to vs or euer saying word in proofe that the case is the same I might with as much reason out of this story of Redwalde say as much of Sir Humphrey Linde that hee and his Protestants haue built a new Church a new faith erected an altar against an altar c. 3. But as I was saying of his authors they are not many as you see much lesse haue they any part among Catholiques For Cassander Michael de Caesenas and Philip Morney are in the Index of forbidden books Camden and his English Canon writers are Protestants but which is more strange not a man of these such as they are that saith any thing of that which hee pretendeth in the title of his Chapter but onely Cassander who after the fashion of Haretiques speaketh of the Pompe and pride of the Clergy and that they will not hearken to the admonitions of some godly men aduising reformation these godly men he meaneth such as himself that is Haeretiques or next doore to them though Sir Humphrey please often to call him a Learned Romanist Soe that all the cause that euen this man alleageth of the contention is because the ecclesiastical persons will not yeild themselues to Haeretiques and lett them haue the ordering and disposing of all things at their pleasures therefore they breake away and fall into contention with the Church What cause doe Clergy men giue of contention in not submitting themselues to their inferiours and to men that haue noe authority ouer them or euen if the counsel of these people were good as it is not and that Clergy men thinke not good to follow it must they therefore presently fall to schisme and haeresy tearing and renting the Church By what Law are Clergy men bound to obey such fellowes if in a ciuill commonwealth some great man should dislike the gouernment eyther because his enemyes haue the managing of matters or that he thimketh he could doe it better then they and presuming to giue counsell to the Prince and his counsel they shoull not follow it and that therefore hee should goe from court make head and raise a rebellion in the common wealth who should bee counted cause of this contention the Prince and his Counsel or hee if Sir Humphrey be iudge he must say the Prince and his Counsel if he will make good his man Cassander's discourse 4. As for Michael de Caesena whom the Knight also calleth a learned Friar it is true he was a Friar and General of his Order but for his learning I neuer heard any such commendation of it but we know why the Knight prayseth him Well be it soe but the man being excommunicated and deposed by the Pope for his disobedience and rebellion he said that particular man which was Iohn 22. was an Apostata and an Heretique and therefore noe true Pope But that he made two such Churches one of the wicked vnder the Pope another of the good without any heade as Morney makes him make and this Knight out of him I find not in any good author but rather that hee allowed of the authority of the Romane Church for he appealed from the Popes sentence to it as may be seene in Coquus his answeare to Morney's mystery of iniquity pag. 205. to 2. and in the table verbo Michael de Coesena Neither was he euer taxed with any such haeresy 5. His English Church-Canon commandeth nothing to be taught as matter of faith but what is agreable to the Old and new testament and is collected out of the ancient Fathers and Catholique Bishops but what is that to the purpose how doth this proue vs to giue the cause of Contention hee will say this proueth his men to giue none I answeare that if all the rest of their Canons and proceedings were answearable to the saying of this Canon there would perhaps bee somewhat lesse to doe Though it be not any way conformable to the Scripture and doctrine of fathers for lay authority to make Canons for Clergy men and therefore the practise shewed in this Canon is contrary to the words And soe the 2. section is answeared 6. The third section is of corruptions both in faith and manners which the Knight saith we confesse and yet deny to reforme He proueth it out of the Councel of Pisa where Alexander the 5. Concil Pisan sess 20. promised to attend to the reformacion of the Church and out of the Councel of Trent acknowledging many things amisse in matter of indulgences Masse c. To this I answeare that for matter of manners we willingly acknowledge reformacion to be needfull and such it is that these two Councels speake of and haue performed as is to beseene by their Decrees though the former be not of any great authority Concil Trident sess 22. Decret de reformat And for the later it complaineth indeede with great reason of the auarice of such as had the gathering of moneys giuen in almes by occasion of indulgences Whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors though the Councel speake not of the Pope But he out of his loue to the Pope would faine bring him in vpon al such occasions This is true but false it is which he saith that the Councel complaineth of indulgences an article of the Romane faith as his words are For as it reformeth the corruption of the officers soe doth it establish the truth of the Doctrine as appeareth by a particular decree thereof which is also acknowledged and cited els where by this Knight himself whereby hee is conuinced of wilfull corruption The same Councel likewise complaineth of many things crept in in the celebration of Masse by the fault of the tymes or carelesnesse and wickednesse of men which are farre from the dignity of soe great a sacrifice The words of the Councel are right cited by him in Latine in the margent perhaps to saue his credit by sincerity soe much promised in his Epistle dedicatory but in the English which goeth in the text he fouly corrupteth them they are thus in Latine Cum multa irrepsisse videantur Which in English is this Seing many things seeme to haue crept in which the Knight translateth thus there were many errors and corruptions crept in to the Masse which is a grosse error and corruption in the Knight the Councel speaking onely of abuses which were crept in not of errours in matter of faith The Councel likewise seemeth to acknowledge the auarice of Priests making such bargaines for the saying of Masse as was not far from Simony or at least filthy lucre It speaketh of the vse of musique where with some wantonesse was mixed as alsoe of certaine Masses or candles vsed in certaine number that number proceeding rather from superstition then true religion this is true soe farre 7. But that is not true which the Knight saith that we deny a reformation of these things for to what other end are they recounted there but to be reformed nay they are not
seeing the Man 's abhominable Lying by this one thing may giue a guesse of the rest The Councel as he confesseth in the beginning accurseth him and his Doctrine and heere he saith it concludeth with a well wishing therevnto Is it euen soe good Sir your Communion is allowed by the Councel of Trent you tell vs Newes I pray you what Canon what Chapter what Session is your Cōmunion once named in there you will say where the Councel wisheth that the people that heare Masse would cōmunicate not onely spiritually but also sacramentally is this your Communion what haue you Masse Sir Humphrey take heede id may cost you money An informer that should heare this might catch you by the backe and bring you in for soe many hundred marks as you haue receiued bytts of bread in your Church Which truely might proue a deare ordinary for you And this you must either confesse or lett alone the Councel of Trent which acknowledgeth noe Communion without Masse For if you deny your Seruice to be Masse we deny your Communion to bee Communion for no Masse noe communion therefore bethinke your selfe whither you will be content to haue a Masse or noe Trent-Communion and while you stand studying of this I will putt you another thing to consider of Which is this that it is one thing for the Councel to wish that the people would communicate because to heare Masse and receiue withall would bee more profitable another to say that if there bee noe body to communicate or that such Masse is vnlawfull as Haeretiques say the Priest must not say Masse what thinke you Sir are not these two things study the matter a while and tell vs. Doe not you then speake wondrous wittily when you say that there cometh blessing and cursing out of the same mouth as if the Councel did approue and condemne the same thing when it commendeth sacramentall communion of the people together with the Priest and yet condemneth not those Masses as vnlawfull wherein the people doe not communicate yea approueth them the like wit and lesse honesty you shew alsoe in that you say that from the Confession of a general Councell your Communion is concluded to bee more fruitfull what affinity betweene your empty communion which is but a morsel of bread and a supp of wine and the true real substantiall Body and Bloud of CHRIST IESVS which the faithfull Catholique receiueth the Councell commendeth daily receiuing of the Blessed Sacrament as more profitable therefore say you it cōmendeth your Communion which you vse once twice thrice or 4. tymes a yeare It wisheth that the people would receiue sacramentally as the Priest doth you make it say noe but that the Priest must doe as the people doth that is not celebrate but when they are disposed to receiue is it not meere madnes for you Sir Humphrey thus plainely to abuse the Councel soe contrary to the plaine meaning thereof 3. Like to this is your folly in alleadging soe many authorityes in fauour of your Communion as you thinke Which whither you cite them true or noe I doe not stand to examine for it maketh noe matter They say it was the practize of the primitiue Church to communicate euery day with the Priest I grant it What then therefore the Priest now must say Masse but once in two or three months or once in a twelue moneth or not once in seauen yeare vnlesse the people be soe deuout as to come receiue with him this followeth of your doctrine is not this wise arguing but to answeare you another way Sir Humphrey you cannot bee ignorant that there is not one of these authors which you cite for the peoples daily communion that saith that either it is or was of necessity soe to doe but onely beare witnes of the practize Bell. lib. 2. de Mis cap. 9. 10. Durant de ritib. lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5. Whereas some of them as Bellarmine and Durantus doe proue most manifestly that there was noe such necessity or dependency of the Priest's celebrating vpon the peoples cōmunicating that they might not celebrate vnlesse the people did communicate Nay they proue clearely that it was ordinary for Priests to celebrate though noe body did communicate Doe they not proue by manifest authorities that in the Easterne Church in the tyme of S. Ambrose S. Aug. S. Chrisost the people did cōmunicate but once a yeare and yet S. Chrysost euen there where he complaineth of the peoples coldnes saith of himself that he celebrated euery day though there were noe body to participate with him but because these Fathers liued after the Primitiue Church though not long and that your authors speake most of the Primitiue Church it is manifest that euen in that tyme the people did not still communicate euery day as they had done in the beginning for whereas people did communicate before without command onely of their owne deuotion they were growne soe cold by Pope Fabian's tyme Fab. epi. 3. which was about the yeare 240. being but the one twētith Pope that hee was faine to make a Decree to compell the people to communicate at least thrice a yeare and this was almost one hundred yeares before the end of the Primitiue Church the like decree I might alsoe bring out of Soter about the yeare 175. which was 60. yeares before Fabian Whereas notwithstanding then Priests and Bishops did celebrate euery day as appeareth by S. Cypr. Ambr. Aug. Hierome Lib. 2. cap. 4. c. cited by Durantus And which is more those Fathers S. Aug by name saith he doth neither commend nor discommend the daily Communion of the people but wisheth that at least vpon Sundayes they would communicate but with a mind free from desire of sinning whereas hee together with other Fathers make frequent mention of dayly sacrifice But what is all this to your purpose or to your cōmunion as of all that is said by the Fathers of the holy Communion were meant of your sacrilegious communion 4. Now for your proofes out of Scripture as that that our Sauiour said to his Disciples take yee eate yee I answeare that as our Sauiour there spake to all his Apostles who did all eate soe out of this place a man might euen as well say that all must communicate that are in the Church at the same tyme and that the Priest must not say Masse vnlesse not onely one 2. or 3. communicate but all that are there which I doe not beleeue you will grant For I doe not thinke that when any one man among you receiueth your communion all receiue it Solue this obiection then of myne and you answeare your owne For S. Paul's words where he inuiteth Christians to imitate him as he did imitate Christ out of which you would gather that Priests must not say Masse vnlesse there be some body to communicate if a man should tell your Ministers and your selfe too Sir Humphrey of many things
you must doe before your communion Annotat. after the order of administringe the communion neyther will it serue the turne to haue one or two to beare the Minister company but there must bee a competent number for example saith your booke if the Parish consist of 20. persons there must be 3. or 4. at least otherwise the Minister must not communion it And by this rule a man may say proportionably if the parish haue twenty hundred or 20000. there should be 3. or 4. thousand to communicate at once And if a sicke body would receiue he may not receiue alone but hee must haue some body to beare him company and not onely one or two but many or a competent number as your booke saith which therefore is to bee considered according to the number of Parishioners This and much more may bee said of the prettines of your seruice and good fellow communion but heere is enough of such an idle subiect and soe hauing answeared your third Paragraph of priuate Masse as you call it I come to the 4. PARAGRAPH 4. OF THE SEAVEN Sacraments 1. In this 4. paragraph which is of our Seauen Sacraments the Knight hoyseth vpp all the sailes of his eloquence and putteth to all the force of his witt as if both by wind and oare he would goe quite beyond vs in this point of our faith wherein for that cause he doth enlarge himself beyond the ordinary measure of his paragraphs and filleth his margents with citations of Fathers and of Schoolemen laying first for a foundation a wise discourse of his owne Which I will alsoe beginne with without longer prefacing with him He setteth downe first the Canon of the Councel of Trent accursing whosoeuer shall say the Seauen Sacraments of the new Law were not instituted by Christ Sess 7. caâ— 1. de Sacr. in gen or that there bee more or fewer then Seauen or that any of them is not properly and truely a Sacrament Which decree saith Bellarmine ought to suffice though we had noe other For if we take away the authority of the present Church and present Councell the decrees of all other Councels and the whole Christian Faith may be brought into doubt Which canon of the Councell and authority of Bellarmine he cryeth out against and saith it is a foundation of Atheisme for in his iudgment the word of Christ alone is sufficient for all Christians which hee proueth by those words of S. Paul I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsel of God Act. 20. And that wee may know he speaketh of the written Word he bringeth Bellarmines authority saying that those things are written which were by the Apostles preached generally to all And hee is soe confident against this point of the Seuen Sacraments that hee is content the curse shall light vpon him if any learned man shall shew it out of any Father of the Primitiue Church or any knowen author for about a thousand yeares after Christ This is his beginning whereat I will make a stay and answeare not to take too much at once Hee thinketh it then a foundation of Atheisme to say that if wee take away the authority of the present Church and present Councel wee may call in question the whole Christian Faith And why soe good Sir Humphrey What Atheisme is it to say that there is one Faith that that Faith is to bee found onely in the Church that that Church cannot fayle or erre at any time and consequently that that Faith which it teacheth cannot faile or erre and especially that then the Church can least erre when it is gathered together in a General Councel and defineth matters of Faith with approbation of the Supreme Pastor of God's church and that if such a Councel may erre the Church may erre that if the Church may erre the Faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently that there can bee noe certainty is this the way to Atheisme to teach that there must be some certaine meanes to learne true faith and beleife in God and that if there bee none such there can bee noe certainty would a man thinke that it should euer enter into any man's mind to say that the affirming of this infallibility were the way to Atheisme Whereas the denyall thereof is the most direct way that can be imagined vnto Atheisme For take this infallibility away and there is noe rule of faith if noe rule noe faith if noe faith noe right beleife in God which is the height of Atheisme 2. But because you Sir Humphrey are not capable of this Discourse as euident and demonstratiue as it is I will goe about with you another way I would know of you whither if wee should take away the holy Scripture or written word it would not follow in you iudgment that the whole Christian faith might bee called in question I say in your iudgment for whether it would or would not in myne I doe not say any thing heere certainely it would For some rule men must haue and that is your onely rule Now againe doe not you know that S. Gregory the great did often say write that he did hold the fower first Councels in the same honour that he did the 4. Ghospels which was the same as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Ghospels Why may it not then follow that vpon deniall of the authority of those 4. Councels the authority of the ChristiaÌ„ faith may be shaken as well as by deniall of the Ghospell V. Bâ—ll lib. 2. de Concil cap. 3. and this which I say of S. Gregory I may say of many other Fathers in reguard of all or some of those 4. Councels and particularly of that of Nice which whosoeuer should haue denyed was noe lesse to haue bene counted an Haeretique then if he should haue denied the Ghospell 1. Eliz 1. you your selues in your Parliament Lawes giue great authority to those 4. first Councels euen as much if you vnderstand your selues well speake consequently as S. Gregory doth for you are coÌ„teÌ„t to acknowledge for heresy whatsoeuer is condemned for such by any of them Which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith coÌ„sequently of infallible authority you ioyne theÌ„ in the same ranke with the canonical Scriptures You giue also the like authority to other general Councels but with this lymitatioÌ„ that these later must haue expresse scripture whereby to coÌ„demne a thing for heresy but which is most of all to bee noted in the same statute you giue power to the Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Conuocation to adiudge or determine a matter to bee heresy Which is the very same as to giue it power to declare faith or to bee a rule thereof which if it may agree to such an assembly or Court of a temporal Prince and Kingdome I see not why it may not agree to a
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
you and they are 10. As for that which you say out of Mr. Fisher that though there bee noe expresse practice or praecept of worshipping the image of Christ yet there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawfull it is as well and truely said by him as that is falsely foolishly impertinently which you say therevpon that from the law of God and grace we are come to the law of nature and to declare an article of faith by the light thereof Mr. Fisher saith the light of nature sheweth it to be lawfull which is true you say he declareth it an article of faith from the light of nature which is false there is great difference betweene those two to be lawful and to be an article of faith the light of nature may reach to shew a thing to be lawfull but not to make an article of faith for that must be grounded vpon the supernatural light of diuine reuelation which is farr aboue the natural light of humane reason though by your fauour Sir Knight as scornefully as you speake of the light of nature it haue somewhat more to doe also in matters of faith then you are aware of For out of one premisse reuealed and another euident by the light of nature there may be drawne a conclusion of faith or at least such as may sufficiently ground a definition of a Councel and practize of the Church and likewise the light of nature hath place also in all the mysteries of our faith in some shewing the reasons or congruences in all shewing that there is noe falshood or impossibility And the light of nature is the guift and law alsoe of God Why then should you speake soe contemptibly of it but onely that you want it in great part and consequently know not the worth thereof 11. But it is strange heere to see how though you cannot find in your hart to allow the light of nature alleadged for adoration of images you can alleadge it against them but euen as wisely as you deny it for them You say Varro an heathen Philosopher by the instinct of nature professed the contrary by saying the Gods are better serued without images The Latine is castius Dij obseruantur sine simulachris Aug. 4. de Ciuit. ca. 31. Which saying you tell vs S. Aug. comendeth and soe he doth indeede but vnderstandeth him farr otherwise then you doe For he doth take Simulachrum not for an image as you doe falsely but for an idol as it is indeede and soe commendeth Varro for coming neerer to the knowledge of the true God and going farther from idolatry in that he neither acknowledgeth any Deity in those material idols nor that multiplicity of Gods but rather alloweth the opinion of them that held that God was the soule of the world which though it were also an errour in him yet S. Augustine saith it cometh neerer to truth in that it teacheth but one God and him not a material or corporal but a spiritual and invisible substance for proof whereof Varro alleadgeth that for aboue an hundred yeares the Romanes had worshipped their Gods without those material idols which whosoeuer brought in saith hee did take a way the feare and added or increased the error he meaneth that they that brought in those idols tooke away all feare of the Gods because men seeing those idols proposed for Gods contemned them and this is that which he saith castiùs dij obseruantur sine simulachris The Gods are more chastly or purely obserued or feared without those idols Now what is this against vs. doe not we say the same thing much more amply and more fully I see not then why you should bring it vnlesse it were to vsher in a thing which you haue out of Eusebius to giue the reason as you say why these Fathers condemned the worshippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters in these words Because saith Eusebius the men of old of an heathenish custome were wont after that manner to honour such as they counted Sauiours Wherevppon you say that after images had gott footing among Christians the Bishops and Emperours by Councels and commands tooke special care to preuent both the making and worshipping them and thereto you bring a Canon of the Councel of Eliberis that noe pictures should be in Churches least that which was worshipped should bee painted on the walls And an authority out of the Ciuill law of a Decree made against adoration of images which I shall cite when I come to answeare it This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Wherein you haue giuen soe sufficient testimony of notorious bad dealing especially in the 2. places of Eusebius and of the Ciuill law that if there were nothing els falsified or corrupted in your whole booke this were enough vtterly to deface all memory of you from among honest men 12. The matter is this hauing brought onely S. Aug commending Varro his saying against Idolls you say in the plural number these Fathers as if you had brought some great number of Fathers and withall you say these Fathers condemned the worhippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters what words haue you brought out of any father one or other to this purpose from the very beginning of this § either condemning the woship of images in vs Christians or calling vs Haeretiques or idolaters for it how then can you haue the face to say it soe boldly but we must not aske you reason for any thing you say but take it as you say it Well you tell vs Eusebius giueth the reason why the Fathers condemned vs for Haeretiques and idolaters which importeth that Eusebius concurreth with those Fathers in iudgment whose fact he giues a reason for But what if Eusebius doe not condemne it can you desire to be counted an honest man I presume you cannot Well let vs then see whether he doe soe or not Making mention of the Citty of Caesarea Philippi by occasion thereof he relateth a story of the Woman which was cured by touching the hemme of our Sauiours garment Eus. hist lib. 7. cap. 14. and how coming home after her cure to Caesarea Philippi where she liued she made her selfe a brazen statua sett vpon a high stone before her owne doore as if she were kneeling vpon her knees and holding vp her hands like one praying and looking towards another statua of a man standing straight vpp with long garments downe to the foote stretching out his hād to the Woman which statua the people said was the Statua of IESVS Vpon the very basis or foote of this statua they said there grew a certaine strange and vnvsual kinde of herbe which as soone as it grew vpp soe high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment it had vertue to cure diseases of euery kind Which statua Eusebius saith continued to his tyme and that he saw it himselfe Neither is it to be wondered saith hee going on with his discourse that
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
Donatists who iustified themselues as you Sir Knight iustify your Church Much more of this might bee said but this may serue to shew you not to bee in your right witts that bragg of that which you ought most to bee ashamed of and account that to make for you which makes most against you 9. For that which you talke of goeing out of Aegipt and Babylon which you would haue men vnderstand the Catholique Church as if you were commaunded to goe out from her Doe but once shew vs that Aegypt and Babylon which the Sripture speaketh of were euer the true Church and then you may seeme to haue said some what for your Churches departure from the Romane Which impudence it self cannot deny to haue beene once the true Church You are bold indeede to say that Babylon was a true Church wherewith sometymes the faithfull did communicate but that after it was more depraued the faithfull are commanded to goe out of it But I may aske you where you reade this what Father what Doctour what man euer tooke Babylon in scripture to be vsed for the name of the true Church S. Peter in one of his Epistles speaketh of Rome by the name of Babylon out of which a multitude of Fathers and Doctours proue that Saint Peter was at Rome and now you forsooth bring some of them cited by our authors to that purpose to proue that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church Abusing all those Fathers most egregiously among all whom neuer one meant any such matter but onely by Babylon vnderstood the temporal state and gouernment of the Citty of Rome as it was subiect to those Pagan tyrannizing Emperours which persecuted the Church and people of God wherein it did resemble that other ancient and true Babylon which detayned the Iewes then the true Church and people of God in captiuity and oppression Which also S. Peter's owne words doe sufficiently shew distinguishing most plainely Babylon from the true Church For he saith thus 1. Pet. 5.13 Ecclesia quae est in Babylone coëlecta The Church which is in Babylon coelect saluteth you Not that Babylon was a true Church as your words are Sir Humphrey 10. Now whereas you say that when she was depraued the faithfull were willed to goe out of her that is out of her that was once the true Church You are extreamely mistaken For if you meane any true Babylon as that Citty of Chaldaea or that other of Aegypt or Babylon by similitude and likenes as was Rome in tyme of the HeatheÌ„ Emperours and as many Interpreters thinke towards the end of the world in tyme of Antichrist the citty or temporal gouernment thereof shall againe become of which tyme that of the Apocalypse is meant that the faithfull shall fly for auoyding of the cruelty and tyranny of the persecutours which shall then bee more cruel then euer or if by Babylon you meane the whole company of wicked men from the beginning to the end of the world as S. Aug. taketh it throughout his great worke de ciuit Dei and other Fathers and Doctours and many interpreters vnderstand that place of the Apocalypse 18. If I say you meane it any of these wayes as noe man of vnderstanding euer meant or vnderstood it otherwise then was it neuer any true Church and soe the Children and people of God might well bee willed to gett out of it either locally by motion of the body or spiritually by auoyding the maÌ„ners of the people not hauing any thing with them in their wicked wayes But if you meane as you expresse your selfe that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church and that it may bee depraued that is that the Church of Christ notwithstanding all his promises for the perpetuity thereof as That hee would bee with it to the worlds end That it was built vpoÌ„ a rocke That the Gates of hell should not preuaile against it That he would send the Holy Ghost to bee with it for euer notwithstanding that the Church is his kingdome his inheritance his mysticall body his Spouse that notwithstanding all this I say it should faile it shoull bee depraued it should bee wiolated I know not what to say but to stopp myne eares against that mouth of blasphemy of yours and heerewith end this sectioÌ„ the rest thereof being nothing but the bitter froth of a distempered stomacke and vnworthy of answeare Chap. 3. THE EXAMINATION OF Sir Humphrey's second and third Section CHAPTER III. 1. IN the second Section Sir Humphrey laboureth to proue the contention betwixt the Churches as he calleth them to proceede originally from vs and this by the confessions of our owne The third Section is to proue the corruptions both in faith and manners confessed by some of vs and yet reformacion denied by the Pope Both which are easily answeared First by asking what all this is to his purpose suppose it were true Doth this shew his Church to haue beene alwayes visible or ours to haue beene at any tyme not visible Hee was not to stand vpon matter of contention who was cause or not cause thereof or who would haue mended who not For the errors in faith which hee seemeth to tax â—s with-all in his third section if he can proue them he saith somewhat indeede though yet not soe fully to his purpose For though hee proue vs to haue had some errours it doth not soe presently follow that they of his side haue had none or that therefore their Church hath beene euer visible there is a great deale more required to it then soe And though he should proue some errors to haue beene taught by some particular men or euen in some Country professing the Catholique faith it doth not follow that the Catholique Church hath fayled in faith or ceased to bee visible 2. Secondly I answeare to his second Section which is to proue that the contention proceeded from vs which hee vndertaketh to proue by our owne confession that in all this Section he bringeth but fowre authorities to wit Cassander a Canon of his English Church out of the praeface to Iewels works Camden citing S. Bede Plessy Morney citing Michael Caesenas Of all which onely S. Bede is a Catholique and euen cited by the Protestant Camden and onely for a story which he tels of one Redwalde king of the East Saxons who being first conuerted to Christianity and after seduced by his wife had in the same Church two altars one for Christ's religion another for the Diuels out of which this knight frameth to himself a pretty fancy being desirous heereby to make men beleiue that the like happened in the Romane Church and that some adored God onely others fell to adore Saints and images and the like Which fond conceit what answeare can it deserue For it is but the bare saying of one that doth not vnderstand what he saith For otherwise how could he possibly say such a thing of himself without saying when where or how that happed
not much short of idolatry For Tertull doubteth not to aequal them Nec dubitare quis debet neque ab idolatria distare haereses Tertul. de praeser cap. 40. quum auctoris operis eiusdem sint cuius idolatria Neither ought any man to doubt that heresies doe not differ from idolatry since their author and worke is the same which idolatry Nay in some respects haeresy goeth beyond idolatry as S. Thomas well sheweth and S. Hierome saith absolutely and without limitation 2.2 q. lib. 7. in Esai Nemo tam impius est quem Haereticus impietate non vincat There is noe man soe impious whom an Heretique doth not surpasse in impiety Therefore your comfort is vanity since your profession is impiety And soe much for that matter 16. Now if any man will but lend an eare he shall heare a fine conceit of yours whereby to proue your Faith ancient vniuersall and what not That is by answearing our question where your Church was before Luther in this manner Of the foure Creeds to wit of the Apostles of Nice of Athanasius and Pius 4. You beleeue 3. which were beleeued before Luther of the 7. Sacraments you beleeue 2. which we confesse also to haue beene instituted by Christ of Scriptures you acknowledge 22. books For canonical which we allow which were soe beleeued before Luther's tyme. why rather 7. Councels then 17. or 19. Of the 7. generall Councels 4. are confirmed by Parlament in England not called by Luther The traditions vniuersally receiued and which we confesse to bee Apostolicall are deriued from the Apostles to you as you say not from Luther The prayers in your common prayer booke are the same Say you in substance with our ancient liturgies not broached by Luther the ordination of Ministers is from the Apostles not from Luther If therefore say you the 3. creeds the two principall Sacraments the 22. books of canonicall scripture the fower first generall Councels the Apostolique traditions the ancient Liturgies the ordination of Pastors were anciently vniuersally receiued in all ages in the bosome of the Romane Church euen by the testimonyes of our aduersaries is it not a silly and senselesse question to demand where our Church was before Luther all this is your discourse Sir Knight and most part your very words wherein you seeme to thinke you haue soe satisfied our question that in your iudgment it is silly and senselesse to demaund it any more But it will easily appeare on the contrary side what a silly senselesse thing it was for you to frame such a discourse to your selfe and much more soe to publish it to other men as if any body els had soe little witt as to be pleased therewith For be it soe that these points of doctrine were ancieÌ„tly taught as they are now taught by the Romane Church what followeth that you had a Church before Luther nothing lesse For a Church consisteth not of points of Doctrine or faith onely but much more of men professing such and such Sacraments rites such a faith religioÌ„ If therefore you will shew vs a Church you must shew vs such a company of men which till you can shew the question remaineth vnansweared If you say they were the same men of which the Romane Church did then consist which you seeme to say in that you tell vs your Church was in the bosome of the Romane Church I answeare that is not to the purpose For as now since Luther's tyme you are a distinct company making a Church such as it is by your selues soe you must shew a company of men in like manner distinct in former tymes from ours and your antiquity is onely to begin from such a tyme as you began to bee a distinct company from vs You must not thinke to stand and contend with vs for antiquity and then pretend our antiquity to bee yours But you must shew a distinct Succession of Bishops a distinct common wealth or people professing that Faith onely which you beleeue practizing those rites ceremonies and Sacraments onely which you haue when you haue done this you may better demand what a silly senselesse question it is to aske where your Church was before Luther 17. But because you mention your being in former ages in the bosome of the Romane church not onely heere but els where often in this your treatise as if thereby you would make your Church seeme one and the same with ours or at least to descend from ours Tertull. de praesâ—r cap. 36. and soe to participate of our Visibility and Vniuersality I will alleadge you a saying of Tertullians which doth soe fully answeare the matter that you will take but little comfort in the manner of your descent Thus it is Tertullian hauing alleadged for his eight prescription against Haeretiques the authority of the Apostolique churches which then kept the very authentical letters written To them by the Apostles and especially of the Romane Church which he calleth happy for that to it the Apostles powred forth all their whole doctrine together with their bloud and there putting downe a briefe summe of some speciall points thereof concludeth in theis words Haec est institutio non dico iam quae futuras haereses praenunciabat sed de qua haereses prodierunt Sed non fuerunt ex illa ex quo factae sunt aduersus illum Etiam de oliua nucleo mitis opimae necessariae asper oleaster exoritur Etiam de papauere fici gratissimae suauissimae ventosa vana caprificus exurgit Ita haereses de nostro fructificauerunt non nostrae degeneres veritatis grano mendacio siluestres This is the institution I doe not say now which did foretell Haeresies to come but out of which haeresies haue come But they were not of it from the tyme that they became against it Euen out of the kernel of the mild fatt and necessary or profitable oliue the sower bastard oliue groweth From the seede alsoe of the most pleasant and sweete figtree ariseth the windy and vaine or empty wild figtree And soe haue haeresies fructified out of ours but they not ours degenerating from the graine of truth and becoming wild by vntruth or lying Thus farr Tertullian Acknowledging indeede that haeresies haue their beginning from vs that is that the men that broach them come out of our Church but that they are noe more ours when they beginne once to be against vs. And that the dishonour thereof redoundeth not to vs but to themselues hee declareth by the two similitudes of the oliue and figgetree comparing vs to the true and fruitfull trees and them to the bastard vaine and wild trees issuing out of the former All which if you consider well Sir Humphrey you will find it but a small honour for you to haue come out of the Romane Church though you haue layen neuer soe long in the very bosome thereof as you
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
translate them But because your intent in this place is to proue out of this Doctor that the consecration is performed not by the words of Christ but by his blessing for els I see not what you should ayme at I will bring you a place out of himselfe expressely to the contrary which is this Tolle verba Christi non fiunt Sacramenta Christi Odo Cam. exp in can Miss dist 3. Vis fieri corpus sanguinem appone Christi sermonem Take away the words of Christ and take away the Sacraments of Christ Wilt thou haue the Body and bloud of Christ made put thereto the word of Christ In which words he sheweth that all the Sacraments of Christ are performed by words soe as without words they are not Sacraments as the Catholique Church teacheth And in particular that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the worde of Christ is that whereby the bread and wine is changed in to his body Of which change and matter he speaketh most plainely a little before in this manner In specie panis vini manducamus bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis sanguinis subijsdem qualitatibus mutata substantia vt sub figura sapore prioris substantiae facta sit vera substantia Christi corporis sanguinis In shew of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of the body and bloud vnder the same qualities the substance being changed that vnder the shape and tast of the former substance the true substance of Christ's body and bloud bee made Which words are no lesse euident for proofe of the reality of Christ's presence and change of the bread and wine into his Body and Bloud or transubstantiation then the other are for proofe that the change is made by force of the words Which declare what his meaning is in those words which you alleadge for the blessing as if that did cause this change For he as many other Fathers and Doctours call the very forme of consecration a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for soe holy an end and because they produce soe noble an effect or because they are ioyned alwayes with that benediction and thanks-giuing vsed both by your B. Sauiour in the institution of this holy Sacrament and now by the Priests in the Catholique Church in the consecration of the same You haue then Sir Humphrey gotten as little by Odo as by any of the rest 20. But after all these authors you putt one in the rere who must make amends for all that the rest haue failed you in and that is one Christophorus de Capite fontium Arch Bishop of Caesarea in his booke de correctione theologiae Who indeede speaketh plainely for you in behalf of the blessing against the words of consecration if you cite him truely as a man might well make doubt if the author were otherwise allowable but because he is not I doe not soe much as looke in him but remitt you to the Romane Index where you shall find his booke by you heere cited forbidden which may be answeare enough for you and euen the arrogancy of the title sheweth it to deserue noe better a place for it is entituled de necessaria correctione Theologiae scholasticae As if he alone were wiser then all others Schoolemen putt together Besides in the words cited out of him by you in this place there is a grosse historical error which euery man may perceiue at the very first sight to let passe his theologicall errours and it is in this that he saith that in that opinion of his both the Councel of Trent and all writers did agree till the late tymes of Caietan as if Caietan were since the tyme of the Councel of Trent Whereas indeed he died aboue a Dozen yeares before the first beginning thereof And withall you doe not marke how in citing this place you are against your self For whereas you make Cardinal Caietan and this Archbishop of Caesarea your two champions against the words of consecration as if they did both agree in the same heere this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him but onely Caietane Whom then shall we beleeue you Sir knight or your author 21. Now though you thought to conclude with this Christopherus a capite fontium as being a sure card yet cannot I omitt though after him to answeare heere a certaine authority which you bring before somewhat out of season out of Salmeron telling vs that he speaking in the person of the Graecians deliuereth their opinion in this manner For as much as the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine neither gaue he simply bread it followeth that when he gaue it the transmutation was already made and these words this is my body did demonstrate what was contained in the bread not what was made by them Whereto I answeare first that you mistake your termes when you call this an Opinion which is an errour of the Graecians Secondly I might answeare that this is not Salmeron's authority whom you seeme to cite but doe not indeed you citing onely for authour a french Huguenot called Daniel Chamier who also citeth those words out of Salmeron but without any the least mention of the place where they may be found Soe as Salmeron's works making 7. or 8. good volumes to looke for such a place as this without any light or direction is almost as good as to looke for a needle in a bottle of hay Yet I did looke in that part of his workes which treateth of the B. Sacrament where I thought it most likely to find this place but found it not Which notwihstanding I will not say but it may bee there for it is true that there haue beene some Latine authors that haue held that our Sauiour himselfe did consecrate not by those words but either by other words V. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 1. seq or by the power of his owne will without any outward signe or by some outward signe other then words or by these very words twice spoken Into some of which Doctrines it is like some Graecians might fall being soe prone to erre as they haue beene these later ages V. Aund though in other authors I doe not find this errour of theirs of the benediction before the words but rather the contrary Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 3. that these words this is my body wherewith Christ did consecrate are not now sufficient to consecrate without certaine prayers coming after in the Canon of the Masse appointed by the Church But of this it maketh not much matter and it may be some of them soe thinke and therefore I answeare thirdly for Salmeron this is noe opinion by him allowed as you would seeme by your manner of citing him to insinuate but by him condemned of errour as your freind Chamier saith expresly citing to that purpose Salmeron's owne words also euen there where
practize to be more for aedification of the people Nay doth it not in the Canon expresly condemne it saying anathema to whosoeuer shall condemne the practize of the Romane Church in reading some part of the Canon softly or to whosoeuer shall say that the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue 4. Now for the place of Scripture which you bring to wit that wee must shew forth the Lord's death till his Coming which you say is not intended to the walls as we doe it sheweth sufficiently how well you vnderstand Scripture and consequently how well the common people betweene whom and your self you I dare say thinke there is a great deale of difference would vnderstand them when you being euen a writer soe little vnderstand them For that place of announcing our Lord's death is not vnderstood by words as you vnderstand it but by deeds as it is most plaine by the circumstances wherein they were spoken to wit by consecrating and changing the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord as we doe daily in the Masse in memory of our Sauiours passion For soe S. Paul hauing spoken of the institution and manner to be obserued in the consecration expresly saith as often as you shall doe this you shall announce the death of our Lord. The doing therefore is the announcing not the Saving Besides these words at least in the māner of speaking doe not import any cōmand For you shall find the word annuntiabitis is the indicatiue moode and future tēse if you looke well into your Accidence Sir Humphrey And withall it is somewhat conditional to wit that as often as we shall doe that we shall announce the death of our Lord. Besides Sir Humphrey I neuer heard before that it was all one to speake Latine and to speake to the walls if a man should speake a word of Latine to you were that to speake to a wall You see then you doe not marke what you say 5. But now you haue spoken soe well of your selfe lett vs heare what you can say out of other men And first for Haymo whom you cite for your purpose asking this vnanswearable question as you call it If a man that knoweth onely his Mother's tongue stand by or make a Sermon or giue a Blessing how shall hee say Amen since he doth not know what thou saist Soe you To which I answeare it is true Haymo hath a question to this purpose but not soe much to yours if you marke him well nor soe vnanswearable if you take him altogeather with what he saith before and after your question For soe you shall find he doth not require that all that are by shall vnderstand but that he that supplieth the place of the Idiot or lay man in answearing for the people shall vnderstand for before that Question of yours he maketh this other first quis supplebit vel quis adimplebit locum illius qui te audit non intelligit verba tua who shall supply or who shall fulfill the place of him that heareth thee and doth not vnderstand thy words Which sheweth that he doth not speake of the idiot or ordinary bystander but of one that is to supply his place or make answeare for him which appeareth yet more by that which followeth immediatly after your question thus Si non aderit alius pro illo sciens quid tu dicas qui respondeat Amen 1. Verum est quod tu dixisti vel fiat ita If there shal be none other for him that is in place of the ignorant man who knowing what thou saiest may answeare Amen That is to say it is true which thou hast said or bee it soe done Which plainely sheweth that in Haymo his iudgment it is sufficient if there be one vnderstander to answeare for the rest or for him that doth not vnderstād Nay he doth not seeme to require soe much as that this answearer shall vnderstand all soe perfectly but onely soe farre as to be able to answeare Amen for this is the inconuenience which he maketh to follow therevpon if the answearer doe not vnderstand the language that he doth not know where the prayer endeth for him to answeare Nescit quippe saith he vbi sermonis clausula firmatur For he knoweth not where the cōclusion of the speach is ended For which truely there doth not neede any such great vnderstanding of Latine Soe that though Haymo thinke that the Apostle speaketh in that place of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest as some few other Doctors doe though not soe rightly nor soe conformably to the true intent and drift of the Apostle yet he requireth noe more but that there be one to answeare Amen which surely may be more easily had then for want thereof to be faine to change the whole office of the Church in to English And soe Haymo his vnanswearable question is without any such great adoe answeared Now for S. Paules meaning though your obiection require it not and that it require also a longer disputation yet not to leaue the Reader wholy vnsatisfied thereof I say in a word that S. Paul his meaning in that place where he asketh how he that vnderstandeth not the prayer shall say Amen is not of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest which noe man can doubt of either for the truth or goodnes and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them but of priuate prayers or prayers made by priuate and Lay men ex tempore and on the suddaine not in Latine Greeke or any ordinary knowne tongue but in an extraordinary vnknowne tōgue such as men spake by the guift of tongues which guift was giuen in those beginnings not onely to the Apostles and Preachers but euen to Lay people and to many among the Corinthians which they it seemes grew prowd of and vsed for ostentation For correcting of which abuse the Apostle writeth heere vnto them preferring Prophecy that is exhortation before tongues and giuing many reasons therefore among which this is one that others that heare that prayer in a strange Language are not the better nor can say Amen to it And this to be the Apostles drift the circumstances of the text and persons to whom he writeth plainely shew 6. After Haymo cometh Iustinian the Emperour who say you made a constitution that Bishops and Priests should celebrate the Lord's supper and prayers in Baptisme not in secret but with a Lowd and cleare voyce to this Bellarmine maketh two answeares Bell. lib. 2 〈◊〉 Miss cap. 12 one that Iustinian being a meere secular man had nothing to doe to make Lawes in such matters as it is most true and you cannot but know he is ordinarily taxed for too much taking vpon him in that kind The other that euen that Law doth command nothing more but onely that Bishops and Priests shall pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne
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
scripture which they stood vpon he answeareth thus Et etiam si sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset Dialog 2. con Lucifer totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting the consent of the whole world on this side should haue the force of a praecept And soe there is an end of this 5. § Of Prayer and seruice in a knowne tongue §. 6. 1. In this § the Knight speaketh against the practise and doctrine of the Catholique Church in two things One is for vsing the publique seruice in a tongue not knowne to the vulgar people another for saying some part of the Masse with a lowd voyce so as the people cannot heare The practice of which two things though the Knight confound them into one was seuerally and distinctly approued by the Councell of Trent anathema pronounced against whosoeuer should condemne either of them Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Councel's owne authority thinking also euen by it to make good the contrary practise of his Church For saith hee the Councel in saying that the Masse doth containe great instruction of the faithfull people or as he translateth the words of the Councel in the beginning of this § great instruction for the common people And that it is to be interpreted vnto them doth consequently affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the aedification of the Church and this he cōfirmes with an argument of his owne thus And without doubt saith hee the Apostles being cōmanded to shew forth the Lord's death till his coming it was not intended to shew it to the walls or in a silent vnknowne voyce as it is now vsed in the Romane Church but to pronounce it openly to bee heard and vnderstood of the hearers Soe farre our Knight Now to reckon with him 2. Because the Councel of Trent saith that the Masse containeth great instruction of the people and that for that end it is to be interpreted vnto them he saith it consequently affirmes the practize of the reformed Churches to be better for aedificatiō of the Church Doth it soe Sir Humphrey by what Logicke doth this cōsequēce follow or by what figure of Rhethoricke do You take one thing for another the Councel saith that though the Masse containe great instruction yet it doth not follow that it should bee in the vulgar tongue you tell vs the Councel by cōsequence doth affirme it to follow the Councel thinketh it better to retaine the general and long continued practise of the Church of not vsing the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Masse but for instruction of the people to interprete something of what is read you say it approueth the contrary custome of your Church if it had soe had it not beene an easier matter to haue appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue but the Councel knew well that course was not soe fitt neither in respect of the publique good of the Church nor in reguard of the priuate good of the faith-full people for many reasons 3. First for the general practise and custome which hath beene obserued in the Church of God of hauing the Masse and publique office in Latine all ouer the Latine or Westerne Church both in Italy Spaine France Germany England Africke all other places and soe likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent had as much variety of vulgar languages in it as the Latine Church hath Which custome is not to be forsaken especially for Haeretiques out of that their false perswasiō that it is noe good or lawful practice Secōdly for the vniformity which is fit to be vsed in such things and vnity of the Catholique Church which is excellently declared also much maintained by this Vnity of Langage in the Church-office For as lāguage is a thing most necessary for cōmerce amōg men in ciuill matters so also in ecclesiastical and without this vse of Latine in this māner there could not bee that cōmunication betwene men of learning neither would mē of one countrey be the better for the writings of others there would be litle meeting of men of seueral nations in Councels little study of Councels of Fathers others who haue all writtē in Latine or some learned language whereas the vse of the Latine tongue in the Church is the cause of all the contrary effects as we see by experiēce Thirdly the vse of vulgar tongues in the Masse and Church-office would cause not onely great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by soe many seueral translations not onely in seueral countries but by seueral translations in euery countrey of any small extent euen in the same place vpon a litle change of tyme for as we see in euery age the vulgar language reciueth a great alternation of which translations the Church would not be able any way to iudge scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other which therefore for the well trāslating thereof requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost which noe priuate man can promise himselfe Lastly the vse of a vulgar language in such things would breede a great cōtempt of sacred things with prophanes and irreligiosity besids the daunger of haeresy which cometh noe way sooner then by mis-vnderstanding of holy scripture Neither are any more apt to mis-vnderstād it then the simpler sort of people if they once take vpon them to vnderstand These reasons then among others but most of all the tradition of the Church drawne euen from the Apostles by perpetual Successiō and practise might perswade the Councel to thinke that though some benefitt might come to some few particular men by vnderstanding what is written yet it was absolutely better to retaine the same custome still and euen to remedy that inconuenience another way to wit by explaning something of what is read in the Masse which the Councel declareth by a similitude very proper for the purpose to wit by breaking of bread to little ones fort it is euen as necessary for ordinary people to haue the Scriptures soe declared as for children to haue their bread broken and as vnfit to giue such men the Scripture it self whole to reade or to reade it soe vnto them as to giue a little child a whole great loafe Neither if a man marke the Councel of Trent's words well doth it say that the Masse doth containe instruction in that sense as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would bee an instruction but onely that it containeth great instruction that is many things which might be good for the people to learne being explicated which a man might truely say though euen when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be vnderstood without helpe of an expositor how then Sir Humphrey doth the Councel acknowledge your