word trāsubstantiatiō or of the proof thereof by determining the sense of scripture And this it may be is it wherin Tonstall also followeth him If they meane otherwise the matter is not great for one single author or two contradicted by others carry noe credit with vs in matter of beleife though to say truely Tonstall was noe Schooleman but a Canonist as Cardinal Pole answeareth him very well by letter vpō another certaine occasiō wherein he did swarue from the rules of true Diuinity as I haue seene by the letters of both in both their owne hands Erasmus is noe author to be answeared nor named as you know I haue often told you 33. For the Waldenses and Wickliffe you doe well to lett them passe But the very naming of them shewes you had a good mind to fill out your number of Schoolemen with thē though for the Waldenses I doe not find that they agree with you much in this point of the Blessed Sacrament For they had Masse but once a yeare that vpon Maundy thursday neither would they vse the words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but 7. Pater nosters with a blessing ouer the bread Whereas you may haue your Communion oftener and you vse the words This is my body Not 7. Paters as they did But what neede I say more of them or the Wickliffists either being knowne condemned Haeretiques 34. Now for Durand hee is a Schoolman indeed and a learned one but yet not wholy free from errour in some points and particularly in this of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ For he is of opinion that the change in this Sacrament is noe other then as the natural changes of other substances one into another Durand 4. dist 11. q. 3. and that it is supernatural onely for the manner because it is done in an instant and without the concurrence of naturall causes And that as in theis naturall changes of the elements one into another or other mixt bodyes the forme onely is changed the material part or subiect as Philosophers speake remayning still the same soe also that heere the forme of bread is changed onely the matter or material part of bread and wine remayning Which yet he thought to bee sufficient to verify not onely the realnes of Christ's presence but also the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ For to that purpose he hath these two expresse conclusions 4. dist 10. q. 1. Dicendum saith he quod verum corpus Christi natum de Virgine passum in cruce est realiter in hoc Sacramento I say that the true body of Christ which was borne of the Virgin and suffered on the crosse is really in this Sacrament The other conclusion is this Dicendum quod substantia panis vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi Dur. 4. dist 11. q. 1. It is to bee sayd that the substance of bread and wine are turned into the substance of Christ's Body Whereby it is plaine he held a true and reall presence by a true and reall conuersion of the bread or substance of the bread into the body of Christ discouering also therein your cunning and deluding corruption whereby you would make it seeme to your Reader that these two bee all one the materiall part of bread and substance of bread for soe in the citation of Durand's sentence you glosse the words materiall part with this parenthesis of your owne or substance whereas the material part of bread and substance of bread are two things For the matter in euery compound is but a part of the substance and the absolute denomination of such a specificall substance doth not belong euen to the forme it self alone though it be the more noble and more essentiall part much lesse to the matter or materiall part For we doe not say the forme of fire or water is fire or water but it is that which giueth the being of fire or water to the materiall part or matter which of it selfe is soe farr from hauing any such denomination as some Philosophers doe scarce giue it any proper being of it owne or euen the common name of ens And all agree that it hath noe quality noe actiue power nor force of it self to doe any thing as being but a meere passiue power 35. Wherefore though the matter of bread should remaine in this conuersion or change yet could not the substance of bread bee said to remaine soe long as the forme is changed noe more then all the bread and meate which you eate may be said to remaine because the material part of all the bread beefe mutton capon pheazant and whatsoeuer els you eate remaineth vnconuerted which as it were a great absurdity in any man to affirme soe is it as great an one in you to affirme that the substance of bread in this Sacrament should not bee conuerted though the material part should remaine for as the onely change of the forme in all natural conuersions is sufficient to verify that this thing is changed into that for example Fire into Water soe might it bee in this For as much as pertaineth to the truth of that manner of speaking Which I onely vrge in Durand's defence not that I allow his doctrine For this was his very reason why he did hold that opinion because he thought it sufficient to verify not onely the reall presence but euen transubstantiation also Which very word he vseth in another place for making answeare to a certaine obiection drawne out of the words of S. Iohn Damascen wherein that Father said that the nature of bread was assumed by Christ As if by that manner of speaking he should seeme to insinuate that the bread remayning the same in nature was Hypostatically vnited to Christ Durand saith thus Durand in 4. dist 10◠q. 1. Sicut in baptismate aqua assumitur vt materia Sacramenti permanens sic panis vinum assumuntur vt materia Sacramenti tranfiens quia materia Sacramenti conuertitur in corpus Christi per consequens dicitur aliquo modo vniri diuinitati non per assumptionem manente natura panis aut vini sed per transubstantiationem in humanitatem priùs assumptam As in baptisme water is assumed as the permanent matter of the Sacrament soe bread and wine are assumed as the transient or passing matter of the Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is turned into the body of Christ And by consequence is said in some sort to be vnited to the Diuinity not by assumption or hypostaticall vnion the nature of the bread or wine remayning but by transubstantiation into the Humanity before assumpted Which words declare his opinion both fully and plainely of the change of the matter of this Sacrament into the body of Christ by Transubstantiation 36. But howsoeuer hee faile in declaring this transubstantiation in that he taketh not the whole substance of the bread to
such as meant to bee counted Catholiques Wherein I would farther know of him what other difference there is but onely that the Creede of Nice was made for declaration of the Catholique faith in the point of the Diuinity of our Sauiour and this of the Councel of Trent for declaration of all these points controuerted by the Haeretiques of these tymes And yet in one thing more they agree that is that as the Arrians of those tymes cried out against that Creede as being new and hauing words not found in Scripture for example Consubstantiation Soe our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of Faith for the same reasons of nouelty and words not found in scripture as for example Transubstantiation 3. But to come neerer vnto them They allow of the Nicene Creede they will not then I suppose say the Faith therein taught eyther now is or then was new though it were then first declared by authority of any Councel Which if they doe not as indeede they cannot then say I in like sort the profession of Faith sett downe by the Councel of Trent and Pope Pius 4. is noe new Faith but the old Faith of late particularly declared and defined against the haeresies of these tymes I could also in proofe of the same vrge Sir Humphrey with the 39. articles appointed by the authority of the Church of England to bee vniformely taught by all Ministers and which they are to sweare vnto Which articles though they be indeede new coyned as the foundation of a new Church Yet Sir Humphrey being his Mother's Champion will not I suppose yeild her or her doctrine to be new as yet on the other side he cannot deny but those articles receiued some kind of force whereby Protestants were more bound to beleiue and teach them then before From whence I might euidently inferre that a new definition or declaration doth not make the Doctrine new but that ancient doctrine may be newly defined according as new springing heresies shall giue occasion 4. Which being soe it is plaine that all his insulting speeches against the Councel of Trent and Catholique church are but verie smoke and may bee as easily blowne backe vpon Himselfe and his church and that by them hee doth but furnish vs with weapons against himself therein also bewraying his ignorance For whose better instruction if hee be not too wise to learne hee is to know two things in this matter First that we Catholiques doe not call all points of faith howsoeuer taught declared or defined articles as hee seemeth to thinke and the ground of this his errour may bee in that those great maine points of his Churches doctrine called the 39. articles are called by that name of articles But wee call that onely an article V S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 1. ar according to S. Thomas which containeth some speciall reason of difficulty in it self whereby it requireth a particular and distinct reuelacion because it cannot bee inferred or deduced out of any other reuealed truth as for example the point of our Sauiour's resurrection is cleane a different point from that point of his death and passion and this againe from that other of his Natiuity and soe of the rest because each of them requireth a distinct and seuerall reuelacion from the other For Christ might haue beene borne and yet not dye vpon the crosse and hee might haue died and yet not risen the third day from death to life but those other truthes defined by the Church as the vnity of Christ's person against Nestorius the distinction of his two natures against Sergius Pirrhus c. are not to bee called articles because they are sufficiently contained in others and deduced out of them Other Diuines giue other definitions of an article of faith which may also well stand with this of S. Thomas which I follow as the more common but all agree in this that though euery article bee a proposition of Faith yet euerie proposition is not an article of Faith 5. And heerevpon we teach that for articles of faith the Church can make none as she cannot write a canonical booke of scripture but that belongeth onely to the Prophets and Apostles or rather hath beene fully and perfectly performed by them to whom those articles were immediately reuealed by God whereof they deliuered part by writing and part by word of mouth to their posterity the Church Soe as now there neede not any new and particular reuelacions but out of those already made to the Apostles and Prophets which are all laid vpp in the treasury of the Church as a pawne or depositum as S. Paul calleth it other truths are drawne the holy Church and true spouse of Christ euer keeping this pretious treasure with continuall care and vigilancie and dispensing the same faithfully to her Children as neede requireth Whensoeuer any haeretique or other enemy endeauoureth to corrupt or peruert she calling her Pastors and Doctors together to examine the matter being infallibly assisted by that Spirit of truth which our Sauiour promised to bee allwayes with his disciples that is with his Church she declareth what is true and what false as agreeing or disagreeing with or from that doctrine which she hath receiued from her fathers that is Prophets and Apostles vpon whom as vpon a spiritual foundation she is strongly built according to that of S. Paul superedificaii supra fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum Ephes 2 20. Built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The very words Fundamentum foundation also shewing that her doctrine is not of her owne inuention or framing but grounded on them from whom she receiued it and that she hath not any which she receiueth not from them For as in a howse or building there is not the least stone or peece of timber which resteth not vppon the foundation Soe in the doctrine of the Catholique Church there is not the least point which is not grounded or contained in that which was deliuered by the Prophets and Apostles Commonit aduer haer cap. 27. Which truth Vincentius Lerinensis in like sort deduceth out of the word Depositum vsed by S. Paul to Timothee Quid est depositum saith hee id est quod tibi creditum est non quod a te inuentum quod accepisti non quod excogitasti rem non ingenij sed doctrinae non vsurpationis priuatae sed publica traditionis rem ad te perductam non a te prolatam in qua non auctor debes esse sed custos non institutor sed Sectator non ducens sed sequens What is a depositum it is that which thou art trusted with not that which is found by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast sought out a thing not of wit that is not of thine owne inuenting but of learning that is which is learnt not of priuate vsurpation but publique tradition a thing brought to thee not brought forth by thee wherein
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
scripture which they stood vpon he answeareth thus Et etiam si sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset Dialog 2. con Lucifer totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting the consent of the whole world on this side should haue the force of a praecept And soe there is an end of this 5. § Of Prayer and seruice in a knowne tongue §. 6. 1. In this § the Knight speaketh against the practise and doctrine of the Catholique Church in two things One is for vsing the publique seruice in a tongue not knowne to the vulgar people another for saying some part of the Masse with a lowd voyce so as the people cannot heare The practice of which two things though the Knight confound them into one was seuerally and distinctly approued by the Councell of Trent anathema pronounced against whosoeuer should condemne either of them Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Councel's owne authority thinking also euen by it to make good the contrary practise of his Church For saith hee the Councel in saying that the Masse doth containe great instruction of the faithfull people or as he translateth the words of the Councel in the beginning of this § great instruction for the common people And that it is to be interpreted vnto them doth consequently affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the aedification of the Church and this he cōfirmes with an argument of his owne thus And without doubt saith hee the Apostles being cōmanded to shew forth the Lord's death till his coming it was not intended to shew it to the walls or in a silent vnknowne voyce as it is now vsed in the Romane Church but to pronounce it openly to bee heard and vnderstood of the hearers Soe farre our Knight Now to reckon with him 2. Because the Councel of Trent saith that the Masse containeth great instruction of the people and that for that end it is to be interpreted vnto them he saith it consequently affirmes the practize of the reformed Churches to be better for aedificatiō of the Church Doth it soe Sir Humphrey by what Logicke doth this cōsequēce follow or by what figure of Rhethoricke do You take one thing for another the Councel saith that though the Masse containe great instruction yet it doth not follow that it should bee in the vulgar tongue you tell vs the Councel by cōsequence doth affirme it to follow the Councel thinketh it better to retaine the general and long continued practise of the Church of not vsing the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Masse but for instruction of the people to interprete something of what is read you say it approueth the contrary custome of your Church if it had soe had it not beene an easier matter to haue appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue but the Councel knew well that course was not soe fitt neither in respect of the publique good of the Church nor in reguard of the priuate good of the faith-full people for many reasons 3. First for the general practise and custome which hath beene obserued in the Church of God of hauing the Masse and publique office in Latine all ouer the Latine or Westerne Church both in Italy Spaine France Germany England Africke all other places and soe likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent had as much variety of vulgar languages in it as the Latine Church hath Which custome is not to be forsaken especially for Haeretiques out of that their false perswasiō that it is noe good or lawful practice Secōdly for the vniformity which is fit to be vsed in such things and vnity of the Catholique Church which is excellently declared also much maintained by this Vnity of Langage in the Church-office For as lāguage is a thing most necessary for cōmerce amōg men in ciuill matters so also in ecclesiastical and without this vse of Latine in this māner there could not bee that cōmunication betwene men of learning neither would mē of one countrey be the better for the writings of others there would be litle meeting of men of seueral nations in Councels little study of Councels of Fathers others who haue all writtē in Latine or some learned language whereas the vse of the Latine tongue in the Church is the cause of all the contrary effects as we see by experiēce Thirdly the vse of vulgar tongues in the Masse and Church-office would cause not onely great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by soe many seueral translations not onely in seueral countries but by seueral translations in euery countrey of any small extent euen in the same place vpon a litle change of tyme for as we see in euery age the vulgar language reciueth a great alternation of which translations the Church would not be able any way to iudge scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other which therefore for the well trāslating thereof requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost which noe priuate man can promise himselfe Lastly the vse of a vulgar language in such things would breede a great cōtempt of sacred things with prophanes and irreligiosity besids the daunger of haeresy which cometh noe way sooner then by mis-vnderstanding of holy scripture Neither are any more apt to mis-vnderstād it then the simpler sort of people if they once take vpon them to vnderstand These reasons then among others but most of all the tradition of the Church drawne euen from the Apostles by perpetual Successiō and practise might perswade the Councel to thinke that though some benefitt might come to some few particular men by vnderstanding what is written yet it was absolutely better to retaine the same custome still and euen to remedy that inconuenience another way to wit by explaning something of what is read in the Masse which the Councel declareth by a similitude very proper for the purpose to wit by breaking of bread to little ones fort it is euen as necessary for ordinary people to haue the Scriptures soe declared as for children to haue their bread broken and as vnfit to giue such men the Scripture it self whole to reade or to reade it soe vnto them as to giue a little child a whole great loafe Neither if a man marke the Councel of Trent's words well doth it say that the Masse doth containe instruction in that sense as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would bee an instruction but onely that it containeth great instruction that is many things which might be good for the people to learne being explicated which a man might truely say though euen when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be vnderstood without helpe of an expositor how then Sir Humphrey doth the Councel acknowledge your
say mention the story there is not one that maketh any mention of changing the Church-Office into Latine vpon it but onely they alleadge it by occasion of the secret reading of the Canon of the Masse which was the thing they had in hand 15. Now for the story it self you cannot but know that it is answeared by Bellarmine it being obiected formerly by Kemnitius Bell lib. 2. de Miss cap. 12 his answeare then is that there is such a story related by good authority in Pratum spirituale but there neither the bread nor wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heauen nor the shepheards strucken dead but onely layd for dead 24. howers after which they came to themselues againe which is neither impossible nor improbable Now for these three authours that you cite none of them doth relate it out of any author or with any special credit but onely out of a report which they expresse by the word Fertur and therefore some of them as Honorius and Belethus might be mistaken in some of the circumstance though Innocentius be not Innoc. 3 lib. 3. de Miss cap. 1. for he saith noe more of it but this that it is reported that when certaine shepheards did sing the words in the fields they were strucken from heauen which is true Now this supposed as the story doth not make any way against vs for we grant that the words were anciently pronounced alowd in some place Soe it maketh against you who deny that any where they were spoken softly for the author of this story giuing a reason how the boyes came to learne the words saith thus Prat. Spirit cap. 196. Quoniam verò quibusdam in locis alta voce consueuerant presbyteri sancti sacrificij orationes pronunciare pueri vt propius astantes saepius eas audiendo didicerant Because in some places the Priests were wont to pronounce the prayers of the holy sacrifice with a lowd voyce the boyes as standing neerer by often hearing had learned them Loe Sir Humphrey it was but in some places that they did say those prayers alowd Soe that withall this labour you haue proued nothing but against your selfe Well then you haue failed in the proofe of your doctrine in this as in the rest withall the corruption and tricks you can vse let vs see what you doe in the next §. 7. Worship of Images 1. This 7. § of Image-worshipp our Knight beginneth after his ordinary manner with an article as he calleth it of our Romane Creede wherein we professe that the Images of Christ our Lady and the Saints are to be had and retained and that dew honor and Veneration is to be yeilded vnto them and then bringeth the Decree of the Councel of Trent Sess 25. for the same point in these words We teach that the images of Christ the Virgin mother of God and other Saints are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and that dew honour and worshipp is to be giuen them Which Decree he might haue translated a little better and more clearely by saying that those images are to be had and retained especially in Churches the Latine word being praesertim and his translating thereof chiefly and placing it soe oddly giueth cause to thinke he had an euill meaning therein as if he would haue his Reader thinke that the Councel taught that these Images were the chiefe things to bee had in Churches which is not the Councel's meaning as is plaine the words being very cleare in Latine But this is but a note by the way not as a thing that I stand vpon 2. This our Doctrine of image-worship he doth absolutely deny and condemne as a wicked and blasphemous opinion first because it not onely wants authority of scripture which he saith an article of faith ought to haue but because the scripture doth flatly and plainely forbid it and in the margent citeth Leuit. 26. Ex. 20. Deut. 4. Esay 40. This censure is somewhat deepe Sir Humphrey vpon such sleight ground because forsooth we haue noe proofe of scripture for though you thinke it necessary to haue expresse proofe of scripture to make a matter of faith yet as I said before you are much mistaken wherefore you ought not to stand still vrging it in such manner as if it were a certaine and vndoubted principle yet this I graunt you that though expresse Scripture be not necessary to make a matter of faith yet if you haue expresse scripture against it it is true it can be noe matter of faith but by your leaue none of those places which you note make any mention of image-worship but idol-worship which you cannot but know to be a different thing hauing beene soe often told it as you haue beene by vs therefore your first proofe fayling all failleth for though you put a First yet I see noe second and soe much for that 3. But because heere had beene an end too soone of soe good a matter you tell vs Vazq saith all images were forbidden soe farr forth as they were dedicated to adoration and Cornelius Agrippa saith the Iewes did abhorr nothing more then images to the same purpose you alleadge Philo the Iew speaking of the Iewes of those tymes and Sir Edwin sands of the Iewes that are now adayes Wherevpon you conclude that it is agreed vpon on both sides that the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of images for 4000. yeares and from thence you descend to the new Testament wherein you say the same law remayneth because it was morall for though some Catholiques teach that it was a positiue caeremonial law yet others say it was natural and for that you alleadge Bellar. wherefore the law being not abrogated you would haue some exāple or precept in the Ghospel for adoration of which you say Mr. Fisher acknowledgeth there is not any expresse but that there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawful Soe as from the light of nature say you an article of faith must be declared Well this is your discourse Sir Humphrey which in a word is but this The Iewes might not haue nor adore images ergo we may not For asweare whereof I might say in like sort the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things ergo we may not but because you may say these precepts are caeremonial therefore not now in force the other natural therefore in force for the present I will onely make this argument to shew the connexion of your antecedent and consequent the Iewes might not make any similitude or likenesse of any thing in heauen or earth to adore it for a God ergo we may not make or haue the images of Christ and Saints to reuerence and honour them as the pictures of Saints onely and not Gods is not heere a good and a substantiall argument trow you and yet it is yours Sir Humphrey 4. But say you there was such a command of
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
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
CHRIST who hath giuen the ecclesiastical power of such keyes to men Soe as it is plaine that Gerson holdeth the doctrine of Indulgences certaine noe lesse then Durād the whole Schoole of Diuines euen the Catholique church 13. The fourth point of vncertainty is of adoration of images to which you say wee are vncertaine what worshipp we may giue For say you the 2. Nicene Councel alloweth a ciuil kind of worship without any corporal submission but many of our Diuines allow them a higher kind of worshipp that is the very same which is giuen to their Samplers Which Bellarmine you say is against and saith it is not fit to preach that opinion to the people because it requireth such subtile distinctions as the learned cannot well conceiue much lesse the ignorant people and then you bring a place of Valencia allowing idol-worship as you say by a necessary consequēce these being his words It is noe absurdity to this 〈◊〉 that S. Peter did intimate that some worship of images was right or lawful namely of holy images When as he deterreth the faithful from the vnlawful worship of Images for to what end should he determinately point out the vnlawfull worship of Images if he had thought altogether that noe image-worship had beene lawful To which I answeare that the doctrine which we teach of faith is not vncertaine that is onely that images are to be worshipped not as God nor as placing any confidence in them Now whether they be to be worshipped with the same act honour which we giue the prototype directly indirectly to the image as our act of honour tēdeth directly to the Kings person indirectly to his purple or with an inferiour kind of worship tending directly to the picture it self but yet as it is the representation of such a person or with reference to the person represented is a theological speculation out of your element nor to be disputed of with an haeretique Both may stand with faith as many things more of which Tertull. saith they may Salua regula fidei in quaestionem deuenire de praesc cap. 12. Come into question the rule of faith being safe Faith is certaine not to be touched other things may but you haue nothing to doe with them till you haue faith But because you speake of the 2. Councel of Nice as if it were for you I cannot heere omitt to set downe what it saith of you and your doctrine for your comfort to those that vse the words spoken in scripture against idols against venerable images Anathema or be they accursed to those that doe not salut holy venerable images Anathema to those that call holy images idols Anathema to those that say that Christians come to images as to Gods Anathema to those that say the Catholique Church hath at some tyme receiued idolatry Anathema These are all the Councels words curses Of all which you cānot but cōfesse your selfe guilty you can insinuate as if the Councel were rather for you then vs would a man thinke it possible But besids whereas you say the Councel pretends nothing but a ciuil kind of embracing or kissing without any corporal submission vnto the Images I would know of you what it meaneth when speaking of images it saith they are to be worshipped so farre ad osculum ad honorariam his adorationem tribuendam to giue a Kisse and honoring adoration Doth not adoration include corporal submission and specially honorary adoration Neither doth the Councel meane onely a ciuil kind of imbracing or kissing as you call it but a religious worshipp For it continually addeth some one or more of these epithets Sancta sacra veneranda or venerabilis Holy sacred venerable to the word imago image When it speaketh of images But because you seeme not to thinke corporal submission to be sufficiently implyed by the Councel either in those epithets or in the words colo suscipio veneror adoro which goe together for the most part in the subscriptions of the Bishops in the Councel though amōg men it would be counted a poore kind of worship or respect which should want all corporall submission I will bring you most plaine and expresse proofe both of prostration and kneeling by 2. seueral relations or histories One is this It is there related how when the Reliques of S. Anastasius a Moncke Martyr were brought to Cesarea the people receiued thē with great deuotion honour onely one great Lady would not but in her owne hart slighted them Wherevpon the Saint appearing to her in her sleepe she was taken with a very vehement paine in her backe for 4. dayes together till the same Saint appearing to her againe in the same manner willed her to goe to S. Anastasius in such a place of the towne where his Reliques picture were kept she not knowing all this while who it was that appeared vnto her and soe awaking she was caried thither as soone as she came in the sight of the picture she cried out that that was the man that in her sleepe foretold her the misery which she was fallen into and when she had prostrated her selfe vpō the ground before his picture and wept and thereby appeased the Saint she was restored to her former health The other story is of S. Mary Aegyptiaca her conuersion the occasion thereof and how she came into the Church adored the crosse picture of our B. Lady whereof there is a large relation onely this I bring for my purpose that she saith of her selfe that vpon her knees she prayed before the picture of our B. Lady and there spoke vnto it as if she had our B. Lady present in her picture Which her miraculous conuersion and other effects which followed did shew to be pleasing to almighty God These 2. stories with many more are there not only related but publiquely allowed and approued by the whole Councel How then can you Sir Humphrey say that the Councel pretends nothing but a ciuil imbracing or kissing without any corporal submission to images What greater submission can there bee then kneeling and prostrating ones selfe vpon the ground before a picture and speaking and praying thereto but this is like the rest of your sayings 14. Now for Valentia his words which you bring as if he did allow some idol-worship it is manifest by them that he doth not allow any such but out of the words illicitis simulachrorum cultibus in S. Peter taking the word Simulachrum in a good sense that is for the same as imago as some ancient authors doe and withall explicating his meaning in the vse thereof he saith it may seeme to be gathered out of S. Peter's determining the word Simulachrum by the words illicitis cultibus that there is some good image-worshipp Which argument be it good or bad or be his vse of the word Simulachra for images good or badd it is all one for the matter as long as
you see his meaning to be absolutely to condemne idol-worship and approue image-worship Neither doth your noting of the greeke word in the margent in proofe that S. Peter speaketh of idol-worship auaile you For Val. speaketh onely of the Latine word which is more indifferent and in some authors signifieth the same that imago and euen the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be now by the vse of Fathers Councels and Doctours determined to signify an empty or vaine image of a thing which is not according to that of S. Paul idolum nihil est in mundo an idol is nothing in the world Cor. 7.4 yet if a man respect the primitiue signification or etymology it might perhaps be taken more indifferently for it cometh from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth species or forma the seeming shape or beauty of a thing or person but it is true that in the signification of words we must follow the ecclesiastical rule Neither doe I allow Valencia his vse of the word Simulachrum and explication of S. Peter's text or euen his argument drawne from thence though the point of doctrine which he defends be true to wit image-worship But this is to shew you how he might vse the word harmelesly especially declaring himselfe plainely by other words though for you to stād trifling cōtēding about words when you see his meaning is a signe of your want of matter But heere by the way I cannot but note how to vrge the matter more against Valentia you runne your selfe vpon the rockes for you obserue that the word vsed by Saint Peter in that place signifieth idol-worship not image-worship Wherein you seeme plainely to confesse that image-worship and idol-worship and consequently an image and an idol are not all one Whereby as you thinke to aduantage you self in this place against the Iesuit soe you doe not marke that herein you contradict your selfe and the whole currant of your owne Doctors whose chiefe argumēts against images are certaine places of Scriptures against idols which you also bring before For if an image an idol be not all one then are all your arguments nothing worth or if they be then is Valentia's argumēt good choose which you will And therefore if you cast vpp your counts aright you will find you haue lost more then you haue gained by this citation of Valencia 15. A fift point of vncertainty you deliuer in these words Concerning the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist it is most euident saith Bellarmine but cōcerning the rest of the Sacramēts it is not soe certaine And out of Canus you say the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that they doe not resolue whether it giueth grace or noe thus you Sir Humphrey to which I answeare that for the place of Bellarm. you are conuinced before of manifest corruption For whereas Bellarm. saith it is certaine Cap. 9. §. 4. in fine but not soe manifest you leaue out not manifest and change certaine into not certaine besids what is that which Bellarmine saith is not manifest but certaine that these two are Sacraments the rest not noe such matter Sir Knight it is their signification which he speaketh of yet not their signification of grace which they cause but their signifying of the passion of Christ which is the beginning and aeternal life which is the end of the grace giuen by the Sacraments this signification he saith is certaine but not so euident in the rest of the Sacraments For Canus you corrupt him as fowly also For first you ioyne two seueral places together as if they were but one in Canus himself then make him say that the Diuines doe not resolue whether it that is Matrimony giues grace or noe which is most flatly false For as I shewed before he granteth it with all Diuines to be properly a Sacrament his two places seuerally are thus the Diuines speake soe diuersly of the matter forme of Matrimony that it were folly for a man to resolue any thing certaine this is one whereof I spake more before shewed that his meaning is not to say that it is not certaine whither it be a Sacrament or not or whither it haue a matter and forme Cap. 9. §. 4. for that I shewed to be most certaine and by most expresse words of his owne but that noe man can say determinately which is the matter and which the forme Which as Bellarmine saith well is not soe necessary for vs to know but that without it we may and ought to acknowledge a true Sacrament it is enough to know what is requisite for celebrating a true Sacrament and what those things are without which it is not a Sacrament though we doe not know which of those things is the matter which the forme For exāple if a Priest in baptisme vse true water and the right words he doth administer a true Sacramēt though he should not know which is the matter and which the forme nay though he should thinke the words to be the matter and water the forme though the cleane contrary be truth The other place of Canus is that he saith that Matrimony contracted without a Priest is noe Sacrament because in his opinion the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme and of that kind of Matrimony he consequently denieth it to giue grace but of Matrimony absolutely and as it is vsed in the Catholique church he neuer made doubt See before his words 16. The last matter of vncertainty is of our traditions which you say you are vncertaine whereas the Scripture is written to giue vs certainty For this saying you alleadge noe Catholique truely nor falsly and therefore it is not to be counted of being soe manifestly false For whence haue we the certainty of the very Scriptures themselues but by tradition and much more of the sense and meaning of the Scriptures Besids as I haue often said and shewed this your prime principle is not onely false but contrary to expresse Scripture and contrary to the common consent of all Fathers which the Reader may see in whole treatises written heereof Wherefore to come to an end of this your Section of certainty we find nothing in matter of faith vncertaine in the Catholique church nothing certaine on your side but onely that you are alwaies and euery where Sir Humphrey Linde Of the 11. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 11. The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the greater Safety comfort and benefit of the Soule in the Protestant faith then in the Romish CHAPTER XI 1. FROM certainty you come to Safety whereof you needed not haue made soe distinct mention and proofe it following necessarily and manifestly that that faith which is most certaine in it selfe is also most safe for men to follow as also it cannot be Safe without certainty Wherefore as you were not able to proue it certaine in your former
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