acknowledgeth inhaerent iustification which Caluin denieth though in this he erre that he thinketh that inhaerent iustifying forme to bee imperfect and insufficient of it selfe to make men the adoptiue Children of God without the imputatiue iustice of Christ Which alsoe is not soe much Caluinisme as Lutheranisme But bee it what it will Bellarmine excuseth Pighius in another respect to wit because he did not obstinately defend the errour as Caluin or Luther doth which is the maine difference For it is not the errour but the obstinacy that maketh an Haeretique And soe you see Sir Knight you haue not one true word in all this section But lett vs now see your next Chap. 5. The Knight's 5. Section Wherein hee vndertaketh to shew how worldly policy and profitt hindereth the reformation of such things as are vnexcusable in themselues CHAPTER V. 1. OF this Section there is not much to bee said For there is nothing in it but a little of the knights owne rauing For he telleth vs that now he seeth Trentals Masses Diriges Requiem prayers for the dead Indulgences Purgatory c. made articles of faith he despayreth of reformation To which I neede make noe other answeare but that it is a good signe that hee findes at last the strength of the Church soe built vpon a Rocke as noe tempests or winds can shake it but rather that by stormes and tempests it groweth stronger the practize of the Catholique Church being strengthned against all Haeretiques by the greatest authority on earth to wit a general Councel confirmed by the See Apostolique Againe he despaires when he seeth Maldonats saying as he telleth vs practized by the Church of Rome against his Church and Doctrine to wit hee that is Maldonate interpreting a place of S. Iohn alloweth S. Augustin's explication as most probable though hee rather approue another of his owne because it more crosseth the sense of the Caluinists This is it that driueth him in to dispaire Alas poore Sir Humphrey is all your brauery come to this what your hart faile you soe in the beginning But it is noe wonder such a cause may well make you despaire And by your despaire you shew your Doctrine to be false for true doctrine looseth nothing by being impugned but rather gaineth as experience sheweth in the Catholique faith of which is verified the saying of the Prophest Psal 11.7 Eloquia Domini Eloquia casta argentū igne examinatum probatum terrae purgatū septuplum Words of our Lord be chast Words siluer examined by fire tried of the earth purged Seuen fold Fire tries but consumes not gold but drosse it shewed to be drosse by consuming it For Maldonat hee approueth and commendeth S. Augustin's explicacion but addeth another of his owne not contrary nor disagreeing though different from it He preferreth it because it is more against an Haeretique soe it is like S. Aug. himself would also haue done if he had beene aliue in these tymes For it is well knowne how in expounding of Scriptures he still had reguard to the confutation of these haeresies which then raigned and in one place hee aduiseth Tract 2. in ep 1. Io. that those passages of Scripture be most carefully obserued and remembred which make most against Haeretiques 2. After this the Knight hath a great deale of foolish stuffe which needes noe answeare being but a bare recitall of things as for example our wresting the Scriptures his agreement of doctrine with the Fathers nothing to the purpose in this place and then he crieth out against our altering the Commandements which is before answeared Communion in both kinds prayer to Saints and in an vnknowne tongue Which shal bee afterwards answeared Onely in this place I note in a word this wise question of his What reason saith hee can bee alleadged why an ignorant man should pray without vnderstanding To which I answeare with a contrary demaund to wit How an ignorant man that is one that wanteth knowledge or vnderstanding shall pray with vnderstanding and soe I leaue him Of the 6. Section the title whereof is this Chap. 6. The common pretence of our aduersaries refusing Reformation because we cannot assigne the praecise tyme when errors came in refuted CHAPTER VI. 1. HEere the Knight is vpp againe with his reformacion and complayneth that we will not admitt thereof nor acknowledge our doctrine erronious vnlesse he can assigne the tyme and person when and by whom the errour came in Which he seemeth to acknowledge he cannot doe for he neuer goeth about it but onely laboureth to disproue our exception against him by saying that a man that is sicke of a consumption ought not to refuse the helpe of the Physician vpon pretence that he can not tell the tyme and occasion when his body began first to be distempered and out of S. Aug. he saith that when a man is fallen into a pitt and calleth to a passenger for helpe Ep. 19. the passenger must not refuse to helpe him out vpon pretence that he seeth not how he should come to fall in Hee proueth it also as he thinketh out of scripture because in the parable of the cockle it is said that the enemy sowed it when men were a sleepe out of which he inferreth that they could not see or know him Therefore he saith that this defection of the Romane Church is a secret Apostasy Matth. 13. and therein he maketh the difference betweene haeresy and Apostasy that haeresy is preached openly soe as the tyme and person may bee named but not soe this our secret apostacy haeresy worketh in the day apostasy in the night And then he reckoneth vpp some points as worshipping of images Prayer for the dead the primacy of S. Peter and some others which he saith were not soe meant a◠first as they are now practtized and beleeued in the Romane Church This is his iolly discourse framed in his owne braine panne and surely grounded as you shall finde vpon examination thereof which now I come vnto 2. Hee compareth the creeping in of errour to the growing of a sicknes in a man's body and presuming that because he sayth it we must therefore take those things which hee would haue vs for errour he would presently haue vs also fall to correct them without standing to examine farther noe more then a Physician should that cometh to a sicke man But his comparison faileth exceedingly For though there bee some little likenes betweene the creeping in of errours and growing of a Disease in a man's body because both begin little and stelingly and increase by degrees Yet to our purpose none at all For the question is not whether we should fall to cure the disease without examining the cause though by your good leaue Sir Knight good Physicians vse to enquire of the causes effects and other circumstāces of the sicknes which they come to cure but whether this that you say is a disease or sicknes be soe or noe
bee changed into the whole body of Christ he doth not say it confidently and certainely but doubtfully and with dew submission to better iudgment and especially to the Church Saluo meliori iudicio existimari potest c. are his words 4. dist 11. q. 3 Sauing better iudgment it may bee thought c. and in answeare of an argument to the contrary wherein was obiected the common consent of others against him he saith that that notwithstanding yet soe long as their saying is not confirmed by the Church it is lawfull to thinke the contrary In which words he sheweth two things one that his Opinion was contrary to the common current of the Catholique Doctors of his owne tyme. Which is contrary to that which you said that hee and his fellow Schoolemen professed that doctrine openly for you see he acknowledgeth all others to bee against him neither doth he himself professe it soe openly for he speaketh it doubtfully and with submission to better iudgment The other thing is that hee plainely acknowledgeth the authority of the Church to bee such as that it is not lawfull for any man to hold opinion against it But though hee should haue said nothing thereof in this place it is sufficient that in the praeface of his Commentary vpon the Maister of the Sentences hee submitteth all his works to the correction of the holy Romane and Catholique Church to which hee acknowledgeth the interpretation of all doubts of the holy Scripture to belong Which profession without more may serue to excuse and free him from the crime of haeresy either in this or any other point wherein hee may haue chaunced to erre as Bellarmine doth therefore iustly excuse him 37. Now for Gaufridus and Ostiensis our owne Proctors as you call them as you haue the obiection soe you shall haue the answeare alsoe out of Durand Durand in 4. dist 10. q. 1. Thus then hee obiecteth against the praesence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament Ostiensis and Gaufridus note 3. opinions concerning the manner of being of the body of Christ vpon the altar of which one saith that the bread is the body of Christ another saith that the bread doth not remaine but is changed and that the accidents alone doe remaine Which seemeth to be approued by that text of Cap. firmâ—ter The third opinion saith that the substance of bread doth remaine and is together with the body of Christ vpon the altar Behold that they call it an Opinion of the remanency of the substance of bread neither doe they say it is reproued nay rather they referre it to the confession of Berengarius which was approued by the Councel Thus the obiection sett downe and vrged by Durand not cited out of them Now his answeare is this For that which is afterwards said of Gaufrid Ber. and Hostiens Glossers vpon the Chap. firmiter it is to be answeared that though they recount three opinions they approue none for true but onely that of the body of Christ's being vpon the altar by transubstantiation of the bread and wine And if they doe not expresly call any of them erroneous it followeth not therefore that it is not erroneous For they did not know all the passages of holy Scripture from which the fore said opinion doth differ Thus the obiectioÌ„ answeare in the very words as they lye in Durand Out of which first it is cleare these men are onely Canonists noe Schoole Diuines such as you pretend heere to alleadge Though you alsoe insinuate the same somewhat in as much as you call them our Proctors Wherein yet you mistake your termes the word Proctor being not soe fitt for soe great Doctors of the Canons as they were for how thinke you vould your Ciuill or Canon Doctors of the Arches take it at your hands to be called Proctors or your great Lord Sir Edoward Cooke and Doctor as I may say of your common Law to be called an Attourney at Law SecoÌ„dly heereby appeareth also your corruptioÌ„ in saying that they taught that this opinion was not to be reiected for thus you putt it in a different letter This opinion say they was not to bee reiected whereas they say noe such thing But onely Durand enforcing the obiection to the vtmost as Diuines are wont to doe the more fully to answeare taketh hold that they call it an opinion and likewise taketh hold that they doe not say it was reproued or that it ought to be held for an error Thirdly hence it appeareth that both they themselues did not allow of it in that they held onely that middle opinion of traÌ„substantiation for true and that though they did not soe expresly coÌ„demne it of error yet it doth not follow but that it was error for they knew not all the passages of scripture Scripture being not their study Thus then all your Schoolemen are answeared and consequently this whole § of Transubstantiation PARAGRAPH 3. OF PRIVATE MASSE 1. In this third § Sir HuÌ„phrey preteÌ„deth to make good the doctrine and practize of his Church and ouerthrow outs in point of priuate Masse as he calleth it beginning with the curse of the Councel of Trent against such as coÌ„demne it for vnlawfull And then bring an article of Ireland to the coÌ„trary which saith that for the Priest to receiue the Eucharist without a coÌ„petent number of Communicants is against the institution of Christ practize of the primitiue Church For proofe of this his doctrine he bringeth the words of Christ 1. Cor. 11.1 Take yee eate yee And those of S. Paul Be yee followers of mee euen as I am alsoe of Christ As likewise those other When you come together tarry one for another And the cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the CoÌ„munion of the bloud of Christ and heere the knight saith out of Hugo de S. Victo whom hee of his owne free goodnes is pleased to create a Cardinal both heere and els where to make vp the number of his Cardinals Bishops c. that it is called a Communion because the People in the primitiue Church did coÌ„municate together And he saith of himself that it is soe called because the Priest and people communicate together After this he bringeth a Canon of the Councel of Nantes forbidding Priest to say Masse alone For to whoÌ„ saith the Canon doth the Priest say The Lord bee with you to which he addeth 12. or 13. of our authors in proofe that anciently the people did communicate euery day witnessing therein as he saith the antiquity of his Doctrine and intimating the nouelty of ours and he telleth vs also that the Councel of Trent concludeth with a well-wishing to his Doctrine in saying that it wisheth that the people would communicate not only spiritually but also sacramentally adiudging his communion to be more fruitfull This is the summe of this whole § 2. To which I answeare beginning with this last of the Councel of Trent that the Rearder
will giue him leaue to take him for his owne to encrease his Church and make vpp his number of learned men for noe man but an haeretique can dispute against what is once defined Catholique Doctors may indeede differ in opinion soe long as a thing is vndefined For soe long it is not faith but when it is once defined they must be silent and concurre all in one because then it is matter of faith Which agreement and concurrence of opinion in such a case sheweth there was still before a kind of radical vnion that is a praeparation of mind or promptnes to submitt to Authority of the Church when it should shew it self Wherefore whatsoeuer hee or any man els shall say of our differences are but arguments for the vnity and certainty of our beleife 4. Now for his reuiew of all his 8. points it is but a reuiew indeede wherein he taketh all that he said before for true as if he had carried all smooth before him which prouing quite contrary all this reuiew and discourse builded thereon falleth to the ground Neither will I stand examining them all heere againe but remitt the Reader to what is said particularly of each one in his owne place Onely heere I will reflect vpon his conclusion which is a witnessing of men and Angels that we haue noe antiquity and Vniuersality for proofe of our articles For his protestations and witnessings there are many examples gone before which shew how foolish false and hypocritical they are of this therefore I say noe more but that it may goe with the rest But I aske him how he proueth we haue noe antiquity For his first point he laboureth to proue against our Iustification by words out of a Ritual in S. Anselmes dayes some fiue hundred yeares since that the sicke party was to putt all his trust in Christ's merits Which thing I shewed to be nothing against vs. Wherein then hath he derogated from the antiquity and Vniuersality of our Doctrine and though that proofe had beene good that is to say against what we teach of iustification what could the bare authority of soe late a worke haue preiudiced our antiquity which we maintaine 1000. yeares before that tyme Or what could that doctrine taught in such an obscure booke of I know not whose writing nor of what authority and but in a corner of the world praeiudice the Vniuersality of our doctrine taught in all tymes in all countryes by Fathers and Doctors in their seueral tymes and in general Councels or doth it shew his doctrine to be ancient because it was taught 500. since or Vniuersal because it was taught in England noe such matter In his second point of transubstantiation he bringeth one man saying the words of consecration doe not of themselues without the explication of the Church proue the realnes of Christ's praesence in the Sacrament another man saying they doe not proue transubstantiation or that it was defined but in the Councel of Lateran about 500. yeares agoe to which We answeare againe that those one or two say nothing against vs in the points of controuersy with haeretiques and euen in that which they teach contrary to the common consent of Diuines though in matters not defined we say they are reproued not by one or two but by all the whole current of Catholique Diuines what is this then against the antiquity of our Doctrine or doth it proue his Doctrine to be ancient or vniuersall nay doth it proue it any Doctrine at all For what can any man tell by this what he beleeues much lesse whither it be true or noe which he beleeueth may not another man that denieth the Protestant-Lord's-Supper proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his doctrine or rather his denyal of doctrine as the Knight doth his and by the same argument Because a man denieth one point of ours doth he presently allow all his may not he find a third way of his owne different from both and if the Reader please to marke it all the knights proofe of antiquity is the denial or doubt made by some one of our Writers though that one of ours be much more against him in other things as a man may see both in Caietane Scotus and the rest as I said before His discourse then in this is as deuoyd of reason as his Doctrine is of antiquity 5. In his â— point he bringeth a great many authorityes to proue that anciently the people did communicate euery day with the Priest which we grant and aske againe what this derogateth from the antiquity of our Doctrine or how it proueth that a Priest is bound to forbeare saying Masse if there be noe body to communicate or that it is ill and vnlawfull for him to say Masse in that case or how it proueth the antiquity or vniuersality of his doctrine that denieth all Masse nay doe not we moreouer ex abundanti proue that the custome of the peoples daily Communion did cease euen in the Primitiue Church and yet that some Priests did say Masse daily Doe not wee then proue our antiquity not onely by disproofe of his erroneous nouelty but euen by positiue proofes drawne from antiquity Concerning the number of Sacraments he saith some teach there be 3. some 4. some 5. some 6 that some say of this Sacrament it was not instituted by Christ others of that some say this Sacrament is not proued out of this place of Scripture another not out of the other Now suppose all this were true as I haue disproued him almost in euery word he saieth and shewed his folly Doth this proue the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine is not the number of 5. or 6. as farre from his number of two as from ours of 7. and the number of 3. or 4. as incompatible with his number of two as with ours of seauen What madnes is it then in a man to thinke by this disprouing of our number to thinke his owne to be soe presently proued as if a man could not deny 7. but hee must affirme onely two For as for his proofe out of some Fathers naming of two he confesseth others name three others 5. some more some lesse which he bringeth to disproue our seauen but how doth it stand with his two Soe of his Communion in one Kind he saith out of many of our authors it was anciently vsed in both and we grant it but we say it was also vsed in One many tymes and might haue beene more and may also be now in One or both as it shall seeme good to the Church according to diuers circumstances in whose power is the administration of the Sacraments How doth the affirming of the former part or denying of the later proue the antiquity of his doctrine which is that it is not lawful to administer in one kind For publique Prayer he saith out of some of our authors it was vsed in a knowne tongue in the Primitiue Church We grant it and say
soe long as they haue sufficient ground to beleeue it which neuer wanteth in the Catholique Church and out of it is euer wanting By this any man may see whether this distinction of explicite and implicite faith doe not stand with very great reason and consequently whether the Knight who laugheth thereat doe not shew himself most worthy of laughter 22. Especially if wee adde withall that it is not soe much this implicite faith that hee speaketh against as diuine faith in generall for that he counteth implicite faith when a man is bound by a blind kind of Obedience as he calleth it to submitt his iudgment to the Catholique Church which is the true property of diuine faith and that is it which he countes simplicity and calleth it implicite faith to beleiue that whereof we vnderstand not the reason but heerein he destroyeth the very nature of faith expressely contradicting S. Paul's definition thereof which is this Hebr 11.1 Faith is the substance of things to bee hoped for an argument of things not appearing and S. Aug plainely saith that is faith to beleeue that which thou dost not see and S. Greg. addeth Greg. ho. 36. in Euang. that faith hath noe meritt where humane reason giueth experiēce Soe as for a man to speake against this kind of implicite is plaine infidelity and therefore I shall say noe more of it but onely supposing it as a most certaine and commonly receiued principle of the Fathers and point of absolutely necessary Christian humility for a man soe to submitt his iudgment in what hee vnderstandeth not I shall conclude with a word of Vincent Lerinensis wishing such men as haue suffered themselues out of praesumption to bee carried away with some nouell opinions out of the Catholique Church to returne therevnto by this humility of implicite faith in these words Dediscant bene quod didicerunt non bene cap. 25. ex toto ecclesiae dogmate quod intellectu capi potest capiant quod non potest credant Let them vnlearne well that which they haue learnt not well and out of the whole doctrine of the Church Lett them cōceiue what can bee conceiued what cannot let them beleeue Which authority alone is sufficient to warrant our distinction of explicite and implicite faith against all Sir Humphrey's scornefull laughter Chap. 2. And soe hauing noted thus much in this place by occasion of his praeambles I come now to the examination of his sections Whether the Church of Rome bee with out cause bitter against the reformed Churches as the knight affirmeth CHAPTER II. 1. THe Knight's first section is to proue that the Church of Rome is without cause bitter against the reformed Churches That she is bitter he proueth because wee stile him and his not onely by the common name of Haeretiques but also by other special reproachfull epithites pertayning to the seuerall Sects of Zuinglius Luther Caluin c. Secondly because we accurse and excommunicate them and will not let them liue with vs whereas wee admitt Iewes and Infidels That all this is without cause he proueth first by an authority of Theodoret which speakes of a contention betweene two factions in the Church of Antioch and the reason to allay it because saith Theodoret both parts make one and the same confession of their faith for both maintaine the Creede of the Nicene Councel Secondly by the authority of Bellarmine whom hee maketh to say that the Apostles neuer propounded as common articles of faith other things then the articles of the Apostles Creede the ten commandements and some few of the Sacraments because these things are simply necessary and profitable for all men the rest are such as a man may bee saued without them Thirdly he maketh it an vndeniable truth that the reformed Church and the Romane are two Sisters and that the Romane Church fayling and becoming an Harlott it was well done of his Church to seperate her self least she might bee partaker of her plagues And soe goeth on inueighing bitterly against the Romane Church to the very end of the Section whereof this is the whole substance which I haue brought into this methode the better to answeare it 2. That wee Catholiques stile the Knight and his Reformers by the common name of Haeretiques wee deny not that some particular Catholique authors stile some of them that is the Zuinglians Lutherans and others by other reproachfull names wee also deny not But why this Knight should complaine as if he were iniured in all the seuerall names that are giuen to the seuerall sects of Haeretiques I see not vnlesse it soe bee that hee be of all their seuerall religions which yet I see not how hee can bee they being soe many and soe contrary among themselues But be he of one or other or more and lett him but goe into Germany and professe himself a Caluinist or a Zuinglian hee shall finde soe good entertaynment and such gentle termes at the Lutheran's hands as I dare boldly say he will neuer complaine more of the bitternes of Catholiques against him and his Brethren For the word Haeretique which is the worst of all other as contayning all in it self he cannot but know that it hath euer gone with such as haue held new particular doctrines different from the common doctrine of the Catholique Church and therefore the word according to the etymology is noe word of contumely but a word signifying the nature of the thing and it is onely growne by custome to bee contumelious because the thing it self to wit haeresie is the most detestable thing in the world If then the thing ot crime of haeresie pertaine to à man and that hee be notoriously guilty thereof I see not what great bitternes it is to giue him the name of Haeretique If I would I could vrge his bitternes much more in the same kind and in this very section as for example where hee calleth the Catholique Church an harlott the whore of Babylon the Pope Anti-Christ Catholiques Idolaters and a great deale more But I lett all that passe making onely this answeare that wee doe nothing in this matter of names which seemeth to him soe great a point of bitternes but what we can warrant by very good authority and example euen of scripture Act. 13.11 2. Cor. 11.15 S. Paul called that enemy of faith Elymas the Magician Sonne of the Diuell Enemy of all iustice and false Apostles in general that is Haeretiques he calleth the Ministers of Sathan In an other place Philip. 3.2 1. Io. 2.18 Ep. Iud. he calleth Haeretiques by the name of Doggs S. Iohn calleth them Antichrists S. Iude is most vehemēt against them giuing them many bitter epithetes and comparing them to Cain to Balaam to Core Our Sauiour himself said of one of his Disciples that hee was a Diuell Ioan. 6. which hee meant of Iudas who is ordinarily and worthily ranked among Haeretiques Which considered Sir Humphrey you should neuer
onely whither this particular host be rightly cōsecrated manifestly supposing that if that be Christ is truely there Thirdly that other condition or words Adoro te si tu es Christus which he would make a man beleeue were spoken by Adrian of the most B. Sacrament are spoken of the Diuell taking vpon him the shape of Christ 6. Now what grosse delusion is this What excuse can you finde for it Sir Humphrey But suppose Adrian had erred in this or in any other particular point either ignorantly as a Catholique may or wilfully as onely Haeretiques doe Doth it follow that he agreeth with you in all other or that hee-counteth your faith ancient vniuersall certaine or safe noe such matter nay how on the contrary he abhorreth detesteth your doctrine as most wicked and damnable is plainely to be seene by a Bull which he writ to Fredericke Duke of Saxony against Luther and his Doctrine disprouing euery point thereof exhorting the said Frederick to forsake it and returne to the true Catholique faith now in the dayes of Adrian Pope and Charles Emperour as the Saxons did at first embrace it in the tyme of the first Pope and Emperour of the same names and then liuing together With a great deale to the same purpose What madnes then is it to alleadge a Catholique Diuine a Pope and such a Pope for the antiquity and Vniuersality of your beleife 7. Now for Costerus you say he excuseth the taking away of the cupp from the Layity But if you would giue a man leaue to bee soe bold with your worshipp I would know what excuse you can find for such a notorious lye If he excuses it he acknowledgeth the thing to neede excuse and consequently to be ill and I pray you where doe you find him doe that noe where verily For he hath one special title of this controuersy wherein he proueth the truth of the Catholique faith in this point by ten seuerall reasons and solueth sixteene obiections as well of former as later Haeretiques against it If this be to excuse I know not what it is to maintaine and make good a thing Enchirid. 8. But now to come to Costerus he by occasion of soluing an obiection saith that the custome of communicating in one kind began from the people for it hauing euer beene free to communicate in one kind or both as Costerus there often repeateth the people for diuers incōmodityes by little and little abstained from the chalice which abstayning of theirs the Bishops for other reasons alsoe by silence approued Whereby you see his meaning is plaine and cleare against you And for his words whereas you relate them thus It was not taken vpp by the commādment of the Bishops but it crept in the Bishops winking thereat They are indeede thus It is to bee diligently noted that the communion of one kind crept in not soe much by the commandment of the Bishops as by the vse and practize of the people yet the Bishops winking thereat Wherein though there be but a little difference yet it sheweth your fidelity according to our Sauiour's saying Luc 16.10 Qui in modico iniquus est in maiori iniquus est He that wicked in a little is wicked in a greater For Costerus doth not say that it did not come in by the commandment of the Bishops but not soe much by that as by the peoples vse and practize 9. Now what is this to your purpose where is Costerus his testimony for the antiquity vniuersality certainty and safety of your Protestant religion is not that whole booke written Onely to maintaine the Catholique Romane faith in the points now adayes in controuersy and to condemne the contrary of vanity folly and error how then can he thinke it salfe But because I will not stand to deduce it by way of argumēt I will onely cite one place directly opposite to the scope of this your section Where he saith that onely the children of the Church Cost enchir cap. 2. n. 3. by which Church he meaneth the Catholique Apostolique Romane Church as he oftē declareth himself merit encrease of grace and aeternal life that they onely are gratefull pleasing to God they onely the children and freinds of God they onely haue communion with the Saints and merits of Saints they onely are adorned with true and Christian vertues they onely haue the promise and certaine expectation of aeternal life Which saith the are great and most true priuiledges for out of the Church nothing of all this is found noe holinesse noe Christian vertue noe worke pleasing to God noe merit noe hope of Saluation Thus he Now good Sir knight is not heere good comfort for you are you in Costerus his iudgment in the more certaine and safe way Doe not you then abuse authors to your owne and other mēs perdition but though you being become a Sect-Maister or at least a great Maister in the Protestant Sect there is little hope that this laying open of your dealing will make you better but rather make you more inraged Yet I trust some well meaning people deluded by you may heereby come to vnderstand themselues better and come to the onely safe way indeede the Catholique Church and leaue you to your Protestant safety 10. But since you are also soe shamelesse heere as to say that we doe not condemne you for receiuing in both kinds looke in the Councel of Trent and see whether you doe not find an heauy curse against any that shall say that all and euery of the faithfull ought by the precept of God Sess 21. can 1. or necessity of saluation to receiue both species or kinds of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christi fideles vtramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae Sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit The like hath the Councel alsoe of Constance soe plaine pag. 174. that you your selfe afterwards confesse that the one doth accurse the other accuse all for Haeretiques that deny the lawfulnesse of one kind as you doe If then we not onely write against your Doctrine as against an haeresy as may appeare by all our controuersies and schoole diuines and euen by Gerson's treatise against the haeresy of Lay communion vnder both kinds Which treatise you your self cite elswhere in the margent but also condemne it in two generall Councels how can you haue the face to say wee doe not condemne you Good God what shall a man say to such men as you are 11. But to come to Doctor Harding the third author of ours which you bring to proue the Antiquity Vniuersality Certainty and Safety of your faith let vs heare how you vse him You say when you accuse vs of priuate Masse cōtrary to Christ's institutiō and custome of the primitiue Church we excuse it that it is through their owne default and negligence whereof saith Mr.
bragge for from the tyme you haue begunne to be against it you are not of it And soe much for that 18. Now for these points of Doctrine by you named wherein you agree with vs and which you hauing no Succession of your owne you cannot haue it by any other meanes but by and from vs which therefore are ours and not yours we doe not question you for your antiquity and vniuersality but for these other points wherein you disagree as when you deny the doctrine declared by the Councel of Trent when you deny our seauen Sacraments deny the truth of one of these two Sacramēts to wit the real presence of our Sauiour's body bloud necessity efficacy of the other to wit Baptisme Deny our canon of scripture our number of Councels our traditions c. For this is your faith properly as you are a distinct company or Church Shew your doctrine in all these points that is your deniall of them to haue beene anciently and vniuersally taught or euen before Luther's tyme and you haue said something which you not doing I cannot but wonder to see you soe silly and senselesse to vse your owne words as to thinke you haue said something to the purpose We aske you the antiquity of your doctrine that is wherein you disagree from vs and you answeare vs with the antiquity of soe much as agreeth with ours which is to answeare vs with the antiquity of our owne You haue beene pleased to shape your selues a religion out of ours and you pleade the antiquity of ours But that will not serue your turne that shape which you giue it is the forme and essence of your religion soe long then as that is new your religion is new Neither can you say the same of our points defined in the Councel of Trent as you seeme to say by asking Where our Church was◠where our Trent doctrine and articles of the Romane Creede were receiued de fide before Luther this you cannot likewise say to vs for the defining made not the Doctrine new but bound men by authority of a Councel to beleeue what they did beleeue plainely by tradition Vinc. Lerin cap. 32. as Vincentius Lerinensis saith that the Church by the decrees of her Councels hath done nothing els but that what she had before receiued by tradition onely she should also by writing consigne to posterity Nec quicquam Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit ecclesia nisi vt quod prius a maioribus sola traditione susceperat hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturae chirographum consignaret Of which see more in the first chapter heere 19. After this you aske againe if your doctrine lay inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church which say you no Romanist can deny if it became hidden as good corne couered with chaffe or as fine gold ouerlayed with a greater quātity of drosse whether it must bee therefore new and vnknowne because the corne was not seuered from the chaffe the gold from the drosse before Luther's tyme and then you bid vs because we call your Doctrine nouelty to remoue the three Creeds the two Sacraments the 22. canonical books the 4. first generall Councels apostolical traditions and see whether our Church wil not proue a poore and senselesse carcasse This is your learned discourse Sir Humphrey to which I answeare asking First what Romanist doth acknowledge your doctrine to haue layen inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church Did euer any man write soe did euer any man say soe vnto you nay what Romanist hath euer forborne vpon occasiō offered to deny and deny it againe you teach not onely those bee two but that there be but two Sacramēts which what Romanist euer acknowledged to haue beene taught in the Romane Church one of your Sacraments is an empty peece of bread and a supp of wine which what Catholique will euer say was Taught in the Romane Church you allow 4. Councels and but 4. you allow 22. books of canonical Scripture and but 22. will any Catholique euer allow this to haue beene Catholique doctrine take away your but and then it may passe but then you take away your religion But heere is one thing that giueth mee much cause of wonder which is that you talke of traditions as distinct from Scripture which is a thing that I did little expect from a man of your profession and I euer tooke you to be soe fallē out with them that you made the denial of them a fundamental point of your Religion and that therefore you would not endure the word traditions euen in holy Scriptures where it might be taken in a good sense but alwaies translated or rather falsifyed it into ordinances though both the Latine and Greeke word did signify traditions most expresly But this your allowing of traditions is not a thing that I reprehend in you though some Puritane Ministers may perhaps not let you passe soe gently with it but that that followeth to wit that you should bee soe vnaduised as to acknowledge your Church or Doctrine which you simply and confusedly take for the same being very different as I haue often said to haue beene inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church and to haue become hidden like good corne couered with chaffe and like gold couered with drosse till Luther's tyme and yet to say that it was visible before that tyme is the corne seene when it is couered with chaffe the gold when it is couered with drosse Answ to Cooks rep ep dedicat nu 20. 20. My Lord Cooke shewed himself somewhat wiser when asking himself the question which we aske you to wit where your Church was before Luther he answeared it made no great matter where it was soe hee were certaine it was confessing thereby that his Church was indeede inuisible but yet in being which because it seemed hard to perswade any man he brought a fine similitude of a wedge of gold dissolued and mixed with brasse tinne and other mettalls which he said did not therefore loose his nature but remained gold though we could not determine in what part of the masse it was contained This was somewhat more like for a man by such a similitude to goe about to proue that a Church might subsist inuisibly for the which neuerthelesse a Catholique Diuine told him his owne very soundly but for you Sir Knight to proue the Visibility of your Church by such a Similitude it were not to be beleeued vnlesse a man did see it in print You labour to proue your Church to haue beene visible before Luther's tymes and yet you confesse her to haue begunne her Visibility by Luther for thus you aske was there noe good corne in the granary of the Church because for many yeares space till Luther's dayes it was not seuered from the chaffe to seuer the corne from the chaffe wherewith it was couered is to make it visible if then Luther did first seuer it he
contrary of Christ's body in the B. Sacrament as by and by shall appeare 8. Fourthly whereas the Latine saith Caro spiritualis spiritual flesh the knight translateth it the spiritual body which I onely note without standing vpon it for it is noe great matter But that which cometh next is the maine corruption of all For whereas Aelfricke saith that this spiritual flesh which is as much to say as our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrament according to the outward shew which it carrieth doth consist of graines of corne hath noe bones nor sinewes noe distinction of limbs noe life or motion of it selfe the knight leaueth out those words Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly which are the very life of all that which followeth to wit that to see to it cōsisteth of corne to see to it hath noe bones and sinewes to see to it hath noe distinction of parts to see to it hath noe soule nor power to exercise any motion of it selfe the knight making his Reader thinke that Aelfricke saith our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrement hath noe bones noe parts noe soule c. which is a notorious falshood Lastly whereas the knight maketh this inference in the same place as if they were Aelfrick's words therefore there is nothing to bee vnderstood bodily but spiritually Aelfrick saith not soe though that might bee said in a good sense but thus he saith For whatsoeuer therein giueth the substance of life is of spiritual power inuisible working and diuine vertue In which there is a great deale of difference betweene Aelfrick's for which giueth a reason for that which goeth before and the knight's therefore which maketh an inference vpon that which was said which a learned man will easily perceiue to make a great deale of difference in the sense nay any man may see the difference betweene a reason and an inference Aelfricke therefore plainely teacheth in these words that that flesh doth liue but with all that that life proceedeth from a spiritual power and inuisible working Which agreeth very well with what he had said before that according to the outward shew that flesh hath neither bones nor sinewes nor limbs nor life nor motion but that all these things are not seene and that the life which it hath proceedeth from a spiritual power and working which is not seene 9. Now lett any man see whither this Knight haue not egregiously abused this ancient author corrupting this little sentence of his by fiue great corruptions besides other more of lesse moment which I haue beene somewhat longer in discouering because it is the man's maine proofe in this place and one of his two records as he calleth them wherewith as it were with two speciall and ancient euidences he presenteth his Reader in the very beginning of this Section § 1. and wherein therefore he hath vsed all the cunning he could deuise to make this author speake his Protestant language and consequently also the Bishops and other learned men of that tyme who approued this Homily if they did approue it as hee saith but in vaine as you may see by this that is said and by one place more which I will bring euen out of this Knight's maister Dr. Vsher which shall plainely shew this Aelfrick's perfect Catholique beleife in this point The words are these Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur panis substantiam vini creaturam conuertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat sic etiam in deserto manna aquam de petra in suam carnem sanguinem conuertere praeualuit c. as therefore a little before he suffered he could change the substance of bread and the creature of wine into his proper body which was to suffer and into his bloud which was extant to be after shed Soe in the desert he was able to change manna and water into his owne flesh and bloud c. Where he sheweth plainely a conuersion of bread and wine into that owne body of Christ and bloud which was a little after to suffer and be shed which is nothing more then that which we call transubstantiation And out of this as a certaine truth he gathereth that Christ had also the power to turne manna and water into his body and bloud as well as bread and wine And soe it is in reguard of the power it is all one but in reguard that Christ was not then in being according to his humane nature the manna could not be changed into his body and water into his bloud Which place as plaine as it is it is a strange and almost incredible thing to see how D. Vsher which I onely note by the way for my quarrel heere is not soe properly against him doth peruert by his interpretation For thus hee putteth the English in the text So he turned through inuisible vertue the bread to his owne body and that wine to his bloud as he before did in the wildernesse before that he was borne to men when he turned that heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to his bloud Wherein there is scarce one word truly translated which I will not stand to shew particularly but not onely the maine corruption that whereas Aelfricke saith that as Christ was able to turne the bread and wine soe he was able to turne the manna and water This man turneth it quite contrary that as hee turned the manna and water soe he turned the bread and wine which is a foule corruption But D. Vsher I heare is sufficiently answeared and his corruptions laid open to the world if the books might be as freely printed and sold as his But therein they haue the aduantage of vs Catholiques that they haue free vse of libraries and prints and publique allowance for the sale All which we want and therefore noe meruaile if books be not answeared as freely as they are written But this is but by the way 10. Now then if thus much may be said out of what D. Vsher picketh out for his owne purpose what may a man thinke might be said if a man saw the author himselfe who though he were printed in London as Sir Humphrey noteth 1623. yet is he not now to be heard of But as I was saying all this sheweth this Aelfricke to haue beene a Catholique and that his doctrine was none other then the Doctrine of the Catholique Church at this day Wherefore Sir Knight Campian's saying which you account a vaine flourish standes good still that you cannot espy soe much as one towne one village one howse for 1500. yeares that sauoured of your Doctrine and should still be true though you might find some one man or two or more that did agree with you in your Berengarian haeresy though alsoe one man doe not make either towne Village or howse For your faith doth not consist of
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
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
doctrines 3. For traditions adoration of images Saints c. all is answeared before Soe likewise his Communion in both kind and merit of good works But for that which he saith that he acknowledgeth vniuersality of nations and people not to be a marke of his Church I cannot but wonder at it For what is this but euen in plaine termes to confesse his Church not to be the Church of Christ Isa 2. Isay the Prophet describing the Church vnder the type of a mountaine saith that all nations shall flow vnto it Psal 71. Psal 2. The Prophet Dauid describing the Kingdome of Christ saith that he shall beare sway from sea to sea Dan. 2.3 ◠that God will giue him nations for his inhaeritance and the bounds of the Earth for his possession Apoc. 7 9◠Daniel describeth the Kingdome of Christ like a mountaine growing from a little stone and filling the whole earth S. Iohn seeth a multitude which noe man could reckon of all nations and tribes and people and tongues this being also the thing wherein the Church of Christ is specially distinguished from the Synagogue of the Iewes that that pertained but to one nation this to all the nations of the earth and all the Fathers proclaime nothing more particularly S. Augustine in a whole booke of this argument against the Donatists And a Knight to come and tell vs he doth not account this as a marke of his Church What is this but in plaine termes to acknowledge that his Church is not the Church of Christ Beside I would know what he hath meant all this while by Vniuersality which he hath laboured to proue to belong to his Doctrine the principal thing vnderstood by Vniuersality when we take it for a note of the Church is the Vniuersality of place to wit Mar. 16.15 diuers kingdomes and countries as it is vsed by our Sauiour himself euntes in mundum vniuersum praedicate euangelium omni creaturae and now in denying this marke to belong to his Church doth he not deny it to belong to his doctrine for how can that doctrine be vniuersal that is taught by a few and in a corner of the world and in acknowledging his Church not to be vniuersal doth he not acknowledge it not to be Catholique for is not Catholique and vniuersal all one as all men know in this word then he hath graunted enough to ouerthrow all that euer he hath said or can say of his Church 4. But now to come to the matter which he purposeth in this section which is to answeare our argument that it is safer for a man to take the way of the Catholique Church then the Protestant because euen Protestants agree with Catholiques in this that they may be saued in their religion and Catholiques deny that Protestants can be saued this argument the Knight denieth being sory for his part that a charitable opinion on the Protestants part should giue any Romanist occasion to liue and dye in the bosome of that Church therefore he interpreteth that saying to be meant onely of such as by inuincible ignorance resigne their eysight to their Priests Pastours which men if they hold the articles of Christian beleife without opposition to any ground of religion and liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church such men he saith liuing Papists and dying Protestants in the principal foundation of Faith may find mercy because they did it ignorantly But such Papists he saith as liue in States and Kingdomes where they may come to knowledge of the truth and will not these men dye in their sinnes though yet againe he a little temper the rigour of this doome in saying he will not iudge their persons though he pronounce their doctrine soe damnable as that if he had 10000. soules he would not venture one of them in the Romane Faith and Church For which he taketh God and his holy Angels to witnesse and then concludeth very pathetically thus Farr be it from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points in controuersy betwixt them and vs to be of an inferiour alloy as that a man may resolue this way or that without perill of his saluation And then tells vs the fresh bleeding wounds and sufferings of holy men and Martyrs in his Church doe sufficiently witnesse the great danger in our religion and difference betwixt vs and that we may know that the best learned of his Church were farr from graunting saluation to any Papist liuing and dying in the profession of the now Romane Faith he bringeth a saying of Whitaker who would haue vs take it vpon his word that in heauen there is not one Iesuit nor one Papist to be found this is the Knight's whole discourse in the second part of his section 5. Whereby vpon examination it will appeare hee is as well redd in his owne authors as in our Schoolmen and Fathers And to beginne with him he is sorry the Protestants charitable opiniō should giue any man encouradgment to dye a Papist But by his leaue this opinion doth not proceede from charity but from euidence of truth as all testimony from an enemy doth But whether it be charity or not this Knight will none of this charity and therefore he saith that this is meant onely of some ignorant people whose ignorance may excuse them but yet euen these men though they liue Papists they must dye Protestants in the principall foundation of that Faith This is good stuffe Papists may be saued in their religion but yet they must dye Protestants very right Sir Humphrey where haue you learned this theology that a man may be saued in one religion yet soe as he must dye in another this is a new conceit neuer heard of before that a man may bee saued in a religion but soe as not to dye of it and heere a man might aske at great many pretty questions as what foundation of Faith that is that they must dye in what articles of Apostolique and Christian beleife what grounds these are that may not be opposed all these had beene necessary things to be expressed in such a singular treatise as this of yours which must forsooth beare the name of a SAFE WAY leading men to true Faith And why also a man that holdeth the Apostles Creede and other things common to Catholiques and Protestants not forsaking the Catholique church and indeed not knowing any thing els for heere you speake of a Catholique in a Catholique countrey where it is to be supposed the name of a Protestant or other heretique is vnknowne why I say such a man should be said to dye a Protestant in the principal points of his faith I see not For why doth the Apostles Creede belong more to you then to vs had we it from you or you from vs nay if I would stand vpon it I could shew you not to beleiue a right in any one article thereof Whereof he that listeth to know more
owne authors and why may not he doe the like to vs for the reason is cleane different They haue noe publique authority which can define what is Faith and what not but that is left not onely to euery priuate Doctour or Minister but to euery priuate Lay man and Woman And though it be true that it is noe conuincing proofe to vrge one particular Protestant Doctor 's authority against another there being not two among them of one opinion wholy much lesse one bound to answeare for the other Yet we are faine and may with good reason vse it because they haue noe certaine rule of Faith wherewith we may vrge them Authority of Church they haue none Scripture they haue indeede but soe mangled corrupted peruerted by translation and misinterpreted according to their owne fancies that as they haue it it is as good as nothing Traditions they haue none Councels they haue not any among themselues nor will stand to ours Consent of Fathers or Schoolemen they care not for Consent of Doctors they haue not among themselues nor can haue without an heade neyther if they had would any man thinke himself more bound by that then by consent of Fathers what then is left but to vrge them with the authority of such as they acknowledge for their brethren But with vs the case is farre different for we haue diuers infallible rules of faith though all with some reference to one principal rule As Scripture in the plaine and literal sense which is out of controuersy tradition or common beleefe and practize of the whole Church Councels either general or particular confirmed by the See Apostolique the authority of that Holy See it self defining ex cathedra though without either generall or particular Councel the common and vniforme Consent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoolemen deliuering any thing vnto vs as Matter of Faith 15. All these six rules of faith we acknowledge wherewith let this Knight or any Protestant in the world vrge vs we flinch not wee doe not deny the authority but are ready to make good whatsoeuer is taught anie of these wayes What folly then is it for a man to stand vrging vs with the authority of any one priuate man who may straggle out from the rest though to goe farther then we neede in such great liberty as wee giue Protestants wee giue them leaue to vrge vs with the authority of any one single Doctour in a point wherein hee is not contradicted by other Catholique Doctours or which other Catholiques doe not wholy disauow What more can a man desire And yet againe though the Knight or any other Protestant should bring such a single author for his opinion yet is there such a maine difference betweene him and them that noe Protestant can iustly pleade that single Catholique author to be wholy of his opinion or beleife in that point to say nothing of others wherein they differ For the Protestant holdeth his doctrine stifly not meaning in any case or for any authority to change or leaue it which is it that that maketh a man properly an Haeretique Whereas the Catholique euer holdeth it with indifferency ready to leaue it whensoeuer the Catholique Church shall determine otherwise Which if Sir Humphrey will be but content to doe wee will beare with all his errours because then they will be soone amended What little helpe then is hee like to haue from Catholique authors or what likelyhoode is there for him to make good his paradoxes or rather his most absurd heresies out of our owne Cardinals Bishops Doctors Schoolemen c. whom he putteth all in the plural number as if the number were to bee very great Whereas God knoweth they come very poore and single as shall appeare and some bee Cardinals of his owne creating only as I shall after shew but this hee doth for credit of his cause though it bee with losse of his owne 16. And all this which heere I say is to bee vnderstood supposing that indeede he cite Catholique authors and cite them truely as heere hee promiseth which promise for as much as concerneth true citing how hee performeth I shall afterwards make manifest heere onely I shall adde a word concerning his authors who he promiseth vs shal bee Catholiques Whereas indeede for the most part they are either knowne Haeretiques or some such men as though with much adoe they may passe for Catholiques as Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Cassander and the like yet they gaue themselues soe much liberty in they writings as they came to bee noted for it and their works forbidden Of which I will not therefore make any account as noe other Catholique doth But when I come to such authorityes as there be many in this booke I meane to make noe other answeare but that the author is condemned or booke forbidden in the index librorum prohibitorum the table of forbidden bookes Wherein I cannot but note Sir Humphrey's ill fauoured and dishonest dealing in pretending to cite only our owne Doctors and Schoolemen and yet afterwards obtruding such as he knoweth to bee subiect to soe mayne exception and soe to bee by vs disauowed and reiected as incompetent Iudges or witnesses 17. But there is noe other to bee expected at such a man's hands and therefore I will neyther looke for better nor say more of it but by this occasion adde a word or two concerning the Index expurgatorius which soe much troubleth the consciences of these men Which being rightly vnderstood noe man of reason and iudgment can be offended with it For it is nothing but a continuance of the same care which hath beene euer obserued in the Church of God for preseruing of the Catholique fayth and integrity of life from the corruption of Haeretiques and other wicked men who by bookes bring great preiudice both to Faith and manners vnlesse special care be vsed for praeuenting thereof Of the necessity and iustnes of which course there be whole books written by diuers learned Catholique Doctors neyther can any body dislike thereof but onely Haeretiques who indeede find themselues mightily aggreiued therewith as being by this course depriued of a chiefe meanes of spreading their wicked doctrine by books though indeede they haue noe more cause to complaine then Necromancers Iudiciary Astrologers Southsayers Witches Magicians and euen bad Catholiques who publish naughty and lasciuious books for this care of the Church doth extend to all whatsoeuer may be offensiue or hurtfull eyther to faith or good manners 18. But because Sir Humphrey will needs haue it that the bible is also forbidden and the Father's writings appointed to bee corrected and rased I answeare that for the Bible indeede it is not permitted in the vulgar language to euery body without any reguard or distinction of persons as it neuer was nor ought to bee as is well proued by authority of Fathers and reason in the preface of the Rhemes testament But yet it is not soe forbidden but that it
Gentiles doe Doth not this answeare you Sir Humphrey Doe you not heere find a difference betweene that worshipp and ours betweene idolatry and religion betweene their adoring the creature of wood and colour in place of the creator and our adoring the creator represented by the creature betweene their adoration of idolatrous damned Philosophers and our worshipp of the blessed Saints and Seruants of God liuing with him in glory This is too too grosse for such a subtile knight as you are Now for proofe of your doctrine by Succession from the 2. commandement it is ridiculous to call it Succession though you tooke the place of scripture in the true sense as you doe not For how doth your doctrine succeede the commandement a man may proue his doctrine out of scripture but not deriue the Succession thereof out of that proofe For this Commandment it is neither the second but an explication of the first nor is it truely translated for there is not the word Image in that place of scripture 9. A fift point is Communion in one kind which hee saith wee haue from the Manichees and from the Nazarites who it is not like as Bellarmine saith did drinke of the Chalice against their Vow nor yet like that they did wholy abstaine from the Communion Out of which hee gathereth that they did communicate in one kinde onely And heere saith the Knight is their best Succession from Haeretiques and an vncertaine example of the Nazarites Whereas his doctrine he saith is taught by Christ himself Drinke yee all of this This is the Knight's discourse But to answeare him I say that before euer there was Manichee in the world the B. Sacrament was administred sometymes in one kind sometymes in both The Manichees abstained indeede from receiuing the chalice out of one haeretical principle as now our Haeretiques stand to haue it for another like principle against which as in that tyme the Church forbad the vse of one kind soe now it forbiddeth the vse of both kinds and may againe giue way when it shall seeme conuenient for the vse of both kinds the doctrine euer remayning the same as vpon another occasion I said before For that word of our Sauiour Drinke yee all of this from whence the Knight draweth the Succession of his doctrine it was spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests not to the Layity Of which I shall haue occasion to speake againe afterwards 10. But to come to an end of this matter the Knight draweth our inuocation of Saints and Angels from the Angelici our Works of Supererogation from the Cathari our Worship of the B. Virgin from the Collyridians our Forbidding Priests to marry from Tatianus and the Manichees who he saith Forbad it in their Priests Putting downe the Latine words in Sacerdotibus As if those special words were in S. Epiphanius whom hee citeth But this serueth for nothing V. Gual chron but to shew the man's shamelesnesse more and more For the Angelici they were Heretiques swaruing from the rule of the Catholique faith by excesse that is honouring Angels more then their dew or more then creatures as Heretiques of these tyme doe by defect that is not honouring them soe much as is dew nor as creatures specially honoured imployed by God for the good of mankind The Cathari or Puritans as he interpreteth the word himself a man would thinke should belong more to him that is either a Puritane or a Brother or at least a Reformer then to vs Catholiques But the Cathari were Noâ—atians who out of pride and self conceit as if they were more cleane and holy did condemne Catholiques for admitting men to pennance though they sinned neuer soe often soe grieuously whereas they Saints forsooth if a man did for feare deny his faith they would haue nothing to doe with him any more Now what is in this like our works of Supererogation that is works which a man is not bound vnto The Collyridians exceeded the measure of honour dew to our B. Lady for they did offer sacrifice vnto her as the Antidico Marianitae did erre contrarily denying her dew honour whom the Knight did forbeare to name lest he might seeme to name his owne sect Now Catholiques goe in the midle they doe not offer sacrifice vnto her that honour being dew to God alone but they giue her all the honour that can belong to a pure creature Tatianus and the Manichees disallowed all marriage but that they did disallow it specially in Priests I doe not find in Epiphanius as the Knight would make men beleeue by putting the words in Sacerdotibus in Latine and in a distinct letter Though indeede it be lesse allowable in Priests then in other men 11. It being then soe that of these haeresies which heere the Knight reckoneth whereof he would make vs guilty there is not one of them that any way coÌ„cerneth vs but rather as a man might easily proue that he his Church are guilty of almost all of them how vainely and fondly doth hee conclude this Section by saying these and the like errours taught in the church of Rome are either lineally descended from the aforesaid Haeretiques or at least haue neere affinity with them how vaine I say and fond is this saying of his how neere they come any man may iudge by what I haue heere said as also of the linealnes of the discent of our Doctrines from former Haeretiques or of his from the Apostles For whereas the line should be drawne along by a continued Succession from the beginning to the end hee nameth sometymes one onely man or tyme for the whole 1500. yeares sometymes not soe much as one man but onely a bare place of scripture corrupted or misinterpreted Which what Succession it may make let any indifferent man be iudge Wherein it seemeth the very guiltines of his owne conscience doth make him misdoubt a little that he hath not sufficiently performed his promise as may bee gathered out of these words of his If I haue failed in calculating the right natiuity of their ancient doctrine c. but for all that he saith he is sure that wee are vtterly destitute of a right Succession in person and Doctrine from the Apostles and ancient Fathers as hee saith shall appeare by many testimonies of the best learned among vs. But the knight hath soe ill performed his promises past that hee cannot looke any man should giue him credit for those that are to come And for that which hee is sure of that we haue noe Succession in person and doctrine that is soe false and soe apparantly false as that it is not to bee doubted but he that shall auerre it will make noe scruple of any lye how lowd soeuer For doe not our catalogues of Popes sold and printed in London testify the contrary for Succession in person what clearer testimony can there be in the world of personal Succession then to haue two hundred and odd
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
Ghospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of the Church then the bare words of scripture and proueth it by this that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and vse of the Church noe man can be able to proue that any Priest now in these tymes doth consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Masse that is Masse in these tymes Not saith hee that this matter is now doubtfull but that the certainty thereof is had not soe much out of the words of the Ghospel as of the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of soe long tyme which they haue left to posterity For saith hee againe though Christ of bread made his body and of wine his bloud it doth not follow by force of any woord there sett downe that wee as often as wee shal attempt any such thing shall doe it which vnlesse it bee soe said we cannot hee certaine thereof These are his very words where you see how together he deliuereth two points of Catholique doctrine the one of the real presence the other of tradition for vnderstanding of the Scriptures Neither doth he say that the reall presence in our Masse now a dayes is not proued out of Scripture but not out of it alone without the interpretatioÌ„ of the Fathers which wee acknowledge generally necessary in the exposition of Scriptures neither doe you therefore rightly argue the real presence is not proued soe much out of the bare words of Scripture as out of the interpretation of Fathers and Tradition of the Church ergo not out of scripture This I say is an idle argument For the Father's interpretation Tradition of the Church Doth but deliuer vs the sense of the Scripture 17. What then haue you heere out of Bishop Fisher to proue any of your 4. points not one word For if his words did proue any thing they should proue against the real presence not against transubstantiation which is your coÌ„trouersy And for those other words which you bring out of this same holy Bishop and Martyr for a conclusion thus non potest igitur per vllam Scripturam probari it cannot bee proued by any scripture they discouer your dishonesty most of all For by breaking of the sentence there you would make your Reader beleeue they had relation to the words next before by you cited as if the Bishop did say that it could not bee proued by any scripture that Christ is really present in our Masse whereas there is a whole leafe betweene these two places but the onely bare recital of the Bishops words shall serue for a coÌ„futation which are these Non potest igitur per vllam ScripturaÌ„ probari quod aut Laicus aut Sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguineÌ„ atque Christus ipse confecit quum necâ—stud in scripturis contineatur It cannot therefore bee proued by any Scripture that either Lay man or Priest as often as hee shall goe about that busynes shall in like manner of bread and wine make the body and bloud of Christ as Christ himselfe did seeing that neither that is contained in Scriptures By which it is plaine that his drift is onely to proue that there is noe expresse words in scripture whereby it is promised that either Priest or Lay man shall haue power to coÌ„secrate that though Christ did himself coÌ„secrate coÌ„manded his Apostles soe to doe in remeÌ„brance of him that yet he did not adde any expresse promise that the same effect should alwaies follow wheÌ„soeuer any man should offer to consecrate Which is not against vs. For we gather that power to pertaine to the Apostles Successors in Priesthood out of the words Concil Trid. Sess 22. q. 1. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem not barely but as they haue beene euer vnderstood by the Church which is so farre from being against vs that wee might rather vrge it against you vpon the same occasion that Bishop Fisher doth to wit for proofe of the necessity of traditions and authority of the Church for vnderstanding of scriptures And soe by this it is manifest how much you haue abused this holy Bishop's meaning as you doe other two Bishops that follow 18. The one is Gul. Durandus Bishop of Maunde out of whom it seemeth you would proue the words This is my body not to bee of the essence of this Sacrament For what els you would haue with him I see not but specially because hauing cited him thus in English Christ blessed the bread by his heauenly benediction and by vertue of that word the bread was turned vnto the substance of Christ's body Then you putt these words in Latine tunc confecit cum benedixit them he made it when hee blessed it Whereby you seeme to put the force of this testimony in those words as if by them you would proue out of Durandus that Christ did not consecrate by the words this is my body but by that blessing But Durand himself shall disproue you Sir Knight For thus he saith Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua conuertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM He blessed it by the heauenly blessing and power of the word by which the bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ Durand rat cap. 41. n. 14. to wit THIS IS MY BODY Hoc est corpus meum Which last words I would gladly know Sir Humphrey why you cut of but I neede not aske for any man may see it was because you would not haue that powerful benediction whereof this authors speaketh to consist in those sacred words but Durand both in this very senteÌ„ce and often in the same place attributeth most plainely that power to those very words not to any other blessing as may appeare in that he saith that wee doe blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis By that power which Christ hath giuen to the words 19. Odo Caemeracensis is the other Bishop that followeth whom for the same purpose you cite and as much to the purpose his words are these as you bring them Christ blessed the bread and then made that his body which was first bread and soe by blessing it became flesh for otherwise hee would not haue said after he had blessed it this is my body vnlesse by blessing it he had made it his body Which words you putt in the margent in Latine imperfectly and translate euen them corruptly Benedixit suum corpus You translate Christ blessed bread qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro which in true English is thus That which was bread before by blessing is made flesh You translate otherwise as may appeare by your words though I see not to what end you should soe
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
say you to this Sir Humphrey haue I not iust cause heere to tell you your owne but I forbeare you 23. Extreame vnction is next of which you tell vs that Bellarmine saith that that anoyling which the Apostles vsed Mar. 6. was not Extreame vnctiō that Caietane saith the same of the anoyling which S. Iames speaketh of p. Iacq 5. Likewise of Hugo Peter Lombard Bonauenture Altisiodorensis You say that they held it was not instituted by Christ Well what of all this be it soe that one thinke it not to bee mētioned in S. Marke another not in S. Iames others not to haue beene instituted by Christ What then Doth therefore any one of all these deny it to be a Sacrament nay doe they not all say and maintaine the cōtrary most expresly which is more do not you your self out of your freind Cassander acknowledge that in Peter Lombard's tyme the number of seauen Sacraments was determined though not before as out of the same Cassander you wisely say For Hugo Vict. as I shewed before determines the number of seauen Sacramēts somewhat before Peter Lombard's tyme but to lett that goe if in Peter Lombard's tyme there were seauen Sacraments acknowledged then was Extreame vnction one But you will say that out of that which those 5. anciēt Diuines say to wit that it was not instituted by Christ it followeth that it is noe Sacrament I answeare had you liued in their tymes they would haue denied your consequence But had they liued now in yours they would haue said that Christ did institute it For that is now defined which then was not soe for them you are answeared Now for Bellarmine he saith well it is not deduced out of that place of S. Marke what then out of noe place els or if out of noe place els but by tradition should it bee noe Sacrament What argumēts are these Sir Knight to cōuince a Catholique or any man of learning withall but Catetan you tell vs saith it is not that which S. Iames speaketh of what then Suppose he say well and truely Doth he therefore say it is noe Sacrament noe surely noe more then he denied the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be the true body bloud of Christ though hee thaught the real presēce not to be sufficiently proued out of the very words of Consecration without the interpretation of the Church but as both in one and other he did erre for as much as pertaines to the proofe of those articles out of scripture which is not soe much the matter betweene you and vs soe did he not erre for the things themselues But had he liued to see this sense of the scripture declared and this verity of Extreame vnction defined out of hat place of S. Iames by the interpretation of the Councel of Trent Conc. Trid Sess 14. de extr vnct c. 1. he would haue submitted his iudgment 24. As for the Sacrament of Order you say that Soto telleth vs that Ordination of Bishops is not cruely and properly a Sacrament Well be it soe let Soto say soe Doth he deny the Sacramēt of Order in the Church others deny the fower lesser orders to be Sacraments and some deny Sub-deaconship to be soe what then Doe they deny the Sacrament of Order in the Church to be properly and truely a Sacrament as you doe this is boyes play Sir Humphrey There is a question among Catholiques concerning the Episcopal power and character whither as it is distinct from Priesthoode it be a Sacrament of it self whether there be a new character or the same extended and the like some say I some say noe what is this to you it is not matter of faith whereof wee are not to dispute with you but keepe you off at the staffes end or rather out of doores When you are once receiued into the Catholique Church we may admit you to speake of a Schoole point not till then 25. Lastly about Matrimony you make much adoe First you tell vs Durand denieth it to bee a Sacrament strictly and properly To which I answeare that he saith indeede it is not a Sacrament vniuocally agreeing with the other six which cometh much to one with what you say neyther wil I stand with you for a small matter but looke in Bell. for answeare Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 5. who handleth that matter of Durand largely lib. 1. de Matr. c. 5. I onely say briefly that all acknowledge an errour in him Diuines of his owne tyme did note it for such though then the matter were not soe clearely defined Secondly you say Caietan saith the prudent Reader cannot inferre out of the words of S. Paul Eph. 5. Sacramentum hoc magnum est that Matrimony is a Sacrament he doth not be it so Neither doe we inferre it vpon that word Sacramentum but doth Caietan deny it to be a Sacrament because it is not inferred from that word Noe surely What then doe you bring him for though it be not inferred from this place may it not be inferred from another or if neither from this nor tother may it not bee deduced out of Tradition Thirdly you say that for a conclusion our owne Canus telleth vs that the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that he should bee accounted a foole who in soe great difference of opinions would take vpon him to establish a certaine and knowne doctrine Canus saith rem aliquam certam Which you translate a certaine and knowne doctrine Which you might as well and as easily haue translated any thing certaine and more truely though this bee but a smal matter to stand vpon onely I note it because I see your drift is from the diuersity of opinions which is among Catholique Diuines in assigning the matter and forme of Matrimony wherein Canus saith it were a foolish thing for a man to take vpon him to determine any thing for certaine and cleare Your drift I say is to make your Reader beleeue that Canus saith the doctrine of Matrimony's being a Sacrament or not is vncertaine and vnknowne but this is but one of your ordinary trickes Well to come to Canus He saith true that there is difference among Diuines concerning the matter and forme of this Sacramēt but he himself maketh the chieffe difference by bringing V. Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 7. in a new and singular opinion of his owne By which he saith that the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme of this Sacrament and consequently that if there be a Marriage made without a Priest it is noe Sacrament in his opinion But whither it be true that you Sir knight would make vs thinke that in his iudgment Matrimony is noe Sacrament he shall beare witnesse himself Can. loc lib. 8. cap. 5. Siue nostra opinio vera sit siue falsa nihil moror Si Lutherani de hoc matrimoniorū genere disceptare voluerint intelligant
conueniret sub vtraque specie fieri communionem quam sub altera tantum hoc enim magis consonum est eius institutioni integritati refectioni corporali exemplo Christi c. that is If wee reguard the Sacrament and the perfection thereof it were more conuenient to haue the communion vnder both kinds then vnder one For this is more agreeable to the institution thereof and the integrity and corporal resection and the example of Christ c. Where first you leaue out in your English translation those words habito respectu ad Sacramentum though you put them in Latine in the margent Which words are the life of the sentence and plainely shew that Tapper doth not speake of the conueniency absolutely and all things considered but in some respect to wit in respect of the Sacrament or in respect of the signification of our Sauiour's passion which is more expresse in both kinds then in one in respect of the institutioÌ„ which was in both in respect of the integrity because as the Diuines say both the Species are partes integrantes as two peeces of bread in one loafe though both together haue noe more essential perfection then one alone And in respect of corporal refectioÌ„ which as it requireth meate and drinke soe the spiritual refection is more expresly signified by both though noe lesse effectually performed by one Soe that this while Tapper speaketh not of the absolute conuenieÌ„cy but onely in some respects wherein I appeale to the Reader whether you haue kept your promise of not wilfully or wittingly mis-citing or mistranslating any author For heere it appeareth how you haue mis-traÌ„slated leauing out as a maÌ„ may say the principal verbe which shall yet more appeare by that which followeth immediatly in the same author which is this Alia tamen consideratione reuerentia vz. Quae huic Sacramento dbetur vtque in eius vsu vitemus omneâ—â—â—reuerentiaÌ„ minus conuenit atque etiam malun est nulloque modâ— expediens ecclesiae vt populus Christianus sub vtraque specie communicaret Bâ—â— in another consideration to wit of the reuerence which is dew to this Sacrament and to the end we may auoid all irreuerence it is lesse conuenient and euen it is ill and noe way expedient for the Church that the Christian people should communicate vnder both kinds Loe you Sir Humphrey was it honestly done of you to leaue out this being the other halfe of the sentence answearing to the former which of it selfe was imperfect and which was the authors absolute iudgment and determination Can any man euer giue you credit more but because Sir I will not leaue any scruple in any mans minde concerning this authors meaning and that by the perfection and integrity which he spoke of in the former part of the senteÌ„ce he did not meane the want of any spiritual fruite I will adde one word more out of him which is this In omissione calicis nulluÌ„ interuenit peccatum aut periculum nec aliquod gratiae spiritualis iactum in the omitting or leauing of the Chalice there is noe sinne or daÌ„ger or losse of any spirituall grace What could hee say or we desire more 10. Wherefore to come to your coÌ„clusion which you draw out of that that because many Fathers and learned men doe agree in saying that the Communion in both kinds was most frequent in the Primitiue Church therefore they giue testimony of your doctrine it is most foolish for we also agree with them in the former and yet deny your doctrine which is that all men are bound to receiue in both kinds consequently that it is not lawfull for theÌ„ to receiue it in one kind and that soe to receiue it is to receiue but an half Communion and such like absurdityes This is your doctrine for proofe whereof you haue not brought one word out of any author but brought some that say absolutely and expresly the contrary as Val. Tapper Bell. c. Nay what will you say if a man shall shew you out of your owne statute Lawes made now in this your tyme of Reformation some approbatioÌ„ or allowance of the CommunioÌ„ in one kind 1. Edw. 6. cap. 1. which is the thing you exclaime soe against vs for See in the Lawes of K. Edw. 6. reuiued and coÌ„firmed by Q. Elizabeth whether they doe not say onely that the CoÌ„munion is to bee commonly deliuered ministred to the people vnder both kinds 1. Eliz. ca. 1. vith this exception also vnlesse necessity otherwise require Looke you Sir Humphrey is it not heere allowed vpon necessity though the necessity be not expressed what or how great it must be but hence it followeth that if particular necessity may excuse in a particular case if the necessity shall proue great vniuersal it may be also sufficient for abstayning from one kind vniuersally or generally and howsoeuer it sheweth Communion in both kinds not to bee so strictly commanded by Christ For if it were noe necessity could excuse it in one Kind 11. And soe this might serue for this matter but that I am loth to lett passe a worthy saying of yours in the very end of this § Which is this And as coÌ„cerning the halfe Communion which is receiued in the Romane Church for an article of faith as it wants antiquity and consent of Fathers by their owne confession soe likewise it wants a right foundation in the Scriptures which an article of Faith ought to haue Thus you where with your worships good leaue a man may tell you you haue as many faults as words we teach all the coÌ„trary to wit that it is not halfe communion but that Christ is receiued whole and entire and a true Sacrament and as much spiritual fruit necessary to saluation in one kind as both as the Councel of Trent by your confession defineth We say it neither wanteth antiquity nor consent of Fathers as you may see in Bellarmine and many others We say it doth not want a right foundation in the Scriptures for as I said before we proue it out of the scriptures V. Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. both of the old new testament the doctrine and example of our Sauiour And his Apostles expressed in scripture Wee say also to conclude therewith that it is most false of all which you take euery where for a very truth as if it were agreed vpon on all sides to wit that an article of faith must haue sufficient and expresse proofe of scripture Whereas the cleane contrary is truth and as generally concluded among all Diuines and Fathers as you boldly affirme yours which assertion therefore of yours I heere absolutely deny once for all and though I neede not stand prouing it being euery where in all our authors yet for the Readers sake I will cite one place of S. Ierome coming first to my memory who hauing proued a point of faith against the Luciferian Haeretiques out of
We command that all the figures of the crosse that are made vpon pauements be taken away or defaced to the end that the triumphant Signe of our Victory be not vnworthily defiled by mens feete And the very title of the Imperial Law is this Nemini licere signum Saluatoris Christi humi vel in Silice vel in marmore aut insculpere aut pingere That it is not lawful for any man to paint the signe of or Sauiour vpon the groūd in flint or marble Now your leauing out the two words humi in solo vpon the ground is it not a manifest corruption both of the words and meaning of the Law but which is more this was a corruption of which Plessy Mourney was conuinced by the Bishop of Eureux in that publique assembly of France And he labouring to excuse himselfe as perhapps you will doe said that he did not looke in the law it selfe but had it out of one Petrus Crinitus whom you also cite heere for author which was shame enough for him and will bee for you also professing soe much Schollership as euen to write bookes and yet not to be able to take such an authority out of the original but borrow it of another or take it vpon trust in a matter of such moment but withall it was vrged against him that Crinitus had beene noted by diuers learned men to be but a bold and rash Gramarian of later tymes Soe as Plessys was foiled on all sides not knowing which way to turne himselfe And Suthcliffe after him againe vndertaking the defence of the same cause was worse foiled yet after all this Sir Hum. you are not ashamed to take vp this notorious corruption againe vent it to the world as if it had neuer beene excepted against but were soe authentical and good soe free from exception as nothing could bee more May not you then beare away the bell from all lying and corrupting fellowes that haue euer gone before you where is your great promise of sincerity nay where is your shame but I say noe more this is enough I suppose Now by this any man may see whither I haue not discharged my selfe of my promise and whither I may not henceforward when I take you tripping tell you you Lind it 15. Hauing then thus notoriously discouered your falshood Sir Humphrey I hope it will not be hard to persuade the Reader the same in other places heereafter which I must passe ouer more briefly for it wil be to long to stand vpon all there being not that place in the whole booke that is not either falsely or impertinently alleadged But to goe on with you you say you forbeare to cite the particular Fathers that opposed and condemned the worship of images in the Primitiue Church onely you will make it appeare by the confession of our learned Romanists that we want Visibility of the ancient Church You forbeare to cite the particular Fathers Sir Humphrey I cannot blame you there is good cause why to wit because you cannot for if you could it had beene as easy a matter to haue cited one Father or two as 8. or 10. obscure and vnknowne authours filling two whole leaues with their authorityes partly false and partly impertinent as I shall shew but what Romanists are these trow you whose confessions you bring you haue 10. authours whereof there bee onely two free from exception V. Bell. de scrip verb. Hincmarus Rhemansis to wit Agobardus and Peresius who are not against vs. Hincmarus is a Catholique indeede but that place by you cited is noted of manifest errour not in matter of Doctrine but in matter of fact which he relateth of the Councel of Francfort falsely being mistaken as our authours shew and as I shall after declare more See Exam of Fox his Calender Nicolaus Clemangis and Polydor Virgil his worke by you cited marked in the Romane Index though I shall shew you to abuse Polydore egregiously besids Clemangis himself is a Wickleffian haeretique Cassāder Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Wicelius euery man knoweth what goodly and learned Romanists they are and of what account The last of your Romanists is Chemnitius in his Examen of the Councel of Trent as good a Romanist as your selfe who telleth vs it is not to be found that any of the Patriarches and Prophets for Fathers did adore images but that the scriptures cry out to worship one God him onely to adore and glorify and that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did forbid the adoration of Images as he saith appeares by Epiphanius and Augustine who reckon the Worshippers of images among the Symonians and the Carpocratian Haeretiques Wherein you are also pleased to shew vs a tricke of your witt for in the text you put these words the Councel of Francfort in the beginning as you doe your other authours as if the text following against Images were the very words of the Councel but in the margent you putt Chemnitius which is wicked dealing to make the lesse careful Reader fall into error by taking the Haeretiques words for the words of the Councel whereas the Councel hath not one word of that that is there sett downe nor indeede at all of images all that we haue is by relation of some histories whereof 3. or 4. haue erred in the relation of a matter of fact concerning the same Councels condemning the 2. Councel of Nice as is most manifest not onely by contrary authorityes of greater weight but by the very contradiction which out of ignorance they shew in their owne narration for they say that the false Councel of Constantinople vnder Constantine and Irene was condemned at Francfort Which is manifestly false there hauing neuer beene any such Councel at Constantinople in their two tymes Binius in annot ad Conc. Francfor 794. but because this requireth a longer dispute I turne you Sir Humphrey to Binius Bell and others with them Onely heere I tell you that whereas you bring Hincmarus his authority and the Councel of Francfords out of Chemnitius Bellarmine sheweth by testimony of the same Hincmarus the Magdeburgian's Lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 14. and other your awne authors that that very Councel did say Anathema to all such as deface images is not this then abhominable falsehood in your freind Chemnitius to cite nay forge it against images in you follow him in it 16. Polydore Virgil shal be next out of whom you say Poly. Vir. de rerum inuentor lib. 6. cap. 13. The worshipping of images not onely those who knew not our religion but as S. Hierome witnesseth almost all the anciēt Fathers condemned for feare of idolatry This place was brought by Dr. White in his reply to Mr. Fisher's 9. points and soe answeared againe in the Reioynder to his reply as if you Sir Humphrey had had any reguard to Dr. Whites credit you would neuer haue giuen occasion to renew the memory thereof againe The
recordandum non ad colendum The ancients had the pictures of Saints painted or carued for history to remember not to bee worshipped this it may be is it you would be at but I answeare that both these and those of yours if there be any such are to be vnderstood in the sense of his whole discourse to wit that there is noe example in the Scriptures or Fathers of such idolatrial adoratiō as he speaketh against there which is true Which to be his meaning I shall by and by demōstrate more plainely Now for the last words to wit that images ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight not to instruct the people I doe not also find them but these Aspiciamus picturam quasi pictura sensu ratione carentem pascatur hac visione oculus Deū vero veneretur animus Let vs behold the picture as a picture wanting sense reason Let the eye be sedd which this sight but let the minde worship God which is very true Catholique doctrine for we teach men to make a difference betweene the wood colour of the picture or the picture in it selfe and the thing which is by it represented but heere is not that which you say out of him that images are not to be vsed to instruct the people but the contrary for in the words heere next before cited he saith they are to be vsed for history which is all one as to say for instruction Wherefore I wonder how it should come into your head to father soe fond and senselesse a thing vpon so wise and learned a man soe cōtrary to the light of nature euen to your owne practize For if pictures may not be vsed for instructiō of the people why do your painters drawe the King Prince Lords in the parliament howse the siege of Rochel Berghen op Zoome Bolduc Breda the like but for instructiō reliques of S. Polycarpe and withall he relateth with applause and commendation how the people of Alexandria hauing destroyed their idols and being conuerted to Christ soe great feruour of Christianity inflamed their harts that euery one painted the signe of the Crosse on their posts doores windowes walls pillards and to cōclude telleth of S. Gregory the great how he reprehended the Bishop of Frioly for beating downe out of his Curch the images of the Apostles Peter and Paul in reguard of the superstition of the vulgar sort adoring them contrary to the rule of faith as also for that he did not rather by his authority correct their error letting the pictures stand for the memory of posterity then by indiscreete zeale beate them downe wherein then is Agobardus different from S. Gregory and other Fathers nothing at all but rather his authority ioyned heere together with S. Gregories in the last place may serue for answear to all the rest of your friuolous obiections which you bring to the paragraph of the abuse and danger of images 20. As for the abuse it is not such as you talke of but suppose it were that is to be taken away as the Councel of Trent in it the whole Catholique Church doth teach the good must not For if euery thing should be presētly takē away because it is ill vsed by mē what would become of this world You must therefore learne an axiome of the Law De reg iur n 6. Vtile per inutile non vitiatur the profitable is not vitiated or spoiled by the vnprofitable Separate that which is vnprofitable from the profitable and keepe the later that is the profitable or good Which I dare boldly say is farr better to counsell thē that which you giue to wit that images should be absolutely forbidden till some conditions sett downe by Bellar. or rather by the Councel of Trent for they are the same be performed which as you thinke though falsely are not performed to wit that images be honoured onely for them whom they represent without placing cōfidence in thē or requesting any thing of them or cōceiuing any diuinity in thē For where shall you find soe simple a soule one among 10000. in the Catholique Church that doth not performe the forenamed conditions or if there should be one such silly old woman must the other 10000. be debarred of all that fruite God his Saints of all that honour that cometh by hauing seeing adoring them in their images as we all doe this Councel I say of myne or not myne but of the holy Catholique Church you shal find to be better by the very testimony of Gabriel whom you bring in reprehending the blockishnesse of some people for not obseruing the foresaid conditions in the worshipping of images in his 49. lect which is the place by you cited though you Sir Humph. falsely cite it lect 14. but that may be your printers fault the title whereof is Of the veneration of the most diuine Sacrament of the Eucharist In which he treateth largely of three kinds of worship Latria Hyperdulia and Dulia as our Diuine doe Which he saith belong properly to a rational nature improperly to irrational eyther in reguard of representation or connexion which may haue with the rational or reasonable nature and then reprehending the foolishnesse of some who neither know themselues nor will with humility learne of others the true nature of adoration concludeth at last thus Nec tamen propter hoc imagines proiiciendae sunt c. Neither for this are images to be throwne away or thrust out of oratories by occasion or pretence of auoyding idolatry or pilgrimages to certaine pictures or certaine places either consecrate or not consecrated to be reproued Soe Gabriel which words you could not but see if you saw the other which you cite for they follow immediately and therefore it had beene more honesty for you to haue forborne the citing of the former if you did not meane to cite the later as it seemeth you did not For that which you conclude with comparing vs to Demetrius in the scripture that made a liuing of making siluer shrines for Diana's temple as if we maintained images to bring money to our purses it is Lindinge Sir Humphrey you know my meaning you and such as you that perhaps haue had your shares in pulling downe of images and siluer shrines this last hundred yeares are more like to be drawne with the loue of gaine to the pulling downe of images then we that loose all for maintaining and setting them vpp for what we and our ancestours haue parted with from our selues and out of our owne purses for the honour of God and his Saints you or men of your religion pull backe from God his Saints to bestow vpon your backs and bellyes and vpon you Ministers their wiues and bratts Werefore you might haue held your peace of that matter And soe now I conclude this § where I hope I haue made it appeare that all your great words against Images are but
riffe raffe stuffe as your Ministers are wont to eeke out their books and sermons without being able to shew any bull of Pope or testimony of good author of any Indulgence soe granted which though you or they could yet were is not to the purpose noe more then your prophane iest out of Guiciardin of playing a game at tables for an Indulgence For what suppose that were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their potts haue made soe bold with almighty God himself as to drinke an health vnto him and were not this a fine argument to proue that there is noe God besids Guiciardin's history translated by Coelius Secundus Curio which I suppose you to cite for it is most like you are noe Italian is forbidden in the Romane Index that Curio being an Haeretique of the first classe But passing from your merriments you tell vs seriously that you will not say it was a strange presumption for a Councel to determine an vncertaine Doctrine vpon the Popes infallibility and opinion of Schoolemen but you venture to say it is a weake and senselesse faith that giueth assent to it without authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers Your meaning is by a fine rhetorical figure to say it is presumption by saying you will not say soe but Sir Humphrey I will goe the plaine way to worke with you and tell you it is intolerable presumption for you suppose you were a man of learning to take vpon you to censure of presumption soe great a Councel as that of Trent wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour whereof was so great that your night owle Haeretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited and promised to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish and for such a fellow as you to make your selfe iudge thereof what intolerable presumption is it it is presumption with you forsooth for a Councel to define a point of faith vpon the perpetual and constant beleife and practize of the Catholique Church vpon the common consent of Doctours being both of them sufficient rules of faith of themselues there being withall sufficient testimony of Scripture in the sense which it hath euer beene vnderstood by Catholique interpreters and yet it is not presumption for you without Doctour without Father without Councel without Scripture without any manner of authority to goe against all this authority 13. Now whereas you say it is a senselesse and weake faith that giues assent to doctrine as necessary to be beleeued which wanteth authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answeare you doe not know what you say it sheweth plainely you haue not read one of those Fathers of whom you soe much bragg who all agree that there be many things which men are bound to beleeue vpon vnwritten tradition whose authorities you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. but for consent of Fathers it is true it is requisite because we haue not the tradition but by consent of Fathers but this consent of Fathers is noe more required to bee by their expresse testimonies in writing then in the Scripture it selfe For where doe you find that the holy Fathers did know beleeue or practize noe more but what they did write or that any one did write in particular all the whole beleife of the Catholique Church the Fathers did in their writings as the Apostles did in theirs that is write of this or that particular matter as the particular occasion of answearing some Haeretique or instructing some Catholique did require and therefore mentioned noe more then was needfull for that end But the consent of Fathers is most of all proued by the practize of the Catholique Church of the present tyme seing that practize being without beginning cannot otherwise haue beene but from those that haue gone before from tyme to tyme and though you make a difference yet certainely it is the same of the consent of Catholique Doctours in the present tyme as it was of holy Fathers in former tymes who were the Doctors of those tymes and as they were Fathers not soe properly in respect of those tymes wherein they liued as of succeeding ages soe the Doctors of these tymes are Fathers in respect of those that shall come after them Neither can the consent of Doctors in the Catholique Church more erre in one tyme then another the auctority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwaies the same noe lesse in one tyme then another Tert. de praescr cap. 28. And Tertullian's rule hauing still place as well in one age as another to wit Quod apud multos vnum inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is the same amongst many is noe error but a tradition The common consent therefore of Doctors and particular Churches is alwaies a sufficient argument of tradition and antiquity and consequently a sufficient ground for a Councel to define a matter of faith against whatsoeuer nouel fancy of any Haeretique that shall take vpon him to controll the same This I doe not say that wee want sufficient proofe of antiquity for any point but to shew that we neede it not soe expresse in ancient authors but that the very practize of the Catholique Church is sufficient to stopp the mouth of any contentious Haeretique noe lesse then in ancient tymes when that proofe of foregoing Writers could haue noe place For soe S. Paul thought he answeared sufficiently for defence of himself and offence of his contentious enemy 1. Cor. 11. when he said Si quis videtur contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei If any man seeme to be contentious we haue noe such custome nor the Church of God And soe much more may we now say of our long continued customes of many hundreds of yeares Wherefore your exception Sir Humphrey against the Councel of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences without such testimony of scripture antiquity as you require is vaine as that is also false which you heere againe repeate that an article of faith cannot be warrantable without authority of scriptures For faith is more anciēt then Scripture for to say nothing of the tymes before Christ faith was taught by Christ himself without writing as also by his Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written and soe it hath beene euer the common consent of all holy and learned men that as noe lesse credit was to be giuen to the Apostolical preaching then Writing soe noe lesse creditt is still to be giuen to their words deliuered vs by tradition then by their writings the credit and sense euen of their writings depending vpon the same tradition among whom the cleane contrary principle is as certaine and vndoubted as this of yours is with you
this very place which you soe often repeate out of S. Paul to himself he answeareth it by expounding the word praeter in the same sense with contra Which standeth very well also with the propriety of the Latine word and for the Greeke it the same both heere Gal. v. 8. and Rom. 16.17 Where there is a like sentence of S. Paul's wishing the Romanes to marke auoyd such as putt scandals and stumbling blocks contrary to the doctrine which they had receiued The word I say is the same 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusatiue case which doth signify as well if not better contra then praeter and in your owne bibles you translate it in that place to the Romanes contrary to the doctrine I see not therefore why you should not vnderstand it alike in both places But to retourne to S. Augustine the thing being soe I may iustly aske of you Sir Humphrey whether you haue not soe often affronted this holy Father as you haue repeated this sentence soe contrary to his meaning in your owne most false and absurd sense to the subuersion of your Readers drawing his words from their true Catholique sense which he hath soe often and soe seriously inculcated vpon seueral occasions to the establishing of your peruerse and haeretical principles soe much by him euer detested But there is a countinge day Sir Humphrey as litle as you thinke of it for this all other matters wherein also this Saint will reckon with you in particular you are like to feele the heauy doome of him and all others whom you haue soe freely affronted in this kind But meane while I trust in the goodnes of God by the prayers of this holy Saint that those well meaning people that shall take the paines for their owne soules good to peruse this answeare wil be able thereby to discouer and proclame to others soe much of your dealing as that any thing you haue said or shall euer say will be able to doe little harme to any but such as shall wilfully runne vpon their owne ruine And soe Sir Humphrey I shall make an end of this § and Section wherein is contained the cheife matter of your whole booke soe as I hope there wil be lesse to doe with that which followeth Chap. 10. Of the 10. Section entituled thus The testimonyes of our aduersaryes touching the infallible certainty of the Protestant faith and the vncertainty of the Romish CHAPTER X. 1. SIr Humphrey hauing in the two former Sections proued the antiquity and Vniuersality of his faith both in general in particular as he would haue vs thinke cometh now to proue the certainty thereof and vncertainty of ours Where a man would expect he should bring some new thing either reason or authority but he doth neither but onely vpon the rotten ground which he supposeth he hath laid very soundly in the precedent Sections he goeth on very confidently with the certainty of his faith and making a short preface how he hath out of our owne authours proued that the faith doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome was not knowne informer ages and that though the Priests especially Iesuits are bound by oath to maintaine the Papacy yet that it can not be denied but that we haue testified against our selues in behalfe of his doctrine and howsoeuer we excuse the matter yet we are diuided among our selues and soe want vnity of faith After this preface I say he maketh a short reuiew of our confessions for him in matter of Iustification transubstantiation priuate Masse Sacraments Communion in one kinde prayer in an vnknowne tongue Worshipping of Images and Indulgences Vpon which he calleth men Angels to witnesse that we haue noe antiquity vniuersality and that consequently we haue resolued the grand question touching their Church before Luther to wit that it was in Christ in the Apostles in the Fathers in the bosome of the ancient Church before Luther's tyme. This is the summe of almost halfe this Sectiō in all which I must appeale gentle Reader to thy indifferent iudgment Whether there be a true word or noe For supposing that thou hast read what is gone before thou wilt easily see that though it were not my taske heere to proue the antiquity of the points of our Faith or vniuersality or any thing els but onely to answeare the fond obiections of Sir Humphrey Yet I haue accidentally and by the way proued the same in most points and by the same authours and places which he bringeth against vs and his fayling in his proofes of our nouelty is sufficient proofe of our antiquity and his owne nouelty 2. What a shameful boast then is it for him to say that most of our points now taught were vnknowne to antiquity For though some might perchance not haue beene soe anciently defined and consequently doubted of by some yet to say they were not commonly beleiued and much more to say they were not knowne cannot come frome any man but such a blinde but bold Bayard as Sir Humphrey Linde For if one man or two doubt of a thing must it therefore be vnknowne when not onely one or two on the other side but two for one or rather ten nay a hundred for one say the contrary Now lett him name that one of his points of faith heere by him disputed wherein not onely since it was defined which is enough for our purpose but euen before that we shall not bring him a great many that held that way which it was defined for euery one of those that held the other way How then could it be vnknowne The next thing in his praeface is of an Oath which our Priests especially Iesuits take to defend the Papacy and doctrine of the Church of Rome But if a man should aske him where he findeth this Oath he would not be able soe readily to tell vs though if he could I see not why any man should be ashamed of it nay why he should not glory of soe heroical an act as is an oath whereby he bindeth himself to the defence of the authority whereon the waight frame of the whole Catholique Church and saluation of all soules from Christ his owne tyme to the very end of the world hath doth and still shall depend But this I onely note for the Knight's ignorance for I beleeue the thing he would be at is the fourth vow of the Iesuits Whereby they specially bind themselues in Obedience to the Sea Apostolique to goe in Mission to any part of the world whether infidel or haeretique which is a little different at least from that which he talketh of an oath to defend the Papacy 3. The third thing in his praeface is want of Vnity wherewith he chargeth vs. Whereof I onely say that as we confesse there may be difference of iudgments before a definition of faith soe lett him shew the diuision after such definition Lett him name that man and we
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
that suppose he doe know thē to be good yet they haue not that goodnes from him or as they are his but as they are from almighty God and by his grace And yet more we teach that he may fall againe and loose all his labour which doth exceedingly diminish confidence of a man's selfe soe as we leaue nothing for a man to trust to of himselfe but that he must giue all to God as S. Paul did in saying 1. Cor. 15.10 non ego sed gratia Dei mecum not I but the grace of God with mee qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur That he that doth glory may glory in God and to shew that we haue nothing of our selues we say againe with the same Saint quid habes quod non accepisti What hast thou which thou hast not receiued Now on the other side examine you your owne doctrine a little better and see whither it doth not teach the contrary vaine cōfidence in most of these points as that a man must assure himself that his sinnes are forgiuen that he must assure himself of his saluation that he cannot fall from grace and the like Which ground supposed how can he worke his saluation with feare trembling as S. Peter teacheth And soe we haue answeared 3. points of Safety which you begin withall out of your owne inuention Now you come to other points of Safety which you proue by authority of other men 5. The first of these and fourth in order is Communion in both kinds which you say is better then in one kinde alone you proue it out of Cassander Vazq Hales and Valencia I answeare that for Cassander you know he is noe author to be alleadged against a Catholique For Vazq it seemeth you are not so well skilled in him as to cite him out of his owne works but out of the frēch Minister Chamier who is another great mā with you But for the matter it is true some few Catholiques as Vazq Hales p. 4. q. 11. m. 2. ar 4. § 3. for Valencia I shall tell you more anone are of opiniō that it is of greater merit and fruit to receiue in both kinds then in one But I aske you why it should be more safe to follow those two then 10. 20. 30. or 40. Other Diuines to the cōtrary For my part I doe not see any reason for it if you waigh the matter by reason or by number and authority of Doctors Secondly neither of these two doth acknowledge any danger in our practice of one kind but allow it for good and lawfull For soe saith Hales quia Christus integrè sumitur sub vtraque specie bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum sicut fere vbique fit a laicis in ecclesia Because Christ is receiued entirely vnder each kind it is very lawful to receiue the body of Christ vnder the kind of bread onely as it is vsed almost euery where by the Layity in the Church And Vazq employeth a whole disputation in the proofe of the same Truth out of Scripture and tradition shewing withall that the Latine Church did with very good reason forbid Communion in both kinds and soluing all the arguments of the Haeretiques against it Soe as he acknowledgeth not your doctrine to be either safe or the same with his but a cleane different haeresy For his is a Schoole opinion not of the safety but of the fruitfulnes of Communion in One or both kinds Yours is an haeresy denying the sufficiency of one kind and vrging both as a matter of necessity for the integrity of the Sacrament and fulfilling of Christ's praecept and denying also the authority of the Church for dispensing therein And though in speculation Vazq rather allow both kinds to be more fruitfull yet all circumstances considered he deemeth Communion in one kind absolutely better for many great reasons pertayning to the reuerence of the Sacrament and common good which doe not onely counteruaile but farre surpasse the want of that fruit which is giuen more by the other kind all necessary grace being giuen by one alone as he teacheth And for Hales besids that he holdeth it very lawfull to communicate in one kind onely which is directly against you I thinke a man that would goe about it might easily puzle you out of him euen for soe much as pertaineth to the perfection of the spiritual fruit p. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar 1. For thus he saith to that which is said that he that receiueth vnder the forme of bread onely receiueth the Sacrament perfectly and entirely I answeare that this Sacramēt is receiued two wayes spiritually and sacramētaly Wherefore I say that quantum ad spiritualē sumptionē perfectè accipit for as much as pertaineth to the spiritual receiuing he receiueth it perfectly but not so for the Sacramētal receiuing Now this perfection of a Sacrament he explicateth before to consist in the representation which saith he is not soe perfect in one kind as both Which we also grant though we say the fruit to be the same in One and both kinds See Sir Humphrey how you can get out of this brake Now for Valencia your third author whom you cite in the margent saying that he affirmeth the same to wit with Hales and Vazq let any man see whether you doe not play him a Lindy-tricke For these are his words in the very same chapter by you cited Val de leg vs. Euchar. cap. 6. Hoc sacramentum tam est per se fructuosum efficax in altera specie quam in vtraque specie This sacrament is of it selfe as fruitfull and effectual in one kind as in both and soe your doctrine in this point is as safe and comfortable as your citation of this author is true 6. The fift of your safe and profitable points is of your communion of Priest and people together the safety you proue not by any thing but your owne bare word For the profitablenes of the Sacrifice indeede you proue it is more when the people communicate with the Priest out of the Councel of Trent Harding and Bellarmine but Sir that is not the controuersy between you and v◠but this whether the Priest may not say Masse vnlesse he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether it be more profitablenes for the Priest that he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether the Sacrifice be lesse perfect in it selfe in that case or not Of this you say not a word as neither doe your authors which you bring for they speake onely of the fruit which would redound to the people which we grant to be greater when they communicate with the Priest then when not But of the forme or matter of controuersy they all determine absolutely against you their whole drift in those places being none other but to disproue you as may easily appeare to any man that will looke in them and I haue partly shewed before
what merit but it is true Walden as Suarez well noteth though he speake not of this controuersy but against the Pelagians is somewhat too strict V. Bell. lib. 5 de iustif cap. 16. and though he acknowledge the thing yet he doth not soe well like the manner of speaking of merit as alsoe some other Diuines doe not soe approue the word meritum de condigno though in the thing it selfe they all agree to wit that aeternal life is giuen to men as the reward of their good works which is all that others meane by condigne merit Your last authority is a place of Bell. which hath beene answeared before to wit that it is most safe to trust wholy in the merits of Christ Which I wonder why you should alleadge for your doctrine against ours For it is ours as well or more then yours neither doe we cōdemne you for not trusting in your works Chap. 12. or trusting wholy in Christ if so be you doe not deny the necessity and efficacy of good works for purchasing grace and glory And that is your doctrine which you should shew to be Safe but that you cānot nor doe not soe much as goe about Wherefore to come to an end of this Chapter all your proofes sayling in euery point your vaunting cōclusion of the Safety profitt and Comfort of your beleife vanisheth into smoake as the rest doth Of the 12. Sect. the title whereof is this Our aduersaries conuicted by the euident testimonies of the Ancient Fathers either ridiculously elude them or plainely reiect them CHAPTER XII 1. IT cannot be vnknowne to any man of learning or that hath but any the lest acquaintance with the controuersies of this age what great aduantage we Catholiques haue by the writings of the ancient Fathers how highly we esteeme them what confidence we place in them and how we appeale to them for decision of our controuersies and how small respect on the other side Haeretiques shew either to their persons or writings as being in their opinions but men and subiect to errour or rather how contemptibly they speake of them For proofe whereof a man neede not goe farther then that little treatise of Campians 10. reasons the 5. of which is of the Fathers Where a man may see what the Haeretiques say of them they call one an old doting man another they call a childish writer a third they call a dolt and forsaken of God a fourth they call a fabler that knoweth not what he saith a fift they say is bewitched by the Diuell a sixt they say is as damned as the Diuell iniurious to the Apostle blasphemous wicked impious and what Fathers are these thincke you that they name thus who but Denis the Areopagite Hippolitus Cyprian Gregory Nazianzene Ambrose and Hierome and for the writings of the Fathers they say this man's are like dreames and most pernitious another hath foule wennes another writeth like a madd or frantique man another bringeth forth darnel and dreggs others haue left blasphemies to posterity and the like One haeretique preferreth one Caluin before an 100. Augustines another careth not for a thousand Augustines Cyprians Churches whose very words and places are quoted by F. Campian And yet heere is a Knight of the same broode that vndertaketh forsooth in a particular Section to proue that we establish the antiquity of his doctrine decline the certainty and safety of our owne by saying that we auoide the proofe of Fathers wherein he sheweth himself more more impertinent the farther he goeth For whereas there hath beene sometymes one father that hath erred or held some singular opinion different from the common of other Fathers one or two ancient writers that haue euen become Haeretiques because our authors note those things soe as noe Haeretique can but acknowledge that to be true which we say nay and he himself cannot tell what to say against vs he accounteth this forsooth to bee eluding of the Fathers or reiecting their euident testimonyes Neither doth he in all this Section bring one argument or one word of authority to disproue any thing that any authour of ours hath said nor doth hee alleadge euen the reasons which our authors giue of their saying whereas they giue very many solid reasons Soe that for my part I cānot tell what the man meaneth in this manner of dealing nor what to say to him for euen the words of our authours which he bringeth are very sufficient answeares soe as I see not well what more he neede to haue but because in the fashion or sleight manner of speaking he may delude some of his Readers and make them thinke the answeares insufficient I must a little more discouer his impertinency in leauing out some of the answeares and extenuating others and euen in bringing some nothing at all to this purpose 2. And soe to beginne with him he saith in the first place that touching the all sufficiēcy of Scriptures S. Chrysostome saith the Church is knowne tantūmodo onely by the Scriptures heerevpon he askes this question what say the Romanist to this authority Bell. saith hee answeareth it is probable the authour was a Catholique but it seemes to be none of Chrysost thus hee To which I answeare first that I find not this place obiected in Bellar. whereto to giue any answeare at all but there is another place not much vnlike and to that he answeareth that the worke out of which it is taken is not Chrys but another's commonly cited by the name of author imperfecti who Bell. saith was either an Arrian himself or his worke was corrupted by Arrians and this he doth not barely say neyther in his cōtrouersies nor in his booke de Scripto eccles De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. Which is the booke heere cited by Sir Humphrey where Bellarmine saith the thing but not by way of answeare as he makes him I say he doth not onely say it but also proue it by a plaine example or two of Arianisme Verb. Io. Chrysost but because he findeth Catholique doctrine in other places of the same worke and in the same points he rather thinketh the authour to be a Catholique and his worke onely to haue beene corrupted and this is most true and euident Which had the Knight but sett downe thus plainely what had there beene more to be obiected or answeared but he curtails it as if Bell. had said onely it is none of Chrys Which is also soe true plaine as he himselfe cannot gainesay it and yet he is not ashamed for the creditt of his obiection to call it Chrysostomes But the place it selfe is soe farre from prouing the all sufficiency of Scripture as it proueth nothing at all but the insufficiency of Sir Humphreys wit For how many wayes may it be answeared euen supposing that the words were S. Chrysostomes or some other good authour's being but these that the Church is knowne onely by scriptures For I aske him
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
the doctrine of iustification and doctrine of merits as they are deliuered in the Councel of Trent euery Catholique is bound to giue his life as occasion is offered For adoration of images whereas he asketh whether any of these 33. were canonized for it it is an idle question for men are canonized not for matters of beleife onely but for practize of Faith Hope Charity and all vertues together which belong to an holy and Christian life in general and to their owne particular State and vocation and though there be noe special mention of any of those 33. their adoration of images yet defined which before was not and which then men were not soe certaine of nor soe bound to beleiue as after soe consequently men might be lesse bound to suffer death for it then then afterwards and yet be of the same faith with those that came after Soe long as they acknowledged the same Church and liued in the vnity thereof acknowledged the same power and authority to determine matters of faith as it is certaine those ancient Martyrs did as appeareth both by their owne writings yet extant and their deeds recorded by other men in good authentical history These holy Martyrs therefore are truely ours which if this Knight will disproue he must shew which of them did teach otherwise that is against that vhich we now beleiue Which till he can doe we shall still be in possession of our Martyrs and of their faith our faith testifying that wee are their Children and their bloud giuing testimony to the truth of our faith Of the 17. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 17. Our aduersaries coÌ„mon obiection drawne from the charitable opinion of Protestants touching the saluation of professed Romanists liuing and dying in their Church answeared CHAPTER XVII 1. THis section is nothing but a little of the Knight's owne natural language and therefore will soone be answeared He beginneth with a saying of Costerus that a man dying a Lutheran cannot be saued Wherevpon he falleth in to a great rage against the Roman Church and telleth vs there is a Woman a Church a Citty which reigneth ouer the Kings of the earth and hath multitudes of nations at her Command but he thanks God his Church is not such an one Neither doe Protestans as he saith account Vniuersality of nations and people to be a marke of their Church and from thence he falleth to reckon vpp diuers particular points of his Churches doctrine as disclayming of merits Communion in both Kindes reading of Scriptures and bringing a place of Scriptures for each of these he asketh very rhetorically after euery one whether they be accursed for holding them and on the other side asketh whether we can be blessed that forbid marriage meates that haue prayer in an vnknowne tongue adore images adore Saints adore the elements of bread and wine wee that add traditions to the Scriptures and detract from God's commandments and Christ's institution in the Sacrament Which discourse of his being soe foolish as it is a man may thinke it folly for mee to stand answearing particularly therefore I answeare briefly and in general first that though it take vpp half his section yet it is wholy from his purpose which he pretends by the title of his chapter which is to answeare our obiection Secondly I answeare that for those things which he obiecteth vnto vs they are all answeared before and proued some false for the things wherewith he chargeth vs all absurd if we consider the proofs of Scripture which he bringeth for example he telleth vs we forbid marriage and meats both which are most grosly false For how many Catholiques be there in England men and women married and what meate is there that Catholiques are forbidden to eate in dew tyme and season is it all one to forbid marriage to some men to wit such as haue voluntarily promised the contrary and some meates at some tymes all one I say as to forbid marriage and meates neither marriage nor meats being forbidden in these cases as ill in themselues in which sense onely Saint Paul termeth it the doctrine of Diuels but for higher ends But to make him yet a little more capable of this answeare I will vrge him with one ordinary instance which is this I presume his Father had some apprentice bound not to marry during his apprenticeship I would then know of him whither his father in that case did forbid marriage and teach the doctrine of Diuels 2. Against prayer in an vnknowne tongue he saith it is written with men of other tongues and other lipps will I speake vnto this people and soe they shall not heare mee and in the margent saith it was a curse at the building of Babel for them that vnderstand not what was spoken But by this alleadging of Scripture a man may see what a good thing it is to haue it in the vulgar tongue for euery man to read and abuse it at his pleasure when such a right learned man as this Knight doth soe strangely apply it He would make men beleiue Esay the Prophet spoke against Latine in this place but the man is quite wide of his marke but it is enough for him that there is mention of a strange tongue there for as for the sense he careth not or rather his reading reacheth not to the meaning of the place which is but this that whereas the people laughed at the Prophets that came to them with commands from God repeating their words scoffingly manda remanda Isa 28.11 expecta reexpecta c. God sendeth them word by the Prophet that because they would not heare those words nor follow the good counsel which he gaue he would speake another word vnto them that they should fall be catched crushed and carried into captiuity and there heare a language which they did not vnderstand this is the plaine and literal sense of the Prophet S. Paul indeede vseth it in another sense to perswade the Corinthians that prophecy is to be preferred before tongues because as he saith the guift of tongues is a signe for infidels that is to speake to infidels for their conuersion but prophecy that is exhortation or interpretation is for the faithful or those that beleiue already Wherein I would know according to either explication what any man can find against prayer in the Latine tongue and for the tower of Babel the Knight surely speaketh by contraries For whereas at Babel men fell from vnity of language to speake euery man a seueral language Soe as noe one man vnderstood one another by that meanes they were all dispersed into seueral nations the Catholique Church doth quite contrary drawing seueral nations to vnity of language making all to speake one and the sâ—me tongue Whereas haeretiques in seueral places by vse of other languages vnderstand not one the other and therein most perfectly resemble the Babel-builders as well in the very diuersity of tongues as in the diuersity of
all the world beleiues besids himselfe Out of which you would haue your Reader gather that in that Father's iudgement Miracles haue ceased and that whatsoeuer Catholiques speake now of Miracles it but feigned is not this your meaning Sir Humphrey sure it is for what els it should bee I cannot imagine Now to this I answeare that it is farr from Saint Augustines meaning as shall appeare For he in this place reasoneth with the Pagan who did not beleiue the Miracles wrought by the first preachers of our faith because he saw not the like in his tyme to which Saint Augustine answeares that they were not soe needful then as in the beginning but yet proueth that there were such wrought then For how els saith hee came the world to beleiue and now the world beleiuing there needeth noe miracle to make a man beleiue the conuersion of the world being argument enough and that therefore he were to bee wondered at that would stand vpon Miracles for his beleife and this is for vs. For soe say we a man that should stand vpon miracles to become a Catholique the whole world of this age and for soe many foregoing ages beleiuing and professing that faith were to be wondered at himselfe and we say againe that he is as much to be wondered at that shal beleiue a new haereticall religion not knowne before to the world and contrary to the common beleife thereof such as Luther's or Caluin's is without Miracles For all true religion must haue some testimony of Miracles from God in the beginning till men beleeue but men beleiuing they are not soe necessary Soe as thus much as you haue sett downe of Saint Augustine his discourse is not against vs but rather against your selfe But now seeing you will needs speake against Miracles and that out of Saint Augustine Let vs see what els there is in this place against or for Miracles And to beginne with the very title of that chapter out of the very beginning whereof you take your place it is this Aug. de ciuit lib. 22. cap. 8. De miraculis quae vt mundus in Christum crederet facta sunt fieri mundo credente non desinunt Of the miracles which were wrought that the world might beleiue in Christ and doe not cease to bee wrought now that the world doth beleiue Looke you Sir Humphrey is not heere comfort for you to beginne withall Miracles wrought not onely in the beginning but afterwards in S. Aug. his tyme well in the chapter it selfe whereas he said that he that would not beleeue without Miracles would bee a wonder himselfe he expoundeth his meaning not to be soe as if Miracles were ceased as our Haeretiques and you for one Sir Humphrey say Nam saith he etiam nunc fiunt miracula in eius nomine c. For euen now Miracles are wrought in his name either by the Sacraments or by prayers or memories of Martyrs And then he spendeth that whole and long Chapter in recounting of such Miracles as happened then in his tyme and euen in his owne sight or hard by and soe also in another place whereas he had made himself an obiection why such Miracles as our Sauiour wrought were not then wrought and answeared because they would not moue vnlesse they were strange Retract lib. 1. cap. 14. nor would be strange if they were ordinary he expoundeth himself thus Haec dixi quia non tanta nec omnia modo non quia nulla fiunt etiam modo This I sayd because not soe great nor all now not because none are wrought euen now By which it is most cleare that you haue not S. Aug. with you against Miracles but as plaine as may bee against you Soe as I doe not see what you can say for your selfe but by laying the blame vpon the Spirit I spoke of before who ought you a shame and therefore put you vpon writing such matter as cannot be otherwise maintained then by such meanes as you are heere faine to vse Of the 16. Sect. entituled Our Aduersaries obiection drawne from the testimonies of pretended Martyrs of their religion answeared CHAPTER XVI 1. THE blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian in his tenth reason bringing all sorts of witnesses for proofe of the Catholique faith beginneth with Martyrs those particularly who being Pastors of the Romane Church suffered Martyrdome successiuely one after the other to the number of 33. these saith Campian were ours and nameth some of them as Telesphorus Victor Sixtus Cornelius with the particular points which they held conformably with vs against Protestants Chap. 16. as the fast of Lent the Sacrifice of the Masse power of the Pope and the like this our Knight taketh hold of confessing Martyrdome to carry some shew of honor in our Church but denying them to be ours because they neither suffered for our faith nor professed it while they liued which he proueth by asking whether euer any Martyr died vpon confidence of his owne merits and whether any Romanist dare dye in iustification of his owne righteousnes and whether any of those 33. died and were canonized for adoration giuen to Images and many more such wise demands to whom I answeare that those Martyrs suffered death not for the points now in controuersy with Haeretiques but for the profession of Christianity at the hands of the enemyes of Christ but that not onely such as dye for Christ himself by the hand of the Pagans are Martyrs but such as dye for his Church at the hands of Haeretiques or for any one particular point euen the lest of them that are defined by the Councel of Trent for which euery Catholique is bound rather to dye then deny any of them Now that these Martyrs are ours notwithstanding they died not for any of these points it is plaine because they professed the same Catholique faith which we doe which we also proue by the faith of their Successor Vrbanus 8. who as he holdeth their seate soe also their faith 〈◊〉 1. Concil for Peter's chaire and faith goe together as the very haeretique Pelagius confesseth to Lozimus Pope saying to him qui Petri fidem sedem tenes not to stand heere vpon the most effectual and infallible prayer of our Sauiour himself oraui pro te Petre vt non deficiat fides tua Which proofe must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell vs what Pope began to vary from his Praedecessors 2. Now for the particular points it is plaine euen by those which F. Campian citeth that they were ours but much more by their owne decretal epistles which are all soe full of those things that the Haeretiques haue noe other shift but to deny the authority of the same Epistles therefore they are idle demāds which the Knight maketh whether any haue died vpon cōfidence of his owne merits or whether any Catholique dare dye for iustification of his righteousnes For these are noe matters of faith but of praesumption but for