelue moneth or not once in seauen yeare vnlesse the people be soe deuout as to come receiue with him this followeth of your doctrine is not this wise arguing but to answeare you another way Sir Humphrey you cannot bee ignorant that there is not one of these authors which you cite for the peoples daily communion that saith that either it is or was of necessity soe to doe but onely beare witnes of the practize Bell. lib. 2. de Mis cap. 9. 10. Durant de ritib. lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5. Whereas some of them as Bellarmine and Durantus doe proue most manifestly that there was noe such necessity or dependency of the Priest's celebrating vpon the peoples cōmunicating that they might not celebrate vnlesse the people did communicate Nay they proue clearely that it was ordinary for Priests to celebrate though noe body did communicate Doe they not proue by manifest authorities that in the Easterne Church in the tyme of S. Ambrose S. Aug. S. Chrisost the people did cōmunicate but once a yeare and yet S. Chrysost euen there where he complaineth of the peoples coldnes saith of himself that he celebrated euery day though there were noe body to participate with him but because these Fathers liued after the Primitiue Church though not long and that your authors speake most of the Primitiue Church it is manifest that euen in that tyme the people did not still communicate euery day as they had done in the beginning for whereas people did communicate before without command onely of their owne deuotion they were growne soe cold by Pope Fabian's tyme Fab. epi. 3. which was about the yeare 240. being but the one twētith Pope that hee was faine to make a Decree to compell the people to communicate at least thrice a yeare and this was almost one hundred yeares before the end of the Primitiue Church the like decree I might alsoe bring out of Soter about the yeare 175. which was 60. yeares before Fabian Whereas notwithstanding then Priests and Bishops did celebrate euery day as appeareth by S. Cypr. Ambr. Aug. Hierome Lib. 2. cap. 4. c. cited by Durantus And which is more those Fathers S. Aug by name saith he doth neither commend nor discommend the daily Communion of the people but wisheth that at least vpon Sundayes they would communicate but with a mind free from desire of sinning whereas hee together with other Fathers make frequent mention of dayly sacrifice But what is all this to your purpose or to your cōmunion as of all that is said by the Fathers of the holy Communion were meant of your sacrilegious communion 4. Now for your proofes out of Scripture as that that our Sauiour said to his Disciples take yee eate yee I answeare that as our Sauiour there spake to all his Apostles who did all eate soe out of this place a man might euen as well say that all must communicate that are in the Church at the same tyme and that the Priest must not say Masse vnlesse not onely one 2. or 3. communicate but all that are there which I doe not beleeue you will grant For I doe not thinke that when any one man among you receiueth your communion all receiue it Solue this obiection then of myne and you answeare your owne For S. Paul's words where he inuiteth Christians to imitate him as he did imitate Christ out of which you would gather that Priests must not say Masse vnlesse there be some body to communicate if a man should tell your Ministers and your selfe too Sir Humphrey of many things
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
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
scripture which they stood vpon he answeareth thus Et etiam si sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset Dialog 2. con Lucifer totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting the consent of the whole world on this side should haue the force of a praecept And soe there is an end of this 5. § Of Prayer and seruice in a knowne tongue §. 6. 1. In this § the Knight speaketh against the practise and doctrine of the Catholique Church in two things One is for vsing the publique seruice in a tongue not knowne to the vulgar people another for saying some part of the Masse with a lowd voyce so as the people cannot heare The practice of which two things though the Knight confound them into one was seuerally and distinctly approued by the Councell of Trent anathema pronounced against whosoeuer should condemne either of them Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Councel's owne authority thinking also euen by it to make good the contrary practise of his Church For saith hee the Councel in saying that the Masse doth containe great instruction of the faithfull people or as he translateth the words of the Councel in the beginning of this § great instruction for the common people And that it is to be interpreted vnto them doth consequently affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the aedification of the Church and this he cōfirmes with an argument of his owne thus And without doubt saith hee the Apostles being cōmanded to shew forth the Lord's death till his coming it was not intended to shew it to the walls or in a silent vnknowne voyce as it is now vsed in the Romane Church but to pronounce it openly to bee heard and vnderstood of the hearers Soe farre our Knight Now to reckon with him 2. Because the Councel of Trent saith that the Masse containeth great instruction of the people and that for that end it is to be interpreted vnto them he saith it consequently affirmes the practize of the reformed Churches to be better for aedificatiō of the Church Doth it soe Sir Humphrey by what Logicke doth this cōsequēce follow or by what figure of Rhethoricke do You take one thing for another the Councel saith that though the Masse containe great instruction yet it doth not follow that it should bee in the vulgar tongue you tell vs the Councel by cōsequence doth affirme it to follow the Councel thinketh it better to retaine the general and long continued practise of the Church of not vsing the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Masse but for instruction of the people to interprete something of what is read you say it approueth the contrary custome of your Church if it had soe had it not beene an easier matter to haue appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue but the Councel knew well that course was not soe fitt neither in respect of the publique good of the Church nor in reguard of the priuate good of the faith-full people for many reasons 3. First for the general practise and custome which hath beene obserued in the Church of God of hauing the Masse and publique office in Latine all ouer the Latine or Westerne Church both in Italy Spaine France Germany England Africke all other places and soe likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent had as much variety of vulgar languages in it as the Latine Church hath Which custome is not to be forsaken especially for Haeretiques out of that their false perswasiō that it is noe good or lawful practice Secōdly for the vniformity which is fit to be vsed in such things and vnity of the Catholique Church which is excellently declared also much maintained by this Vnity of Langage in the Church-office For as lāguage is a thing most necessary for cōmerce amōg men in ciuill matters so also in ecclesiastical and without this vse of Latine in this māner there could not bee that cōmunication betwene men of learning neither would mē of one countrey be the better for the writings of others there would be litle meeting of men of seueral nations in Councels little study of Councels of Fathers others who haue all writtē in Latine or some learned language whereas the vse of the Latine tongue in the Church is the cause of all the contrary effects as we see by experiēce Thirdly the vse of vulgar tongues in the Masse and Church-office would cause not onely great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by soe many seueral translations not onely in seueral countries but by seueral translations in euery countrey of any small extent euen in the same place vpon a litle change of tyme for as we see in euery age the vulgar language reciueth a great alternation of which translations the Church would not be able any way to iudge scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other which therefore for the well trāslating thereof requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost which noe priuate man can promise himselfe Lastly the vse of a vulgar language in such things would breede a great cōtempt of sacred things with prophanes and irreligiosity besids the daunger of haeresy which cometh noe way sooner then by mis-vnderstanding of holy scripture Neither are any more apt to mis-vnderstād it then the simpler sort of people if they once take vpon them to vnderstand These reasons then among others but most of all the tradition of the Church drawne euen from the Apostles by perpetual Successiō and practise might perswade the Councel to thinke that though some benefitt might come to some few particular men by vnderstanding what is written yet it was absolutely better to retaine the same custome still and euen to remedy that inconuenience another way to wit by explaning something of what is read in the Masse which the Councel declareth by a similitude very proper for the purpose to wit by breaking of bread to little ones fort it is euen as necessary for ordinary people to haue the Scriptures soe declared as for children to haue their bread broken and as vnfit to giue such men the Scripture it self whole to reade or to reade it soe vnto them as to giue a little child a whole great loafe Neither if a man marke the Councel of Trent's words well doth it say that the Masse doth containe instruction in that sense as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would bee an instruction but onely that it containeth great instruction that is many things which might be good for the people to learne being explicated which a man might truely say though euen when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be vnderstood without helpe of an expositor how then Sir Humphrey doth the Councel acknowledge your
not making any images in the old Testament which is still True I graunt there was such a command then but whether it be still in force or noe or how farr it is in force there is the question for resoluing whereof it is to be considered that there be two opinions among our Diuines as you take notice of which some say it is moral others caeremonial according to both I answeare you two wayes one according to Vazq and his authours who say that there was such a commaund indeede but that it was but for that tyme onely and is now expired being but temporall and caeremonial made and obserued then in reguard of the pronesse of the Iewes to idolatry Which if it were not soe then but that it were yet in force as you would haue it then could not you how haue your wiues picture nor she yours without breach of that command therefore in that sense you cannot vrge it more against our pictures then we against yours Neither can you saue your selfe by saying that your pictures are not dedicated to adoration as ours are For in Vazq his sense they are euery iott as much as is plaine by his very words which are these that follow Lib. 2. de â—dor disp 4. cap. 3. n. 76 cap. 6. n. 98. â—q Modus accommodatus adorationi est cum imago depicta aut sculpta est per se non veluti appendix additamentum alterius rei in ornatum illius c. The manner accommodated or fitted for adoration is when a Picture is painted or carued by it selfe not as an appeÌ„dix or addition to another thing by way of ornameÌ„t By which rule your pictures are in state of adoratioÌ„ or so that they may be adored because they are whole and compleate pictures of themselues not additions ornaments or appurtenances ioyned or belonging to another thing as the Cherubins in the temple were which he saith therefore were not in state to be adored because they were not there as compleate of themselues but onely by way of appendix or appurtenance for ornament of the arke for hence he inferreth that all manner of pictures were forbidden euen out of the Temple Wherefore euen in Vazq his opinion whose authority you alleage you must acknowledge this commandement to be onely caeremonial and but for that tyme of the old law For by it in this sense all making or hauing any image or picture whatsoeuer was forbidden which certainely is not now in force and soe not against vs any way 5. Now according to the other opinion also I may answeare that the praecept was moral and therefore doth bind still but that by it were not forbidden all images but such as were made to represent false Gods and were to be soe adored and that therefore it is noe distinct praecept or commandment but onely an explication of the first of the ten commaundements which is that we should haue noe other Gods but him to wit that we should not make a God to our selues of anie thing els either in heauen or earth making any Idol or likenesse of any of all those things to adore it So that whether with Vazq we deny the very making or hauing of pictures or whether with Bell. we allow the making and hauing them deny onely the adoring them with diuine honour the diuersity of opinions helpeth you not one whit Both standing very well with the Catholique faith and both against yours for euen Vazq though he deny the making of pictures and consequently all adoration of them yet he graunteth and proueth euen out of the old testament that honour and reuerence might and was giuen to things insensible and as little deseruing reuerence in themselues as pictures soe it were with reference to almighty God as for example the arke and Temple vnderstanding that place of the Psalme adorabimus in loco vbi steterunt pedes eius Psal 131.7 We will adore in the place where his feet stood Psal 5. v. 8. of the arke as it is indeed to be vnderstood and that other of the Temple adorabo ad templum Sanctum iuum in timore tuo I will adore at thy holy temple in thy feare Vazq de ador disp 4. cap. 4. and proueth that ad which I interpret at to be a spare particle according to the Hebrew phrase and that the true meaning is I will adore thy Temple You may find his proofes out of the hebrew yf you haue wherewithall to vnderstand him Whereby it is cleare his authority is nothing for you 6. Now for Philo his authority it maketh not against vs for he saith nothing but that the Iewes were not wont to admitt any image into their Temple and that their ancestours did account it a wickednesse to paint the invisibâ—e God or faine a representation of him and that the worke of Painters and Caruers are the images of material Gods this I say is not against vs for neyther doe we paint the invisible God or faine a representation of him that is any picture representing his nature or deity What is this to the decree of the Councel of Trent allowing the pictures of Christ and his Saints we may not make a picture of the invisible God therefore not of a visible man a good consequence Sir Humphrey and fitt for soe good a Scholer and soe wise a man as you are the former part of the same sentence is as much to the purpose You say they were not to haue images in their temple I say also not in their howses therefore must you haue none or if you deny the consequence I inferre vpon you againe If notwithstanding that practise command or be it what you will of the Iewes you haue your freind's picture in your house may not I haue the picture of God's freind in myne may not a man by being Gods freind haue a much priuiledge as by being yours beside what pictures could the Iewes haue in their Temple not the picture of God for he cannot be painted not of any Saint for there was none as yet might haue that honour to haue their pictures in the temple themselues being not yet admitted into the heauenly temple of God all other pictures are profane vnfitt for such a place the people withall were grosse carnal and prone to idolatry none of which reasons haue place with vs. Touching the last part of Philo his saying that the works of Painters and Caruers are the images of material Gods it is true if it be vnderstood that the material Gods are the worke of men's hands but if he say that all the works of Painters and Caruers are material Gods it cannot be true For suppose Sir Humphrey some of your Ministers or other your deuoted ClieÌ„ts out of the opinion they haue of your worth and great desert in writing this booke of your should erect you a statua in the corner of two high wayes pointing out your fingar to shew a trauailler the
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
not in respect of the Pope Wherefore you in going to indulgence for the dead seeme to allow them for the liuing or rather shew you cannot say against them Now for applying indulgences to the dead though the manner of application be different and that we doe not find examples altogether soe ancient as of the former yet the things is in some sort the same supposing you grant the power of applying Indulgences to the liuing as you cannot deny your owne ground being laid thus therefore I shew the matter to be the same supposing another point alsoe of faith which is not heere to be disputed of to wit the communion of Saints or communication which is betweene the Saints liuing and dead either raigning in heauen or suffering in satisfaction of their sinnes in Purgatory This I say supposed the punishment which was dew heere by the poenitential canons may be taken away as you confesse which being not taken away by indulgence nor suffered heere according to the Canons must be suffered there why may it not then be taken away by applying indulgences to them there as well as by works which other men may doe for them heere on earth Which according to the Catholique faith are auaileable for them there in Purgatory Which communion or communication among themselues being grounded in the society and vnity which they haue with Christ why may not the same Vnity and society be sufficient for them to partake of the merits and satisfactions of Christ and his Saints who haue gone before and left that treasure of their merits as well as by the merits and sufferings of men liuing heere vpon earth there is noe difference then nor reason why you should grant that ancient manner of indulgence and denye ours now a dayes or why you should grant indulgences for the liuing and not for the dead soe long as they pertaine to the communion of Saints and haue neede thereof 8. Now for that which you adde heere to make our Indulgences applied to the soules in Purgatory ridiculous by saying we grant them for many thousand of yeares after death thereto citing an old Sarum booke of the howers of our Lady it is false and idle False both because your authority which you cite doth not mention Purgatory but onely saith that whosoeuer shall say these these prayers shall gaine soe many thousand yeares of pardon Which is noe more for the dead then for the liuing but onely that you doe not vnderstand the matter either of the one or other or rather they are for the liuing onely For Indulgences are not to be applyed to the dead vnlesse that be expressed in the grant which is not soe expressed in this grant of yours It is also false because the very thing which you say and would proue by your authority is false to wit that we giue Pardons for thousand of yeares in Purgatory after death For we doe not soe neyther doe we vnderstand those Pardons wherein are mentioned such numbers of yeares soe as if men were without those Pardons to remaine soe long in Purgatory But we vnderstand those yeares according to the poenitential canons by which many yeares penance were dew for one sinne And many men's sinnes being both very grieuous and a man may say without number according to the account of the ancient poenitential canons they may soone amount to thousands of yeares which though a man cannot liue to performe heere in this world nor euen in Purgatory for the length of tyme yet he may in Purgatory in few yeares space nay few moneths or few weekes space suffer soe much punishment as is answearable to all that penance of many thousands of yeares which a man should haue performed heere if he could haue liued soe long in which case a man may haue a pardon of soe many thousand yeares as well as a plenary both coming to one What strangenesse then or impossibility is therein this discourse if you did vnderstand it that you should thinke onely by a scorneful laugh to disgrace or disproue it It is also idle for you to vrge any thing that you find in any old booke as if that were presently of vncontrollable authority being nothing soe For we defend nothing but what hath sufficient approbation or allowance of the Catholique Church which many such old books as you cite want you should therefore haue added that withal if you had meant to proue any thing thereby 9. Now after this you tell vs that long before Luther's dayes by relation of Thomas Aquinas whom yet you cite not but onely out of Valencia some whereof opinion that ecclesiastical Indulgence of it selfe could remitt noe punishment neither in the Court of God nor of the Church but that they were a pious kind of fraud to draw men to doe good works but this opinion you say the Iesuit condemneth for erroneous and why I pray you Sir could you not as well say that S. Thomas did condemne the same not onely for erroneous but impious also but onely because you would make your Reader thinke it was condemned onely by the Iesuit and not by S. Thomas or rather that hee did as it were winke at it but how farre S. Thomas was from that and how free on the other side any man may see by this that putting the question in the 1. ar of his â—5 q. of the Suppl whither indulgences auaile any thing he maketh answeare that all grant that they auaile something because it were impious saith he to say that the Church did doe any thing in vayne and in the 2. art asking how much they auaile he saith that some say they auaile to euery one but according to their faith and deuotion he himsef saith it is very perilous to say that they doe not auaile soe much as they sound that is to soe much effect or pardon as they are giuen for Wherefore the antiquity of this opinion nothing auaileth you but rather doth you harme it being then condemned for an errour as likewise it auaileth you not that you bring halfe a dozen of our authours witnessing that there is noe expresse proofe of Scripture nor of some ancient Fathers as S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose c. for Indulgences For we grant there is not soe expresse mention of them as of many other points because there was not soe much vse of them though out of some Fathers also much more ancient then S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose c. we proue the vse of them to wit out of S. Cyprian and Tertullian as you may see in Bell. the one aboue 100. Lib. 1. de indulg cap. 3. the other aboue 200. before any of these Fathers and besides them the authority of certaine Councels as that of Nice Ancyra and Laodicea though if we had not either of these Fathers nor any els nor of these Councels yet would not that follow which you ground therevpon to wit that we want antiquity and consent of Fathers For it is a
this very place which you soe often repeate out of S. Paul to himself he answeareth it by expounding the word praeter in the same sense with contra Which standeth very well also with the propriety of the Latine word and for the Greeke it the same both heere Gal. v. 8. and Rom. 16.17 Where there is a like sentence of S. Paul's wishing the Romanes to marke auoyd such as putt scandals and stumbling blocks contrary to the doctrine which they had receiued The word I say is the same 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusatiue case which doth signify as well if not better contra then praeter and in your owne bibles you translate it in that place to the Romanes contrary to the doctrine I see not therefore why you should not vnderstand it alike in both places But to retourne to S. Augustine the thing being soe I may iustly aske of you Sir Humphrey whether you haue not soe often affronted this holy Father as you haue repeated this sentence soe contrary to his meaning in your owne most false and absurd sense to the subuersion of your Readers drawing his words from their true Catholique sense which he hath soe often and soe seriously inculcated vpon seueral occasions to the establishing of your peruerse and haeretical principles soe much by him euer detested But there is a countinge day Sir Humphrey as litle as you thinke of it for this all other matters wherein also this Saint will reckon with you in particular you are like to feele the heauy doome of him and all others whom you haue soe freely affronted in this kind But meane while I trust in the goodnes of God by the prayers of this holy Saint that those well meaning people that shall take the paines for their owne soules good to peruse this answeare wil be able thereby to discouer and proclame to others soe much of your dealing as that any thing you haue said or shall euer say will be able to doe little harme to any but such as shall wilfully runne vpon their owne ruine And soe Sir Humphrey I shall make an end of this § and Section wherein is contained the cheife matter of your whole booke soe as I hope there wil be lesse to doe with that which followeth Chap. 10. Of the 10. Section entituled thus The testimonyes of our aduersaryes touching the infallible certainty of the Protestant faith and the vncertainty of the Romish CHAPTER X. 1. SIr Humphrey hauing in the two former Sections proued the antiquity and Vniuersality of his faith both in general in particular as he would haue vs thinke cometh now to proue the certainty thereof and vncertainty of ours Where a man would expect he should bring some new thing either reason or authority but he doth neither but onely vpon the rotten ground which he supposeth he hath laid very soundly in the precedent Sections he goeth on very confidently with the certainty of his faith and making a short preface how he hath out of our owne authours proued that the faith doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome was not knowne informer ages and that though the Priests especially Iesuits are bound by oath to maintaine the Papacy yet that it can not be denied but that we haue testified against our selues in behalfe of his doctrine and howsoeuer we excuse the matter yet we are diuided among our selues and soe want vnity of faith After this preface I say he maketh a short reuiew of our confessions for him in matter of Iustification transubstantiation priuate Masse Sacraments Communion in one kinde prayer in an vnknowne tongue Worshipping of Images and Indulgences Vpon which he calleth men Angels to witnesse that we haue noe antiquity vniuersality and that consequently we haue resolued the grand question touching their Church before Luther to wit that it was in Christ in the Apostles in the Fathers in the bosome of the ancient Church before Luther's tyme. This is the summe of almost halfe this Sectiō in all which I must appeale gentle Reader to thy indifferent iudgment Whether there be a true word or noe For supposing that thou hast read what is gone before thou wilt easily see that though it were not my taske heere to proue the antiquity of the points of our Faith or vniuersality or any thing els but onely to answeare the fond obiections of Sir Humphrey Yet I haue accidentally and by the way proued the same in most points and by the same authours and places which he bringeth against vs and his fayling in his proofes of our nouelty is sufficient proofe of our antiquity and his owne nouelty 2. What a shameful boast then is it for him to say that most of our points now taught were vnknowne to antiquity For though some might perchance not haue beene soe anciently defined and consequently doubted of by some yet to say they were not commonly beleiued and much more to say they were not knowne cannot come frome any man but such a blinde but bold Bayard as Sir Humphrey Linde For if one man or two doubt of a thing must it therefore be vnknowne when not onely one or two on the other side but two for one or rather ten nay a hundred for one say the contrary Now lett him name that one of his points of faith heere by him disputed wherein not onely since it was defined which is enough for our purpose but euen before that we shall not bring him a great many that held that way which it was defined for euery one of those that held the other way How then could it be vnknowne The next thing in his praeface is of an Oath which our Priests especially Iesuits take to defend the Papacy and doctrine of the Church of Rome But if a man should aske him where he findeth this Oath he would not be able soe readily to tell vs though if he could I see not why any man should be ashamed of it nay why he should not glory of soe heroical an act as is an oath whereby he bindeth himself to the defence of the authority whereon the waight frame of the whole Catholique Church and saluation of all soules from Christ his owne tyme to the very end of the world hath doth and still shall depend But this I onely note for the Knight's ignorance for I beleeue the thing he would be at is the fourth vow of the Iesuits Whereby they specially bind themselues in Obedience to the Sea Apostolique to goe in Mission to any part of the world whether infidel or haeretique which is a little different at least from that which he talketh of an oath to defend the Papacy 3. The third thing in his praeface is want of Vnity wherewith he chargeth vs. Whereof I onely say that as we confesse there may be difference of iudgments before a definition of faith soe lett him shew the diuision after such definition Lett him name that man and we
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
that suppose he doe know thē to be good yet they haue not that goodnes from him or as they are his but as they are from almighty God and by his grace And yet more we teach that he may fall againe and loose all his labour which doth exceedingly diminish confidence of a man's selfe soe as we leaue nothing for a man to trust to of himselfe but that he must giue all to God as S. Paul did in saying 1. Cor. 15.10 non ego sed gratia Dei mecum not I but the grace of God with mee qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur That he that doth glory may glory in God and to shew that we haue nothing of our selues we say againe with the same Saint quid habes quod non accepisti What hast thou which thou hast not receiued Now on the other side examine you your owne doctrine a little better and see whither it doth not teach the contrary vaine cōfidence in most of these points as that a man must assure himself that his sinnes are forgiuen that he must assure himself of his saluation that he cannot fall from grace and the like Which ground supposed how can he worke his saluation with feare trembling as S. Peter teacheth And soe we haue answeared 3. points of Safety which you begin withall out of your owne inuention Now you come to other points of Safety which you proue by authority of other men 5. The first of these and fourth in order is Communion in both kinds which you say is better then in one kinde alone you proue it out of Cassander Vazq Hales and Valencia I answeare that for Cassander you know he is noe author to be alleadged against a Catholique For Vazq it seemeth you are not so well skilled in him as to cite him out of his owne works but out of the frēch Minister Chamier who is another great mā with you But for the matter it is true some few Catholiques as Vazq Hales p. 4. q. 11. m. 2. ar 4. § 3. for Valencia I shall tell you more anone are of opiniō that it is of greater merit and fruit to receiue in both kinds then in one But I aske you why it should be more safe to follow those two then 10. 20. 30. or 40. Other Diuines to the cōtrary For my part I doe not see any reason for it if you waigh the matter by reason or by number and authority of Doctors Secondly neither of these two doth acknowledge any danger in our practice of one kind but allow it for good and lawfull For soe saith Hales quia Christus integrè sumitur sub vtraque specie bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum sicut fere vbique fit a laicis in ecclesia Because Christ is receiued entirely vnder each kind it is very lawful to receiue the body of Christ vnder the kind of bread onely as it is vsed almost euery where by the Layity in the Church And Vazq employeth a whole disputation in the proofe of the same Truth out of Scripture and tradition shewing withall that the Latine Church did with very good reason forbid Communion in both kinds and soluing all the arguments of the Haeretiques against it Soe as he acknowledgeth not your doctrine to be either safe or the same with his but a cleane different haeresy For his is a Schoole opinion not of the safety but of the fruitfulnes of Communion in One or both kinds Yours is an haeresy denying the sufficiency of one kind and vrging both as a matter of necessity for the integrity of the Sacrament and fulfilling of Christ's praecept and denying also the authority of the Church for dispensing therein And though in speculation Vazq rather allow both kinds to be more fruitfull yet all circumstances considered he deemeth Communion in one kind absolutely better for many great reasons pertayning to the reuerence of the Sacrament and common good which doe not onely counteruaile but farre surpasse the want of that fruit which is giuen more by the other kind all necessary grace being giuen by one alone as he teacheth And for Hales besids that he holdeth it very lawfull to communicate in one kind onely which is directly against you I thinke a man that would goe about it might easily puzle you out of him euen for soe much as pertaineth to the perfection of the spiritual fruit p. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar 1. For thus he saith to that which is said that he that receiueth vnder the forme of bread onely receiueth the Sacrament perfectly and entirely I answeare that this Sacramēt is receiued two wayes spiritually and sacramētaly Wherefore I say that quantum ad spiritualē sumptionē perfectè accipit for as much as pertaineth to the spiritual receiuing he receiueth it perfectly but not so for the Sacramētal receiuing Now this perfection of a Sacrament he explicateth before to consist in the representation which saith he is not soe perfect in one kind as both Which we also grant though we say the fruit to be the same in One and both kinds See Sir Humphrey how you can get out of this brake Now for Valencia your third author whom you cite in the margent saying that he affirmeth the same to wit with Hales and Vazq let any man see whether you doe not play him a Lindy-tricke For these are his words in the very same chapter by you cited Val de leg vs. Euchar. cap. 6. Hoc sacramentum tam est per se fructuosum efficax in altera specie quam in vtraque specie This sacrament is of it selfe as fruitfull and effectual in one kind as in both and soe your doctrine in this point is as safe and comfortable as your citation of this author is true 6. The fift of your safe and profitable points is of your communion of Priest and people together the safety you proue not by any thing but your owne bare word For the profitablenes of the Sacrifice indeede you proue it is more when the people communicate with the Priest out of the Councel of Trent Harding and Bellarmine but Sir that is not the controuersy between you and v◠but this whether the Priest may not say Masse vnlesse he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether it be more profitablenes for the Priest that he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether the Sacrifice be lesse perfect in it selfe in that case or not Of this you say not a word as neither doe your authors which you bring for they speake onely of the fruit which would redound to the people which we grant to be greater when they communicate with the Priest then when not But of the forme or matter of controuersy they all determine absolutely against you their whole drift in those places being none other but to disproue you as may easily appeare to any man that will looke in them and I haue partly shewed before
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
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
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
conueniret sub vtraque specie fieri communionem quam sub altera tantum hoc enim magis consonum est eius institutioni integritati refectioni corporali exemplo Christi c. that is If wee reguard the Sacrament and the perfection thereof it were more conuenient to haue the communion vnder both kinds then vnder one For this is more agreeable to the institution thereof and the integrity and corporal resection and the example of Christ c. Where first you leaue out in your English translation those words habito respectu ad Sacramentum though you put them in Latine in the margent Which words are the life of the sentence and plainely shew that Tapper doth not speake of the conueniency absolutely and all things considered but in some respect to wit in respect of the Sacrament or in respect of the signification of our Sauiour's passion which is more expresse in both kinds then in one in respect of the institutioÌ„ which was in both in respect of the integrity because as the Diuines say both the Species are partes integrantes as two peeces of bread in one loafe though both together haue noe more essential perfection then one alone And in respect of corporal refectioÌ„ which as it requireth meate and drinke soe the spiritual refection is more expresly signified by both though noe lesse effectually performed by one Soe that this while Tapper speaketh not of the absolute conuenieÌ„cy but onely in some respects wherein I appeale to the Reader whether you haue kept your promise of not wilfully or wittingly mis-citing or mistranslating any author For heere it appeareth how you haue mis-traÌ„slated leauing out as a maÌ„ may say the principal verbe which shall yet more appeare by that which followeth immediatly in the same author which is this Alia tamen consideratione reuerentia vz. Quae huic Sacramento dbetur vtque in eius vsu vitemus omneâ—â—â—reuerentiaÌ„ minus conuenit atque etiam malun est nulloque modâ— expediens ecclesiae vt populus Christianus sub vtraque specie communicaret Bâ—â— in another consideration to wit of the reuerence which is dew to this Sacrament and to the end we may auoid all irreuerence it is lesse conuenient and euen it is ill and noe way expedient for the Church that the Christian people should communicate vnder both kinds Loe you Sir Humphrey was it honestly done of you to leaue out this being the other halfe of the sentence answearing to the former which of it selfe was imperfect and which was the authors absolute iudgment and determination Can any man euer giue you credit more but because Sir I will not leaue any scruple in any mans minde concerning this authors meaning and that by the perfection and integrity which he spoke of in the former part of the senteÌ„ce he did not meane the want of any spiritual fruite I will adde one word more out of him which is this In omissione calicis nulluÌ„ interuenit peccatum aut periculum nec aliquod gratiae spiritualis iactum in the omitting or leauing of the Chalice there is noe sinne or daÌ„ger or losse of any spirituall grace What could hee say or we desire more 10. Wherefore to come to your coÌ„clusion which you draw out of that that because many Fathers and learned men doe agree in saying that the Communion in both kinds was most frequent in the Primitiue Church therefore they giue testimony of your doctrine it is most foolish for we also agree with them in the former and yet deny your doctrine which is that all men are bound to receiue in both kinds consequently that it is not lawfull for theÌ„ to receiue it in one kind and that soe to receiue it is to receiue but an half Communion and such like absurdityes This is your doctrine for proofe whereof you haue not brought one word out of any author but brought some that say absolutely and expresly the contrary as Val. Tapper Bell. c. Nay what will you say if a man shall shew you out of your owne statute Lawes made now in this your tyme of Reformation some approbatioÌ„ or allowance of the CommunioÌ„ in one kind 1. Edw. 6. cap. 1. which is the thing you exclaime soe against vs for See in the Lawes of K. Edw. 6. reuiued and coÌ„firmed by Q. Elizabeth whether they doe not say onely that the CoÌ„munion is to bee commonly deliuered ministred to the people vnder both kinds 1. Eliz. ca. 1. vith this exception also vnlesse necessity otherwise require Looke you Sir Humphrey is it not heere allowed vpon necessity though the necessity be not expressed what or how great it must be but hence it followeth that if particular necessity may excuse in a particular case if the necessity shall proue great vniuersal it may be also sufficient for abstayning from one kind vniuersally or generally and howsoeuer it sheweth Communion in both kinds not to bee so strictly commanded by Christ For if it were noe necessity could excuse it in one Kind 11. And soe this might serue for this matter but that I am loth to lett passe a worthy saying of yours in the very end of this § Which is this And as coÌ„cerning the halfe Communion which is receiued in the Romane Church for an article of faith as it wants antiquity and consent of Fathers by their owne confession soe likewise it wants a right foundation in the Scriptures which an article of Faith ought to haue Thus you where with your worships good leaue a man may tell you you haue as many faults as words we teach all the coÌ„trary to wit that it is not halfe communion but that Christ is receiued whole and entire and a true Sacrament and as much spiritual fruit necessary to saluation in one kind as both as the Councel of Trent by your confession defineth We say it neither wanteth antiquity nor consent of Fathers as you may see in Bellarmine and many others We say it doth not want a right foundation in the Scriptures for as I said before we proue it out of the scriptures V. Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. both of the old new testament the doctrine and example of our Sauiour And his Apostles expressed in scripture Wee say also to conclude therewith that it is most false of all which you take euery where for a very truth as if it were agreed vpon on all sides to wit that an article of faith must haue sufficient and expresse proofe of scripture Whereas the cleane contrary is truth and as generally concluded among all Diuines and Fathers as you boldly affirme yours which assertion therefore of yours I heere absolutely deny once for all and though I neede not stand prouing it being euery where in all our authors yet for the Readers sake I will cite one place of S. Ierome coming first to my memory who hauing proued a point of faith against the Luciferian Haeretiques out of