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
Essay of your poore endeauours to make the world see it is noe difficult matter for a meane Lay man to proue the ancient Visibility of the Protestant profession prouoked thereto by a Iesuit's challenge to shew out of good authors that the Protestant's church was visible in all ages before Luther and this you vndertake to doe not onely out of the most orthodox fathers but alsoe out of the Romish Bishops Doctours Cardinals c. This essay of your labours Sir Humphrey is poore indeede not to stand complementinge with you as I shall after shew and for your proofes out of Fathers and other writers in the Romane Church wee shall there also see what ones they are that is either nothing to the purpose or out of Authors branded with the marks of heresy or at least temerity and singularity For the challenge it selfe wherein consisteth the state of the question I say heere that you doe not sett it downe soe truely and fully as you should For you were to shew the Visibility of your Church by naming some who in all ages did professe the Protestant faith as it is now taught and professed in England entirely beleiuing all that is heere beleiued and beleeuinge nothing els that is contrary vnto it Which you might haue done if it could be done out of some good histories without standing vpon proofes of the particular points of doctrine out of this or that author for that was not to the present purpose 5. Neither were it sufficient as you say in your next paragraphe seeing it is confessed on all sides that the faith of Christ in the first age had visible Professours therefore to proue that the Faith of the Church of England is that which was deliuered to the Saints by Christ and his Apostles without farther recitall of succeeding witnesses this I say were not sufficient For the chalenge then which you were now to answeare and controuersy which you were to handle was not soe much of the truth of this or that particular point or of the doctrine euen in generall but of the Church it self which was to deliuer the doctrine and by which we were to come to the knowledge of the truth who the men were that were trusted to keepe the depositū which S. Paul gaue Timothy charge of where the Church was which the same S. Paul calleth the howse of God the pillar and firmament of truth Which was the seede of Christ whereof I say prophecieth and promiseth in the person of God the Father to his Sonne that hee would neuer take away the words of truth from their mouth Hoc foedus meum cum eis dicit Dominus Spiritus meus Isai 59.21 qui est in te verba mea quae posui in ore tuo non recedent de ore tuo de ore seminis tui de ore Seminis Seminis tui dicit Dominus amodo vsque in sempiternum This is my couenant with them saith our Lord. My spiritt that is in thee and my words that I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seede and out of the mouth of thy Seed's seede saith our Lord from this present and for euer Who they bee to whom our blessed Sauiour himself in person and with his owne mouth promised that he would send the Spirit of truth to remayne with them for euer and that himself would be with them to the consummation of the world Soe as this controuersy being of the Church it self which was to be found out by the visibility and succession thereof not soe much by the doctrine it could be no way sufficient to proue that the doctrine of the Protestant church was taught anciently though that can neuer bee proued For as I say the question is not of the doctrine but of the persons Wherein the Iesuit tooke the right way like a wise man and a good scholar to find out the Doctrine which is a thing more spirituall and lesse subiect to the sense by that which is corporall and more subiect to the view of all sorts of men For this is the way that all Scholars in the teaching of all Sciences take to wit to beginne with that which is knowne and euident and by it to come to the knowledge of that which is hidden according to Aristotel's Doctrine 6. And this hath euer beene the way which the holy fathers haue taken eyther in prouing the Catholique faith or disprouinge of heresies Soe Tertullian (a) praescrip cap. 32. lib. 3. car adu Marcio soe Irenaeus (b) lib. 3. cap. 1.2.3 lib. 4. cap. 43.45.46 soe Cyprian (c) ep 52. 76. Optatus (d) lib. 2. aduer Parm. and most of all that great Doctour S. Augustine (e) psal 2. part Don. ep 165. de vtil credend cap. 7. in seuerall places and particularly in his booke de vtilitate credenai where writinge to his freind Honoratus whom he laboureth to draw from the Manichaean heresy and putting case that he did doubt what religion to follow he saith without doubt he were to beginne his enquiry from the Catholique Church Proculdubio ab Ecclesia Catholica sumendum exordium For saith hee whereas there be among Christians many heresies all which desire to seeme Catholiques and call others Haeretiques there is one Church as all graunt if you reguard the whole world refertior multitudine vt autem qui nouerunt affirmant etiam veritate sincerior caeteris omnibus sed de veritate alia quaestio est More full of people and as they that know her for truth more sincere then any other but of the truth it is another question Soe as heere Saint Augustine maketh the first question of the Church it self Which he maketh to bee the first thing that a man that doubteth and seeketh to saue his soule must enquire after leauing the truth of the doctrine to be disputed in the second place praescr cap. 19. The like also hath Tertullian giuing withall a good reason thereof for making this prescription or exception against Haeretiques that we are not to admitt them soe farre as to dispute with them of Scriptures he sayth it is first to be disputed Quibus competat fides ipsa c. to whom faith it selfe belongeth to the which the Scriptures pertaine From whom and by whom and when and to whom that discipline was deliuered whereby men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shal be the truth of scriptures and expositions and all Christian traditions soe Tertullian In whose iudgement it is plaine that we are first to seeke the persons that professe the faith that is the Church because there certainely is the truth to be found Which is the course wee Catholiques take and perswade other men to take following the stepps of our Forefathers to wit to seeke out the Visible Church whereas Haeretiques
labours and more wonder that you should desire any fauourable acceptance of them Wherefore it had beene then and is still fitter for you to lay aside any such thought and rather thinke how you can acquit your self to the world of your accounts for these that are past or rather how you shal be able to acquit your self before the iudgment-seate of Almighty God where you will find it another manner of matter then you count of to answeare for one soule much more for soe many as you haue laboured to peruert but because you are not capable of any good aduice of this kind I forbeare to say more heere resting howsoeuer Your welwishing Freind THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reader Gentle and iudicious Reader THough in my precedent dedicatory or rather answeare to Sir Humphrey's dedicatory Epistle I haue had occasion to say what is wont to be deliuered by way of preface concerning the occasion intention scope and manner of writing yet because my cheife end next to the glory of God is the good of thy soule I cannot omitt to addresse my self vnto thee in a word declaring on my part the good intention and purpose I haue in this writing and on thine crauing the like acceptance but especially that for thyne owne good thou wilt come to reade and peruse the same not with any preiudicate conceit either of one side or other but rather with an indifferency of mind ready to incline that way that the light of truth shall shew it self Sir Humphrey I confesse hath some things which at first sight may draw away an honest minded man who is not thoroughly acquainted with the fashion of such men of the Ministery as he is ledd by For besids a little learning which in a secular man maketh a great shew as for the increase of his owne glory he toucheth once or twice in his dedicatory the very title of his booke being VIA TVTA A SAFE WAY is a very pleasing thing to many in these dayes wherein men for the most part rather desire to find security in their owne wayes then forsaking them to seeke it where indeede it is to be found But the cheife thing is this that he vndertaketh to proue his intent out of our owne authors calling also both God and Man to witnesse his sincerity in the citation and translation of such and such places as he bringeth Which though it may moue a man a little at the first yet is it not sufficient to praecipitate the discreete Reader 's iudgment and carry it away wholy to the full beleife of what he saith without farther examination especially when he shall vnderstand that such specious titles and faire promises are the common baites of Haeretiques Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Of whom S. Hilarius saith that Ingerunt nobis primum nomina veritatis vt virus falsitatis introeat They first set before vs the names of truth that the poyson of falshood may enter in with them And S. Aug. soe well acquainted with their cunning practizes Aug. contra ep fundam cap. 11. saith that the promise of truth which they are continually making is nothing but a vaile to couer their errors or a goodly faire gate for errour to enter in stealingly into the minds of the vnskilfull Which S. Paul himself also witnesseth saying that by sweete speeches and blessings they seduce the harts of innocent and harmelesse people Now for the learning whereof he makes shew whether it be his owne or noe I will not question though I might since some that know him doubt whether he euen vnderstand Latine but presuming that he hath a little because he was once a Scholler of Westminster and after of Christ Church in Oxford being by his Father deputed and putt into the common rode of the Ministery though he be since stept out of it I know not ho w into the way of Knighthood I onely say this that it is farre short of what is requisite for writing of a booke of this kind as shall manifestly appeare besids that though it were a thousand tymes more I may say with the Wiseman Non est Sapientia non est prudentia non est consilium contra Dominum There is noe wisedome noe prudence noe councel against our Lord. But of this I shall not heere say more this being my intent onely in this place to aduise thee soe to come to the reading of this my answeare that thou suffer not thy self soe to bee wholy praeoccupated and ouerswayed from that indifferency which is most necessary for framing a right iudgement of any matter in controuersy With which preparation of minde if thou shalt come and with attention reade but most of all craue the speciall assistance of Almighty God's grace I hope thou shalt not haue cause to repent thee of thy paines Whereto without longer delay I shall heere leaue thee Certaine points to bee considered for the better answearinge of Sir Humphrey's cheife arguments in this Booke Chap. 1. CHAPTER I. 1. WHereas Sir Humphrey after his dedicatory Epistle before he come to the matter setteth downe a part of Pius 4. his bull which is of the forme of oath and profession of faith which according to the Councel of Trent such men are to make as are to be promoted to any Ecclesiastical dignity or benefice which hath care of soules ioyned with it I purpose likewise in this Chapter by occasion hereof to sett downe some few heades which may serue for a generall answeare to most of his arguments 2. The first shal be concerning this very Creede as he calleth it of the Councel of Trent which therefore he is pleased according to the common fashion of his Ministers by way of derision to deuide into 12. points as it were into 12. articles which he and they might with as much reason deuide into 24. but onely that by this fine conceite they would faine make some silly people beleiue that wee Catholiques leaue the old Creede of the Apostles and coyne our selues a new one according to the faith of the Councel of Trent and this hee and his freinds doe often charge vs with To which I say that True it is wee confesse it the points in this forme contained were defined and declared by that Councel and drawne into forme of an oath and profession of faith by Pope Pius 4. but that it is therefore a new Faith or that there bee new articles of beleife wee deny For proofe whereof I demaund of him or his fellow Protestāts who receiue the Nicene Creede as it is sett downe in their booke of common prayer what they thinke of that whether that be any thing els but a profession of faith sett downe by authority of the Church gathered together in a generall Councell approued by the See Apostolique by way of a definition or explication of a point of faith then controuerted by Haeretiques and discussed and declared in the Councel and appointed to bee publiquely professed by all
named but by way of forbidding them and by way of commanding Bishops to reforme such things euen as delegats of the see Apostolique where there is neede Which is soe apparent that the Knight is faine to confesse it after in these words Neither did these men seeke reformation in manners onely but in the doctrine it selfe Wherein together with the contradiction of his owne former lye he telleth a new one to wit in saying that we seeke a reformation in the doctrine whereof he nameth some particular points as priuate Masse Latine seruice c. Which is most false for the doctrine is the same still and euer was that though the fruite were greater when the people did communicate with the Priest sacramentally yet the Masse in that case is neither vnlawfull not is to be called priuate both because the people communicate spiritually and also because the Masse is offered by the Priest as the publique Minister of the Church It wisheth indeede that the standers by did communicate not onely spiritually but alsoe sacramentally without euer mentioning the reformed or rather deformed Churches 8. What error then doth the Councel heere acknowledge Againe the knight saith that though the Councel doe not allow the celebrating of Masse in the vulgar tongue yet it commandeth Pastors and others that haue care of soules to explicate and expound to the people some of those things that are reade in the Masse and asketh thus how neere these men doe come to our doctrine who doth not perceiue I answeare that doe not I Sir Humphrey nor I thinke any man els That hath ordinary common sense You condemne all Masse The Councel alloweth it you condemne priuate Masse The Councel approueth that which you call priuate Masse but denieth that it is soe called Priuate as you would haue it The Councel speaketh of Masse the true and proper Sacrifice of the new Law you would make men beleeue it speaketh of your sacrilegious Supper In our Masse and Communion as the Councel teacheth is offered and distributed the true real and substantiall Body and Bloude of CHRIST IESVS and what it saith hereof you most madly would make me beleeue were spoken of your empty and imaginary communion The Councel teacheth that the Masse is not generally to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue you would all publique prayer soe made and therefore condemne the Catholique Church for celebrating in Latine which the Councel alloweth O madnes of a man then to talke thus as if the Councel came neere to him when it saith yea to his nay and nay to his yea 9. But hauing thus substantially proued the Councel to agree with him and finding other places of the same soe euidently against him hee will needs haue the Councel contradict it self and for that end bringeth certaine contradictions as he wisely taketh them to be One is that the Pope in his Bull of profession of faith saith that the vse of Indulgences is most wholesome for the people For which hee might haue cited also the Councel more thou once and that yet the Councel cōfessed the scandal that came by them was very great with out hope of reformacion which is not cōtradiction betweene the Councel and Pope but a flatt corruption of the Knights the Pope speaking of one thing to wit Indulgences in themselues the Councel in this place speaking of the men that had the promulgacion of them and the gathering of the almes For preuenting whose auarice abuses there had bene soe many remedies vsed formerly in other Councels but to none effect that this Councel thought good to take that office wholy out of such mens hands and take another course with it What seeming contradiction is heere Another of his cōtradiction is that the Councel approueth those Masses wherein the people doe not communicate and yet wisheth that the people were soe deuoute as to communicate sacramētally Is not heere a stout cōtradiction as also that the Councel approueth Masse in an vn knowne tōgue and yet will haue the Priests especially vpon Sundayes and Holidayes to declare some of that which is read or some mystery of the holy Masse Doe not these two agree very well I doe not see what the Man meaneth 10. And to conclude this wise section he talketh somewhat of reformacion hindered by some principall men as one Nicolas Scomberg a Dominican Cardinal Citing fowre or fiue most haeretical books namely forbidden in the Romane Index and among them the history of the Councel of Trent not named in the Index because it came out since but written by an Arche-haeretique and noe lesse detested by Catholiques then any of the rest Which I passe ouer as of noe account nor alleadged to any purpose As for reformacion who can say it is hindered but onely by Haeretiques For what els hath the Counce◠of Trent done but reformed all abuses of manners where it is or can be receiued and for errours of faith taught by Haeretiques it hath vtterly condemned them and banished them from the eares of al Catholiques What reformacion then hath it hindered but the haeretical reformacion wherevnto Cardinal Scomberg said well if you and your history of Trent say true that it was noe way to yeild a iott to Haeretiques for it is not indeede for the practize of the Church hath euer beene to the contrary shewing thereby that the way to ouercome haeresy is wholy to resist it and though that thing wich the Haeretiques teach or would haue practized were before indifferent yet for their vrging the same vpon their haeretical grounds it hath beene absolutely forbidden least wee might seeme to haue yeilded to them and soe confirme them or drawe Others to beleeue them or their doctrine who to reprehend and contradict the Catholique Church many tymes make things of indifferency to bee of necessity that they forsooth may seeme the onely Wisemen in the world and the Church of God subiect to errours Which I could proue by many examples if neede were And heerewith I make an end of this chapter wherein I haue disproued the Knight and conuinced him of manifest falshood in both the things by him pretended shewing in the one that the Councel acknowledged not any corruption in matters of faith but onely by Haeretiques and in the other that for corruption of manners which it acknowledged it hath vsed all possible meanes to redresse them Of Sir Humphrey's 4. Section whereof the title is this That many learned Romanist conuicted by the euidence of truth either in part or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death CHAPTER IIII. 1. I Could heere before I goe farther aske what this maketh for the Visibility of the Knight his Church For suppose it were true and that we did yeild him his saying that many haue fallen from the Catholique faith to be Protestants as it is cleare that many haue for otherwise there had neuer beene any Protestants in the world Doth this make his Church visible in former tymes or doth
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
by office As for Succession in doctrine to speake properly and clearely the Succession is not to be considered in the doctrine it selfe for that must be alwaies the same but it is to bee considered in the Men. Soe that they succeede one another not onely in place and office but also in the same Doctrine that is holding the same Doctrine which their Predecessors haue held as they hold the same place 3. This premised which cannot be denied I thinke noe man wil be able in all that the Knight saith in this Section to finde soe much as a shaddow of Succession either in person or Doctrine either against vs or for himself Wherefore I shall endeauour onely to discouer his falshood and corruptions in charging vs with ancient haeresies For Latine seruice then that it should be first brought in by Vitalian it is a most strange absurdity for this knight to auerre such a knowne falshood vpon noe other authority then Volphiu's a professed haeretique and who can haue noe other ground but because that Pope liued about the yeare 666. which number is the name of the beast in the Apocalypse though if he that is Wolphius would make a mystery of the yeare wherein S. Vitalian liued I see not why he should take the 666. which was the eleuenth of his Popedome rather then the yeare 655. or 669. which were the first and last yeares thereof which being soe ridiculously false I will forbeare to bring proofes against it least I may giue occasion to any man to thinke that there is any the least likelyhood in it For during those 600. and odd yeares what other Liturgies were there in the Latine Church but Latine of which the very name of Latine Church giueth sufficient testimony if not Latine lett this Knight or his freind Wolphius say what Language was in vse before 4. As for the Osseni whom our Knight would place vpwards towards the Apostles yet after their tyme for he goeth ascendeing vpwards as he saith he is notably mistaken in the tyme. For Epiphanius maketh them one of the seauen Sects which were among the Iewes before Christ's coming For thus hee saith Post relatas Samaritarum superius Graecorum indicatas Sectas septem fuerunt haereses apud Iudaeos ante Christi in carne aduentum In principio cap. 14. Hauing related and pointed out the Sects of the Samaritans and Graecians there were seauen heresies among the Iewes before the coming of Christ in flesh And then reckoning and treating of the heresies in order in the 19. chap. he cometh to this of the Osseni the very title being this Contra Ossenos Sextam Iudaism◠haeresim Against the Osseni the sixt heresy of Iudaisme Besides for the matter I onely say that reading that 19. heresy of Epiphanius which hee citeth the title whereof is Of the Osseni twice ouer and the second tyme yet more attentiuely then the first I could not find any such word as the Knight citeth out of him to wit that there was no neede to make a prayer in a knowne tongue Indeede it was one of Elxais heresies who liued long after in Traian's tyme and whom S. Epiphanius ioyneth with the Osseni that men must not pray towards the East as then was the generall custome of the Church Which error is not to bee compared with the least of a hundred which our Heretiques now adayes maintaine and yet they forsooth make noe matter of because they are not fundamentall 5. For the place of S. Ambrose if a Catholique should vrge him or his Ministers with an authority out of that worke they would make answeare it were not S. Ambrose his and they would fill their margents with citations taken out of our authors Which exception though I might in like sort make yet I doe not because the author is ancient though not knowne nor his doctrine in all things soe currant But for this place the Knight hath soe mangled glossed it yet putting all in a different letter as if they were the author's words that when I came to reade the author and see him soe chāged I beganne to thinke whether that were the place But finding that there could be noe other and that it is like in some words I concluded that this must be it The author then commenting vpon the 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where S. Paul speaketh of some that did vse the guift of tongues for ostentation saith thus Hi ex Hebraeis erant qui aliquando Syra lingua plaerumque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus vtebantur ad commendationem gloriabantur enim se dici Hebraeos propter meritum Abrahae These were of the Hebrews who sometymes vsed the Syriack but most part the Hebrew in their treatises that is speaches or exhortations or Oblations for ostentation For they did boast that they were called Hebrews for the merit of Abraham These are the words of the author truely reported and truely translated Whereas the knight put this praeface that there were certaine Iewes among the Graecians as namely the Corinthians which words are not in this author Then he goeth on thus who did celebrate the diuine Seruice and Sacraments c. Whereas in the author there is neither the word celebrate nor the word diuine Seruice much lesse the word Sacraments all that hath any shew of a thing like is that word oblationibus which signifieth offering whereof some may be made by Lay men and women as the Puritane Ministers finde full oft to their profit without any celebration or Sacraments the word tractatibus signifieth speaches or exhortations by word or writing and soe S. Aug. calleth the expositors of Scriptures tractatores de doct Chr. Vinc. Lirin aedu haere cap. 27. Lastly whereas the author declared the end for which they vsed those tongues to wit for ostentation bragging that they were Hebrewes for the meritt of Abraham this knight leaueth all that out and putteth in these words of his owne which the common people vnderstood not as if they were the author's words Now though this authority doe not import much either one way or other yet a man may by it see the honesty and fidelity of this knight who in all this sentence which he maketh 9. lines in his booke he hath not one word right cited but onely these Sometymes in the Syriacke and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue which being taken alone what sense can they haue and yet how many lines a man is faine to write to lay open his naughty dealinge 6. Another point of our doctrine to wit transubstantiation hee draweth from the Haeretiques Heliesaitae which fained a twofold Christ one in heauen another in earth out of Theodoret. And from one Marcus an Haeretique who by his inuocation ouer the Sacramental cupp as the knight saith caused the wine to appeare like bloud out of S. Irenaeus And lastly from the Capharnaits in Christ's tyme out of his owne braine and soe cōcludeth our Succession in
Popes one succeeding the other in place and office exercizing the same authority and iurisdiction in the sight of the whole world Now out of this personal Succession we Catholiques draw a most firme argument of Succession in faith and beleife as hee calleth it as the holy Fathers haue euer done against Heretiques of their tymes Which soe long as it standeth good it is in vaine for Sir Humphrey and such men to cry out that wee haue noe Succession in doctrine Lett them shew when where in what Popes tyme and by whom it was interrupted or broken of or els they say nothing And soe leauing him to find that out I passe to another Section Chap. 8. Of the 8. Section entituled thus The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall CHAPTER VIII 1. THe title of this Sectiō promiseth much and the beginning of the Section it self much more For in it he saith that if the Church of Rome doe not plainely confesse the antiquity of his Church his Tenets and the nouelty of her owne if she doe not proclaime the Vniuersality of the Protestant faith and confesse it both more certaine and safe hee will neither refuse the name nor punishment dew to haeresy Which how bold and vnlikely an aduenture it is I presume there is noe man of iudgment be hee neuer soe much freind euen to Sir Humphrey himself that doth not at the very first sight perceiue how shamelesse and impudent it is I doubt not but vpon a little examination I halbee able euidently to declare and consequently how truely both the name and punishment of haeresy is dew vnto him euen by his owne doome Wherein I shall craue thine attention Good Reader that perceiuing how well and truelly hee performeth this promise soe great and vpon soe hard conditions Voluntarily vndertaken in case of not performance thou maist frame a right iudgment of the whole booke by this one chapter And as thou findest him to deale heere soe to thinke of his dealing els where But not to say more I come to the triall of the matter 2. Hee pretendeth then to bring the testimonies of our authors or to speake in his owne phrase the confession of the Church of Rome touching the Antiquity and Vniuersality Certainety and Safety of his faith which whosoeuer heareth would hee not expect the man should bring some definition of a Councel approued or some Decree of the See Apostolique for that onely is the confession of the Church of Rome would not a man expect he should bring some few authors two or three at least acknowledging all these points or some one author for each point or some one author at lest for some one of them surely he would And yet doth the Knight nothing of all this he bringeth not one author I say not one for the Vniuersality or ātiquity c. of his Church Though if he should haue one two three or ten men it would not be sufficient for him vnlesse he haue the authority of the Catholique Church or Church of Rome For that is it which he promiseth But lett vs heare what he saith 3. In all this Section he bringeth onely three Catholique authors Adrian Costerus and Harding for the three seueral points of Transustantiation Communion in one kind and priuate Masse as he calleth it in this manner Hee saying of himself that when Protestants accuse vs of adoring the elements of bread and wine we excuse it by saying we adore it vpon condition and for that end bringeth these words of Adrian Adoro te si tu es Christus I adore thee if thou bee Christ Soe of Communion in one kind when they accuse vs of taking away the cupp from the Layity we excuse it and thereto hee bringeth Costerus saying that Communion vnder one kind was not taken vpp by the commandement of the Byshops but it crept in the Byshops winking thereat Thirdly when they accuse vs for our priuate Masses contrary to Christ's institution we excuse it and for that end he bringeth these words of Doctor Harding It is through their owne fault and negligence whereof the godly and faithfull people since the tyme of the primitiue Church haue much complained These three be all the authors he hath and this all he saith out of them in which any man may see whether there bee a word or shadow of a word for the antiquity or Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall as the title of his Section goeth 4. I say nothing heere of the man's notable cunning and falshood in pretending making his Reader beleeue as if we did excuse our selues in those things whereof they accuse vs whereby wee might seeme to acknowledge some fault whereas there is noe such matter in the world nor one word spoken by any man by way of excuse as shall appeare For noe Catholique but scorneth an excuse in matter of his beleife though for life some may haue some what which may neede excuse though in that case we teach an humble confession to bee the best excuse 5. But to come now to the matter lett vs heare what it is these authors say Adrian as he telleth vs excuseth our adoration of the elements of bread and wine because we adore it vpon condition if the consecrated bread bee Christ the Latine words of Adrian in the margēt are these Adoro te si tu es Christus Which words indeade Adrian hath but they are very different from Sir Humphrey's English as any man may of himself see and spoken by Adrian vpon a very different occasion as I shall now shew Hee then disputing whether a Iudge may without sinne wish he might lawfully giue iudgment against iustice and bringing arguments pro and con as Diuines doe for the affirmatiue he bringeth this That the deformity of the sinne is taken away and cleared by the cōdition which is added which hee farther proueth by two arguments the one that the Councel of Constance doth excuse ignorant people adoring an vnconsecrated host because this condition is tacitely implied if the consecration be rightly made the other that all Doctors agree that a man may auoide perplexity betweene idolatry and disobediēce when the Deuill soe transfiguring himselfe as to seeme Christ commandeth one to adore if vpon condition he adore thus I adore thee if thou be Christ This is what Adrian hath Wherein first any man may see he speaketh nothing of his owne opinion but of others and that by way of dispute only Secondly the condition which is tacitly implied in the adoration of an vnconsecrated host according to the Councel of Constance is not that which Sir Humphrey putteth to wit if the consecrated bread bee Christ but this other if it bee righty consecrated which is cleane another matter for his condition euer supposing a right consecration maketh doubt whither Christ be there or not which is most false the other condition maketh noe doubt of that but
onely whither this particular host be rightly cōsecrated manifestly supposing that if that be Christ is truely there Thirdly that other condition or words Adoro te si tu es Christus which he would make a man beleeue were spoken by Adrian of the most B. Sacrament are spoken of the Diuell taking vpon him the shape of Christ 6. Now what grosse delusion is this What excuse can you finde for it Sir Humphrey But suppose Adrian had erred in this or in any other particular point either ignorantly as a Catholique may or wilfully as onely Haeretiques doe Doth it follow that he agreeth with you in all other or that hee-counteth your faith ancient vniuersall certaine or safe noe such matter nay how on the contrary he abhorreth detesteth your doctrine as most wicked and damnable is plainely to be seene by a Bull which he writ to Fredericke Duke of Saxony against Luther and his Doctrine disprouing euery point thereof exhorting the said Frederick to forsake it and returne to the true Catholique faith now in the dayes of Adrian Pope and Charles Emperour as the Saxons did at first embrace it in the tyme of the first Pope and Emperour of the same names and then liuing together With a great deale to the same purpose What madnes then is it to alleadge a Catholique Diuine a Pope and such a Pope for the antiquity and Vniuersality of your beleife 7. Now for Costerus you say he excuseth the taking away of the cupp from the Layity But if you would giue a man leaue to bee soe bold with your worshipp I would know what excuse you can find for such a notorious lye If he excuses it he acknowledgeth the thing to neede excuse and consequently to be ill and I pray you where doe you find him doe that noe where verily For he hath one special title of this controuersy wherein he proueth the truth of the Catholique faith in this point by ten seuerall reasons and solueth sixteene obiections as well of former as later Haeretiques against it If this be to excuse I know not what it is to maintaine and make good a thing Enchirid. 8. But now to come to Costerus he by occasion of soluing an obiection saith that the custome of communicating in one kind began from the people for it hauing euer beene free to communicate in one kind or both as Costerus there often repeateth the people for diuers incōmodityes by little and little abstained from the chalice which abstayning of theirs the Bishops for other reasons alsoe by silence approued Whereby you see his meaning is plaine and cleare against you And for his words whereas you relate them thus It was not taken vpp by the commādment of the Bishops but it crept in the Bishops winking thereat They are indeede thus It is to bee diligently noted that the communion of one kind crept in not soe much by the commandment of the Bishops as by the vse and practize of the people yet the Bishops winking thereat Wherein though there be but a little difference yet it sheweth your fidelity according to our Sauiour's saying Luc 16.10 Qui in modico iniquus est in maiori iniquus est He that wicked in a little is wicked in a greater For Costerus doth not say that it did not come in by the commandment of the Bishops but not soe much by that as by the peoples vse and practize 9. Now what is this to your purpose where is Costerus his testimony for the antiquity vniuersality certainty and safety of your Protestant religion is not that whole booke written Onely to maintaine the Catholique Romane faith in the points now adayes in controuersy and to condemne the contrary of vanity folly and error how then can he thinke it salfe But because I will not stand to deduce it by way of argumēt I will onely cite one place directly opposite to the scope of this your section Where he saith that onely the children of the Church Cost enchir cap. 2. n. 3. by which Church he meaneth the Catholique Apostolique Romane Church as he oftē declareth himself merit encrease of grace and aeternal life that they onely are gratefull pleasing to God they onely the children and freinds of God they onely haue communion with the Saints and merits of Saints they onely are adorned with true and Christian vertues they onely haue the promise and certaine expectation of aeternal life Which saith the are great and most true priuiledges for out of the Church nothing of all this is found noe holinesse noe Christian vertue noe worke pleasing to God noe merit noe hope of Saluation Thus he Now good Sir knight is not heere good comfort for you are you in Costerus his iudgment in the more certaine and safe way Doe not you then abuse authors to your owne and other mēs perdition but though you being become a Sect-Maister or at least a great Maister in the Protestant Sect there is little hope that this laying open of your dealing will make you better but rather make you more inraged Yet I trust some well meaning people deluded by you may heereby come to vnderstand themselues better and come to the onely safe way indeede the Catholique Church and leaue you to your Protestant safety 10. But since you are also soe shamelesse heere as to say that we doe not condemne you for receiuing in both kinds looke in the Councel of Trent and see whether you doe not find an heauy curse against any that shall say that all and euery of the faithfull ought by the precept of God Sess 21. can 1. or necessity of saluation to receiue both species or kinds of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christi fideles vtramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae Sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit The like hath the Councel alsoe of Constance soe plaine pag. 174. that you your selfe afterwards confesse that the one doth accurse the other accuse all for Haeretiques that deny the lawfulnesse of one kind as you doe If then we not onely write against your Doctrine as against an haeresy as may appeare by all our controuersies and schoole diuines and euen by Gerson's treatise against the haeresy of Lay communion vnder both kinds Which treatise you your self cite elswhere in the margent but also condemne it in two generall Councels how can you haue the face to say wee doe not condemne you Good God what shall a man say to such men as you are 11. But to come to Doctor Harding the third author of ours which you bring to proue the Antiquity Vniuersality Certainty and Safety of your faith let vs heare how you vse him You say when you accuse vs of priuate Masse cōtrary to Christ's institutiō and custome of the primitiue Church we excuse it that it is through their owne default and negligence whereof saith Mr.
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
first made her visible which is that we desire And soe Sir you haue spunne a faire threed You would faine make your Church visible before Luther and you make it inuisible you looke well about you meane while Now that which you say next of taking away the 3. Creeds which you professe two Sacraments 4. Councels and 22. booke of Scripture without which our Church would bee a poore senselesse carcasse is most foolish for who doth speake of taking them away who doth say they are yours you will not say your selfe but you had them from vs What then doe you talke of taking them away and whereas you are bold to say that wee now stile them chaffe and new haeresies it is to shamelesse an vntruth for any man to tell but your selfe and therefore deserueth noe other answeare but that it is SIR HVMPHREY LIND'S you vnderstand my meaning Sir 21. One little thing more there is in this Section which is that whereas some of ours haue termed your religion negatiue in reguard it consisteth most in denyall of such things as we teach as they may well call it you would retort that terme vpon vs because wee deny many things which you affirme But this is not a matter of any moment For they who call your religion negatiue doe not meane that you doe not teach any positiue erroneous point but that most of your doctrine I meane that which is properly yours not taken from vs is negatiue and euen those affirmatiue propositions which you teach if you teach any are but contradictions of other things which we teach are not or may not be done In which respect they may be also called negatiue But for ours it is nothing soe for it consisteth of positiue points deliuered not by way of opposition or denyal for it was before all haeresy though it is true that it hath many negatiue propositioÌ„s and praecepts Besides out of euery positiue point a man may inferre the contrary negatiue Which yet maketh not that a negatiue as you doe in some of those propositions which you alleadge for example you make this a negatiue point that we deny the substaÌ„ce of bread to remaine after coÌ„secration whereas that is onely a negatiue inferred out of this positiue that the substance of the bread and wine is chaÌ„ged into the body and bloud of our Blessed Sauiour which is our doctrine euer was before any haeresy arose but an haeresy arising to the contrary as that the substance of bread remaineth after consecration the Church out of that positiue point deduceth this negatiue that the substance of breade doth not remaine for destruction of that haeresy But of this there is enough and of this whole SectioÌ„ wherein the Gentle Reader may see whether you Sir knight doe not deserue the name and punishment of an Haeretique by your owne Doome not hauing proued either the antiquity or vniuersality or certainty or safety of your Protestant faith out of any author of ours or euen of your owne or any shew of reasoÌ„ or said any thing to the purpose though you haue taken more liberty to abuse those three authors which you alleadge vtter such grosse falsityes then I doe not say honesty but eueÌ„ shame would giue a man leaue but which is most to bee wondered you haue laboured to proue the visibility of your Church by such similitudes as proue the contrary Which is not any praise of goodnes for you intended it not but an argument of the necessity whereto you were driuen by the badnes of your cause and a dispraise of your iudgment in that you see not what you say Of the 9. Section The title whereof is this The testimonyes of our Aduersaries touching the Protestant and the Romane faith in the particular CHAPTER IX 1. OVR Knight hauing promised to proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his faith and nouelty of ours in generall by the testimony of our owne authors Church and performed it brauely forsooth as hath beene shewed in the former chapter he professeth now in this ninth Section Chap. 9. to proue the same in like sort out of our authors in diuers particular points as iustification by faith onely the Sacrament of the Supper and Doctrine of transubstantiation Priuate Masse c. treating euery one heere ex professo and seuerally in distinct paragraphes whose methode I shall also follow in answearing of him §. 1. Of Iustification by faith onely examined 1. This point of his Protestant iustification by faith onely the Knight proueth as hee saith out of a booke published in Anselmes tyme which is called Ordo baptizandi visitandi c. Of which he citeth two or three seueral editions to fill vpp the margents with quotations and to authorize the booke more he telleth vs that Cassander saith it is obuious euery where in libraries Out of this booke he citeth a whole page and a halfe which I list not heere stand writeing out but onely I will take the worst word in it all that is which may seeme to make most against vs and for the Knight which is this the Priest is appointed to aske the sicke man whether he beleeue to come to glory not by his owne merits but by the merits of Christ's passion and that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his Passion to which the sicke man was to answeare I beleeue Wherevpon the Priest gaue him councell to putt his confidence in noe other thing This is the vtmost he can say out of this booke and what is all this to the purpose For first the knight doth not shew vs any authority for this booke or that S. Anselme had any thing to doe with it nor telleth vs of any ancient edition before the yeare 1556. but onely a mention thereof by Cassâ—â—der a classical author indeede and of the first classe in the index librorum prohibitorum in an appendix alsoe to a forbidden booke falsely called Io. Roffensis de fiducia misericordia Dei then which hee could haue said nothing more to disgrace it 2. Besides he telleth vs that the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition willeth those words of comfort as he calleth them spoken by the Priest to be blotted out which were answeare enough seing the knight is to bring vs authority which we may not except against as I told him in the first Chapter And this very alleadging of the Index expurgatorius is a manifest proofe that it is sett out and corrupted by Haeretiques in fauour of their owne doctrine De corrâ—ct lib. §. 3. 4 For otherwise the Inquisitors can not meddle with it or any other author sett out before the yeare 1515. to change or blott out any thing therein but onely where a manifest error is crept in by fraude of Haeretiques or carelesnes of the Printer Thirdly and principally I answeare that there is nothing in this that doth not stand very well being
contrary of Christ's body in the B. Sacrament as by and by shall appeare 8. Fourthly whereas the Latine saith Caro spiritualis spiritual flesh the knight translateth it the spiritual body which I onely note without standing vpon it for it is noe great matter But that which cometh next is the maine corruption of all For whereas Aelfricke saith that this spiritual flesh which is as much to say as our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrament according to the outward shew which it carrieth doth consist of graines of corne hath noe bones nor sinewes noe distinction of limbs noe life or motion of it selfe the knight leaueth out those words Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly which are the very life of all that which followeth to wit that to see to it cōsisteth of corne to see to it hath noe bones and sinewes to see to it hath noe distinction of parts to see to it hath noe soule nor power to exercise any motion of it selfe the knight making his Reader thinke that Aelfricke saith our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrement hath noe bones noe parts noe soule c. which is a notorious falshood Lastly whereas the knight maketh this inference in the same place as if they were Aelfrick's words therefore there is nothing to bee vnderstood bodily but spiritually Aelfrick saith not soe though that might bee said in a good sense but thus he saith For whatsoeuer therein giueth the substance of life is of spiritual power inuisible working and diuine vertue In which there is a great deale of difference betweene Aelfrick's for which giueth a reason for that which goeth before and the knight's therefore which maketh an inference vpon that which was said which a learned man will easily perceiue to make a great deale of difference in the sense nay any man may see the difference betweene a reason and an inference Aelfricke therefore plainely teacheth in these words that that flesh doth liue but with all that that life proceedeth from a spiritual power and inuisible working Which agreeth very well with what he had said before that according to the outward shew that flesh hath neither bones nor sinewes nor limbs nor life nor motion but that all these things are not seene and that the life which it hath proceedeth from a spiritual power and working which is not seene 9. Now lett any man see whither this Knight haue not egregiously abused this ancient author corrupting this little sentence of his by fiue great corruptions besides other more of lesse moment which I haue beene somewhat longer in discouering because it is the man's maine proofe in this place and one of his two records as he calleth them wherewith as it were with two speciall and ancient euidences he presenteth his Reader in the very beginning of this Section § 1. and wherein therefore he hath vsed all the cunning he could deuise to make this author speake his Protestant language and consequently also the Bishops and other learned men of that tyme who approued this Homily if they did approue it as hee saith but in vaine as you may see by this that is said and by one place more which I will bring euen out of this Knight's maister Dr. Vsher which shall plainely shew this Aelfrick's perfect Catholique beleife in this point The words are these Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur panis substantiam vini creaturam conuertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat sic etiam in deserto manna aquam de petra in suam carnem sanguinem conuertere praeualuit c. as therefore a little before he suffered he could change the substance of bread and the creature of wine into his proper body which was to suffer and into his bloud which was extant to be after shed Soe in the desert he was able to change manna and water into his owne flesh and bloud c. Where he sheweth plainely a conuersion of bread and wine into that owne body of Christ and bloud which was a little after to suffer and be shed which is nothing more then that which we call transubstantiation And out of this as a certaine truth he gathereth that Christ had also the power to turne manna and water into his body and bloud as well as bread and wine And soe it is in reguard of the power it is all one but in reguard that Christ was not then in being according to his humane nature the manna could not be changed into his body and water into his bloud Which place as plaine as it is it is a strange and almost incredible thing to see how D. Vsher which I onely note by the way for my quarrel heere is not soe properly against him doth peruert by his interpretation For thus hee putteth the English in the text So he turned through inuisible vertue the bread to his owne body and that wine to his bloud as he before did in the wildernesse before that he was borne to men when he turned that heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to his bloud Wherein there is scarce one word truly translated which I will not stand to shew particularly but not onely the maine corruption that whereas Aelfricke saith that as Christ was able to turne the bread and wine soe he was able to turne the manna and water This man turneth it quite contrary that as hee turned the manna and water soe he turned the bread and wine which is a foule corruption But D. Vsher I heare is sufficiently answeared and his corruptions laid open to the world if the books might be as freely printed and sold as his But therein they haue the aduantage of vs Catholiques that they haue free vse of libraries and prints and publique allowance for the sale All which we want and therefore noe meruaile if books be not answeared as freely as they are written But this is but by the way 10. Now then if thus much may be said out of what D. Vsher picketh out for his owne purpose what may a man thinke might be said if a man saw the author himselfe who though he were printed in London as Sir Humphrey noteth 1623. yet is he not now to be heard of But as I was saying all this sheweth this Aelfricke to haue beene a Catholique and that his doctrine was none other then the Doctrine of the Catholique Church at this day Wherefore Sir Knight Campian's saying which you account a vaine flourish standes good still that you cannot espy soe much as one towne one village one howse for 1500. yeares that sauoured of your Doctrine and should still be true though you might find some one man or two or more that did agree with you in your Berengarian haeresy though alsoe one man doe not make either towne Village or howse For your faith doth not consist 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
againe that S. Ambrose writing a treatise of Sacraments diuided into six bookes maketh mention but of two I would wish you to see what answeare Bellarmine maketh to Chemnitius making the same obiection you shall find there that hee telleth him flatly it is false as it is indeede For S. Ambrose maketh expresse mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation both in that booke de Sacramentis and in the other de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur And withall giueth the reason why S. Ambrose mentioneth noe more but three Sacraments to wit because his intent in that worke is onely to instruct the Catechumens in those things which are to be done at the tyme of Baptisme for to them hee writeth those bookes as the very title of the one and matter of the other sheweth For one is written to the persons that are initiated that is begunne or are entred into Christianity by the mysteries or Sacramēts the other of the Sacraments whereby they were soe initiated which are those three Baptisme Cōfirmation Eucharist which to people that are come to yeares of discretion before they are made Christians were are still to bee administred together Whereby is also discouered your grosse corruption in saying that S. Ambrose proclaimes to the beleeuers of his age Ambr. de Sacram lib. 1. cap. 1. De Sacramentis quae accepistis sermonem adorior Which say you is as much to say as I speake of those Sacramēts which the Church hath taught and declared vnto you For he neither writeth to the beleeuers of his age but onely to some beginners as I say is manifest by the very title of one of the bookes Neither doth he speake of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared but of the Sacramēts which those beginners that he spoke to had newly receiued as these very words which you bring testify wherein there is not the least mention of the Church nor of any generall doctrine of Sacraments but onely of those which as I said they that he spake vnto had receiued Which to be soe may yet more plainely appeare in that Bellarmine bringeth a most expresse authority for the Sacrament of Penance out of this same holy Father Bell. lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24 10. Now for S. Aug. it is noe lesse cleare that he neuer meant in any of those places where he speaketh of two Sacraments to restraine them to two onely for thus hee saith in one Conc. 1. in Psal 103. Respice ad munera ecclesiae munus Sacramentorum in Baptismo in Eucharistia in caeteris sanctis Sacramētis Cast thine eye to the guifts of the Church the guift of the Sacraments in Baptisme in the Eucharist in the rest of the holy Sacramēts By which words it is cleare that in S. Augustines iudgmēt there were more holy Sacraments besides Baptisme Eucharist not onely one or two more for they had beene easily added but more as that general clause of the rest of the Sacraments doth import and not Sacraments in a large sense but Sacraments in that very sense wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments as the word caeteris doth shew Neither doth that place which you cite out of the same Father lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana auaile you where speaking of the Sacramēts of the new Law as you tell vs he saith that they are but few in number easy in performance excellent in signification naming onely the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist Ep. 118. For it is plaine by the words sicuti that he bringeth those two for example onely which doth noe way restraine the number Besides this holy Father repeating the very same saying almost word for word in another place when he had brought those two Sacraments for example as he doth heere he addeth this general clause siquid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur and if there bee any thing els commended in the canonical Scriptures Which sheweth also that he did not meane to restraine his speach to those two onely Neither is his intent in either of those places to number the Sacraments or euen to speake of Sacraments as Sacraments but as they are only Signes cōparing the signes of the new testament with those of the old and preferring them for fewnesse in number and excellency in signification And therefore S. Aug. his word in this place is not Sacramenta Sacraments as you cite him but Signa panca pro multis Signes which therefore is a corruption of yours 11. This may then serue for all such testimonies eyther out of S. Aug. or any other Father Onely that it may not seeme strange why there should be such frequent mention of these two aboue the rest which might giue suspition as if they were the onely Sacramēts I adde this reason thereof to wit because they are the first most common and most necessary Sacraments The first because Baptisme is called the gate of all the Sacraments and by it men enter into the Church and become Christians With which the Eucharist was also wont to be giuen And though Confirmation be next in order after Baptisme yet was it not soe frequently giuen because it is ordinarily administred onely by a Bishop who is not alwaies soe ready at hand whereas the other two are administred by Priests They are the most common because they pertaine to all as also Confirmation doth and therefore in that respect goeth often with them They are most necessary because Baptisme is absolutely necessary or as Diuines say necessary necessitate medij that is a necessary meane without which a man cannot be saued the Eucharist is necessary by another kind of necessity to wit of praecept or command giuen by our B. Sauiour all which considerations together are not soe easily found in any other of the Sacraments Confirmation also was in those tymes necessary by force of an ecclesiastical praecept or at least custome 12. Another of the Fathers which you bring is S. Cyprian reckoning but fiue Sacraments Ser. de ablut ped and among them our Sauiour's washing of his Disciples feete for one Whereto I answeare that he reckoneth but 5. not that he thought there were no more but that it pertained not to his purpose to speake of more in that place his scope being onely to speake of such Sacraments as had relation to our Sauiour's last supper by way of institution blessing of the matter or some connexion at least with some thing which was then done As the Sacraments of Eucharist and Order which were then instituted of Confirmation because the matter thereof that is Chrisme was then blessed of Baptisme and Penance by occasion of our Sauiour's washing of his Disciples feete Which washing in what sense it is called a Sacrament by this author Lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24. be he S. Cyprian or whosoeuer els you may see in Bellarmine there find sufficient answeare He saying that it is called a Sacrament
which Bellarmine obiecteth against and answeareth but he hauing proued that those prayers and spiritual canticles which the Apostles would haue to be made in the Church in the vulgar tongue that the people might vnderstand answeare Amen were not the publique prayers of the Church but priuate exteÌ„porary deuotions though in the Church with others he obiecteth in behalf of an Haeretique thus you will say that as the Apostle would haue those prayers to bee made in a vulgar tongue to the end the people might answare Amen soe he ought in like sort to wish that the diuine Office might be celebrated in the vulgar tongue that the people might answeare Amen To this hee answeareth denying the consequence because the diuine Office was celebrated in Greeke which was vnderstood by many though perhaps not by all and this was enough for the Apostle did not desire that all should answeare whereas the other languages which they spoke by the guift of tongues were such many tymes as not one man there vnderstood them not euen the speaker himself and this was Bell. First answeare which you leaped ouer Sir Humphrey Lib 2. de Ver. Dei cap. 16. because you saw it was a good and proper for our case for it is the same of our Latine and their Greeke for though all doe not vnderstand Latine yet many doe and almost euery body enough to answeare Amen Bellarmines second answeare is that which you make or rather marre by mistranslation besids saith hee because then the Christians were few all did sing together answeare in the diuine Offices which is a reason why it was more necessary for the people to vnderstand the language but afterwards the people increasing the Offices were more diuided and it was onely left to Clarks to performe the common prayers and prayses in the Church soe as though it might bee then more needfull for the people to vnderstand because they were to answeare yet now it is not because they are not to answeare and sing but that belongs to Clarks Now in Englishing Bellarmines words besids other smaller faults you haue these two which I note You say the office of publique seruice was diuided whereas Bellarmine saith not soe but that offices were more diuided that is the seueral functions in the Church to wit that which belonged to Priests and Clarks was left to them and that which belonged to the people was left to the people or they to it for to them it did not soe properly belong to sing and answeare but onely for that tyme of necessity when the number both of Clarks and people was but small the other fault is that you translate Solis Clericis onely to the Church whereas it is to the Clarcks alone or by themselues which though it may be the same in sense I see not why you should take that liberty to alter at you pleasure in the translations of other men's words And soe much for your authors Honor. gemma anime lib. 1. cap. 103. Innoc. 3. lib. 3 de Mâ—ss cap. 1. 13. Now to come to your conclusion of this § you tell your Reader that you will lett him vnderstand one special cause of the alteration of the office in the Romane Church which is a story out of one Honorius of certaine Shepheards who hauing learned the words of consecration because in the primitiue tymes say you the Canon of the Masse was publiquely read and vnderstood of all Io Beleth de diu offi cap. 44. and pronouncing the words of consecration ouer their bread and wine in the fields the bread and wine were suddainly transubstaÌ„tiated into flesh and bloud and themselues strucken dead by the hand of God Wherevpon you say that by Honorius his confession the canon of the Masse was anciently read alowd and which is strange say you also that Shepheards did transubstantiate bread and wine by which you tell vs farther it seemeth the alteration of the Church seruice into the Latine and vnknowne tongue was occasioned the same story you say is told by Innoc. 3. and Io. Belethus adding a reason withall out of them why the words of consecration are pronounced secretly to wit ne Sacrosancta verba vilescerent Least the holy words should grow contemptible Thus you talke freely Sir Humphrey as if all were Ghospel you say 14. But you must giue other men for all that a little leaue to make doubt thereof and first you runne heere from one thing to another to wit from seruice in a knowne or vnknowne tongue to soft or lowd pronouncing of the words of consecration or of the Canon of the Masse Secondly you say that by occasion of this Story which you tell vs the Church altered the seruice in to the Latine and vnknowne tongue wherein Sir Humphrey you forgett your self much for you told vs before that that alteratioÌ„ was brought in by Pope Vitalian about the yeare 666. which cannot well agree with this story of yours for if it were a late story neere Honorius his tyme that relateth it that was neere 500. yeares after Vitalian's tyme if the story be an ancient one as there is one some what like which I shall by and by speake of in the booke called Pratum spirituale then that was a good while before Vitalian's tyme for the man that writeth it liued in Honorius 1. his tyme which was the 6. Pope before Vitalian and that author writeth it by the relation of a graue ancient man who knew one of the persons that were actours in this busines now an old man the thing hauing happened when hee was but a boy soe that there might very well bee 80. or 100. yeares betweene the tyme of this story and Pope Vitalian Thirdly I see not why this story should cause soe great an alteration as to change the Church-Office or Masse into another tongue for it might haue serued the turne very well to reade the Canon or speake the words of consecration softly that others might not heare or learne them Or if they must be chaÌ„ged into an other tongue not to be knowne why into Latine the most knowne tongue in the whole world besids where this thing hapned the Church-language was Greeke which was not soe common to the vulgar which if it did not hinder the irreuerence committed there how should it be likely that changing it into Latine onely would hinder it heere Moreouer if it did not cause any change in the Easterne Church where it hapned why should it cause any in the Westerne Church where perhaps this story was not heard of for a long tyme after And indeede lett the language be what it will any man may learne some few words and abuse them if he will therefore that will helpe little Lastly me thinks it had beene meete for you Sir Humphrey to haue said somewhat when this change was made or what language it was that was vsed before or bring some author for your self for of these 3. which you
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
saith thus It is not incredible that some such thing should be after this life but whether it be soe or noe it may be a question You say also for the place where it is or how long soules continue there whither there be fire or water or whither material fire or noe there is nothing certaine among vs You cite Sir Thomas More Bishop Fisher and Bellarmine whose words I passe ouer as needlesse and then you tell vs that S. Greg. who gaue the first credo to Purgatory saith some are purged by fire some by hott bathes and vpon certaine apparitions and reuelations related by him and S. Bede you say it is come to be an article of faith but you conclude with a place of S. Aug. quite against Purgatory Lib. de vaâ—it Saecul â—ap 1. where he saith that when the Soule is separated from the body presently it is either placed in paradice for its good works or cast into hell for its sinnes I answeare that you still goe abusing S. Aug. who is soe plaine for Purgatory that noe Catholique now liuing can be more plaine and in this very booke of his Enchiridiâ—n and place by you cited he is soe plaine that one Mr. Anthony Alcocke a zealous disciple as it seemeth translating it into English is faine to write certaine animaduersions vpon the 110. chapter wherein he confesseth S. Aug. his opinion heere for Purgatory but he laboureth to obscure his meaning or reconcile him by fetching other places as wisely and well to the purpose as you are wont to doe but to be brief with you that which S. Aug. saith may be a question is not of purgatory or the being of Purgatory as you say most Linde like but of the manner of paine as whether euen as men are heere troubled in this world more or lesse with the losse of worldly things as they more or lesse loued them which trouble or tribulation S. Aug. explicateth to be that fire whereof S. Paul speakes saying that those that build hay straw stubble c. shal be Saued as it were by fire whether I say men be soe punished in Purgatory this S. Aug. doth not determine but whether there be a Purgatory or noe Enchir. cap. 110. let any man iudge since he saith there Neque negandum est defunctorum animas c. Neither is it to bee denied that the Soules of the dead are relieued by the piety of their freinds liuing when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them or almes giuen in the Church Note heere 3. or 4. controuersies decided in this one sentence of S. Aug. Satisfactions Masse Purgatory Prayers for the dead and there he also distinguisheth 3. sorts of dead people some in heauen that neede noe such helpe others in hell that cannot be helped by them a third of those that are not soe well as not to neede them nor soe ill but that they may be the better for these helpes This S. Aug. speaketh certainely and more we doe not say certainely of Purgatory the particulars of place manner of punishment durance c. are things disputable among Diuines which you haue nothing to doe with and if for such vncertainties you will reiect the beleife of Purgatory by the same reason you may deny that there is an hell as it is like you doe in your hart for els you could not say and write as you doe Now for S. Greg. who you say gaue the first Credo to Purgatory that is answeare enough which I alleadged last out of S. Aug. by which it appeareth he gaue it an vndoubted Credo long before for he died neere 200. yeares before S. Greg. but for founding the beleife thereof vpon apparitions of dead men reuelatioÌ„s of this Saint S. Bedes relation it is most false by the same argument still For how could the faith of S. Aug. his tyme be grounded vpon the reuelations of men lyuing two or three hundred yeares after or indeede vpon any reuelation of any man faith is grounded vpon the reuelation of God alone deliuered vnto vs by his Church Therefore to the last place of S. Aug. I say it is vnderstood that presently as soone as the soule departeth it receiueth the doome either of Paradice or hell that is whether it is to goe finally and that is both true and his meaning as appeareth by what he saith of the same matter els where thus Tempus quod inter hominis mortem c. The tyme betweene the death of a man and the general resurrection containeth the soules in hidden receptacles as each is worthy either of ease or paine according as it deserued whiles it liued For it is not to be denied that the soules of the dead are helped by the piety of their liuing freinds This place is soe plaine as not only not to admitt any tergiuersation but alsoe to explaine any other that may seeme obscure 12. A third point of vncertaine doctrine as you obiect is Indulgences for which you alleadge Durand and Gerson For Durand looke in the § of Indulgences in Bellarmine Lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 2. and there you shall find him not to doubt of Indulgences but of that which wee call thesaurus ecclesiae for as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of the Saints And as for Gerson who saith that whether the power of the keyes extend onely to such as are on earth or also to those in Purgatory the opinions of men are contrary and vncertaine it is most friuolous to obiect him For what doth this pertaine to faith or doth it pertaine onely to Indulgences is not the question common to other acts of iurisdiction vnderstood by the power of the keyes this is your argument Diuines dispute whether the Popes power extend to the soules in Purgatory ergo the doctrine of Indulgences is vncertaine This might be answeare enough but to display you a little more I will say a word or two more of Gerson and first euen in this point of extending the Popes power ouer those that are in Purgatory euen to the remission of paine absolution from venial sinne or excommunication before incurred he is soe fauourable in this place by you cited as to graunt the opinions on both sides probable which is more theÌ„ other Diuines graunt and is more then needeth for applying Indulgences to the dead Soe as in graunting that probable he maketh this certaine and this for Indulgences in as much as they pertaine to the dead Now for the liuing or power of Indulgences in general thus he saith â—rs 2. p. de â—â—ulg con â— 11. 12 Indulgentiarum concessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectenda in fide spe charitate Domini nostri IESV CHRISTI qui potestatem talium claurum ecclesiasticam dedit hominibus The graunting of Indulgences is not to be little esteemed or contemned but to be embraced in the faith hope and Charity of our Lord IESVS
drawne from authority for pauperis est numerare pecus It is the signe of a poore man to number his Cattell Thus you say of Salmeron in a few lines discouering a great deale of fals-hood For first it is false that you produce Fathers against the Conception of our Lady That being noe controuersy betweene you and vs but onely among our selues wherefore if there be any such consent of Fathers it is not you that produce them but our owne authors you onely out of the great good affection you beare forsooth to our B. Sauiour are ready to embrace any opinion that may more derogate from the dignity of his blessed Mother but what doe crowes looke for but carren Secondly it is false that Salmeron acknowledgeth any such vniforme consent of Fathers against him or that he makes any such answeare to them It is true indeede he saith the contrary part alleadge for themselues the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and specially of Saint Augustine Which he answeareth another way but for those which he answeareth as you say here they are onely later authours or Doctours as shall after appeare Thirdly it is false that hee acknowledgeth any vniforme consent euen of these later Doctours against himselfe for he opposeth a farre greater multitude of Doctours against them vsing that saying of Elizaeus the Prophet 4. Reg. 6.16 plures nobiscum sunt quam cum illis there be more with vs then with them Where then is the consent Fourthly it is a cunning tricke if not a false for you to make this answeare seeme Salmeron's onely whereas he professeth to haue it out of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas of Aquine citing two or three seuerall places of Saint Augustine but it is well at lest that though you contemne their authority yet you doe not doe it soe openly but couertly onely vnder the shaddow of a IESVIT This therefore might be answeare enough for you to shew that we doe not reiect or elude the Fathers seing we haue our answeares out of them but to explaine the meaning of Salmeron's saying that the place of authority is weake a little more I will alleadge S. Thomas of Aquine his obiection and answeare he obiecteth that the science of Diuinity cannot be argumentatiue 1. p q. 1. ar 8. and 2. because saith he it must argue out of authority or reason not out of authority because according to Boetius the place of authority is most weake not out of reason because then faith hath noe merit to this he answeareth that it argueth out of Diuine authority and saith that Boetius is to be vnderstood of humaine authority which he also saith is the weakest kind of proofe Soe as by this Salmeron's meaning is plaine not to reiect authority but onely to preferre reason before humaine authority as it is most plaine that it ought to be preferred Besids Salmeron giueth other answeares as that he opposeth also a contrary multitude of Doctours he opposeth the force of reason he opposeth the consent in a manner of the whole Church concluding therefore that though some of the cōtrary part number a great many authors some 200. some 300. some but 15. yet the very nūbering sheweth them to be few according to that saying Pauperis est numerare pecus it is onely for a poore man to number his cattell whereas a rich man's cattell or other wealth is not soe soone counted insinuating thereby that his authors are soe many that they are not to be numbred and indeede he hath almost as many Vniuersityes kingdomes commonwealths religious orders and other communityes for him as the other side hath single authors By all which it is apparent that there is noe such absurdity in his saying as you would haue it seeme for he slighteth not authority but preferreth onely greater authority before lesse and reason before both which noe man in his right witts can deny to be very good reason where then was your reason Sir Humphrey when you read Salmeron it was straying after some haereticall fancy 15. By this then that hath beene said in this whole chapter it may appeare how like your selfe you make that vaunting conclusion to your reader that by what you haue heere said he hath heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the chiefe points made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues For disproofe whereof I should vrong my Reader 's iudgement if I should stand bringing other arguments then those which I haue done already in answearing euery particular place which you bring Wherein I haue shewed not one Father of all these to be against vs vnlesse it be in some one or two points wherein they are as much against you and in things which both you acknowledge for errours and are contradicted by the common consent of other fathers wherein I hope my deeds will waigh more with any man of iudgement then your words Chap. 13. and soe I passe to another section Of the 13. Sect. which is thus entituled by the Knight Our aduersaries conuinced of a bad cause and an euill conscience by razing of our records and clipping their owne authors tongues CHAPTER XIII 1. IN the later end of the former section the Knight saith that many in our owne Church haue spoken freely and truly in particular points of doctrine with his and against our tenets For which the Inquisitours haue passed their censure vpon them blotting out such lines or leaues as make against vs and now in this section he nameth some authours in particular To which I say that for the former part the Knight saith very true there be and euer haue beene some light new fangled people who giue too much liberty to their wandring thoughts and penns suffering themselues like chaffe as they are to be blowne hither and thither with the wind of inconstancy And such people they are for the most part that become haeretiques though some also remaine in the vnity of the Catholique church yet soe as they suffer some things to escape which deserue censure Wherefore the Catholique church to preuent the danger and harme which may come by such bookes taketh the best order that can be in Catholique countries that noe such bookes be printed till they be reuiewed and approued not to containe any thing contrary to faith and good manners but because there haue beene many such writings published this last age by occasion of heresy and liberty which came therewith to the great preiudice of the Catholique faith there hath beene a course taken for the restraint of all such not onely writings of Haeretiques but euen of Catholiques which haue any tange of haeresy either vtterly forbidding them or correcting them soe as they may be safely reade without danger of faith and good life And this kind of care hath euer beene vsed in the Catholique church though more or lesse as the necessity of tymes hath beene greater or lesse Act. 19.18 Soe we see in scripture it selfe some that
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
this place then maketh nothing against vs. Thirdly there is noe reason why you should charge vs with changing the word Angelos into angulos For though some may reade it Angulos yet others reade it Angelos and euen two for one For whereas Binius out of whom you your selfe cite this Canon in his last edition of the Councels hath the Greeke text and three seueral Latine translations thereof all these haue Angelos and not Angulos Bellarmine Baronius and almost all other authors reade it angelos and according to that reading answeare that triuiall obiection which your people ordinarily draw from thence against our adoration of Angels and Saints noe way excepting against the word angelos as if that were not the right reading but shewing the sense not to be any way against vs. 5. Is it not then shamelesse dealing in you to make your Reader beleiue that we corrupt the reading left soe faire an euidence to vse your words should be brought against vs whereas we keepe the euidence soe faire and entire in our best editions that were it not for them you would not know what the true reading were you knowing withall that there is noe cause why we should goe about to change the word which is nothing against vs for we forsake not Christ we acknowledge noe angels to be the framers of the world nor chiefe mediators nor that with out them we cannot haue accesse to God These are all haereticall deuices which we together with S. Paul and the Councel of Laodicea detest But as I said before seing you would needs bring this impertinent obiection I wonder why you did not bring it before but heere in this place as if the inquisition had commanded something to be blotted out or the word angeli to be changed into anguli But you wanted matter to fill out your section and therefore you put that in heere and withall to helpe it out yet a little more you tell vs of one Henry Boxhorn a learned professor of Louaine as you terme him and who as you say in your English text being commanded to put the Decree of the Inquisition in execution his hart was smitten and his eyes opened to see the abomination of the Papacy an idol in the temple tyranny in the commonwealth poyson and infection in religion and therevpon became a conuert to the Protestant faith thus you Sir Humphrey but if such matter as this will serue your turne you may haue enough neither need you search corners to find out such obscure fellowes as this Boxhorne whose harts haue beene smitten and their eyes opened you might bring the Fathers of your religion for examples as Luther Caluin Zuinglius Beza Carolstadius and who not for though they might pretend seueral causes yet there was one principal one which consisted indeede in the smitting of their harts with a fiery dart of carnal loue And when they found an Eue to giue them an apple then their eyes were opened and soe it proued also with your freind Boxhorne as I shall heere shew you by a briefe story of his life most authentically related by that graue and holy man Oliuerius Manaraeus of the Society of IESVS in a certaine written treatise wherein he recounteth onely the exāples of his owne tyme and such as he himself knew had become Apostatas from the said Society thus then hee writeth 6. Henry Buxhornich Licentiate of Diuinity and Deane of the church of Tielmond not farre from Louaine did often confesse himselfe to be soe certainely called to the Society that he hath beene heard many tymes to say that he did thinke he should proue a reprobate and be aeternally damned vnlesse he did enter there into and he was wont to say it with soe great feeling that there was noe doubt but he spake it enflamed with heauenly fire But his Mother endeauoured by all meanes to withdraw her sonne from soe good a purpose and indeede preuailed soe farre as to make him differre it from month to month and from yeare to yeare After some yeares falling sicke he was heard by some that euen told it me againe saith F. Oliuerius Manaraeus to repeate and renew his vow but being recouered he went on as before yeilding to his Mothers enticements and concupiscences of the flesh gaue the raines to his sensuality In that tyme the haeretiques sacked and spoiled the towne of Tielmond and killed all that did not either flye or hide themselues heere then the poore Licentiate hidd himselfe in a certaine caue or denne the enemy running round about him on euery side and almost lighting vpon him But being in this daunger he had recourse as he was wont to God and our Blessed Lady renewing his vow nine tymes together and crauing pardon that he had not accomplished the same before which almighty God hearing deliuered him and he magnifying the benefit resolued presently to fulfill his Vow but being againe ensnared by the allurements of his Dalila he did soe long differr it till he became publiquely a sacrilegious concubinary giuing himself soe ouer to his lust that he kept a nest of women in his howse Being then questioned by the Bishop's Vicar he sent away all his women gaue his oath that he would keepe himself within his owne doores as in a prison But he breaking his faith stole away the next night with a great summe of money whereof most did belong to the Church carrying his concubine with him and marrying her afterwards according to the custome of Haeretiques became a Preacher and Minister in Holland A little after endeauouring to reconcile the Lutherans and Caluinists he writ a booke which he called Concord in which he speakes very bitterly of the Society of IESVS calling the religious thereof Esauits he became presently extreame wicked who seemed before endewed with angelical vertues and adorned with admirable sweetnes of manners soe as by word and example he drew many to vertuous courses but now he is become soe vgly to behold as is related and his life soe execrable in Holland that noe man can endure him His mother through the iust iudgment of God hauing beene cause of his perdition was faine to leaue him not being able to endure his cruelty and wicked manners and whereas before she liued in great aboundance she is now become soe poore as to liue vpon almes all crooked and as it were double at Louaine getting what she can by washing and spinning euery man wondering at her and admiring the iust reuenge of almighty God vpon her thus farre this most true and faithfull relation Whereto I may adde one word more which is this that a certaine Apostata Franciscan running away to Breda when it was in the hands of the Hollanders and where this Boxhorne was at that tyme chiefe Preacher and being lodged in his howse and in the next chamber to him and his Woman he heard such kind greeting betweene them that night the one cursing the other and imputing their
apostasy and future damnation to each other this poore Frier repented himself and therevppon came backe to his monastery and did penance rather choosing to suffer a little outward austerity then to carry about in the bottome of his soule such an inward assured testimony and beleife of his aeternall damnation as he saw these two did I might say more of the man's fine feates but there be bookes in dutch particularly of them as I heare and soe I say noe more but that in this your learned Buxhorne whom you Sir Humphrey of Licentiate make a Doctor as in all your other learned men that blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian hit the right veyne and discouered the true cause of their apostasy when he told the Vniuersity men it was not any Charks or Hammers that held them backe as I may say also it was not any razing of euidences that made Boxhorne fall from his faith but that there were certaine Lutheran baites where-with many of them were catched which were Aurum gloria delitiae veneres Gold glory delights and Venus of which some are catched with one some with another and soe you see this your learned Professor had soe deepely swallowed the last of the fower baites that it made his stomacke turne at the Catholique faith which exhorted him to contemne some of them as gold glory and forced him to forbeare others as his base and bestial delights and soe forsaking all obedience to humane and diuine lawes at one clapp became a rebell to his Prince an Apostata to religion and enemy to the Catholique faith therefore of such fellowes there is noe other account to bee made but let them goe as the Scripture saith of one of their chiefe Leaders Act. 2.25 Vt abiret in locum suum That hee might goe into his owne place Of the 14. Sect. the title whereof is this Chap. 14. Our aduersaries conuicted of their defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture it selfe CHAPTER XIV 1. TO this section the Knight giueth a beginning by occasion of Boxhornes words in the last section of an idol in the temple Wherevppon he very wittily tells vs that when we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place we must flye to the mountaines of the Scriptures as S. Chrysostome saith but yet he thinks we will not come to triall of scriptures because saith he are we not all eye witnesses that Christ and his Apostles are called in question at the Popes assizes and there arraigned and condemned of obscurity and insufficiency in their ghospel is not the sacred bible saith he ranked inter libros prohibitos in the first place in the catalogue of forbidden books then he bringeth Corn. Agrippa complayning of the Inquisitors that they will not admitt men to proue their opinions by scriptures This is the Knight's discourse which vpon examination will proue as foolish as he thinks it witty I answeare therefore that though Catholiques hold for most certaine that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith nor that out of it alone all controuersies can be decided as for example that in particular which bookes be canonical Scripture which not Yet for most things now a dayes in controuersy many Catholiques haue offered to try the matter by onely scripture some hauing also written books of good volume Anker of Faith to shew the Scripture in the plaine and obuious sense to make positiuely for vs our Doctrine in most points against vs in none Whereof a man may also haue a briefe tast in the defence of the cēsure in the praeface in these points following of Supremacy real presence iustificatiō absolutiō Vowes traditions obseruance of the cōmandements satisfaction prayer for the dead prayer to Saints c. in which respect therefore I may aske you Sir Humphrey how you come to be soe sure that we will not come to the triall of Scriptures for though we ground many points vpon tradition and practize of the Church yet doe not we ground others vpon plaine and expresse authority of Scripture from which you are faine to fly running into this or that corner of I know not what figuratiue or tropical interpretation or euen denying the very bookes of Scripture nay what point is there that we doe not bring better proofes out of Scripture for it which yet we neede not then you can bring against it which yet is absolutely needfull on your part you standing soe vpon Scripture as you doe 2. As for that which you say of the Popes questioning Christ his Apostles at his Assizes for obscurity and insufficiency this is a speach vttered I suppose by you onely in the feruor of an haereticall spiritt wherein therefore a man is not to looke for much truth but yet I may aske wherein I pray you doth the Pope question or condemne Christ of obscurity insufficiēcy what hath Christ left written to be questioned or condemned his Apostles Euangelists indeede haue left some things in writing of which some are hard euen by the iudgmēt of Scripture it selfe 2. Pet. 3.16 for soe saith S. Peter of the Epistles of S. Paul which saith he the vnlearned and inconstant doe abuse as they doe others Scriptures to their owne perdition Aug. Conf. lib. 12. c. 14. and S. Augustine findeth soe much difficulty in the first verse of the whole Scripture which to a man seeming is as easy as any other verse what soeuer that hee is faine to acknowledge the wonderfull profoundnes thereof it is S. Peter and S. Aug. therefore that call to their assizes if you will needs haue it soe and there arraigne and condemne S. Paul Moyses of obscurity not the Pope soe for insufficiēcy if any body condemne it it is S. Iohn in saying that 2. Thess 2.14 all things are not written S. Paul in willing the Thessaloniās to hold the traditiōs which they had learned whither by speach or letter by word of mouth or writing they are the Apostles Doctors of the Church that acknowledge that hardnes of Scripture or what soeuer it is which your Worship is pleased to call insufficiency What impertinent flaunting is this then in you Sir Humphrey to tell vs the Pope questioneth Christ and his Apostles To talke thus of Assizes and arraigning as if you would haue vs know you are the Sonne of a Grand-Iuror whom it is pitty you did not succeede in the place since you haue the termes soe ready in your mouth 3. But to lett that passe I likewise answeare you for our ranking the bible in the first place of prohibited bookes as you say we doe that it is false and false againe For it is not in the catalogue of such bookes onely in the rules which concerne the index there is mention how the free vse of vulgar translations is not to bee permitted Reg. 4. but for the Latine vulgar translation there is noe manner
of restraint though if there had beene we might very well haue warranted it by the authority of S. Hierome who did noe way admitt such free vse euen of the Latine bibles for hauing spoken largely and learnedly out of Scripture of the hardnes and obscurity of scripture Ep. ad Paulin he complaines that euery body did presume to take reade and teach it before they learned it themselues disallowing that euen such as himself should goe from saecular learning presently to the holy Scriptures and interpret them at their pleasure S. Hierome then thought them hard and was not soe free in allowing the reading of Scriptures as you are For if he doe not allow the reading thereof in Latine to men and Scholars how much lesse would he haue allowed it in English to womē and Children Besides it is noe such cryme to forbid the reading of scripture to some sorts of people as may appeare by this testimony of this holy Father who in the same place also saith moreouer that the beginning of Genesis with the beginning and end of Ezechiel were not to be read by the Iewes till they came to 30. yeares of age which kind of forbidding is noe derogation but a great commendation of the holy scripture And I call it but a kind of forbidding for it is farre different though you make it all one from the forbidding of haereticall bookes For these are forbidden as wicked detestable of themselues dangerous the other out of reuerence and honor dew vnto them and in reguard of the danger which may come by them not of thēselues but in reguard of the weaknes of the Reader for want of necessary learning humility both which a man that is to handle the Scriptures must come well prouided of 4. For Cornelius Agrippa it maketh noe more matter what he saith then what you say for it is but aske my brother if I bee a theife but it is fine that these fellowes cannot be inuited by a generall Councell with promise of all security that can be desired to come and propound what they can say out of scripture or any way els and yet when they come before a Iudge they will dispute forsooth and by disputing auoide the rigour of the Law Indeede I cannot blame them but if this seeme reason to you why doe you deny Catholique Priests the like liberty of Disputation How often and earnestly haue they desired it but could neuer obtaine it But neither euen in that case with vs are people denied any conuenient liberty neither is there any credit to be giuen to Cornelius Agrippa For being a Magitian he may very well be said to haue shaked hands with the Diuell the father of lies Which you your selfe it seemes knowing and suspecting that his testimony would not passe for currant you tell vs we shall heare our owne authors how they speake of the Scriptures For you tremble to speake it as your words are You tell vs some say they are dead characters a shell without a kernel a leaden rule a wood of theeues a shop of Haeretiques imperfect doubtful obscure ful of perplexities with many more epithets which I let passe these being of the very worst and especially the last 4. for which you alleadge Lessius alleadging likewise for euery one of the rest a seuerall authour Whereto not to stand answearing euery one seuerally the matter being the same of one and all I say in generall that these things are spoken not of the Scripture as it is in it selfe that is consisting of both words and meaning as it were life and soule together but of the bare words and letters onely which Haeretiques still doe and euen haue abused as the Diuell himselfe did to our Sauiour and in this sense it is a wood of theeues For as theeues runne into a wood to escape thereby soe doe Haeretiques runne in all controuersies to the letter of the Scripture leauing the true sense and framing a false one according to their owne fancy Tert. de praes cap. 17 Which is that that Tertullian saith that there is noe good to be done with haeretiques by Scriptures for that either they deny the booke or peruert the sense and whatsoeuer wee say they deny or what we deny they defend and so a wood of theeues and shop of haeretiques dead characters and the like are all one the meaning of all being soe as these speeches are not meant of the Scripture properly in it selfe as I saied before but as it is yours or as it is made by you and other Haeretiques and yet alas good man you tremble to heare the words that doe but expresse your owne deeds Alac for you that your stomacke is soe queasy that it cannot endure to heare that which you are bold and hardy enough to doe by your daily practize 5. But because you are soe dainty that your stomacke turneth at what our moderne authors say of you let vs see whether it wil brooke any better what that ancient learned Father S. Hierome saith Let vs see whether your tender conscience wil be soe scandalized at his words as you seeme to be now at ours Hierom. 1. Gal. Marcion Basilides saith he caeterae haereticorum pestes nō habent Dei Euangelium quia non habent Spiritū Sanctum sine quo humanum fit Euangelium quod docetur Nec putemus in verbis Scripturarum esse Euāgelium sed in sensu non in superficie sed in medulla non in sermonum folijs sed in radice rationis Dicitur in Propheta de Deo Michae 2. Sermones eius boni sunt cum eo Tunc Scriptura vtilis est audientibus cum absque Christo non dicitur cum absque Patre non profertur cum sine spiritu non eam insinuat ille qui praedicat alioquin diabolus qui loquitur de scripturis omnes haereses secundum Ezechiel inde sibi consuunt ceruicalia quae ponant sub cubito vniuersae aetatis c. Grande periculum est in ecclesia loqui ne fortè interpretatione peruersa de euangelio Christi hominis fiat euangelium aut quod peius est Diaboli Marcion Basilides and other plagues of Haeretiques haue not the Ghospel of God because they haue not the Holy Ghost without whom it becometh the ghospel of man which is taught Nor let vs thinke that the ghospel is or consisteth in the words of scripture but in the sense not in the superficies or barke but in the pith not in the leaues of speach or word but in the roote of reason It is said in the Prophet of God His speeches are good with him then the Scripture is profitable to the hearers when it is not spoken without Christ when it is not brought without the Father when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the Holy Ghost otherwise both the Diuel who speaketh out of Scripture and all haeresies according to Ezechiel make themselues pillowes out of it to
put vnder the elbowes of all ages It is a great danger to speak in the Church lest perchance by peruerse interpretation of the ghospel of Christ there be made the ghospel of man or which is worse the Ghospel of the Diuel Thus farre Saint Hieromes words which mee thinks without more adoe may easily answeare your whole argument for in them this holy Father sayth as much or more as all those Epithets which you bring out of our seueral authours put togeather and withall sheweth in what sense they are to be taken Soe as if you will say any more of this matter you must vndertake the quarrel against Saint Hierome You may doe well also to note the very first words Marcion Basilides caeterae haereticorum pestes among whom you haue your part 6. Now for the 4. last epithets which you bring out of Lessius though they seeme not such strange termes as some of the rest yet they are farr worse and more derogatory from the holy Scripture if they be there as you say I haue therefore more particularly examined him whither he say soe or noe Less Consul Quae sit fides c. rat 11. and whereas the words being all put downe by you heere as it were seuerall epithets a man would haue thought they had beene all soe together in the authour himselfe I say first that there be neither any such words lying togeather nor any such a part nor any one word of those that I can find in that whole place or reason which I may call a chapter for it is in manner of a chapter much lesse any of them vttered of the holy Scripture though the whole Chapter or discourse in that place be onely of the Scripture and to proue that it alone and of it selfe can not be a rule of faith Which he proueth by many reasons one is because by it we can not iudge of the Scripture it selfe and soe the very rule shall remaine vncertaine which ought to be most certaine And in this place he hath the word incerta which though it signify the same with some of the words heere alleadged yet is it not the same word But yet heere Lessius is farre from saying that the Scripture is vncertaine in it self that is that the doctrine thereof is doubtfull but onely that our rule wil be vncertaine to vs or rather we vncertaine of the rule because we cannot know the Scripture by it self For example that this booke is true scripture not suppositions or feigned or that this is the true meaning and sense thereof And this kind of vncertainty is noe derogation to the Scripture Lessius his second reason is that that cannot be a certaine rule which may be accommodated or fitted to contrary doctrines as he saith Scripture is by seuerall Haeretiques for establishment of quite different opinions His 3. reason is this that cannot be a iudge that cannot clearely determine on which side sentence is giuen but leaueth it soe that the partyes may still contend one affirming the sentence to bee for him another for him And soe he saith is the scripture laying aside the exposition of the Church and Fathers Whereto he there bringeth also an example of two men who going to law would admitt noe other iudge but the Law booke one bringing one Law cleerely for him as he thinketh the other another Law as cleerely for him in his iudgment of which suite there could neuer be an end soe Fourthly he sheweth by experience that this rule of Scripture is not sufficient for ending of Controuersies because the Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists are alltogether by the eares yet euery one alleadging Scripture for himselfe Lastly he saith that the Scripture it self in noe place sendeth priuate men to seach the Scriptures in doubtfull matters but to the Church and Pastours praesiding therein 7. This is the whole substance of Lessius his discourse in that place wherein I would gladly heare what word there is derogating from the dignity of holy Scripture or any way condemning it of imperfection doubtfulnes ambiguity and perplexity some of these things might bee truely said and in a good sense as the doubtfulnes or ambiguity in the same sense that I spoke of the vncertainty not in it selfe but to vs-ward But for the imperfectiō because that is a great matter with you I absolutely deny it for neither doth any Catholique say either that or any thing els from whence it may be gathered For it is not all one to say that it alone is noe sufficient rule and to say it is imperfect for though you imagine that the all sufficiency or contayning of all things expresly is a necessary point of perfection you are deceiued for then would it follow that the ghospel of S. Mathew S. Marke and other particular books should be imperfect and specially that of S. Iohn wherein he saith expresly that all things are not written neither if all the Scripture did containe all things in that manner as you would haue it and soe were perfect in your sense yet would it not euen then be a sufficient rule of faith of it selfe alone for it would still bee a booke or vriting the very nature whereof doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of fayth or iudge of controuersies for a Iugde must be able to speake to heare answeare c. whereas the nature of a booke or writing is as it were to leaue it selfe to be read and expounded by men for in case two men should expound it differently the nature thereof doth not require that it should say whether of the two expoundeth it right The perfection therefore of it doth rather cōsist in the truth fulnesse of wisedome profoundnes maiesty grauity efficacy authority and certainty then in contayning all things expresly as you require soe long as it hath those perfections cōtaining withall the principal matters pertayning to faith and teaching vs a certaine and infallible way whereby we may come to the knowledge of the rest which is the Church it cannot be said to be vnperfect or to wāt any perfection dew therevnto And this may be answeare sufficient to the rest of this Section which is nothing but a litle more of such wise stuffe for you tell vs we decline Scriptures as vnperfect the fathers as counterfect the Protestants as haeretiques our owne authors as erronious Of which there is not one true word but this that we decline Protestants as haeretiques for soe we doe indeede but for the rest it is most false For what Catholique did euer decline the authority of our Schoole Diuines or ancient fathers much lesse call the one erronious or the other counterfect Some one may haue strayed a little from the common opinion of the rest in some one particular point or perhaps haue beene corrupted by haeretiques and soe we may decline that particular author in that particular point but call him erroneous or counterfect we doe not nay we giue you leaue