all men As the articles of the Apostle's Creede and the ten cōmandements and some Sacraments For the Creede belongeth to faith the commandements and Sacraments to manners For Bellarmine speaketh heere not onely what is necessary for all men to beleeue but what is necessary for all men to doe for obtayning of saluation according to that commission of our Sauiour to his Apostles Goe teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue whatsoeuer I haue commanded you 6. I doe not say that wee are not to beleeue these things also for we cannot practise them vnlesse we know them and some we cannot know otherwise then by faith The commādements indeede are principles of reason drawne euen from the very light of nature though taught by diuine authority but the Sacraments are taught onely by faith yet soe as they are ordayned principally for practise noe lesse then the Commaundements and therefore not articles of faith but sufficiently contayned in the article of the Catholique Church for without Sacraments there can bee noe Church Thirdly where doth Bellarmine say that the Apostles neuer propounded for common articles of faith other then the things mentioned I doe not finde it but rather the contrary For besides these things which he saith were simply necessary for all and without which men of discretion were not to bee admitted to Baptisme he saith that For those other things which were not simply necessary that is without the expresse knowledge whereof they that is men of yeares might be admitted to Baptisme and saued the Apostles did preach many other things some of them to all to wit those things which were profitable for all and some againe onely to some as to Praelats Bishop's and Priests And heere alsoe Sir Humphrey yow cunningly ioyne these two things in one things simply necessary and profitable as if both were meant onely of one kind of things whereas the Cardinal doth distinguish the one from the other Which though it bee but a lesse matter yet it sheweth your corrupt minde that can relate nothing sincerely Fourthly whereas Bellarmine saith that these things by you named are simply necessary he saith with all that there bee other things not soe necessary as that without the explicite knowledge and profession of them a man may not bee saued soe hee haue a ready will to receiue and beleeue them when they shal be lawfully propounded vnto him by the Church You were pleased to leaue out the word explicite in the former part of the sentence and with it alsoe to leaue out the whole later part Bellarmine requiring an explicite faith of same things and an implicite faith of other that is a readines of will to receiue beleeue thē whē they shal be propoūded by the Church which kind of faith though you like not as being the thing that maketh a Catholique yet you should haue let it stād among Bellarmines words you haue the liberty to confute him if you can but not to put in or out what you list 7. Besides these foure corruptions of Bellarmine by putting in some words of your owne ād leauing out some of his I might tax you with corrupting his meaning for your owne purpose For by saying that the explicite beleefe of these things is necessary for all he doth not meane as you would haue him that it was free for any man to choose whether hee will beleiue any thing els of those which the Apostles preached for that were most false Neither is it his meaning though he say those things be necessary that therefore they alone are sufficient for all men and that noe man is bound to know or beleeue explicitely also any thing more For without question those things which the Apostles taught to Praelats Bishops ād Priests were to be beleeued by thē explicitely Wherefore the beleife of the Apostles Creede the ten comandments and some few Sacraments is not sufficiēt for your Ministers who pretend to be Bishops and Priests but they are bound to know and beleeue more How then will you make the beleife of those necessary things sufficient to make cōcord and vnity in faith seing some men are bound to beleeue more euē explicitely and all men bound to beleeue whatsoeuer the Catholique Church shall propound implicitely and consequently not to deny any thing els soe propounded For not onely the deniall of those but of whatsoeuer els preached by the Apostles or Church is enough to make a mā an Haeretiq Thus therefore you haue egregiously abused both Bellarmines words and meaning and consequently not proued your intent that because you retaine the Apostles Creede which you call the general cognizance of our faith therefore there is noe cause to ranke you with Haeretiques For this Cognizance was not sufficient for an Arrian with out the explication thereof in the Nicene Creede as may bee gathered out of Theodoret before cited and soe may I now say it is not sufficient to distinguish a Catholique from a Lutheran Caluinist Protestant or other Haeretique of these tymes without the explication of the Trent profession of Faith For this is now the touchstone to try who beleeueth the Apostles Creede in deede and who in words onely And this your self must confesse who terme some Sects Haeretiques and vs Catholiques Idolaters nowithstanding we and they professe the Apostles Creede which you call the cognizance of our faith 8. Now to that which you say that the Romane Church and yours are Sisters and that the Romane playing the harlott yours went out of her I answeare that this is soe farre from clearing you from the note of haeresy that it doth rather make you more guilty thereof Your Church indeede cometh out of ours as all haeretical sects haue euer come out of the Catholique Church For soe saith S. Iohn of Haeretiques ex nobis prodierunt sed non erant ex nobis nam si fuissent ex nobis permansissent vtique nobiscum sed vt manifesti sint quoniam non sunt omnes ex nobis 1. Io. 2.19 They went out of vs but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would verily haue staid with vs but that they may bee manifest that they are not all of vs And among other marks of Haeretiques S. Iude alsoe reckoneth this Ep. Iud. 19. Hi sunt qui segregant semetipsos these are they that separate themselues S. Paul saith to the Ephesians that out of themselues some should rise speaking peruerse things Actor 20. that they might draw Disciples after them S. Aug. explicateth that place of the Psalme 30 Qui videbant me foras fugerunt a me Aug. in Ps 30. They that saw mee fled forth from mee to bee meant of Haeretiques because when they saw what the Church was they went Forth and made haeresies and schismes against it and euery where vrgeth this and nothing more then this against the
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
say mention the story there is not one that maketh any mention of changing the Church-Office into Latine vpon it but onely they alleadge it by occasion of the secret reading of the Canon of the Masse which was the thing they had in hand 15. Now for the story it self you cannot but know that it is answeared by Bellarmine it being obiected formerly by Kemnitius Bell lib. 2. de Miss cap. 12 his answeare then is that there is such a story related by good authority in Pratum spirituale but there neither the bread nor wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heauen nor the shepheards strucken dead but onely layd for dead 24. howers after which they came to themselues againe which is neither impossible nor improbable Now for these three authours that you cite none of them doth relate it out of any author or with any special credit but onely out of a report which they expresse by the word Fertur and therefore some of them as Honorius and Belethus might be mistaken in some of the circumstance though Innocentius be not Innoc. 3 lib. 3. de Miss cap. 1. for he saith noe more of it but this that it is reported that when certaine shepheards did sing the words in the fields they were strucken from heauen which is true Now this supposed as the story doth not make any way against vs for we grant that the words were anciently pronounced alowd in some place Soe it maketh against you who deny that any where they were spoken softly for the author of this story giuing a reason how the boyes came to learne the words saith thus Prat. Spirit cap. 196. Quoniam verò quibusdam in locis alta voce consueuerant presbyteri sancti sacrificij orationes pronunciare pueri vt propius astantes saepius eas audiendo didicerant Because in some places the Priests were wont to pronounce the prayers of the holy sacrifice with a lowd voyce the boyes as standing neerer by often hearing had learned them Loe Sir Humphrey it was but in some places that they did say those prayers alowd Soe that withall this labour you haue proued nothing but against your selfe Well then you haue failed in the proofe of your doctrine in this as in the rest withall the corruption and tricks you can vse let vs see what you doe in the next §. 7. Worship of Images 1. This 7. § of Image-worshipp our Knight beginneth after his ordinary manner with an article as he calleth it of our Romane Creede wherein we professe that the Images of Christ our Lady and the Saints are to be had and retained and that dew honor and Veneration is to be yeilded vnto them and then bringeth the Decree of the Councel of Trent Sess 25. for the same point in these words We teach that the images of Christ the Virgin mother of God and other Saints are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and that dew honour and worshipp is to be giuen them Which Decree he might haue translated a little better and more clearely by saying that those images are to be had and retained especially in Churches the Latine word being praesertim and his translating thereof chiefly and placing it soe oddly giueth cause to thinke he had an euill meaning therein as if he would haue his Reader thinke that the Councel taught that these Images were the chiefe things to bee had in Churches which is not the Councel's meaning as is plaine the words being very cleare in Latine But this is but a note by the way not as a thing that I stand vpon 2. This our Doctrine of image-worship he doth absolutely deny and condemne as a wicked and blasphemous opinion first because it not onely wants authority of scripture which he saith an article of faith ought to haue but because the scripture doth flatly and plainely forbid it and in the margent citeth Leuit. 26. Ex. 20. Deut. 4. Esay 40. This censure is somewhat deepe Sir Humphrey vpon such sleight ground because forsooth we haue noe proofe of scripture for though you thinke it necessary to haue expresse proofe of scripture to make a matter of faith yet as I said before you are much mistaken wherefore you ought not to stand still vrging it in such manner as if it were a certaine and vndoubted principle yet this I graunt you that though expresse Scripture be not necessary to make a matter of faith yet if you haue expresse scripture against it it is true it can be noe matter of faith but by your leaue none of those places which you note make any mention of image-worship but idol-worship which you cannot but know to be a different thing hauing beene soe often told it as you haue beene by vs therefore your first proofe fayling all failleth for though you put a First yet I see noe second and soe much for that 3. But because heere had beene an end too soone of soe good a matter you tell vs Vazq saith all images were forbidden soe farr forth as they were dedicated to adoration and Cornelius Agrippa saith the Iewes did abhorr nothing more then images to the same purpose you alleadge Philo the Iew speaking of the Iewes of those tymes and Sir Edwin sands of the Iewes that are now adayes Wherevpon you conclude that it is agreed vpon on both sides that the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of images for 4000. yeares and from thence you descend to the new Testament wherein you say the same law remayneth because it was morall for though some Catholiques teach that it was a positiue caeremonial law yet others say it was natural and for that you alleadge Bellar. wherefore the law being not abrogated you would haue some exāple or precept in the Ghospel for adoration of which you say Mr. Fisher acknowledgeth there is not any expresse but that there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawful Soe as from the light of nature say you an article of faith must be declared Well this is your discourse Sir Humphrey which in a word is but this The Iewes might not haue nor adore images ergo we may not For asweare whereof I might say in like sort the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things ergo we may not but because you may say these precepts are caeremonial therefore not now in force the other natural therefore in force for the present I will onely make this argument to shew the connexion of your antecedent and consequent the Iewes might not make any similitude or likenesse of any thing in heauen or earth to adore it for a God ergo we may not make or haue the images of Christ and Saints to reuerence and honour them as the pictures of Saints onely and not Gods is not heere a good and a substantiall argument trow you and yet it is yours Sir Humphrey 4. But say you there was such a command of
most stronge argument of antiquity that it is the practise of the Catholique Church tyme out of mind and of consent that noe man is found to haue spoken against it but onely knowne Haeretiques such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 1 therefore you are still out of your bias when you thinke to proue the nouelty of our doctrine by our want of testimony of antiquity For though we haue such testimony for superaboundant proofe yet it is enough that such a thing is thaught and practized in Catholique Church without any memory when it beganne for that is S. Augustines rule continually to proue a thing not onely ancient but euen Apostolical 10. But now to come to your authours in particular you bring Durand in the first place saying that there can be little said of certainty concerning Indulgences ap Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 2. Whereto I answeare that it is true Durand doth not speake soe constantly and resolutely of the threasure of the Church in as much as it consisteth of the satisfaction of Saints whereon Indulgences are partly grounded but he is farr from any haeretical and pertinacious denial thereof much lesse of Indulgences for supposing them as a thing most certaine he disputeth Theological questions of them as other Diuines of his tyme did and making this the first question Dur. in 4. dist 20. q. 3. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae whether Indulgences auaile any thing after the manner of Schooles he putteth two arguments against them in the first place and then cometh with his argument Sed contra agreeing for the most part with his conclusion and agreeing expresly in this place he saith thus In contrarium est generalis consuetudo doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de poena peccatori debita On the contrary is the general custome and doctrine of the Church which would containe falshood if some thing of the punishment dew to a sinner should not be forgiuen by indulgences and then hauing sett downe his resolution that there cannot be much said of certaine because neither the Scripture maketh mention of them nor some holy Fathers whom he there nameth yet he concludeth that in speaking of Indulgences the common manner is to bee followed and soe goeth on with other questions per quem modum valeant ex qua causa vaeleant quis eas possit concedere in what māner they auaile out of what cause who cā graunt thē c. nay and for the treasure of the Church though by way of theological dispute in one place he make some doubt of it yet in others he speaketh plainely and clearely in these words Dur. 4. dist 20. q. 3. Est in ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spiritual Treasure of the Passion of Christ and the Saints who endured much greater torments then their sinnes deserued and therefore the Church may out of this treasure communicate to one or more what may bee sufficient to satisfy for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as shall please the Church to communicate this treasure more or lesse which are nothing els but the communication of the paine of Christ and the Saints to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherefore indulgences auaile by way of solucion or payment in as much as by Christ and his Saints the paine dew to vs is payd So farr this author most clearely truely Catholiquely though after againe he somewhat doubt of this treasure as I said before in as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of Saincts Now for the very place which you alleadge you committ a fault in making it seeme as if he said the ancient Fathers in general did not make any mention of Indulgences and that he did name S. Ambrose S. Hilar. S. Aug. and S. Hierome onely for examples sake whereas it is farr otherwise For presently after he nameth S. Greg. and saith of him that he did institute indulgences at the Stations in Rome Soe as it is plaine he spoke onely of those 4. not of all the Fathers in general And soe much for Durand 11. As for Alphōsus à Castro another of your authors he denieth not all testimony of Scripture as none of the rest doe but onely plaine expresse testimony and though he also confesse the vse of Indulgences not to haue beene soe much in those ancient tymes as since yet he alloweth of them soe farr as to condemne any man for an Haeretique that shall deny them these are his words Alph. a Castr de haeres lib. 8. verb. Indulgent Verum etsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione S. Scripturae testimonium apertum desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam ecclesiae Catholicae vsus a multis annorum centurijs tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur But though there want open testimony of Scripture for approbation of Indulgences they are not therefore to bee contemned because the vse of the Catholique church for many hundreds of yeares is of soe great authority that whosoeuer contemned the same is worthely esteemed an haeretique And againe in the same place Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum to wit indulgentiarum vsus vt ex Stationibus Romae frequentissimis vtrumque colligi potest Among the Romans this vse of Indulgences is said to be most ancient as may be somewhat gathered by the most frequent Statiōs at Rome Looke you Sir Humphrey what a witnesse you haue brought for your selfe Doe you not see how new he maketh this Doctrine of Indulgences Confessing euen the vse of them to be most ancient and of many hundred yeares standing nay doth he not in the same place acknowledge that S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name did graunt some Indulgences which is aboue a thousand yeares Doe you not heare how much he giueth to the Church acknowledging the practise thereof to bee of soe great authority that whosoeuer denyeth the truth of a thing soe practised is worthily to be counted an Haeretique What thinke you now of your selfe to be called haeretique out of your owne mouth as it were that is out of your author's mouth whom you bring for you For Castro his authority then though it had beene more for you then it is in this matter of Indulgences yet you had beene better haue let it alone then to haue it with such a condition The like a man may say of euery author you bring heere for the same purpose but that it is needlesse to stand soe long vpon examining euery one in particular 12. Now after such good authorityes as you bring against Indulgences you thinke you may with authority prate very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences and bringing money to his owne coffers by them but to that I neede make noe other answeare but that it is such
it is soe still For as Hebrew Greeke and Latine were then the most knowne tōgues in which onely the Scriptures were written and publiquely read soe the same languages are still vsed partly because they are sacred and partly because they are most knowne What then maketh that against our Latine Masse or rather is it not a proofe of our antiquity and disproofe of his nouelty Against image-worship he talketh of the 2. Cōmaundement and the hate of the Iewes against Images Hee bringeth the testimonyes of some Haeretiques against them and the saying of some one Diuine of the manner of worshipp and the reprehēsion of others against the abuses committed in the adoration of them out of all which setting the testimonyes of Haeretiques a part I aske what he would conclude Or how he disproueth our Worship which we allow or how the reprehension of abuses in some of the simpler sort of Catholiques suppose there be some such abuses proueth the lawfulnes of his Image breaking or the truth and antiquity of his doctrine though his Doctrine in this point be but onely the denial of ours Now we proue ouer and aboue out of ancient Fathers and Councels the antiquity of our Worshipping of Saints and their pictures Lastly of Indulgences he saith out of some of our Diuines that there is noe expresse testimony of Scripture and Fathers for the antiquity of them To which wee answeare that as this notwithstanding these very men doe not deny the antiquity of Indulgences for want of such proofe soe others also proue the ancient vse of them euen out of other most ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church Howsoeuer the controuersy amongst those Diuines is not of the Indulgences themselues or doctrine but onely of the Vse of them or suppose it were soe that one or two Diuines did thinke amisse of them doth that proue the antiquity of his Doctrine may not those very Diuines be against him in other things What ancient author of authority hath he brought to proue his Doctrine not Durand nor any man els whosoeuer is by him pretended to thinke hardest of them though he had Durand wholy for him how could his bare authority or saying make the denying doctrine ancient being but 400. yeares agoe or vniuersal being but one man and contradicted by others 6. And thus hauing made a reuiew opposite to his I would faine see what any man can find should moue Men much lesse Angels to witnesse the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine nay doth not his manner of proofe rather shew the sleightnes and nouelty thereof together with the strange vanity of a brauing Knight that braggeth his Church before Luther was in Christ in the Apostles in the Fathers in the bosome of the ancient Church praetending right to the Fathers Apostles and CHRIST without shewing any shaddow of Succession that being the onely thing which he was to haue done heere and indeede the onely proper proofe for a man that will professe right to such ancestors And this was indeede the proofe which Tertullian did exact at the hands of some Haeretiques who claymed antiquity and would needs haue their Doctrine passe for Apostolique because they were in the Apostles tymes Tert. de praescr cap. 32. Edant ergo saith he origines ecclesiarum suarum euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per Successiones ab initio decurrentem vt primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis c. Let them shew the beginnings of their Churches let them vnroull or lay open the order or Catalogues of their Bishops soe running by Successions from the beginning that that first Bishop had for author or Praedessor some one of the Apostles or Apostolical men who yet haue perseuered with the Apostles For in this manner the Apostolique Churches draw downe their pedigrees as the Church of Smyrna recounteth Polycarpe placed by Iohn the Roman church Clement ordained by Peter soe other Churches shew whom they haue had placed Bishops by the Apostles as it were branches of the Apostolical seede Let the Haeretiques faigne any such thing Soe he Doe you heare Tertullian Sir Humphrey bragg then if you thinke good still we giue you leaue that your Church was anciently in Christ in the Apostles Fathers and bosome of the ancient Church without shewing any such Succession of Bishops drawne downe from the Apostles 7. Now then that you haue spoken soe well of the certainty of your owne beleife let vs heare what you say of the vncertainty of ours wherewith you begin thus That for farther proofe of your cause you will giue another summons to the prime men euen of our grand inquest who without partiality will testify on your behalfe that your Church is built vpon a more stable and sure foundation then the now Romane Church and that your doctrine is more fruiteful and profitable and euery way more safe and comfortable for the beleife of euery Christian and saluation of the beleeuer Which you proue laying way for a ground what Bellarmine saith that noe man can be certaine by the certainty of faith that he doth receiue a true Sacrament because that depends vpon the intention of the Minister whereof noe man can be certaine By which one tenet you say we ouerthrow all certainty of true faith Which you exemplify in Baptisme wherein if there want the intention of the Baptizer the Baptized is still an heathen and in state of damnation Soe of Order if the intention of the Ordainer faile it is noe Sacrament and consequenty if this intention were wanting in the ordination of Popes all succeeding Ordinations would be void soe also Of Matrimony if the intention of the Minister want it is but Fornication c. Thus you rowle on Sir Humphrey in your discourse but you must giue vs leaue to haue a word or two with you before you goe farther You giue another summōs to the prime men of our grand inquest wherein notwithstanding I doe not find that you obserue any order or number of your Iurours as is wont to be obserued in a Iury Wherevpon I began to thinke that you vsed this phrase of summons and grand inquest for the euer honoured memory of your deare deceased Father who was one of the most famous grand iury men of Middlesex in his tyme from whom it seemeth you haue learned onely the name of a grand inquest but not the right order of impanelling your iury nor euen the right number of your Iurours The foreman of your iury though you call him not soe is Bellarmine whom you make to giue vp his verdict against the certainty of our faith because he saith noe man can be certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament Which you say ouerthroweth all certainty of faith But I pray you good Sir Humphrey say truely are you in earnest or in iest me thinkes by the matter you should meane onely in iest it is soe idle but though this were your best excuse yet because you may take that ill
Bellarmine we cannot be certaine whether we fulfill or not and consequently we cannot bee certaine of our grace and iustice And he saith these places are soe manifest that our aduersaries cannot deny something to be requisite on our parts For though saith he they deny the remission of Sinnes to depend vpon the condition of workes or our penance faith or other act to be the cause or merit of iustification yet they grant them to be requisite and that without them a man cannot be iustified This is Bellarmines discourse wherein he doth neither confesse any good of your haeretiques nor any way allow or approue your saying as you would make one thinke but bringeth your owne confessions against you and euen by soe much as you confesse though that be farre from enough ouerthroweth another error of yours to wit your vaine confidence and certainty of your iustification Now then Sir Humphrey is not this honest dealing in you to take a word spoken by Bellarmine for one purpose and to transferre it to another farre different and againe in fauour of your selfe to alleadge those words out of Bellarmine as his confession which he alleadgeth onely for yours and to take it soe as if his allegation were an approbation or allowance of them whereas he bringeth them but in the nature of an obiection against your selues and there withall plainely declareth the difference betweene your error and our faith that you will not haue faith or works to be any cause or merit of iustification nor iustification to depend vpon works as vpon a condition whereas we teach all the contrary Which though Bellarmine doe not stand to proue there because that was not a place for it yet he plainely sheweth that to be his beleife 3. The second place of Bellarmine you say is touching iustification by faith onely wherein you tell vs he concludeth with the reformed churches saying that either a man hath true merits or hee hath not If he haue not he is dangerously deceiued if he haue true merits he looseth nothing by not respecting them but putting his trust in God onely But in this againe as before and euery where els you still Linde it egregiously For heere you make as if Bellarmine did allow of your iustification by faith onely whereas he confuteth the same largely and learnedly for 13. Lib. 1. de iustif cap. 1. whole chapters together beginning his disputation thus Hominem non sola fide iustificari 5. argumentis principalibus demonstrare conabimur Wee will endeauour by 5. principal arguments to demonstrate that a man is not iustified by faith onely How then doth he conclude with your reformed churches He concludeth against them you tell vs he concludeth with them And this place which you bring out of him is aboue 50. leaues from that where he beginneth to treate of iustification by faith and is an argument for a farre different matter to wit that it is most safe for a man though he may put some trust in his owne good works yet in reguard of the vncertainty he hath of his owne iustice and danger of vaine glory not to put any trust in them but all in God This later part whereof there is noe controuersy betweene vs and Protestants Bellarmine proueth by the reason heere brought Because if he haue not true merits he deceiueth himself but if he haue and yet trust not in them he looseth nothing by not trusting in them And what is all this good Sir Humphrey to your iustification by faith onely and consequently all that you haue said out of Bellarmine in this section to the antiquity and safety of your doctrine or the contrary of ours not one word to any such purpose on either side and therefore all is but vaine bragging wherewith you conclude heerevpon that our best learned confesse that many principal points of their owne religion yea many articles of faith are neither ancient safe nor Catholique Wherein you speake ignorantly in distinguishing principal points of religion from articles of faith for though euery proposition which is de fide be not an article of faith yet euery principal point is and therefore some giue that for the reason why we call a point an article to wit because it is a principal point but this is but to shew that you cannot speake two words soundly without faltering And yet you must be shewing men the WAY forsooth 4. Hauing then said all you can out of Bellarmine you tell vs it is not the name of Catholique which we assume that makes good the Catholique doctrine neither the opinion of learning or multitude of our side that must outface the truth For say your our Sauiour doth specially note the members of his body by the name of a little flocke as if the paucity of true beleeuers were the special character of the true Church And for our learned you bring a saying of S. Paul to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 1.26 Not many wise according to the flesh not many mighty Mat. 11 25. not many noble And another out of S. Mathew I thanke thee Father because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast reuealed them to babes and then you will vs to reflect vpon our owne church and we shall find the marks of a false church foretold that it should be after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders and after a little of this rauing talke you conclude with S. Augustine that miracles are not now to be expected thus you trowle it out Sir Humphrey Where first to beginne with I might aske what all this is to that which the title of your Section promiseth to witt of the truth of your doctrine out of Bellarmine But that it seemes prouing but dry matter you take your selfe the freedome without reguard to the consequence of your discourse to talke of the Church of Miracles stronge delusions and other such stuffe good for nothing but to fill paper But this very discourse for the matter it selfe sheweth your witt for you could haue said nothing more to the aduantage of our cause nor more to the disaduantage of your owne For you shew ours to be the true Church your owne a false one Which to be soe I shall shew not in myne owne words but in S. Augustines who giuing account what it was that kept him in the bosome of the Church reckoneth these very things which you make soe little account of as Miracles multitude of people and the very name of Catholique and I may say also learning Aug. cont ep fundam cap. 4. For answearing that epistle of the Manichees called Epistola fundamenti He beginneth his discourse thus In Catholica ecclesia vt omittam sincerissimam sapientiam c. In the Catholique Church to say nothing of the most sincere wisedome Wherein by mentioning this Wisedome in such manner euery man seeth that to him it was a motiue though he did not soe much vrge
rightly vnderstood with the Catholique faith which we now professe For heere is nothing but what I shewed before out of Bellarmine Lib. 5. de iustif cap. 7. prop. 3. to wit that in reguard of the vncertainty of our owne iustice that is whether we be iust or noe and for the peril of vaine glory it is most safe to putt our whole confidence in the Sole mercy and benignity of GOD. Which word Sole doth import confidence in that and in nothing els With which it may stand very well that men in the fauour and grace of God may doe works meritorious of increase of grace and glory which is the controuersy betweene Vs and Haeretiques For men may bee in grace and not know it they may doe those good works and yet not know that their works haue that supernatural goodnes purity of intention and other perfection which is necessary to make it meritorious all which makes vs vncertaine whether we merit or not though we be neuer soe certaine that if our Workes be such as they should bee they are meritorious And to this purpose is the discourse of the Councel of Trent in the end of the 16. Chapter of the 6. Session where hauing explicated the meritt of good works and reward dew vnto them it hath these memorable words to stopp the mouths of all insulting Haeretiques Absit tamen vt homo Christianus in seipso vel confidat vel glorietur non in Domino God forbid that any Christian man should trust or glory in himselfe and not in our Lord. What more then is there Sir Humphrey in that booke which you alleadge then heere is in Bellarmine and the Councel of Trent or which may not be easily explicated to this sense And all this answeare is supposing you cite your author true for I haue not seene him nor doth it soe much import to see him But if it bee not against vs why will you say doth the Inquisition correct it I answeare not for the doctrine but for the doubtfulnes ambiguity of the words which being not rightly vnderstood might endaunger the lesse wary Reader 's fall into your Lutheran errour of deniall of all meritt of good works which was neuer intended by the author though it may bee he might speake securely in those dayes where there was no thought of any such haeresy But how soeuer the booke is not of any knowne good author and it hath been printed and reprinted now in this tyme of haeresy by Haeretiques and therefore may well fall vnder the Inquisition's correction as giuing iust cause of suspition that they thrust words in for their owne purposes What poore authority is this then for you to build vpon Wherefore to begin well you haue wholy failled in the proofe of your first point of iustification producing but one onely place and that of noe speciall good authority as you alleadge it out of Cassander and euen nothing against vs If then you begin soe well with iustification how are you like to iustify your self in the rest of your points which follow to which I now passe The Knight's 2. §. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's super as he speaketh and the Doctrine of transubstantiation examined §. 2. 1. HE beginneth this § with a praeamble concerning his Churches Baptisme which he saith noe mā will deny to be the same substātially with that of the Primitiue Church and that our salt spittle and other caeremonies doe not transsubstantiate the element nor want of them enforce rebaptization Which serueth for nothing els but to shew the man's folly and vanity for what Catholique did he euer heare speake against the Validity of the Sacrament of Baptisme administred in dew matter and forme and with intention of doeing what the Church doth though the Minister were neuer soe much Haeretique Iew Turque or Infidell or affirme that the caeremonies therein vsed did cause any transubstantiation of the water or that for the want of them the party were to be rebaptized noe we say none of these things but onely that they that administer this Sacrament without these caeremonies euer vsed in the Church from the Apostles tyme vnlesse in case of necessity doe cōmitt a great sinne as Protestants doe and the more because they omitt them out of an haeretical contempt Which notwithstanding the Baptisme is auaileable 2. But letting this passe the knight cometh to the Sacrament of the Eucharist wherein he triumpheth mightily about a certaine Homily of one Aelfricke an Abbot heere in England about the yeare 996. Which he saith was approued by diuers Bishops at their Synods and appointed to bee read publiquely to the people on Easter-day and two other writings or Epistles of the same authors one to the Bishop of Sherborne the other to the Bishop of Yorke The words of the Homily are these as he citeth them out of D. Vsher. There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is receiued of the faithfull The body truely that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of Mary with bloud and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbs with a reasonable Soule liuing and his Spiritual body which nourisheth the faithful Spiritually is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limbs without soule and therefore there is nothing to be vnderstood bodily but Spiritually c. Thus farre the authority or words of this author wherwith Sir Humphrey maketh much adoe spending 2. or 3. leaues in it 3. To which I answeare first for his Synods that it is strange hee nameth not any Synod nor any author or place where any such is extant For the Councels I haue examined them and yet doe not find any Synod held in England about that tyme or any thing of that nature handled Lett him name the Synode and bring the words I doubt not but we shall find a sufficient answeare therefore to let his Synods alone for the present we come to Aelfrike whom I haue not also seene nor can find soe much as named in those books which haue most of our Catholique authors both moderne and ancient saue onely by Harpsfield in his history where I find also noe more but that the Berengarian haeresy beganne some what to bee taught and maintained out of certaine writings falsely attributed to Aelfricke this is all and therefore cannot say soe much in confutation of this place as it is like might be said if a man did see the author himselfe and not set out or translated onely by Haeretiques but yet I trust I shall say enough euen out of Dr. Vsher who citeth the Latine in the margent to shew Sir Humphrey's bad dealing and to satisfy any indifferent Reader 4. First you Sir Humphrey to turne my speech to you I say that Aelfrick was a Catholique author and deliuereth nothing but Catholique doctrine in this Homily or place by you cited which a man may proue euen out of your selfe For
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
non obstante which you would ioyne with Christ's institution in both kinds as if the Councel did forbid it in both kinds notwithstanding that Christ did soe institute is not soe ioyned by the Councel but otherwise thus though Christ did institute this venerable Sacrament after supper Conc. Const sess 13. and administer the same to his Disciples vnder both kinds of bread and wine yet this notwithstanding the authority of the holy canons approued custome of the Church hath obserued and doth obserue that this Sacrament is not to be consecrated after supper nor to bee receiued by the faithfull but fasting Vnlesse in case of infirmity or other necessity allowed by the law or Church These being the very words of the Councel By which it is plaine that the Councel speaketh not in this place of the institution of this Sacrament in one or both kinds but onely of the tyme of the institution thereof or manner to wit after supper or not fasting and of the administration thereof to his Disciples in both kinds at the same tyme. Soe as I see not how you can be excused from a notable and wilful corruption in citing the words of the Councel often and vpoÌ„ seuerall occasions thus Though Christ did institute in both kinds the Councel hauing noe such word and it being likewise noted by Bellarmine for a flat corruption in Luther V Bell de Euch lib. 4. cap. 26. Illyricus and Cheâ—nitius Though if the Councel had said soe it had said truely but nothing to your purpose For it is one thing to say that Christ did institute the Blessed Sacrament vnder both kinds and another to say that he did institute and coÌ„maÌ„d all should receiue vnder both kinds For this later is a command against which noe man may doe The former is onely the Example of Christ which euery man is not alwaies bound to follow And which euen you your selues doe not follow in the tyme and manner of your receiuing 4. Now for vs you must know this was noe new thing begunne by that Councel in which respect you might temper your choller against it but it being growne the general practice which from the beginning also was somewhat practized and certaine Haeretiques arising and condemning the practize beleife of the whole Church this Councel condemned them and commanded the former custome to bee still retained This is the truth of the matter against which I doe not see that you say a word but onely chafe and say this Councel was approued for soe much as pertaineth to the Doctrine againct Haeretiques but not for that that pertayneth to the power of a Councel ouer a Pope Which is all against your selfe and sheweth you are in a vehement passion and know not what you say But since you are soe out with this Councel which yet maketh as well for you as for vs in the point of receiuing fasting and not after supper as Christ did noe wonder if you be wholy out with the Councel of Trent which therefore you cite in a strange manner to disgrace it 5. The sentence as you cite it is this Although our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds yet if any shall say the holy Catholique church was not induced for iust causes to communicate the Lay people and the non-Conficient Priest vnder one kind to wit of bread onely and shall say they erred in soe doeing let him be accursed Which sentence is peeced out of two seueral places of the Councel the former part coÌ„tained in these words Althouhg our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds yet is taken out of the 3. chap. of the 21. Sess the later part or rest is the 2. canon of the same Sess which canon as it is set downe in the Councel hath neither a Yet in it nor an Althought and the Yet in the said 3. chapter inferreth another thing thus Though Christ did institute and deliuer the Bl. Sacrament to his Apostles in both kinds in the last Supper Yet is Christ contained whole and entire vnder one kind and a true Sacrament receiued Which is another matter then that which is coÌ„manded in the Canon For in this is onely taught that Christ is wholy and entirely contained vnder one kind in the Canon there is a curse denounced against such as shall coÌ„demne the practize of communicating vnder one kind as waÌ„ting iust cause or being erroneous Where besides the difference in the matter there is great difference in the manner The one being a plaine definition of a speculatiue truth the other being a command pertayning to practize or a declaration of the Lawfulnes of the Churches practize condemning whosoeuer shall say against it Soe as heere you peece two seuerall matters out of the Councel together without any connexion iust as you are wont to doe in your owne arguments and discourses But in this a man may see your ill dealing for you would faine make it seeme as if the Councel did decree something in opposition to Christ and accurse all such as should doe as he did But this deuice of yours is as silly as it is malicious For it is plaine to any man that shall but looke in the Councel that there is noe such matter intended or said but all the contrary for the Councel saith but this in the one place That though Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds and soe giue it in his last supper to his Disciples that yet he is whole vnder each kind Wherein I would faine see what opposition the subtility of your wit can find what reason can you giue why it may not stand with Christ's institution in both kinds that he be whole vnder both and if whole why not also a true Sacrament This is a point worthy of such a witt as your to worke vpon Soe as in this the Councel decreeth nothing against Christ Noe nor in the other part neither it being onely a defence of the Catholique Churches practice against Haeretiques without reference to Christ's institution or command which is neither for nor against that practice 6. Soe as when I consider how in this place you first mention Christ's institution and then bring the Canon of the Councel as it were contrary vnto it I cannot but wonder what it is you meane or what absurdity it is that you would make the Councel guilty of thereby For though the Councel should say thus as it doth not Though Christ did institute in both kinds yet it is lawfull to receiue in one what absurdity were there in this soe long as Christ doth not command vs to receiue in both as he did institute which you will neuer be able to proue For Christ may institute a thing without commanding it For example he did institute Marriage yet commanded not euery man to marry soe he might doe also in his maÌ„ner of institution and our manner of receiuing this Sacrament But besides this your abusing the Councel by patching vpp one senteÌ„ce out of
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