thou art not to be the author but the keeper not the institutor but a scholler not leadinge but followinge Soe as by Timothee the whole Church being vnderstood as the same author saith or especially the whole body of Pastors it followeth that the Church createth not anie new articles of faith but teacheth onely that which she hath learned of the Prophets and Apostles 6. From which followeth that other thing which I meāt to tell the Knight for his learning which also I touched before in a word to wit that when points of doctrine before in controuersy and vndefined come to bee defined by the Church the doctrine is not therefore new because it is de fide or matter of faith now which it was not before as he most falsely and fondly supposeth for an vndoubted truth and vpon this his owne idle fancy buildeth many goodly arguments like soe many castles in the ayre For out of this hee thinketh it to follow that we vary in our doctrine that because forsooth there be many things now de fide which were not before and whereof Doctors did dispute which seing we may not now doubt of therefore the faith is in his iudgment altered But this sheweth nothing but the poorenes of his iudgmēt For by this he might proue that the sunne as it riseth higher and higher and by spreading his beames giueth light in some places att noone where it did not in the morning that therefore it is changed in it selfe then which what can be more absurd 7. And that it is the same of the Church and the Sunne Cant. 6.9 appeareth by that place of the Canticles Quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens pulchra vt Luna electa vt sol terribilis vt castrorum acies ordinata Who is she that goeth forward as the morning rising faire as the moone chosen as the Sunne terrible as an ordered army of tents Which words noe man euer doubted to be literally vnderstood of the Church Euen then as the Sunne may goe spreading his beames more and more with out increase or change of it owne light in it selfe soe may the Church goe more and more spreading the beames of her diuine faith with out increase or alteratiō of the faith in it self And as the Sunne beame may shine in a valley or roome of a house where it did not shine before soe may the Church spread the light of her faith shewing such or such a point to be a diuine truth which before was not soe knowne to bee or which though it were a diuine truth in it self yet it was not soe to vs. 8. For more declaracion whereof I may yet bring another more scholerly example which is of the principles of seuerall sciēces which are to bee the premisses in demonstratiue arguments of those sciences in which principles or premises are contained diuers truthes which may be drawne out of them by many seuerall conclusions one following of another these conclusions were truthes in themselues before though they did not soe appeare vnto mee till I saw the connexiō they had with the premisses and how they were contained in them And by the many seuerall conclusions which are soe drawne the truth of those principles and premisses doth more shew it self but not receiue any increase or chāge in it self thereby Euen soe we say in the prime principles of our Faith reuealed immediately to the Prophets and Apostles and by them deliuered vnto the Church are contained all truths which any way belonge to our Faith ād whereby the Church hath in succeeding ages destroyed seuerall haeresies as they haue risen without creating or coyning new faith or altering the old but out of the old grounds and premisses drawing those conclusions which destroy new haeresies and shew them to be cōtrary to the ancient faith And in that manner the Church hath growen and increased in knowledge by degrees and shall still goe growing and increasing to the end of the world Greg. moral lib. 9. cap 6. as sheweth S. Greg. his discourse vpon those worde of Iob. Qui facit Arcturum Oriana Hyadas c. Where he saith thus Vrgente mundi fine superna scientia proficit largius cum tēpore excrescit As the world draweth to an end the heauenly knowledge profiteth and with tyme increaseth Wherein also she resembleth our B. Sauiour her cheife Lord and heauenly Spouse who though in grace and knowlegde he neuer receiued the least increase from the first instant of his Conception Luc 2.52 yet the Scripture saith after proficiebat sapientia aetate gratia apud Deum homines To wit because he shewed it more in his words and actions 9. This is farther confirmed by the manner and practize which our Catholique Doctors and Fathers euer obserue in and out of Councells in prouing or defining points of faith to wit by hauing recourse to the authority of scripture and tradition beleife and practize of the Church in the searching whereof the holy Church ioyneth humane industry with God's holy grace and assistāce For when any question or doubt of faith ariseth particular Doctors seuerally dispute and write thereof then if farther neede require it the holy Church gathereth together her Pastors and Doctors in a Councel to examine and discusse the matter more fully as in that first Councel of the Apostles Act. 15.6 whereof the Scripture saith Conueneruntque Apostoli seniores videre de verbo hoc The Apostles ad Ancients assembled to consider of this word The Pastors coming soe together and hauing the presence of our Sauiour according to his promise and his holy Spirit out of the Prophetical and Apostolical Scriptures and Traditiōs ioyning therewith the authorityes and interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors out of praecedent tymes she doth infallibly resolue and determine the matter not as new but as ancient orthodox and deriued from her Forefathers making that which was euer in it self a diuine truth soe to appeare vnto vs that now we may not make farther question thereof 10. Vinc. Lerin cap. 27.28.29 seq And this being the common doctrine deliuered by our Catholique Doctour I thinke it not amisse somewhat farther to confirme and authorize the same by an excellent discourse of that holy and ancient Father Vincentius Lerinensis not reciting his very words because it would bee too long but onely the substance which is this Hauing proued by the word Depositum out of S. Paul that a Pastour Priest Preacher or Doctour there meant by Timothee must onely deliuer the doctrine which is deposited with him or in his hands not found out by him which he hath receiued not inuented whereof hee is not to bee author or beginner but the Keeper or Guardian hee saith that if such a man haue abilityes for it hee may like another Beseleel adorne sett out and grace the pretious iewels of diuine faith by expounding more clearely that which before was beleiued 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
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
haue stood complayning of the word but freed your selfe of the matter and all had beene well 3. For that other point of bitternes that wee accurse and excommunicate you and spare Iewes and Infidells accusing vs therein of great cruelty and bitternes You should haue remembred S. Paul's authority and example Doth not he excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian and deliuer him to the Diuel and yet spare Iewes and Infidels He doth and giues the reason why he spareth them to wit because he hath noe authority ouer them Quid mihi de ijs qui foris sunt iudicare 1. Cor. 5.12 what haue I to doe to iudge those that are without that is out of my iurisdiction but because you Sir Humphrey shall not likewise say that by priuiledge of your haeresie you likewise exempt your selfe 1. Timoth. I. 20. you may remember how S. Paul in an other place deliuereth Alexander and Hymecraeus Haeretiques to Satan Which yet you cannott call bitternesse but iust seuerity vnlesse you will also take vpon you to condemne S. Paul of cruelty and bitternes which I presume you will not If then you and your fellow Ministers bee Haeretiques as they were why should you deny to vndergoe the same Doome Cleare your self of the haeresie but complaine not of the curse and excommunication it is and hath euer beene the iust censure of the Church against Haeretiques Schismatiques and all enormous and contumacious sinners wee must not alter Lawes for you Sir HuÌ„phrey though you alter faith at your pleasure 4. Now then lett vs see whether there bee cause for the seuerity which the Catholique Church doth vse by calling our Reformers Haeretiques and denouncing them subiect to Anathema Sir Humphrey's first reason to the coÌ„trary is out of Theodoret's history but that maketh nothing for him but rather quite contrary and withall giueth a tast in the very beginning how truely aÌ„d conformably to their minds he alleadgeth authors Theodoret speaketh of a schisme diuision or dissension which long troubled the Church of Antioch about their Bishop some taking one to bee their lawfull Bishop and communicating onely with him and such as held with him Others in like sort with the other Which contention dured not onely during one Bishop's life but more each side choosing a new one in place of their Bishop deceased his words are these speaking of some Bishops who gathering together said that the Churches were to be brought to concord Nam constabat c. For it was plaine Lib. 3. cap. 4 that they were not onely impugned by the fauourers of contrary doctrine but also that they were pulled insunder by mutual dissention among themselues For at Antioch the body of the Church which followed sound Doctrine was diuided into two parts for all who standing for the excellent man Eustathius had separated themselues did perpetually make their meeting a part and they which stood for that admirable man Meletius separated from the Arian faction did celebrate the holy Mysteries in Palaea Soe the place was called and yet was the confession of faith of both one and other the same For both companies did defend the doctrine of faith caught in tâ—e Councel of Nice the contention being onely of an other matter and out of the loue which they did beare to their Bishops neither could the death of the one take away the discord These and Theodorets owne words which are inough to shew the case to be cleane different there the contention was not for matter of faith or doctrine heere it is there the Catholiques of both sides though at variance among themselues for other matters yet in reguard of faith they would haue nothing to doe with Arrians Soe it is now with vs Catholiques though there may be contentions for other matters as for Superiority extent of iurisdiction priuiledges exemptions or the like yet all ioyntly detest all haereticall doctrine There indeede both sides embraced the Nicene Creede which was the onely point in controuersy at that tyme which now our Reformers professe to beleeue but they differ in the profession of faith of the Councel of Trent whereof the reason is the same now as it was then of the Creede of Nice For that was against the haeresies of those tymes and this against the haeresies of these If then the knight find Catholiques disagreeing among themselues about other matters yet agreeing in the profession of faith of the Councel of Trent he may alleadge this authority of Theodoret to allay the coÌ„tention But for the matter betweene him and vs it is wholly impertinent and out of season and a wrong to Theodoret himself to haue his authority alleadged for perswading of concord with Haeretiques without their renouncing of their haeresies 5. But a man may well haue patience to see this author's meaning abused when hee shall see both Bellarmines meaning abused and his words corrupted as I shall now shew His words out of himselfe are these Lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. It is to bee noted first that in the Christian Doctrine as well of faith as manners there bee some things simply necessary to Saluation for all men as the knowledge of the articles of the Apostles Creede the ten Commandments and some Sacraments Other things are not soe necessary as that without the explicite knowledge beleefe and profession of them a man may not bee saued soe hee haue a ready will to receiue and beleeue theÌ„ when they shal bee laufully propounded vnto him by the Church Thus Bellarmine in one place and in another a little after againe hee saith Note secondly that the Apostles did preach to all those things which were necessary for all but of other things not all to all but some to all and some onely to Praelats Bishops and Priests Soe Bellarmine By which any man may see how falsely and cunningly the knighs hath dealt in citing this authority For I would know of him where Bellarmine saith that the Apostles neuer propounded as common articles of faith other things then the articles of the Apostles Creede the ten commandments and some few Sacraments to begin first with the last word where doth Bellarmine say some few Sacraments he saith some Sacraments indeede but few he saith not Which though it bee not much yet I cannot thinke but Sir Humphrey had a meaning in it to make Bellarmine symbolize with him in his paucity of Sacraments Secondly where doth Bellarmine say that the Apostles propounded the ten commandments and some Sacraments as articles of faith where finde you that Sir Humphrey Doe not you make more articles of faith now then euer any man did before The ten commandments are indeede to bee beleeued but yet are they not soe much matter of beleefe as practize not soe much pertayning to faith as to charity towards God and our Neighbour and this Bellarmine saw very well when he said that in the Christia doctrine as wll of faith as maners somethings were necessary to saluatioÌ„ for
not much short of idolatry For Tertull doubteth not to aequal them Nec dubitare quis debet neque ab idolatria distare haereses Tertul. de praeser cap. 40. quum auctoris operis eiusdem sint cuius idolatria Neither ought any man to doubt that heresies doe not differ from idolatry since their author and worke is the same which idolatry Nay in some respects haeresy goeth beyond idolatry as S. Thomas well sheweth and S. Hierome saith absolutely and without limitation 2.2 q. lib. 7. in Esai Nemo tam impius est quem Haereticus impietate non vincat There is noe man soe impious whom an Heretique doth not surpasse in impiety Therefore your comfort is vanity since your profession is impiety And soe much for that matter 16. Now if any man will but lend an eare he shall heare a fine conceit of yours whereby to proue your Faith ancient vniuersall and what not That is by answearing our question where your Church was before Luther in this manner Of the foure Creeds to wit of the Apostles of Nice of Athanasius and Pius 4. You beleeue 3. which were beleeued before Luther of the 7. Sacraments you beleeue 2. which we confesse also to haue beene instituted by Christ of Scriptures you acknowledge 22. books For canonical which we allow which were soe beleeued before Luther's tyme. why rather 7. Councels then 17. or 19. Of the 7. generall Councels 4. are confirmed by Parlament in England not called by Luther The traditions vniuersally receiued and which we confesse to bee Apostolicall are deriued from the Apostles to you as you say not from Luther The prayers in your common prayer booke are the same Say you in substance with our ancient liturgies not broached by Luther the ordination of Ministers is from the Apostles not from Luther If therefore say you the 3. creeds the two principall Sacraments the 22. books of canonicall scripture the fower first generall Councels the Apostolique traditions the ancient Liturgies the ordination of Pastors were anciently vniuersally receiued in all ages in the bosome of the Romane Church euen by the testimonyes of our aduersaries is it not a silly and senselesse question to demand where our Church was before Luther all this is your discourse Sir Knight and most part your very words wherein you seeme to thinke you haue soe satisfied our question that in your iudgment it is silly and senselesse to demaund it any more But it will easily appeare on the contrary side what a silly senselesse thing it was for you to frame such a discourse to your selfe and much more soe to publish it to other men as if any body els had soe little witt as to be pleased therewith For be it soe that these points of doctrine were ancieÌ„tly taught as they are now taught by the Romane Church what followeth that you had a Church before Luther nothing lesse For a Church consisteth not of points of Doctrine or faith onely but much more of men professing such and such Sacraments rites such a faith religioÌ„ If therefore you will shew vs a Church you must shew vs such a company of men which till you can shew the question remaineth vnansweared If you say they were the same men of which the Romane Church did then consist which you seeme to say in that you tell vs your Church was in the bosome of the Romane Church I answeare that is not to the purpose For as now since Luther's tyme you are a distinct company making a Church such as it is by your selues soe you must shew a company of men in like manner distinct in former tymes from ours and your antiquity is onely to begin from such a tyme as you began to bee a distinct company from vs You must not thinke to stand and contend with vs for antiquity and then pretend our antiquity to bee yours But you must shew a distinct Succession of Bishops a distinct common wealth or people professing that Faith onely which you beleeue practizing those rites ceremonies and Sacraments onely which you haue when you haue done this you may better demand what a silly senselesse question it is to aske where your Church was before Luther 17. But because you mention your being in former ages in the bosome of the Romane church not onely heere but els where often in this your treatise as if thereby you would make your Church seeme one and the same with ours or at least to descend from ours Tertull. de praesâ—r cap. 36. and soe to participate of our Visibility and Vniuersality I will alleadge you a saying of Tertullians which doth soe fully answeare the matter that you will take but little comfort in the manner of your descent Thus it is Tertullian hauing alleadged for his eight prescription against Haeretiques the authority of the Apostolique churches which then kept the very authentical letters written To them by the Apostles and especially of the Romane Church which he calleth happy for that to it the Apostles powred forth all their whole doctrine together with their bloud and there putting downe a briefe summe of some speciall points thereof concludeth in theis words Haec est institutio non dico iam quae futuras haereses praenunciabat sed de qua haereses prodierunt Sed non fuerunt ex illa ex quo factae sunt aduersus illum Etiam de oliua nucleo mitis opimae necessariae asper oleaster exoritur Etiam de papauere fici gratissimae suauissimae ventosa vana caprificus exurgit Ita haereses de nostro fructificauerunt non nostrae degeneres veritatis grano mendacio siluestres This is the institution I doe not say now which did foretell Haeresies to come but out of which haeresies haue come But they were not of it from the tyme that they became against it Euen out of the kernel of the mild fatt and necessary or profitable oliue the sower bastard oliue groweth From the seede alsoe of the most pleasant and sweete figtree ariseth the windy and vaine or empty wild figtree And soe haue haeresies fructified out of ours but they not ours degenerating from the graine of truth and becoming wild by vntruth or lying Thus farr Tertullian Acknowledging indeede that haeresies haue their beginning from vs that is that the men that broach them come out of our Church but that they are noe more ours when they beginne once to be against vs. And that the dishonour thereof redoundeth not to vs but to themselues hee declareth by the two similitudes of the oliue and figgetree comparing vs to the true and fruitfull trees and them to the bastard vaine and wild trees issuing out of the former All which if you consider well Sir Humphrey you will find it but a small honour for you to haue come out of the Romane Church though you haue layen neuer soe long in the very bosome thereof as you
you must doe before your communion Annotat. after the order of administringe the communion neyther will it serue the turne to haue one or two to beare the Minister company but there must bee a competent number for example saith your booke if the Parish consist of 20. persons there must be 3. or 4. at least otherwise the Minister must not communion it And by this rule a man may say proportionably if the parish haue twenty hundred or 20000. there should be 3. or 4. thousand to communicate at once And if a sicke body would receiue he may not receiue alone but hee must haue some body to beare him company and not onely one or two but many or a competent number as your booke saith which therefore is to bee considered according to the number of Parishioners This and much more may bee said of the prettines of your seruice and good fellow communion but heere is enough of such an idle subiect and soe hauing answeared your third Paragraph of priuate Masse as you call it I come to the 4. PARAGRAPH 4. OF THE SEAVEN Sacraments 1. In this 4. paragraph which is of our Seauen Sacraments the Knight hoyseth vpp all the sailes of his eloquence and putteth to all the force of his witt as if both by wind and oare he would goe quite beyond vs in this point of our faith wherein for that cause he doth enlarge himself beyond the ordinary measure of his paragraphs and filleth his margents with citations of Fathers and of Schoolemen laying first for a foundation a wise discourse of his owne Which I will alsoe beginne with without longer prefacing with him He setteth downe first the Canon of the Councel of Trent accursing whosoeuer shall say the Seauen Sacraments of the new Law were not instituted by Christ Sess 7. caâ— 1. de Sacr. in gen or that there bee more or fewer then Seauen or that any of them is not properly and truely a Sacrament Which decree saith Bellarmine ought to suffice though we had noe other For if we take away the authority of the present Church and present Councell the decrees of all other Councels and the whole Christian Faith may be brought into doubt Which canon of the Councell and authority of Bellarmine he cryeth out against and saith it is a foundation of Atheisme for in his iudgment the word of Christ alone is sufficient for all Christians which hee proueth by those words of S. Paul I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsel of God Act. 20. And that wee may know he speaketh of the written Word he bringeth Bellarmines authority saying that those things are written which were by the Apostles preached generally to all And hee is soe confident against this point of the Seuen Sacraments that hee is content the curse shall light vpon him if any learned man shall shew it out of any Father of the Primitiue Church or any knowen author for about a thousand yeares after Christ This is his beginning whereat I will make a stay and answeare not to take too much at once Hee thinketh it then a foundation of Atheisme to say that if wee take away the authority of the present Church and present Councel wee may call in question the whole Christian Faith And why soe good Sir Humphrey What Atheisme is it to say that there is one Faith that that Faith is to bee found onely in the Church that that Church cannot fayle or erre at any time and consequently that that Faith which it teacheth cannot faile or erre and especially that then the Church can least erre when it is gathered together in a General Councel and defineth matters of Faith with approbation of the Supreme Pastor of God's church and that if such a Councel may erre the Church may erre that if the Church may erre the Faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently that there can bee noe certainty is this the way to Atheisme to teach that there must be some certaine meanes to learne true faith and beleife in God and that if there bee none such there can bee noe certainty would a man thinke that it should euer enter into any man's mind to say that the affirming of this infallibility were the way to Atheisme Whereas the denyall thereof is the most direct way that can be imagined vnto Atheisme For take this infallibility away and there is noe rule of faith if noe rule noe faith if noe faith noe right beleife in God which is the height of Atheisme 2. But because you Sir Humphrey are not capable of this Discourse as euident and demonstratiue as it is I will goe about with you another way I would know of you whither if wee should take away the holy Scripture or written word it would not follow in you iudgment that the whole Christian faith might bee called in question I say in your iudgment for whether it would or would not in myne I doe not say any thing heere certainely it would For some rule men must haue and that is your onely rule Now againe doe not you know that S. Gregory the great did often say write that he did hold the fower first Councels in the same honour that he did the 4. Ghospels which was the same as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Ghospels Why may it not then follow that vpon deniall of the authority of those 4. Councels the authority of the ChristiaÌ„ faith may be shaken as well as by deniall of the Ghospell V. Bâ—ll lib. 2. de Concil cap. 3. and this which I say of S. Gregory I may say of many other Fathers in reguard of all or some of those 4. Councels and particularly of that of Nice which whosoeuer should haue denyed was noe lesse to haue bene counted an Haeretique then if he should haue denied the Ghospell 1. Eliz 1. you your selues in your Parliament Lawes giue great authority to those 4. first Councels euen as much if you vnderstand your selues well speake consequently as S. Gregory doth for you are coÌ„teÌ„t to acknowledge for heresy whatsoeuer is condemned for such by any of them Which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith coÌ„sequently of infallible authority you ioyne theÌ„ in the same ranke with the canonical Scriptures You giue also the like authority to other general Councels but with this lymitatioÌ„ that these later must haue expresse scripture whereby to coÌ„demne a thing for heresy but which is most of all to bee noted in the same statute you giue power to the Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Conuocation to adiudge or determine a matter to bee heresy Which is the very same as to giue it power to declare faith or to bee a rule thereof which if it may agree to such an assembly or Court of a temporal Prince and Kingdome I see not why it may not agree to a
it is soe still For as Hebrew Greeke and Latine were then the most knowne tōgues in which onely the Scriptures were written and publiquely read soe the same languages are still vsed partly because they are sacred and partly because they are most knowne What then maketh that against our Latine Masse or rather is it not a proofe of our antiquity and disproofe of his nouelty Against image-worship he talketh of the 2. Cōmaundement and the hate of the Iewes against Images Hee bringeth the testimonyes of some Haeretiques against them and the saying of some one Diuine of the manner of worshipp and the reprehēsion of others against the abuses committed in the adoration of them out of all which setting the testimonyes of Haeretiques a part I aske what he would conclude Or how he disproueth our Worship which we allow or how the reprehension of abuses in some of the simpler sort of Catholiques suppose there be some such abuses proueth the lawfulnes of his Image breaking or the truth and antiquity of his doctrine though his Doctrine in this point be but onely the denial of ours Now we proue ouer and aboue out of ancient Fathers and Councels the antiquity of our Worshipping of Saints and their pictures Lastly of Indulgences he saith out of some of our Diuines that there is noe expresse testimony of Scripture and Fathers for the antiquity of them To which wee answeare that as this notwithstanding these very men doe not deny the antiquity of Indulgences for want of such proofe soe others also proue the ancient vse of them euen out of other most ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church Howsoeuer the controuersy amongst those Diuines is not of the Indulgences themselues or doctrine but onely of the Vse of them or suppose it were soe that one or two Diuines did thinke amisse of them doth that proue the antiquity of his Doctrine may not those very Diuines be against him in other things What ancient author of authority hath he brought to proue his Doctrine not Durand nor any man els whosoeuer is by him pretended to thinke hardest of them though he had Durand wholy for him how could his bare authority or saying make the denying doctrine ancient being but 400. yeares agoe or vniuersal being but one man and contradicted by others 6. And thus hauing made a reuiew opposite to his I would faine see what any man can find should moue Men much lesse Angels to witnesse the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine nay doth not his manner of proofe rather shew the sleightnes and nouelty thereof together with the strange vanity of a brauing Knight that braggeth his Church before Luther was in Christ in the Apostles in the Fathers in the bosome of the ancient Church praetending right to the Fathers Apostles and CHRIST without shewing any shaddow of Succession that being the onely thing which he was to haue done heere and indeede the onely proper proofe for a man that will professe right to such ancestors And this was indeede the proofe which Tertullian did exact at the hands of some Haeretiques who claymed antiquity and would needs haue their Doctrine passe for Apostolique because they were in the Apostles tymes Tert. de praescr cap. 32. Edant ergo saith he origines ecclesiarum suarum euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per Successiones ab initio decurrentem vt primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis c. Let them shew the beginnings of their Churches let them vnroull or lay open the order or Catalogues of their Bishops soe running by Successions from the beginning that that first Bishop had for author or Praedessor some one of the Apostles or Apostolical men who yet haue perseuered with the Apostles For in this manner the Apostolique Churches draw downe their pedigrees as the Church of Smyrna recounteth Polycarpe placed by Iohn the Roman church Clement ordained by Peter soe other Churches shew whom they haue had placed Bishops by the Apostles as it were branches of the Apostolical seede Let the Haeretiques faigne any such thing Soe he Doe you heare Tertullian Sir Humphrey bragg then if you thinke good still we giue you leaue that your Church was anciently in Christ in the Apostles Fathers and bosome of the ancient Church without shewing any such Succession of Bishops drawne downe from the Apostles 7. Now then that you haue spoken soe well of the certainty of your owne beleife let vs heare what you say of the vncertainty of ours wherewith you begin thus That for farther proofe of your cause you will giue another summons to the prime men euen of our grand inquest who without partiality will testify on your behalfe that your Church is built vpon a more stable and sure foundation then the now Romane Church and that your doctrine is more fruiteful and profitable and euery way more safe and comfortable for the beleife of euery Christian and saluation of the beleeuer Which you proue laying way for a ground what Bellarmine saith that noe man can be certaine by the certainty of faith that he doth receiue a true Sacrament because that depends vpon the intention of the Minister whereof noe man can be certaine By which one tenet you say we ouerthrow all certainty of true faith Which you exemplify in Baptisme wherein if there want the intention of the Baptizer the Baptized is still an heathen and in state of damnation Soe of Order if the intention of the Ordainer faile it is noe Sacrament and consequenty if this intention were wanting in the ordination of Popes all succeeding Ordinations would be void soe also Of Matrimony if the intention of the Minister want it is but Fornication c. Thus you rowle on Sir Humphrey in your discourse but you must giue vs leaue to haue a word or two with you before you goe farther You giue another summōs to the prime men of our grand inquest wherein notwithstanding I doe not find that you obserue any order or number of your Iurours as is wont to be obserued in a Iury Wherevpon I began to thinke that you vsed this phrase of summons and grand inquest for the euer honoured memory of your deare deceased Father who was one of the most famous grand iury men of Middlesex in his tyme from whom it seemeth you haue learned onely the name of a grand inquest but not the right order of impanelling your iury nor euen the right number of your Iurours The foreman of your iury though you call him not soe is Bellarmine whom you make to giue vp his verdict against the certainty of our faith because he saith noe man can be certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament Which you say ouerthroweth all certainty of faith But I pray you good Sir Humphrey say truely are you in earnest or in iest me thinkes by the matter you should meane onely in iest it is soe idle but though this were your best excuse yet because you may take that ill
A PAIRE OF SPECTACLES FOR SIR HVMFREY LINDE TO SEE HIS WAY WITHALL OR AN ANSWEARE TO HIS booke called VIA TVTA A safe way wherein the booke is shewed to be a labyrinthe of error and the author a blind guide By I. R. The children of Israel say the way of our Lord is not right What are not my wayes right o house of Israel and not rather your wayes crooked Ezech. 18.29 Catholicae fidei regula velut via est quae te ducat ad patriam The rule of the Catholique faith is as it were the way which may leade thee to thy country Qui praetergreditur regulam fidei non accedit in via sed recedit de via He that goeth beside the rule of faith which is the Catholique Church doth not come in the way but goeth out of the way Aug. tract 98. in Io. PERMISSV SVPERIORVM 1631. THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO SIR HVMPHREY Linde 1. SIR some while since you wrote a booke of the Visibility of your Church calling it via tuta a safe way prouoked therevnto as you say by the challenge of a Iesuit to which now after a long pause you seeme to answeare though it bee not as you also say your profession thereby to vindicate the cause of your Mother the Church of England and maintaine your owne credit And all this you pretend to doe out of our owne authors It is true Sir Humphrey that a Iesuit made you a challenge as many haue done before and doe still to all Protestants to shew where their Church was before Luther and thereby haue putt them to much study and paine to find her out And some finding the taske soe hard haue beene faine to turne about another way and tell vs it is not needfull for the Church to be visible which they proue God's arrow against God's enemyes by Hen Smith Cap. 5. Fulke Apoc. cap. 12. because in the dayes of Elias it perished as they say for he said he was left alone and in the Apocalyps it is said that the Woman shall fly into the desert Which say they is all one as that the Church must be inuisible But you now as it should seeme taking your self to bee somewhat a better man then others that haue gone before you will needs take vpon you to shew where your Church was before Luther Wherein you are soe glorious and confident that you stile your booke a safe way leadinge all Christians to the true ancient and Catholique faith now professed in the Church of England and this you vndertake to performe by the testimonies and confessions euen of your best learned aduersaries 2. Which booke of yours though it hath beene long out and gained you much fame among some of your owne sect yet amonge Catholiques it hath seemed of soe small account as noe man hath all this while thought it worth the answearing thinking it the best way of answeare for such toyes to let them dye as they springe but since you not conceiuing this to bee the true reason of our silence nor hauing reguard to your owne credit which is lesse impaired by silence then writing stand still printing and reprinting this your wise peece of worke I haue thought good to giue it some answeare For though my intention at first were only to satisfye a priuate freind which was somewhat stumbled with it by gathering some few corruptiōs whereby hee might guesse of the rest Yet coming to reade your booke and finding the very choyce hard in such aboundance of corruptions and considering that many conceiued highly thereof the rather because it was not answeared I resolued vpon a little more full answeare which might serue for satisfaction not onely of that one freind but of others also who may haue conceiued the like opinion of this your booke the very title and first page especially mouing mee therevnto in which are contained soe great promises or rather soe great braggs that if Sir Humphrey you make them good wee may well change your name from Sir Humphrey to Sir Hercules for it is more then an Herculian labour which you vndertake therein if you doe not I presume you wil be content to change your surname of Lynde to another word not farre different in sound as beginning with the two first letters the same and more sutable to your deeds though not to vndubbe you howsoeuer the matter fall out there will still be left for you a title of Sir Which title should seeme a little by your phrase of speaking to bee the thing that made you engage your selfe in this quarrell as if by the honour of your Knighthoode you thought your selfe boūd therevnto which if it were Sir Fr. Hastings Sir Edw. Hobby Sir Edw. Cooke you might haue remēbred how ill some such Knight venturers as your self haue sped with their zeale But seing you will not be ware by other men's harmes but be putting your fingar into the fire you must take your chance as they did And for triall of this quarrell you shall giue mee leaue to enter into the lists with you in the examination of the booke it self heere only I shall a little examine what you say in your dedicatory Epistle 3. In which I reflect first vpon the title which is to the religious and well affected Gentry of this Kingdome what should be the cause you should dedicate this your worke to the Gentry particularly the thing yt self pertayning alike to all sortes of men who haue soules to saue vnlesse it were that by hauing specially to doe with Gētlemē you would faine seeme to haue somewhat of the Gentlemen For which I blame you not hauing need thereof for setting your Knighthood a part it may be your gentry may be questioned yf it be true that I haue heard of the honest Grocer your father who dwelt next doore to the George in Kings streete by which your birth as it were by a natural kinde of congruity you may seeme rather ordained to haue to doe with a pestel and a morter then a sworde or pen. This I doe not say Sir Humphrey that a man meanely borne may not by his deserts come into a better ranke for reason authority and example of all sorts teach the contrary but because as nobility of extraction and vertue ioyned together adde and receiue lustre reciprocally one frō the other Soe meanesse of qualities or conditions such as you shew in your writings and as God willing I shall out of them manifestly proue doth more shew it selfe being ioyned with a meane birth and education the one as it were bearing witnes of the other Wherefore mee thinkes Sir you being priuy to your owne wants of this kind should haue forborne to proclayme them to the world by this manner of writing which euery man presently seeth cannot come from an ingenuous disposition such as a Gentleman is presumed to haue 4. But now to come to your Epistle it self you say you haue attempted to send forth this
Essay of your poore endeauours to make the world see it is noe difficult matter for a meane Lay man to proue the ancient Visibility of the Protestant profession prouoked thereto by a Iesuit's challenge to shew out of good authors that the Protestant's church was visible in all ages before Luther and this you vndertake to doe not onely out of the most orthodox fathers but alsoe out of the Romish Bishops Doctours Cardinals c. This essay of your labours Sir Humphrey is poore indeede not to stand complementinge with you as I shall after shew and for your proofes out of Fathers and other writers in the Romane Church wee shall there also see what ones they are that is either nothing to the purpose or out of Authors branded with the marks of heresy or at least temerity and singularity For the challenge it selfe wherein consisteth the state of the question I say heere that you doe not sett it downe soe truely and fully as you should For you were to shew the Visibility of your Church by naming some who in all ages did professe the Protestant faith as it is now taught and professed in England entirely beleiuing all that is heere beleiued and beleeuinge nothing els that is contrary vnto it Which you might haue done if it could be done out of some good histories without standing vpon proofes of the particular points of doctrine out of this or that author for that was not to the present purpose 5. Neither were it sufficient as you say in your next paragraphe seeing it is confessed on all sides that the faith of Christ in the first age had visible Professours therefore to proue that the Faith of the Church of England is that which was deliuered to the Saints by Christ and his Apostles without farther recitall of succeeding witnesses this I say were not sufficient For the chalenge then which you were now to answeare and controuersy which you were to handle was not soe much of the truth of this or that particular point or of the doctrine euen in generall but of the Church it self which was to deliuer the doctrine and by which we were to come to the knowledge of the truth who the men were that were trusted to keepe the depositū which S. Paul gaue Timothy charge of where the Church was which the same S. Paul calleth the howse of God the pillar and firmament of truth Which was the seede of Christ whereof I say prophecieth and promiseth in the person of God the Father to his Sonne that hee would neuer take away the words of truth from their mouth Hoc foedus meum cum eis dicit Dominus Spiritus meus Isai 59.21 qui est in te verba mea quae posui in ore tuo non recedent de ore tuo de ore seminis tui de ore Seminis Seminis tui dicit Dominus amodo vsque in sempiternum This is my couenant with them saith our Lord. My spiritt that is in thee and my words that I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seede and out of the mouth of thy Seed's seede saith our Lord from this present and for euer Who they bee to whom our blessed Sauiour himself in person and with his owne mouth promised that he would send the Spirit of truth to remayne with them for euer and that himself would be with them to the consummation of the world Soe as this controuersy being of the Church it self which was to be found out by the visibility and succession thereof not soe much by the doctrine it could be no way sufficient to proue that the doctrine of the Protestant church was taught anciently though that can neuer bee proued For as I say the question is not of the doctrine but of the persons Wherein the Iesuit tooke the right way like a wise man and a good scholar to find out the Doctrine which is a thing more spirituall and lesse subiect to the sense by that which is corporall and more subiect to the view of all sorts of men For this is the way that all Scholars in the teaching of all Sciences take to wit to beginne with that which is knowne and euident and by it to come to the knowledge of that which is hidden according to Aristotel's Doctrine 6. And this hath euer beene the way which the holy fathers haue taken eyther in prouing the Catholique faith or disprouinge of heresies Soe Tertullian (a) praescrip cap. 32. lib. 3. car adu Marcio soe Irenaeus (b) lib. 3. cap. 1.2.3 lib. 4. cap. 43.45.46 soe Cyprian (c) ep 52. 76. Optatus (d) lib. 2. aduer Parm. and most of all that great Doctour S. Augustine (e) psal 2. part Don. ep 165. de vtil credend cap. 7. in seuerall places and particularly in his booke de vtilitate credenai where writinge to his freind Honoratus whom he laboureth to draw from the Manichaean heresy and putting case that he did doubt what religion to follow he saith without doubt he were to beginne his enquiry from the Catholique Church Proculdubio ab Ecclesia Catholica sumendum exordium For saith hee whereas there be among Christians many heresies all which desire to seeme Catholiques and call others Haeretiques there is one Church as all graunt if you reguard the whole world refertior multitudine vt autem qui nouerunt affirmant etiam veritate sincerior caeteris omnibus sed de veritate alia quaestio est More full of people and as they that know her for truth more sincere then any other but of the truth it is another question Soe as heere Saint Augustine maketh the first question of the Church it self Which he maketh to bee the first thing that a man that doubteth and seeketh to saue his soule must enquire after leauing the truth of the doctrine to be disputed in the second place praescr cap. 19. The like also hath Tertullian giuing withall a good reason thereof for making this prescription or exception against Haeretiques that we are not to admitt them soe farre as to dispute with them of Scriptures he sayth it is first to be disputed Quibus competat fides ipsa c. to whom faith it selfe belongeth to the which the Scriptures pertaine From whom and by whom and when and to whom that discipline was deliuered whereby men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shal be the truth of scriptures and expositions and all Christian traditions soe Tertullian In whose iudgement it is plaine that we are first to seeke the persons that professe the faith that is the Church because there certainely is the truth to be found Which is the course wee Catholiques take and perswade other men to take following the stepps of our Forefathers to wit to seeke out the Visible Church whereas Haeretiques
Index expurgatorius you will acknowledge the nouelty of your Church and submitt your selfe with an implicite faith to the Romane Church Soe you for your counterchalleÌ„ge Sir Humphrey had you marked the challenge well you might haue spared it for the Iesuit required you to performe nothing but that which many on the Catholique part haue performed ready to your hand that is that you should bring such a Catalogue of succession for proofe of the Visibility of your Church as we did many of ours as Sanders Bellarmine Gualterus others You aske by what authority we impose new articles of beleife vpon men this question is not to the purpose but I answeare by denying your suppositioÌ„ for we doe not impose new articles vpon men but defend the old against new faÌ„gled fellowes neither is this the proper place for you to require or for vs to bring proofes out of Fathers Scriptures of particular points whereof you cannot but know that many great and learned men in the Catholick Church haue written great volumes which noe haeretique hath euer yet durst venture to answeare how then can you soe brasenly say that our owne best learned confesse that the articles of the Trent-Creede as you call them are vnknowne to antiquity what point is there defined in the Councel of Trent which is not proued by way of authority of scriptures fathers by Iudocus Coccius by way of reason and solution of arguments by Bell. by way of history by Baronius to say nothing of others some may perhaps say that some points there defined were not before defined by any general Councel but to bring any Catholique to say that they are new or that they were not anciently nor commonly beleeued I dare say Sir Humphrey is more then you can proue but suppose any one may say that there is noe proofe extant in any ancient author of this or that point must it therefore follow that it is new noe surely for all things are not written as S. Iohn verifyeth of our Sauiour's owne words and deeds how much lesse then other things which yet are generally taught and practized in the Catholique Church which very practize without farther proofe S. Augustine maketh to be an argument of antiquity Aug cont Don. lib. 4.24 but of this newnesse of faith whereof you soe ignorantly complaine and likewise of implicite faith I shall say more afterwards 10. Now for our leauinge out the second commandement wherewith you tax vs and changing the fourth from sanctify the Sabboth to Sanctify the holydayes it is pitty you are soe hard driuen as when you are called vpon to proue your Succession and Visibility of your Church to fall vpon vs for the commandements a thing of soe different nature and soe triuiall For first it is false that we leaue out that which you call the second commandment Looke in our bibles and see whether you find it not there in all Editions and translations as well English as Latine or any other language whatsoeuer How then doe we leaue it out you will say we leaue it out in our catechismes true but to leaue a thing out of a catechisme is not absolutely to leaue it out as long as it is els where But besids to answeare you another way wee leaue out many other things as that God is a iealous God that hee reuengeth the Sinnes of the Father to the 3. and 4. generation and the like though they goe intermingled with the commandements in the text and this we doe without blame because they eyther pertaine not precisely to the commandement or are sufficiently expressed in the very words of the commandement it self Soe wee say of this that it is either contayned in the first commandement being onely an explication of the same or if it be a distinct precept as some Deuines say then is it ceremoniall onely and consequently abrogated with the whole Law 11. Soe likewise for the other commandement of Sanctifying the Holy-dayes I answeare that in our bibles or text of scripture we keepe the word Sabboth and in most and best catechismes also as for example Canisius Bellarmines large catechisme and others but specially in that of the Councel of Trent sett out by authority of Pius V. Which were answeare enough to shew we make noe such mystery of it since sometymes we say Sabboth sometymes Holydayes as indeede we well may the sense being the same and we may better vse this liberty in catechismes where we stand not soe much to cite the very words of scripture as to declare the meaning of them though in the text it selfe we keepe precisely to the very words Where yet we explicate it in the same sense following therein the example of Scripture it self which vseth those words indifferently as may appeare Leuit. cap. 23. Where other Holydayes beside the Saturday or Sabboth are called Sabbata 3. or 4. tymes in that one chapter and in the beginning thereof those dayes which are called Sabbata are called twice Feriae sanctae Holydayes Soe as you Sir Humfrey in making such a deale of difference betweene Sabboth and Holyday shew your self to be but shallowly read in scripture Besids I may answeare to this as to the former obiection that this coÌ„mandment was partly ceremonial to wit for as much as pertayneth to that particular day of saturday and partly natural to wit soe farre as it obligeth to the obseruing of some daye or tyme holy indeterminately 12. But if we be such great offenders for changing â—â—e word Sabboth in some of our catechiâ—mes into Holyday what are you for changing the very commaÌ„dement while you stand working vpon Saturday and rest vpon Sunday soe changing the Sabboth it self but what stuffe is this for you to trouble your gentry Readers withall in the very beginning of your booke and in your Epistle dedicatory forsooth and not onely to touch vpon it heere but to print the commandements faire in a leafe by themselues with a marginal note of Ledaesma's catechisme of 2. or 3. editions as if you would make your Reader stand at some goodly gaze but by this a man may easily guesse what matter hee is like to find in the booke it selfe I could haue noted a thing of the same kind of yours in this Epistle in the first leafe where you say truth is iustifyed of her Children whereas the text of scripture is Wisedome is iustified c but that I did not count it worth speaking of 13. Touching your great boast that if we can shew one good author in euery age for this 1500. yeares who hath held our Trent articles as you call them de fide you will confesse our Doctours Schoolmen c. to be mistaken and to neede an index expurgatorius and that you will submitt your self to the Romane Church acknowledging the nouelty of your owne church Forasmuch as this your promise seemeth by the manner to be but a proud vaunt to delude the simple reader to make him more confident
labours and more wonder that you should desire any fauourable acceptance of them Wherefore it had beene then and is still fitter for you to lay aside any such thought and rather thinke how you can acquit your self to the world of your accounts for these that are past or rather how you shal be able to acquit your self before the iudgment-seate of Almighty God where you will find it another manner of matter then you count of to answeare for one soule much more for soe many as you haue laboured to peruert but because you are not capable of any good aduice of this kind I forbeare to say more heere resting howsoeuer Your welwishing Freind THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reader Gentle and iudicious Reader THough in my precedent dedicatory or rather answeare to Sir Humphrey's dedicatory Epistle I haue had occasion to say what is wont to be deliuered by way of preface concerning the occasion intention scope and manner of writing yet because my cheife end next to the glory of God is the good of thy soule I cannot omitt to addresse my self vnto thee in a word declaring on my part the good intention and purpose I haue in this writing and on thine crauing the like acceptance but especially that for thyne owne good thou wilt come to reade and peruse the same not with any preiudicate conceit either of one side or other but rather with an indifferency of mind ready to incline that way that the light of truth shall shew it self Sir Humphrey I confesse hath some things which at first sight may draw away an honest minded man who is not thoroughly acquainted with the fashion of such men of the Ministery as he is ledd by For besids a little learning which in a secular man maketh a great shew as for the increase of his owne glory he toucheth once or twice in his dedicatory the very title of his booke being VIA TVTA A SAFE WAY is a very pleasing thing to many in these dayes wherein men for the most part rather desire to find security in their owne wayes then forsaking them to seeke it where indeede it is to be found But the cheife thing is this that he vndertaketh to proue his intent out of our owne authors calling also both God and Man to witnesse his sincerity in the citation and translation of such and such places as he bringeth Which though it may moue a man a little at the first yet is it not sufficient to praecipitate the discreete Reader 's iudgment and carry it away wholy to the full beleife of what he saith without farther examination especially when he shall vnderstand that such specious titles and faire promises are the common baites of Haeretiques Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Of whom S. Hilarius saith that Ingerunt nobis primum nomina veritatis vt virus falsitatis introeat They first set before vs the names of truth that the poyson of falshood may enter in with them And S. Aug. soe well acquainted with their cunning practizes Aug. contra ep fundam cap. 11. saith that the promise of truth which they are continually making is nothing but a vaile to couer their errors or a goodly faire gate for errour to enter in stealingly into the minds of the vnskilfull Which S. Paul himself also witnesseth saying that by sweete speeches and blessings they seduce the harts of innocent and harmelesse people Now for the learning whereof he makes shew whether it be his owne or noe I will not question though I might since some that know him doubt whether he euen vnderstand Latine but presuming that he hath a little because he was once a Scholler of Westminster and after of Christ Church in Oxford being by his Father deputed and putt into the common rode of the Ministery though he be since stept out of it I know not ho w into the way of Knighthood I onely say this that it is farre short of what is requisite for writing of a booke of this kind as shall manifestly appeare besids that though it were a thousand tymes more I may say with the Wiseman Non est Sapientia non est prudentia non est consilium contra Dominum There is noe wisedome noe prudence noe councel against our Lord. But of this I shall not heere say more this being my intent onely in this place to aduise thee soe to come to the reading of this my answeare that thou suffer not thy self soe to bee wholy praeoccupated and ouerswayed from that indifferency which is most necessary for framing a right iudgement of any matter in controuersy With which preparation of minde if thou shalt come and with attention reade but most of all craue the speciall assistance of Almighty God's grace I hope thou shalt not haue cause to repent thee of thy paines Whereto without longer delay I shall heere leaue thee Certaine points to bee considered for the better answearinge of Sir Humphrey's cheife arguments in this Booke Chap. 1. CHAPTER I. 1. WHereas Sir Humphrey after his dedicatory Epistle before he come to the matter setteth downe a part of Pius 4. his bull which is of the forme of oath and profession of faith which according to the Councel of Trent such men are to make as are to be promoted to any Ecclesiastical dignity or benefice which hath care of soules ioyned with it I purpose likewise in this Chapter by occasion hereof to sett downe some few heades which may serue for a generall answeare to most of his arguments 2. The first shal be concerning this very Creede as he calleth it of the Councel of Trent which therefore he is pleased according to the common fashion of his Ministers by way of derision to deuide into 12. points as it were into 12. articles which he and they might with as much reason deuide into 24. but onely that by this fine conceite they would faine make some silly people beleiue that wee Catholiques leaue the old Creede of the Apostles and coyne our selues a new one according to the faith of the Councel of Trent and this hee and his freinds doe often charge vs with To which I say that True it is wee confesse it the points in this forme contained were defined and declared by that Councel and drawne into forme of an oath and profession of faith by Pope Pius 4. but that it is therefore a new Faith or that there bee new articles of beleife wee deny For proofe whereof I demaund of him or his fellow Protestāts who receiue the Nicene Creede as it is sett downe in their booke of common prayer what they thinke of that whether that be any thing els but a profession of faith sett downe by authority of the Church gathered together in a generall Councell approued by the See Apostolique by way of a definition or explication of a point of faith then controuerted by Haeretiques and discussed and declared in the Councel and appointed to bee publiquely professed by all
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
obscurely that posterity may reioyce at the cleare knowledge of that which antiquity did reuerence euen before it came to be soe knowne that in fine he must soe theach which he hath learned that though he deliuer it in a new manner yet hee deliuer not any new matter And then asking a question by way of obiectiō whether Christia religiō doe not receiue any increase or profit hee answeareth yes verily but in such manner as it may bee truely called increase not change For increase importeth an amplification or enlargement of a thing in it self Change importeth a turning of one thing into an other And soe he saith the vnderstanding knowledge and wisedome both of euery man in particular and of the whole Church in general may receiue increase but soe as to persist in same doctrine sense and iudgment which hee declareth by the similitude of a man's body which though it be greater when he comes to be a man then when hee was a chile yet all the parts and limbs are the same soe as though it receiue increase yet noe change the same hee declareth by another similitude of a graine of wheate cast into the ground which though it multiply in the growth yet it multiplieth onely in the same kind of graine Wherevpon he concludeth that the Church being a diligēt and wary keeper of the doctrines committed to her custody doth not adde diminish or any way change doth not cut of what is necessary nor adde any thing superfluous but with all industry soe handle all ancient doctrines as if any haue not receiued their full shape and perfection to polish and perfect them if any be throughly searched and expressed to cōsolidate and strengthen thē if any be cōfirmed and defined to keepe them adding withall that the Church hath neuer endeauoured any thing els by her decrees of Councels but onely that which was simply that is without questioning beleeued before should after bee more diligently beleeued that which before was preached more slackly should after bee preached more earnestly that wich before was more securely reuerenced should after be much more carefuly garnished or adorned and that the Church being excited by the nouelties of haeretiques hath done noe more but consigned to posterity in writing that which before she had receiued from her ancestours by tradition onely and for more cleare vnderstāding thereof many tymes expressed the ancient sense of faith by the propriety of a new appellacion that is by a new word then inuented to expresse the ancient beleife 11. This is the discourse of this Holy Father which I haue sett downe the more fully in reguard it containeth the cleare decision of this whole matter For out of it together with what hath beene hitherto said it may bee gathered first that the Church createth not any new articles of faith but onely that she deliuereth vnto vs those articles of ancient faith which she hath receiued from them by whom she was first plāted and taught that faith Much lesse doth she deliuer vnto vs any new faith For though she should haue new distinct reuelations yet would it not follow that the faith were new soe long as those it followeth that he that denieth the explication doth deny the article and consequently frame vnto himselfe a new beleefe 12. And that the absurdity of Sir Humphrey's argument may yet appeare more manifestly I add that any haeretique that euer was may by the very same maner of argument chalenge antiquity to himselfe and accuse vs of nouelty For he may say such a thing was not de fide before such a Councel ergo it is new and that he beleeues onely that which was beleeued before that Councel ergo he beleeueth the ancient Faith Which argumēt if it be good in Sir Humphrey is good in them and cōsequently he must disallow the decrees of all Councels as nouelties and approue all haeresies for the ancient beleefe Which being soe great and manifest an absurdity he will not sure for shame admitt and consequently must allow of Vincentiu's his authority and the answeare out of him to wit that Councels in defining matters of faith doe not coyne a new faith but declare explicate and define the old Which that Sir Humphrey may the better conceiue I shall heere in a word vrge him with an example of his owne Church thus The Church of England admitteth of diuers books of the new testament for canonical whereof there was doubt for three or fower hundred yeares togeather in the Church of God as the Epistle to the Hebrewes the second Epistle of S. Peter the Ep. of S. Iude the Apocalypse of S. Iohn and some others which were after admitted for Canonical Now I would know of him whether vpon the admittance of them there were any Change of faith in the Church or whether euen those books haue receiued any change in themselues hee cannot say they did and there by he may answeare himself and see plainly that the change which seemeth to be is not in the things to be beleeued but in vs that are to beleeue them because vpon such definition or declaration of the Church we are obliged to beleeue them which it may be we were not before And this may suffice for this matter of new articles of beleife which Sir Humphrey would faine father vpon vs. 13. Another thing which hee much buildeth vpon and whereby he thinketh to preuaile against vs in the authority of some particular Doctors or Schoolemen of the Church differing among themselues in some points not defined by the Church at such tyme as they did dispute thereof though afterwards they were But any man of iudgment will presently see that this is but to delude the simpler sort of people of his owne side whom he thinketh to make beleeue any thing For who doth not know that Catholiques binde themselues onely to defend the Catholique faith which neyther doth nor can depend vpon the iudgment of any one priuate Doctor how learned soeuer for neyther is any thinge counted faith till it bee taught by the authority of the Catholique church or common cōsent of Doctors Vinc. Lerin cap. 4. for soe saith Vincentius Lerinensis expressely that wee are to beleeue without doubt not what one or two Maisters teach but what all with common consent hold write and teach planely frequently and perseuerantly Vinc. Lerin cap. 39. And this as he saith els where Non in omnibus diuinae legis questiunculis sed quidem certe praecipuè in fidei regula Not in all small questiōs of the diuine Law but cheifely in the rule of faith Which Sir Humphrey cannot be ignorant of but onely that he lifteth still to be limping and wilfully dissembling the truth For if he had taken notice of this he would haue had lesse to say though he say not much euen now with all the dissembling he can deuise 14. Neyther will it serue his turne to say that we vrge him and his Ministers out of their
is in the Bishop's power to grant leaue if vpon conference with the Parish-Priest or Confessor of the party that desireth leaue hee find him to bee such an one as may not incurre danger of faith but be like to increase in vertue and deuotion by reading thereof Which with any reasonable man may bee counted sufficient liberty As for the Fathers it is most grossely false which the Knight after the ordinary ministerial tune stands canting that wee blot out and raze them at our pleasure For though for soemuch as concerneth the late Catholique authors of this last age for this our index of which is all the difficulty beginneth but from the yeare 1515. whatsoeuer needeth correction is to be mended or blotted out yet for others going before that tyme it is expressely said that nothing may bee changed vnlesse some manifest error through the fraud of haeretiques or carelesnesse of the Printer be crept in but that if any thing worth nothing occurre the new editions of the same author by some notes in the margent or at the later end the author's mind may be explained De correct lib. §. 3. 4. or the hard place by comparing other passages of the same author be made more cleare Now is heer any thing that derogateth from the dignity and authority of antiquity What is it then that these men would haue what is it they can carpe at nothing but that they themselues are stunge in that heereby they are kept either from publishing their owne wicked works or corrupting the Fathers at their pleasure and to wipe away this blemish from themselues they would lay it vpon vs. And by this that is heere said of this matter may be answeared noe little part of Sir Humphrey's booke whereof one whole chapter is of this matter beside other bitter inuectiues vpon other occasions to fill his paper though there also I shall haue occasion to say somewhat more heereof 19. The last thing which heere I meane to speake of is a certaine distinction of explicite and implicite faith wich the Knight and his Ministers cry out against and are pleased sometymes to make themselues merry withall as if they would laugh it out but it is too well and solidly grounded to be blowne away with the breath of any such Ministerial Knight as he is I will therefore only declare it in a word that the Reader may see whether the distinction or the Knight bee more worthy to be laughed at The words explicite and implicite are drawne from the Latine and they signifie as much as foulded and vnfoulded or wrapped vpp and layd open And explicite faith signifyeth a beleefe directly and expresly beleeuing a particular point of faith in it self not as it is inuolued or wrapped vpp in an other implicite faith is the beleefe of any point of faith not in it self but in some other general principle wherein it lyeth inuolued or as it were wrapped vpp as Catholiques beleeue in many thingh as the Church beleeueth though they doe not know what the Church holdeth particularly in this or that point Now all Catholiques being bound to the beleefe of the Catholique faith wholy and entirely vnder paine of damnation as saith Saint Athanasius in his Crede and all not being able to know what is taught in euery particular there must be some meanes whereby to beleiue all and this by an implicite faith including in it self a promptnes or readines of the vnderstanding and Will to obey and rely vpon the authority of the holy Church wherein noe Catholique that beleeueth any one point can haue much difficulty seeing the reason why he beleeueth that one point is the authority of God declared vnto vs by the mouth of the neuer erring Church 20. Neither is this implicite faith for the ignorant alone as the Knight saith but it is for all both learned and vnlearned for there is noe man soe learned but may be ignorant of some one point or other or at least in matters not yet defined he must haue that indifferency and readines of Will and iudgment to beleeue as the Church shall teach True it is the vnlearned know lesse of particular points though all be bound to the expresse or explicite knowledge of some articles as of the Apostles Creede of the Commaundements of God and the Church Sacrifice of the Masse of some Sacrements and euery one of soe much as perteyneth both to the common obligation of Christian Dewty and of his owne particular state and vocation For the rest it is not necessary for any one in particular to know all but it sufficeth that he haue a minde soe praepared that when he shall vnderstand more to be needfull he be ready to embrace it Which a man would thinke were but reason And for this disposition and praeparation of minde wherein the essence of implicite faith consisteth it is alike both in the learned and vnlearned The want whereof in Protestants is the very reason why they haue noe true faith at all euen in the beleefe of those mysteries which they beleeue for by this it plainely appeareth that euen in those things which they beleeue they haue noe reguard to any authority by which they are propounded vnto them but onely because they thinke good themselues and although they should beleeue all things which Catholiques beleeue but not for the reason which they beleeue but because they please themselues yet were not this faith and soe it is much better to beleeue a few things expresly with a resolution to beleeue whatsoeuer els shal be propounded by the Catholique Church then to beleeue a great many more with out this minde For that former is diuine faith this later onely humane selfe opinion and iudgment 21. Neither is there any cause why this Knight should soe cry out against implicite faith obtruded as he saith vpon the ignorant for it is not obtruded vpon any man but rather we desire with Saint Paul that all may bee replenished which the Knowledge of God and heauenly things but euery body knoweth that all men are not of capacity and vnderstanding alike And for such as are not able to attaine higher wee say it is sufficient for them to know somme few things and for the rest to beleeue as others in the Catholique Church beleeue Doth not S. Paul speake Wisedome among the perfect that is teach them the greater and higher mysteries of faith and yet to others hee giues onely milke 1. Cor. 2. that is the more easy Mysteries of faith not meate for saith he You were not yet able Were it not pretty if euery simple man should onely beleeue soe much as his owne vnderstanding reacheth vnto and for that which it cannot reach to deny it were not this a notable point of pride and yet this is that which the Knight would haue euery man to doe and derideth vs Catholiques because we will not haue Men soe to doe but with humility to beleeue what they doe not vnderstand
all men As the articles of the Apostle's Creede and the ten cōmandements and some Sacraments For the Creede belongeth to faith the commandements and Sacraments to manners For Bellarmine speaketh heere not onely what is necessary for all men to beleeue but what is necessary for all men to doe for obtayning of saluation according to that commission of our Sauiour to his Apostles Goe teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue whatsoeuer I haue commanded you 6. I doe not say that wee are not to beleeue these things also for we cannot practise them vnlesse we know them and some we cannot know otherwise then by faith The commādements indeede are principles of reason drawne euen from the very light of nature though taught by diuine authority but the Sacraments are taught onely by faith yet soe as they are ordayned principally for practise noe lesse then the Commaundements and therefore not articles of faith but sufficiently contayned in the article of the Catholique Church for without Sacraments there can bee noe Church Thirdly where doth Bellarmine say that the Apostles neuer propounded for common articles of faith other then the things mentioned I doe not finde it but rather the contrary For besides these things which he saith were simply necessary for all and without which men of discretion were not to bee admitted to Baptisme he saith that For those other things which were not simply necessary that is without the expresse knowledge whereof they that is men of yeares might be admitted to Baptisme and saued the Apostles did preach many other things some of them to all to wit those things which were profitable for all and some againe onely to some as to Praelats Bishop's and Priests And heere alsoe Sir Humphrey yow cunningly ioyne these two things in one things simply necessary and profitable as if both were meant onely of one kind of things whereas the Cardinal doth distinguish the one from the other Which though it bee but a lesse matter yet it sheweth your corrupt minde that can relate nothing sincerely Fourthly whereas Bellarmine saith that these things by you named are simply necessary he saith with all that there bee other things not soe necessary as that without the explicite knowledge and profession of them a man may not bee saued soe hee haue a ready will to receiue and beleeue them when they shal be lawfully propounded vnto him by the Church You were pleased to leaue out the word explicite in the former part of the sentence and with it alsoe to leaue out the whole later part Bellarmine requiring an explicite faith of same things and an implicite faith of other that is a readines of will to receiue beleeue thē whē they shal be propoūded by the Church which kind of faith though you like not as being the thing that maketh a Catholique yet you should haue let it stād among Bellarmines words you haue the liberty to confute him if you can but not to put in or out what you list 7. Besides these foure corruptions of Bellarmine by putting in some words of your owne ād leauing out some of his I might tax you with corrupting his meaning for your owne purpose For by saying that the explicite beleefe of these things is necessary for all he doth not meane as you would haue him that it was free for any man to choose whether hee will beleiue any thing els of those which the Apostles preached for that were most false Neither is it his meaning though he say those things be necessary that therefore they alone are sufficient for all men and that noe man is bound to know or beleeue explicitely also any thing more For without question those things which the Apostles taught to Praelats Bishops ād Priests were to be beleeued by thē explicitely Wherefore the beleife of the Apostles Creede the ten comandments and some few Sacraments is not sufficiēt for your Ministers who pretend to be Bishops and Priests but they are bound to know and beleeue more How then will you make the beleife of those necessary things sufficient to make cōcord and vnity in faith seing some men are bound to beleeue more euē explicitely and all men bound to beleeue whatsoeuer the Catholique Church shall propound implicitely and consequently not to deny any thing els soe propounded For not onely the deniall of those but of whatsoeuer els preached by the Apostles or Church is enough to make a mā an Haeretiq Thus therefore you haue egregiously abused both Bellarmines words and meaning and consequently not proued your intent that because you retaine the Apostles Creede which you call the general cognizance of our faith therefore there is noe cause to ranke you with Haeretiques For this Cognizance was not sufficient for an Arrian with out the explication thereof in the Nicene Creede as may bee gathered out of Theodoret before cited and soe may I now say it is not sufficient to distinguish a Catholique from a Lutheran Caluinist Protestant or other Haeretique of these tymes without the explication of the Trent profession of Faith For this is now the touchstone to try who beleeueth the Apostles Creede in deede and who in words onely And this your self must confesse who terme some Sects Haeretiques and vs Catholiques Idolaters nowithstanding we and they professe the Apostles Creede which you call the cognizance of our faith 8. Now to that which you say that the Romane Church and yours are Sisters and that the Romane playing the harlott yours went out of her I answeare that this is soe farre from clearing you from the note of haeresy that it doth rather make you more guilty thereof Your Church indeede cometh out of ours as all haeretical sects haue euer come out of the Catholique Church For soe saith S. Iohn of Haeretiques ex nobis prodierunt sed non erant ex nobis nam si fuissent ex nobis permansissent vtique nobiscum sed vt manifesti sint quoniam non sunt omnes ex nobis 1. Io. 2.19 They went out of vs but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would verily haue staid with vs but that they may bee manifest that they are not all of vs And among other marks of Haeretiques S. Iude alsoe reckoneth this Ep. Iud. 19. Hi sunt qui segregant semetipsos these are they that separate themselues S. Paul saith to the Ephesians that out of themselues some should rise speaking peruerse things Actor 20. that they might draw Disciples after them S. Aug. explicateth that place of the Psalme 30 Qui videbant me foras fugerunt a me Aug. in Ps 30. They that saw mee fled forth from mee to bee meant of Haeretiques because when they saw what the Church was they went Forth and made haeresies and schismes against it and euery where vrgeth this and nothing more then this against the
Donatists who iustified themselues as you Sir Knight iustify your Church Much more of this might bee said but this may serue to shew you not to bee in your right witts that bragg of that which you ought most to bee ashamed of and account that to make for you which makes most against you 9. For that which you talke of goeing out of Aegipt and Babylon which you would haue men vnderstand the Catholique Church as if you were commaunded to goe out from her Doe but once shew vs that Aegypt and Babylon which the Sripture speaketh of were euer the true Church and then you may seeme to haue said some what for your Churches departure from the Romane Which impudence it self cannot deny to haue beene once the true Church You are bold indeede to say that Babylon was a true Church wherewith sometymes the faithfull did communicate but that after it was more depraued the faithfull are commanded to goe out of it But I may aske you where you reade this what Father what Doctour what man euer tooke Babylon in scripture to be vsed for the name of the true Church S. Peter in one of his Epistles speaketh of Rome by the name of Babylon out of which a multitude of Fathers and Doctours proue that Saint Peter was at Rome and now you forsooth bring some of them cited by our authors to that purpose to proue that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church Abusing all those Fathers most egregiously among all whom neuer one meant any such matter but onely by Babylon vnderstood the temporal state and gouernment of the Citty of Rome as it was subiect to those Pagan tyrannizing Emperours which persecuted the Church and people of God wherein it did resemble that other ancient and true Babylon which detayned the Iewes then the true Church and people of God in captiuity and oppression Which also S. Peter's owne words doe sufficiently shew distinguishing most plainely Babylon from the true Church For he saith thus 1. Pet. 5.13 Ecclesia quae est in Babylone coëlecta The Church which is in Babylon coelect saluteth you Not that Babylon was a true Church as your words are Sir Humphrey 10. Now whereas you say that when she was depraued the faithfull were willed to goe out of her that is out of her that was once the true Church You are extreamely mistaken For if you meane any true Babylon as that Citty of Chaldaea or that other of Aegypt or Babylon by similitude and likenes as was Rome in tyme of the HeatheÌ„ Emperours and as many Interpreters thinke towards the end of the world in tyme of Antichrist the citty or temporal gouernment thereof shall againe become of which tyme that of the Apocalypse is meant that the faithfull shall fly for auoyding of the cruelty and tyranny of the persecutours which shall then bee more cruel then euer or if by Babylon you meane the whole company of wicked men from the beginning to the end of the world as S. Aug. taketh it throughout his great worke de ciuit Dei and other Fathers and Doctours and many interpreters vnderstand that place of the Apocalypse 18. If I say you meane it any of these wayes as noe man of vnderstanding euer meant or vnderstood it otherwise then was it neuer any true Church and soe the Children and people of God might well bee willed to gett out of it either locally by motion of the body or spiritually by auoyding the maÌ„ners of the people not hauing any thing with them in their wicked wayes But if you meane as you expresse your selfe that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church and that it may bee depraued that is that the Church of Christ notwithstanding all his promises for the perpetuity thereof as That hee would bee with it to the worlds end That it was built vpoÌ„ a rocke That the Gates of hell should not preuaile against it That he would send the Holy Ghost to bee with it for euer notwithstanding that the Church is his kingdome his inheritance his mysticall body his Spouse that notwithstanding all this I say it should faile it shoull bee depraued it should bee wiolated I know not what to say but to stopp myne eares against that mouth of blasphemy of yours and heerewith end this sectioÌ„ the rest thereof being nothing but the bitter froth of a distempered stomacke and vnworthy of answeare Chap. 3. THE EXAMINATION OF Sir Humphrey's second and third Section CHAPTER III. 1. IN the second Section Sir Humphrey laboureth to proue the contention betwixt the Churches as he calleth them to proceede originally from vs and this by the confessions of our owne The third Section is to proue the corruptions both in faith and manners confessed by some of vs and yet reformacion denied by the Pope Both which are easily answeared First by asking what all this is to his purpose suppose it were true Doth this shew his Church to haue beene alwayes visible or ours to haue beene at any tyme not visible Hee was not to stand vpon matter of contention who was cause or not cause thereof or who would haue mended who not For the errors in faith which hee seemeth to tax â—s with-all in his third section if he can proue them he saith somewhat indeede though yet not soe fully to his purpose For though hee proue vs to haue had some errours it doth not soe presently follow that they of his side haue had none or that therefore their Church hath beene euer visible there is a great deale more required to it then soe And though he should proue some errors to haue beene taught by some particular men or euen in some Country professing the Catholique faith it doth not follow that the Catholique Church hath fayled in faith or ceased to bee visible 2. Secondly I answeare to his second Section which is to proue that the contention proceeded from vs which hee vndertaketh to proue by our owne confession that in all this Section he bringeth but fowre authorities to wit Cassander a Canon of his English Church out of the praeface to Iewels works Camden citing S. Bede Plessy Morney citing Michael Caesenas Of all which onely S. Bede is a Catholique and euen cited by the Protestant Camden and onely for a story which he tels of one Redwalde king of the East Saxons who being first conuerted to Christianity and after seduced by his wife had in the same Church two altars one for Christ's religion another for the Diuels out of which this knight frameth to himself a pretty fancy being desirous heereby to make men beleiue that the like happened in the Romane Church and that some adored God onely others fell to adore Saints and images and the like Which fond conceit what answeare can it deserue For it is but the bare saying of one that doth not vnderstand what he saith For otherwise how could he possibly say such a thing of himself without saying when where or how that happed
to vs or euer saying word in proofe that the case is the same I might with as much reason out of this story of Redwalde say as much of Sir Humphrey Linde that hee and his Protestants haue built a new Church a new faith erected an altar against an altar c. 3. But as I was saying of his authors they are not many as you see much lesse haue they any part among Catholiques For Cassander Michael de Caesenas and Philip Morney are in the Index of forbidden books Camden and his English Canon writers are Protestants but which is more strange not a man of these such as they are that saith any thing of that which hee pretendeth in the title of his Chapter but onely Cassander who after the fashion of Haretiques speaketh of the Pompe and pride of the Clergy and that they will not hearken to the admonitions of some godly men aduising reformation these godly men he meaneth such as himself that is Haeretiques or next doore to them though Sir Humphrey please often to call him a Learned Romanist Soe that all the cause that euen this man alleageth of the contention is because the ecclesiastical persons will not yeild themselues to Haeretiques and lett them haue the ordering and disposing of all things at their pleasures therefore they breake away and fall into contention with the Church What cause doe Clergy men giue of contention in not submitting themselues to their inferiours and to men that haue noe authority ouer them or euen if the counsel of these people were good as it is not and that Clergy men thinke not good to follow it must they therefore presently fall to schisme and haeresy tearing and renting the Church By what Law are Clergy men bound to obey such fellowes if in a ciuill commonwealth some great man should dislike the gouernment eyther because his enemyes haue the managing of matters or that he thimketh he could doe it better then they and presuming to giue counsell to the Prince and his counsel they shoull not follow it and that therefore hee should goe from court make head and raise a rebellion in the common wealth who should bee counted cause of this contention the Prince and his Counsel or hee if Sir Humphrey be iudge he must say the Prince and his Counsel if he will make good his man Cassander's discourse 4. As for Michael de Caesena whom the Knight also calleth a learned Friar it is true he was a Friar and General of his Order but for his learning I neuer heard any such commendation of it but we know why the Knight prayseth him Well be it soe but the man being excommunicated and deposed by the Pope for his disobedience and rebellion he said that particular man which was Iohn 22. was an Apostata and an Heretique and therefore noe true Pope But that he made two such Churches one of the wicked vnder the Pope another of the good without any heade as Morney makes him make and this Knight out of him I find not in any good author but rather that hee allowed of the authority of the Romane Church for he appealed from the Popes sentence to it as may be seene in Coquus his answeare to Morney's mystery of iniquity pag. 205. to 2. and in the table verbo Michael de Coesena Neither was he euer taxed with any such haeresy 5. His English Church-Canon commandeth nothing to be taught as matter of faith but what is agreable to the Old and new testament and is collected out of the ancient Fathers and Catholique Bishops but what is that to the purpose how doth this proue vs to giue the cause of Contention hee will say this proueth his men to giue none I answeare that if all the rest of their Canons and proceedings were answearable to the saying of this Canon there would perhaps bee somewhat lesse to doe Though it be not any way conformable to the Scripture and doctrine of fathers for lay authority to make Canons for Clergy men and therefore the practise shewed in this Canon is contrary to the words And soe the 2. section is answeared 6. The third section is of corruptions both in faith and manners which the Knight saith we confesse and yet deny to reforme He proueth it out of the Councel of Pisa where Alexander the 5. Concil Pisan sess 20. promised to attend to the reformacion of the Church and out of the Councel of Trent acknowledging many things amisse in matter of indulgences Masse c. To this I answeare that for matter of manners we willingly acknowledge reformacion to be needfull and such it is that these two Councels speake of and haue performed as is to beseene by their Decrees though the former be not of any great authority Concil Trident sess 22. Decret de reformat And for the later it complaineth indeede with great reason of the auarice of such as had the gathering of moneys giuen in almes by occasion of indulgences Whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors though the Councel speake not of the Pope But he out of his loue to the Pope would faine bring him in vpon al such occasions This is true but false it is which he saith that the Councel complaineth of indulgences an article of the Romane faith as his words are For as it reformeth the corruption of the officers soe doth it establish the truth of the Doctrine as appeareth by a particular decree thereof which is also acknowledged and cited els where by this Knight himself whereby hee is conuinced of wilfull corruption The same Councel likewise complaineth of many things crept in in the celebration of Masse by the fault of the tymes or carelesnesse and wickednesse of men which are farre from the dignity of soe great a sacrifice The words of the Councel are right cited by him in Latine in the margent perhaps to saue his credit by sincerity soe much promised in his Epistle dedicatory but in the English which goeth in the text he fouly corrupteth them they are thus in Latine Cum multa irrepsisse videantur Which in English is this Seing many things seeme to haue crept in which the Knight translateth thus there were many errors and corruptions crept in to the Masse which is a grosse error and corruption in the Knight the Councel speaking onely of abuses which were crept in not of errours in matter of faith The Councel likewise seemeth to acknowledge the auarice of Priests making such bargaines for the saying of Masse as was not far from Simony or at least filthy lucre It speaketh of the vse of musique where with some wantonesse was mixed as alsoe of certaine Masses or candles vsed in certaine number that number proceeding rather from superstition then true religion this is true soe farre 7. But that is not true which the Knight saith that we deny a reformation of these things for to what other end are they recounted there but to be reformed nay they are not
named but by way of forbidding them and by way of commanding Bishops to reforme such things euen as delegats of the see Apostolique where there is neede Which is soe apparent that the Knight is faine to confesse it after in these words Neither did these men seeke reformation in manners onely but in the doctrine it selfe Wherein together with the contradiction of his owne former lye he telleth a new one to wit in saying that we seeke a reformation in the doctrine whereof he nameth some particular points as priuate Masse Latine seruice c. Which is most false for the doctrine is the same still and euer was that though the fruite were greater when the people did communicate with the Priest sacramentally yet the Masse in that case is neither vnlawfull not is to be called priuate both because the people communicate spiritually and also because the Masse is offered by the Priest as the publique Minister of the Church It wisheth indeede that the standers by did communicate not onely spiritually but alsoe sacramentally without euer mentioning the reformed or rather deformed Churches 8. What error then doth the Councel heere acknowledge Againe the knight saith that though the Councel doe not allow the celebrating of Masse in the vulgar tongue yet it commandeth Pastors and others that haue care of soules to explicate and expound to the people some of those things that are reade in the Masse and asketh thus how neere these men doe come to our doctrine who doth not perceiue I answeare that doe not I Sir Humphrey nor I thinke any man els That hath ordinary common sense You condemne all Masse The Councel alloweth it you condemne priuate Masse The Councel approueth that which you call priuate Masse but denieth that it is soe called Priuate as you would haue it The Councel speaketh of Masse the true and proper Sacrifice of the new Law you would make men beleeue it speaketh of your sacrilegious Supper In our Masse and Communion as the Councel teacheth is offered and distributed the true real and substantiall Body and Bloude of CHRIST IESVS and what it saith hereof you most madly would make me beleeue were spoken of your empty and imaginary communion The Councel teacheth that the Masse is not generally to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue you would all publique prayer soe made and therefore condemne the Catholique Church for celebrating in Latine which the Councel alloweth O madnes of a man then to talke thus as if the Councel came neere to him when it saith yea to his nay and nay to his yea 9. But hauing thus substantially proued the Councel to agree with him and finding other places of the same soe euidently against him hee will needs haue the Councel contradict it self and for that end bringeth certaine contradictions as he wisely taketh them to be One is that the Pope in his Bull of profession of faith saith that the vse of Indulgences is most wholesome for the people For which hee might haue cited also the Councel more thou once and that yet the Councel cōfessed the scandal that came by them was very great with out hope of reformacion which is not cōtradiction betweene the Councel and Pope but a flatt corruption of the Knights the Pope speaking of one thing to wit Indulgences in themselues the Councel in this place speaking of the men that had the promulgacion of them and the gathering of the almes For preuenting whose auarice abuses there had bene soe many remedies vsed formerly in other Councels but to none effect that this Councel thought good to take that office wholy out of such mens hands and take another course with it What seeming contradiction is heere Another of his cōtradiction is that the Councel approueth those Masses wherein the people doe not communicate and yet wisheth that the people were soe deuoute as to communicate sacramētally Is not heere a stout cōtradiction as also that the Councel approueth Masse in an vn knowne tōgue and yet will haue the Priests especially vpon Sundayes and Holidayes to declare some of that which is read or some mystery of the holy Masse Doe not these two agree very well I doe not see what the Man meaneth 10. And to conclude this wise section he talketh somewhat of reformacion hindered by some principall men as one Nicolas Scomberg a Dominican Cardinal Citing fowre or fiue most haeretical books namely forbidden in the Romane Index and among them the history of the Councel of Trent not named in the Index because it came out since but written by an Arche-haeretique and noe lesse detested by Catholiques then any of the rest Which I passe ouer as of noe account nor alleadged to any purpose As for reformacion who can say it is hindered but onely by Haeretiques For what els hath the Counce◠of Trent done but reformed all abuses of manners where it is or can be receiued and for errours of faith taught by Haeretiques it hath vtterly condemned them and banished them from the eares of al Catholiques What reformacion then hath it hindered but the haeretical reformacion wherevnto Cardinal Scomberg said well if you and your history of Trent say true that it was noe way to yeild a iott to Haeretiques for it is not indeede for the practize of the Church hath euer beene to the contrary shewing thereby that the way to ouercome haeresy is wholy to resist it and though that thing wich the Haeretiques teach or would haue practized were before indifferent yet for their vrging the same vpon their haeretical grounds it hath beene absolutely forbidden least wee might seeme to haue yeilded to them and soe confirme them or drawe Others to beleeue them or their doctrine who to reprehend and contradict the Catholique Church many tymes make things of indifferency to bee of necessity that they forsooth may seeme the onely Wisemen in the world and the Church of God subiect to errours Which I could proue by many examples if neede were And heerewith I make an end of this chapter wherein I haue disproued the Knight and conuinced him of manifest falshood in both the things by him pretended shewing in the one that the Councel acknowledged not any corruption in matters of faith but onely by Haeretiques and in the other that for corruption of manners which it acknowledged it hath vsed all possible meanes to redresse them Of Sir Humphrey's 4. Section whereof the title is this That many learned Romanist conuicted by the euidence of truth either in part or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death CHAPTER IIII. 1. I Could heere before I goe farther aske what this maketh for the Visibility of the Knight his Church For suppose it were true and that we did yeild him his saying that many haue fallen from the Catholique faith to be Protestants as it is cleare that many haue for otherwise there had neuer beene any Protestants in the world Doth this make his Church visible in former tymes or doth
And therefore all your labour is lost when by similitudes you labour to proue that we are not to putt you to the proofe of our errours by naming the authors tyme and place for vpon these circumstāces dependeth the knowledge whether it bee a disease or noe which is our questiō Neither is that authority of S. Aug. to your purpose for he speaketh of a man fallen into a pitt of whom it is euident that he is fallen into it And though you would haue it soe that the Romane Church is fallen into an errour as it were into a pitt we say otherwise and of this is the question And this we would haue you proue by assingning the author tyme place of this Change for till you can shew that we say according to S. Aug. rule that whatsoeuer the Catholique Church doth generally beleeue or practize soe as there can bee noe tyme assigned when it began it is to be taken for an Apostolical tradition Such we say are all these things which you are pleased onely because they please you not to call errours And it stands you therefore vpon to proue when they began els they must passe for Apostolical traditions not for errors as you would haue them Tert. praescrip cap. 31. 3. Besides it is Tertullians rule for discerning of heresy from truth to see which goeth before which cometh after that which goeth before is truth that which cometh after is errour Wee say then that in all these things wee goe before because wee haue antiquity they are things that haue beene euer taught and practized we pleade prescription from the beginning and wee say and proue that you come after we assigne you persons tymes places who haue begunne the Chāge it followeth thē that ours is true till you can shew vs tyme person and place when it begāne as we shew yours not to be true by the same rule Neither is it enough for you to say we are in errour you must disproue vs by shewing our prescription not to hold good which you can neuer doe without assigning of persons tymes c. If you should haue a sute against a man in Westminster-hall for land which he pleadeth to haue beene his and his ancestors for soe long tyme as is required by the Law to make prescription and that you should goe about to disproue it without assigning the tyme and manner but onely by your owne bare word would not euery man laugh at you How much more in this case and yet you thinke you haue spoken wonderfull wisely and learnedly all this while 4. Which may yet appeare more by that which followeth of your comparison betwixt heresy and apostacy In which you attribute this later vnto vs but it seemeth heereby you little know what Apostacy is Wherefore to helpe you out Apostacy is a defection or forsaking of the name of Christ and profession of Christianity as all men vnderstand it Whereof sure you cannot taxe vs soe long as we beleeue the Apostles Creede which you call the common cognizance of Christianity and which you confesse vs to beleeue How then can we be Apostata'es In no wise certainely but if we erre we erre as Heretiques if we be Heretiques you confesse you must assigne the person who first taught our heresyes the tyme place where when they were first taught For soe you say in plaine termes that heresy because it worketh openly it may be discerned the tyme and persō knowne though you bee somewhat various in this for you say a little before that whē there was any heresy that did endāger the foundation or openly disturbed the Church supposing heerein that there be some secret heresyes which doe not soe the Fathers gaue warning thereof by letters But your supposition is false and foolish False in that you thinke any heresy not to endaunger the foundation of Faith for the least heresy that can bee imagined ouerthroweth all diuine faith Foolish in that you suppose some heresies to be soe secrett as not to disturbe the Church For if they bee secret how come you to know them and to know they are heresies seing they come to haue the name of heresy onely by condemnation of the Church As for your last point of the Fathers giuing warning by letters it is true indeede and thereto you might also haue added if you had soe pleased that the Fathers did forbeare absolutely to condemne things for haeresies or to censure the authors for haeretiques V. Ep. Cyrill Alex. ad Caelest P P. in Conc. Ephes. p. 1. cap. 14. to 1. Concil ed. Post Binii and consequently to send such letters till they had acquainted the Bishops of Rome and had his iudgment As is clere by S. Cyrill of Alexandria in the case of Nestorius 5. But we haue this at least out of your discourse that seing you can produce noe such letters against any point of those which you condemne vs for that they doe not endanger the foundation of faith If not what needed you make this huge breach from vs vpon pretence of Reformacion in things of noe more moment or at least not of necessity in your iudgment but we are not to require more reason of your doings then your sayings and therefore to come to the parable of scripture wherein the enemy is said to haue ouer sowed his cockle in the night Which parable you are pleased to expound of Apostacy I answeare that this parable is vnderstood noe lesse of haeresy then Apostacy V. Tert. de praesor cap. 31. nay more For all the Fathers and Interpreters expound it of haeresy none that euer I heard of Apostacy Which therefore must bee verified of all those which you acknowledge for open haeresyes 28. 6. And therefore you are much out of the way when you thinke by that that you are not to be forced to name the person place and tyme when where and by whom our Doctrine began because as you say the seede was sowne in the night and the person not knowne For in that parable you are to know that as Christ is the Goodman of the howse who sowed the good seede soe the enemy that soweth his cockle in the night is the Diuel who indeede worketh in the night and inuisibly and he is the one singular and principall enemy of Christ and all Mankind And hee it is that soweth all the seuerall seeds of diuers haeresyes the field wherein he soweth it is the World Then it groweth vpp and appeareth when that seede of erroneous doctrine being sowed in the harts of wicked men and there taking deepe roote breaketh forth at last by their preaching and teaching thereof or this cokle are Filij mali as the Scripture it self saith euill Children then the Seruants of the Goodman who are the Pastours and Doctours of his Church presently beginne to complaine thereof and wonder how it should come c. Soe S. Aug. lib. q. Euāg in Math. cap. 11. to 4. This
is the true explicacion of this Parable not according to my priuate sense but according to the sense of the holy Fathers and our Blessed Sauiour himself who voutsafed to explicate this Parable vnto vs wherein as you see the Goodman's seruaÌ„ts marke the growing of the cockle soe must you tell vs what Pastors or Doctors did euer note any such thing in any point of our doctrine But heere Sir Humphrey what is to be thought of you that take vpon you to interprete Scripture at your owne pleasure and for your owne ends euen then where our B. Sauiour himself doth explicate his owne parable and meaning thereof What I say may men thinke by this that you will doe els where soe your chiefe gappe or euasioÌ„ for not assigning the person tyme place when our Doctrine began is stopped and the exception remaineth still in full force to wit that you must assigne the tyme place persons or els we acknowledge noe error 7. But you say it is an vndeniable truth that some things were condemned in the primitiue Church for erroneous and superstitious which now are established for articles of Faith this you proue by a place of S. Aug. saying that he knew many worshippers of tombes and pictures whom the Church condemneth and seeketh to ameÌ„d Which yet you say is now established for an article of Faith But by your leaue Sir this your vndeniable truth is a most deniable vntruth For first S. Augustine's tyme was a good while that is about one hundred yeares after the primitiue church Secondly that which S. Aug. condemneth to wit the superstitions and heathenish worshipp of dead and perhaps wicked men's tombes and pictures vsed by some badd Christians is not approued by the Nicene and Trent Councels but the religious worshipp of Saint's images reliques which S. Aug. himself practized Bell. de reliq lib. 2. cap. 4. as you may see in Bellarmine with whoÌ„ alsoe you may find other good solutions of this place which I suppose you cannot but haue seene and consequently you cannot but know that your vndeniable truth is flatly denied by him and all Catholiques 8. Diuers other things as the Primacy of S. Peter Prayer for the dead Iustification Masses Monasteries Caeremonies Feasts Images You say are otherwise now vsed then at first instituted Which for these fiue last to wit Masses Monasteries c. You proue out of one Ioannes Ferus a fryer a man much in your bookes and the books of all your Ministers but not in any of ours but onely the Romane Index of forbidde books And therefore of noe authority or accouÌ„t with vs. For the rest of these points wee haue nothing but your bare word surmize which is but a bare proofe not worth the answearing 9. After this the knight thinketh to come vpon vs another way saying that our owne authors who haue sought the tymes and beginners of our errours as he is pleased to call them confesse an alteration though they doe not finde when it beganne For restraint of Priests marriage he saith that Marius cannot finde when it came in Yet after he bringeth Polidore Virgill saying that Priests marriage was not altogether forbiddeÌ„ till the tyme of Gregory the 7. And this doctrine our knight is pleased to make all one with that absolute forbiding of marriage which S. Paul reckoneth amoÌ„g the doctrines of Diuels For S. Paule's authority it hath beene answeared more ofteÌ„ then the knight hath fingars and toe's and euery child may see the difference betweene forbidding of Marriage generally to all sorts as a thing euill in it self and vnlawfull and forbidding marriage in one particular state or profession to which noe man is bound but is left free whither he will embrace it with this condition or not And this not because it is a thing euill in it selfe but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercize of Priestly function For Polydore Virgil it is true he saith as the Knight telleth vs and eueâ— as much more besides as any haeretique can say of that matter but it booteth not that worke of his de rerum inuâ—n â—oâ—â—â—â— being a forbidden booke Conc. Nic. can 3. Carthag 2. can 2. V. Bell. lib. 1. de cler cap. 19. and the thing which he saith most euidently false as appeareth by infinite testimonies but particularly by a Canon of that great Nicene Councel 800. yeares before Gregory the 7. his tyme. And the 2. Councel of Carthage which testifieth it as a thing taught by the Apostles and obserued by antiquity The Knight may find more in Bellarmine for proofe of this point Heere I onely aske how he maketh his authours hange together Marius cannot find the beginning Polydore findeth it and yet both for the Knights purpose forsooth But for Marius his authority it is nothing against vs but for vs. For it followeth by S. Augustines rule that because it is practized and taught in the Catholique Church with out being knowne when it beganne that therefore it is an Apostolicall tradition 10. Another errour as he saith is Prayer in an vnknowne tongue wherein it is to bee wondered saith Erasmus as the Knight citeth him how the Church is altered But Erasmus is noe author for vs to answeare he is branded in the Romane Index Neither neede I say more of the matter it self in this place A third error of ours as he pretendeth is Communion in one kinde for which he citeth Val. twice once saying it is not knowne when it first gott footing in the Church another tyme that Communion in one kinde began to be generally receiued but a little before the Councel of Constance Which I see not to what purpose they are if they were right cited as the former is not For Val. hath thus much When that custome beganne in some churches Val. de leg vsu Euch. cap. 16. it appeareth not but that there hath beene some vse of one kinde euer from the beginning I shewed before Soe Valencia What doth this make for the knight nay doth it not make against him why els should hee corrupt and mangle it Doth not Valencia say he made it appeare that this kind of Communion was somewhat vsed from the beginning and that which he saith of the not appearing when it beganne is not of the Church in general but of some particular Churches Besides for a final answeare I say it is noe matter of doctrine but practice the doctrine hauing euer beene and being still the same of the lawfulnes of one or both kinds as the Church shall ordaine though vpon good reasons the practize haue changed according to the diuersity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that euer he can doe he can not refute that argumeÌ„t which wee make against him and his that our doctrine is not to be taxed of errour soe long as they cannot shew when where and by whom it beganne as wee can and doe euery day of
them and their doctrine 11. But because it is ordinary with these men to charge vs with this same secret apostacy and defection though they cannot tell when nor how it hath come I shall heere put this Knight in mind of two conuincing arguments to the cōtrary brought by the Catholique Diuine that answeared that part of my Lo Answ to Cooks reports ep dedicat n. 22. c. Cooke's reports before cited by this knight to conuince the folly and vanity of a certaine similitude of a wedge of gold that was dissolued and mingled with other mettals brasse tinne c brought by Sir Edward to proue the dissolution of the Romane Church by errors and innouatiōs iust as this knight talketh One of the arguments is theological the other moral The first that if the Church of Rome was the true mother Church which both my Lord Cooke our Knight and all the rest of them confesse then were all the predictions promises of the Prophets for the greatnes eminency honour certainty and flourishing perpetuity of the said Church fulfilled in her and Christ's peculiar promises in like manner that hee would bee to the worlds end with her that hell gates should neuer preuaile against her c. Were also performed in her for soe many hundred yeares as they confesse her to haue continued in her purity Whereof ensueth that either God is not able to performe his promise or els it cannot be conceiued without impiety that this florishing kingdome and Queene of the world should bee soe dissolued and mingled with brasse tinne copper should bee soe corrupted with errors and innouations as to fall away by Apostacy this is the theological argumēt which may bee read there more at large 12. The moral is that Christ hauing purchased his Church at soe deare a rate as was the shedding of his bloud and hauing sett ouer it soe many Pastors and Doctors to keepe continuall watch how is it possible that it should fall away and decay without any one of all these watchmens once opening his mouth to resist or testify this chaunge To any wise man this may truely seeme as it is a thing wholy impossible Of this also hee may see a large excellent discourse in the same place 13. But not to detaine my selfe longer in it I will heere onely represent a consideration of Tertullian's supposing that this soe impossible a thing should happen Goe too saith hee be it soe let all haue erred praescr cap. 28. let the Apostle bee deceiued in his testimony which he gaue of the faith of some Churches bee it soe that the holy Ghost hath not regarded any Church soe as to leade it into truth though sent by Christ for this end and desired of the Father to be the teacher of truth be it soe that the Steward of God the Vicar of Christ hath neglected his charge suffering the Churches to vnderstand otherwise to beleeue otherwise then hee that is Christ preached by his Apostles What is it likely that soe many and soe great should erre all in one beleefe among many seuerall euēts there is not one issue Marke heere one Steward of God's houshold one Vicar of Christ to whose office it belongeth to see that particular churches doe not teach nor beleeue otherwise then they were taught by the preaching of the Apostles The error of doctrine of the Churches must haue beene seuerall but that which is found one and the same among or with many is not error but a thing deliuered therefore may any man dare to say that they who deliuered it did erre Hitherto are Tertullian's very words In which besids that euery sentence is a weighty argument of moral impossibility of the Churches erring which yet for disputacion sake he letteth passe for possible he hath that strong concluding impossibility that soe many seueral Churches in euery country soe many seueral men should all agree in the same error out of which Vnity he gathereth it to be a truth noe error Therefore lett this Knight and all his babling Ministers if they doe not meane to bee counted wholy out of their wits for euermore hold their peaces without accusing the Catholique Church which containeth in it self soe many Churches soe many kingdomes Chap. 7. soe many millions of people all agreeing in the same faith of error and apostacy Of the 7. Section the title whereof is thus The pedigree of the Romish faith drawne downe from the ancient Haeretiques and the Protestant faith deriued from Christ and his Apostles CHAPTER VII 1. IN this Section Sir Humphrey you vndertake a great taske which if you performe according as you promise eris mihi magnus Apollo If you doe not then a man may say to you with out offence magnus es ardelis You vndertake to deriue vs by Succession in person and doctrine from ancient Heretiques and your self from the Apostles Which how truely you haue performed I am in this chapter to examine You beginne with Latine Seruice and Prayer in a strange tongue which you say out of one Wolphius a Lutheran Heretique came into the Church by Pope Vitalian about the yeare 666. whereof you make a mystery noting thus in the margent numerus bestiae Apoc. 13. The number of the beast From him you skippe to the Heretiques Osseni who taught as you say out of Epiphanius that there was noe neede to make a prayer in a knowne tongue From them you goe yet higher to the Apostle's tyme wherein you say out of S. Ambrose that there were certaine Iewes among the Grecians as namely the Corinthians who did celebrate the diuine Seruice and the Sacrament sometymes in the Syriake and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue which the common people vnderstood not And you say that against that the Apostle S. Paul wrote that 14. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians from whom therefore you say your Protestant doctrine is deriued as ours is from haeretiques 2. For answeare of this and what els you are to say of your Succession it is to bee noted that it is one thing to proue a thing to haue beene anciently taught another to haue beene successiuely taught For this later besids antiquity which it includeth it importeth Continuance and perpetuity without interruption Soe that though it should bee true which you say out of Wolphius Epiphanius and S. Ambrose yet were not that enough For there bee some hundreds of yeares betweene Pope Vitalian and the Osseni and more from S. Paul's tyme to this of ours from which notwitstanding you draw your doctrine without any body betweene now for the space of 1500. yeares Besids when we speake of Succession in person in these matters it is vnderstood principally of persons in authority one succeding the other in place and office For we see in kingdomes and cōmonwealthes the Succession is to bee considereth most in reguard of the Gouerners and rulers and in the Church the reason is more special because the Rulers thereof are Doctours
Popes one succeeding the other in place and office exercizing the same authority and iurisdiction in the sight of the whole world Now out of this personal Succession we Catholiques draw a most firme argument of Succession in faith and beleife as hee calleth it as the holy Fathers haue euer done against Heretiques of their tymes Which soe long as it standeth good it is in vaine for Sir Humphrey and such men to cry out that wee haue noe Succession in doctrine Lett them shew when where in what Popes tyme and by whom it was interrupted or broken of or els they say nothing And soe leauing him to find that out I passe to another Section Chap. 8. Of the 8. Section entituled thus The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall CHAPTER VIII 1. THe title of this Sectiō promiseth much and the beginning of the Section it self much more For in it he saith that if the Church of Rome doe not plainely confesse the antiquity of his Church his Tenets and the nouelty of her owne if she doe not proclaime the Vniuersality of the Protestant faith and confesse it both more certaine and safe hee will neither refuse the name nor punishment dew to haeresy Which how bold and vnlikely an aduenture it is I presume there is noe man of iudgment be hee neuer soe much freind euen to Sir Humphrey himself that doth not at the very first sight perceiue how shamelesse and impudent it is I doubt not but vpon a little examination I halbee able euidently to declare and consequently how truely both the name and punishment of haeresy is dew vnto him euen by his owne doome Wherein I shall craue thine attention Good Reader that perceiuing how well and truelly hee performeth this promise soe great and vpon soe hard conditions Voluntarily vndertaken in case of not performance thou maist frame a right iudgment of the whole booke by this one chapter And as thou findest him to deale heere soe to thinke of his dealing els where But not to say more I come to the triall of the matter 2. Hee pretendeth then to bring the testimonies of our authors or to speake in his owne phrase the confession of the Church of Rome touching the Antiquity and Vniuersality Certainety and Safety of his faith which whosoeuer heareth would hee not expect the man should bring some definition of a Councel approued or some Decree of the See Apostolique for that onely is the confession of the Church of Rome would not a man expect he should bring some few authors two or three at least acknowledging all these points or some one author for each point or some one author at lest for some one of them surely he would And yet doth the Knight nothing of all this he bringeth not one author I say not one for the Vniuersality or ātiquity c. of his Church Though if he should haue one two three or ten men it would not be sufficient for him vnlesse he haue the authority of the Catholique Church or Church of Rome For that is it which he promiseth But lett vs heare what he saith 3. In all this Section he bringeth onely three Catholique authors Adrian Costerus and Harding for the three seueral points of Transustantiation Communion in one kind and priuate Masse as he calleth it in this manner Hee saying of himself that when Protestants accuse vs of adoring the elements of bread and wine we excuse it by saying we adore it vpon condition and for that end bringeth these words of Adrian Adoro te si tu es Christus I adore thee if thou bee Christ Soe of Communion in one kind when they accuse vs of taking away the cupp from the Layity we excuse it and thereto hee bringeth Costerus saying that Communion vnder one kind was not taken vpp by the commandement of the Byshops but it crept in the Byshops winking thereat Thirdly when they accuse vs for our priuate Masses contrary to Christ's institution we excuse it and for that end he bringeth these words of Doctor Harding It is through their owne fault and negligence whereof the godly and faithfull people since the tyme of the primitiue Church haue much complained These three be all the authors he hath and this all he saith out of them in which any man may see whether there bee a word or shadow of a word for the antiquity or Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall as the title of his Section goeth 4. I say nothing heere of the man's notable cunning and falshood in pretending making his Reader beleeue as if we did excuse our selues in those things whereof they accuse vs whereby wee might seeme to acknowledge some fault whereas there is noe such matter in the world nor one word spoken by any man by way of excuse as shall appeare For noe Catholique but scorneth an excuse in matter of his beleife though for life some may haue some what which may neede excuse though in that case we teach an humble confession to bee the best excuse 5. But to come now to the matter lett vs heare what it is these authors say Adrian as he telleth vs excuseth our adoration of the elements of bread and wine because we adore it vpon condition if the consecrated bread bee Christ the Latine words of Adrian in the margēt are these Adoro te si tu es Christus Which words indeade Adrian hath but they are very different from Sir Humphrey's English as any man may of himself see and spoken by Adrian vpon a very different occasion as I shall now shew Hee then disputing whether a Iudge may without sinne wish he might lawfully giue iudgment against iustice and bringing arguments pro and con as Diuines doe for the affirmatiue he bringeth this That the deformity of the sinne is taken away and cleared by the cōdition which is added which hee farther proueth by two arguments the one that the Councel of Constance doth excuse ignorant people adoring an vnconsecrated host because this condition is tacitely implied if the consecration be rightly made the other that all Doctors agree that a man may auoide perplexity betweene idolatry and disobediēce when the Deuill soe transfiguring himselfe as to seeme Christ commandeth one to adore if vpon condition he adore thus I adore thee if thou be Christ This is what Adrian hath Wherein first any man may see he speaketh nothing of his owne opinion but of others and that by way of dispute only Secondly the condition which is tacitly implied in the adoration of an vnconsecrated host according to the Councel of Constance is not that which Sir Humphrey putteth to wit if the consecrated bread bee Christ but this other if it bee righty consecrated which is cleane another matter for his condition euer supposing a right consecration maketh doubt whither Christ be there or not which is most false the other condition maketh noe doubt of that but
Harding the godly and faithfull people since the tyme of the Primitiue church haue much complained Soe you Wherein first any man may see there is noe sense For heere is a relatiue their without an antecedent which fault if you had comitted in a theme when you were a schoole-boy it might perhaps haue cost you somewhat For you doe not expresse who it is that Doctor Harding speaketh of when hee saith it is their owne default neither can it be himself or Catholiques in generall for then he would haue expressed it in the first person saying it is our owne fault and if it bee not himself nor Catholiques in generall then can it bee noe excuse for they be Catholiques in generall or the Catholique Church which you accuse and the accusation and excuse must answeare one the other 12. Secondly it is noe excuse in reguard of the Masse for an excuse hath noe place but where the thing whereof a man is accused is acknowledged for a fault Now that is not heere for that whereof you accuse vs is that our Priests say Masse without any communicants which thing Dr. Harding is soe farr from acknowledging to bee blame worthy that hee doth expresly and stoutly maintaine it against your Iewel as a special controuersy in that whole chapter which you cite How then doth he excuse it Thirdly he doth maintaine the doctrine of the Councel of Trent in this as in all other points where this Canon is decreed Sess 22. can 8. citing also this very Decree Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter cōmunicat illicitas esse ideoque abrogandas anathema sit If any man say that Masses wherein the Priest onely communicateth sacramentally are vnlawfull and therefore to bee abrogated lett him bee anathema Fourthly in another place he denieth your very terme of priuate Masse and noteth vpon the conference betweene Luther and the Diuell which hee there setteth downe that that terme in Luther's sense and your came first out of the Diuells schoole and saith that all Masse is publique in reguard it is offered by the Priest who is the publique Minister of the Church and auaileth all not onely not communicants but euen not present Which is alsoe the doctrine of the Councel Fiftly I answeare that though you sett downe this authority lamely in this place soe as noe man can tell what to make of it yet citing the same els where you say out of him that it is the peoples owne fault and want of deuotion that they doe not communicate with the Priest Which is but the same that the Councel of Trent also saith Which is a cleane other matter For you doe not accuse our peoples coldnes of deuotion for that would fall much more vpon your owne but our Priests for saying Masse without the people communicating which is noe fault and this Dr. Harding maketh good the other hee excuseth or rather not excuseth but acknowledgeth and condemneth as a fault 13. And for his opinion of your religion in general looke but in his Epistle to Iewel before his reioynder to Iewel 's reply And there you shall find he sheweth you to haue noe antiquity For that you beganne with Luther Which he proueth by your owne confessions more then 7. tymes in the apology of your English Synagogue where you say that Luther and Zuinglius were the first that beganne to sett abroad the Ghospel and that all the light was quite extinct and that all the fountaines of the pure water of life were vtterly dried vp before they came He sheweth you to haue noe vniuersality because you seperate your selues from the vnity of the Catholique Church dispersed ouer the whole world He sheweth you to haue noe charity because charity cannot consist without vnity nor euen faith which he proueth by the authority of Saint Augustine and consequently that you haue noe hope of saluation and soe he refuseth euen to bidd Mr. Iewel farewell Haue not you then great reason to haue affiance in Mr. Dr. Harding's testimony of the antiquity vniuersality and safety of your Faith Doe not you then heerein notoriously abuse all manner of men both authours and readers but this is soe ordinary with you that there is noe wondering at it 14. Well thus much then for these three authors whom you haue soe egregiously belyed Now lett vs heare what you say of your owne or of your selfe You say our best learned yet you name none decline those our traditions which you deny and that the most ingenious of vs are ashamed of those additions which you deny Neither doe you name any of these ingenious people For example you say when we are charged with worshipping of images we deny it or excuse the manner of adoration but doe not condemne you for not worshipping thē But good Sir I pray you what Catholique denieth the worshipping of images what Catholique doth excuse the manner of worshipp Name the man if you can Our Diuines declare adoration to be dew and the manner how it is dew but to excuse this or deny that noe man doth noe man I meane a Catholique euer did noe man can euer doe Now for you can you haue the face to say that noe man of ours condemneth you for not adoring them this is to Sir Humphrey Doth none of our writers condemne you noe Bellarmine noe Baronius noe Sanders noe Alanus Copus noe Costerus noe Vazquez to omitt the more ancient Writers against the Iconomachi Doth noe Councel of Trent say anathema to you for denying dew honour and veneration to the Images of Christ and his Saints Sess 25. decr develiq Sanctoris imaginib Conc. Nicaen 2 act 7. Doth noe Councel of Nice say anathema to such as doe not salute holy and venerable images His qui non salutant sanctas venerabiles imagines anathema Was the acclamation of the whole Councel consisting of 350. Bishops and yet noe man condemneth you What shall a man say to you What answeare may a man make but onely to say that all this is your owne 15. The like I may say of all the rest of your fond accusations and more fond excused which you heape togeather which it would bee too long to stand answearing one by one Onely the last I cannot omitt which is that you accuse vs of flat idolatry not knowing that the Councel of Nice in the place last cited hath a special anathema for you for that very word and you take comfort that we cannot charge you with the least suspition thereof in your positiue points To which I answeare Sir Humphrey that if you marke the matter well you will haue little cause to take such comfort For it is a farr greater euill for you to be truely charged with haeresy then for vs to be charged falsely with idolatry And though the charge of idolatry against vs were as true as that of haeresy is against you yet would you not haue any such special cause of comfort haeresy coming
first made her visible which is that we desire And soe Sir you haue spunne a faire threed You would faine make your Church visible before Luther and you make it inuisible you looke well about you meane while Now that which you say next of taking away the 3. Creeds which you professe two Sacraments 4. Councels and 22. booke of Scripture without which our Church would bee a poore senselesse carcasse is most foolish for who doth speake of taking them away who doth say they are yours you will not say your selfe but you had them from vs What then doe you talke of taking them away and whereas you are bold to say that wee now stile them chaffe and new haeresies it is to shamelesse an vntruth for any man to tell but your selfe and therefore deserueth noe other answeare but that it is SIR HVMPHREY LIND'S you vnderstand my meaning Sir 21. One little thing more there is in this Section which is that whereas some of ours haue termed your religion negatiue in reguard it consisteth most in denyall of such things as we teach as they may well call it you would retort that terme vpon vs because wee deny many things which you affirme But this is not a matter of any moment For they who call your religion negatiue doe not meane that you doe not teach any positiue erroneous point but that most of your doctrine I meane that which is properly yours not taken from vs is negatiue and euen those affirmatiue propositions which you teach if you teach any are but contradictions of other things which we teach are not or may not be done In which respect they may be also called negatiue But for ours it is nothing soe for it consisteth of positiue points deliuered not by way of opposition or denyal for it was before all haeresy though it is true that it hath many negatiue propositioÌ„s and praecepts Besides out of euery positiue point a man may inferre the contrary negatiue Which yet maketh not that a negatiue as you doe in some of those propositions which you alleadge for example you make this a negatiue point that we deny the substaÌ„ce of bread to remaine after coÌ„secration whereas that is onely a negatiue inferred out of this positiue that the substance of the bread and wine is chaÌ„ged into the body and bloud of our Blessed Sauiour which is our doctrine euer was before any haeresy arose but an haeresy arising to the contrary as that the substance of bread remaineth after consecration the Church out of that positiue point deduceth this negatiue that the substance of breade doth not remaine for destruction of that haeresy But of this there is enough and of this whole SectioÌ„ wherein the Gentle Reader may see whether you Sir knight doe not deserue the name and punishment of an Haeretique by your owne Doome not hauing proued either the antiquity or vniuersality or certainty or safety of your Protestant faith out of any author of ours or euen of your owne or any shew of reasoÌ„ or said any thing to the purpose though you haue taken more liberty to abuse those three authors which you alleadge vtter such grosse falsityes then I doe not say honesty but eueÌ„ shame would giue a man leaue but which is most to bee wondered you haue laboured to proue the visibility of your Church by such similitudes as proue the contrary Which is not any praise of goodnes for you intended it not but an argument of the necessity whereto you were driuen by the badnes of your cause and a dispraise of your iudgment in that you see not what you say Of the 9. Section The title whereof is this The testimonyes of our Aduersaries touching the Protestant and the Romane faith in the particular CHAPTER IX 1. OVR Knight hauing promised to proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his faith and nouelty of ours in generall by the testimony of our owne authors Church and performed it brauely forsooth as hath beene shewed in the former chapter he professeth now in this ninth Section Chap. 9. to proue the same in like sort out of our authors in diuers particular points as iustification by faith onely the Sacrament of the Supper and Doctrine of transubstantiation Priuate Masse c. treating euery one heere ex professo and seuerally in distinct paragraphes whose methode I shall also follow in answearing of him §. 1. Of Iustification by faith onely examined 1. This point of his Protestant iustification by faith onely the Knight proueth as hee saith out of a booke published in Anselmes tyme which is called Ordo baptizandi visitandi c. Of which he citeth two or three seueral editions to fill vpp the margents with quotations and to authorize the booke more he telleth vs that Cassander saith it is obuious euery where in libraries Out of this booke he citeth a whole page and a halfe which I list not heere stand writeing out but onely I will take the worst word in it all that is which may seeme to make most against vs and for the Knight which is this the Priest is appointed to aske the sicke man whether he beleeue to come to glory not by his owne merits but by the merits of Christ's passion and that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his Passion to which the sicke man was to answeare I beleeue Wherevpon the Priest gaue him councell to putt his confidence in noe other thing This is the vtmost he can say out of this booke and what is all this to the purpose For first the knight doth not shew vs any authority for this booke or that S. Anselme had any thing to doe with it nor telleth vs of any ancient edition before the yeare 1556. but onely a mention thereof by Cassâ—â—der a classical author indeede and of the first classe in the index librorum prohibitorum in an appendix alsoe to a forbidden booke falsely called Io. Roffensis de fiducia misericordia Dei then which hee could haue said nothing more to disgrace it 2. Besides he telleth vs that the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition willeth those words of comfort as he calleth them spoken by the Priest to be blotted out which were answeare enough seing the knight is to bring vs authority which we may not except against as I told him in the first Chapter And this very alleadging of the Index expurgatorius is a manifest proofe that it is sett out and corrupted by Haeretiques in fauour of their owne doctrine De corrâ—ct lib. §. 3. 4 For otherwise the Inquisitors can not meddle with it or any other author sett out before the yeare 1515. to change or blott out any thing therein but onely where a manifest error is crept in by fraude of Haeretiques or carelesnes of the Printer Thirdly and principally I answeare that there is nothing in this that doth not stand very well being
this point alone Nor did Campian meane that there was neuer any man that did agree with you in any one of your erroneous points but that there was neuer any house village or citty that did agree with you in your whole faith and religion or made the same Church with you And for the mangling and razing one of Aelfrick's latine epistles wherewith you charge vs first Sir it is not like by this that he saith in his Homily wherewith you say the Epistles agree that there is any thing against vs and if there were know you Sir it is not our fashion to deale soe with authors but if there bee any thing contrary to the Catholique faith we doe what is to bee done publiquely as hauing authority and knowing what wee doe correcting moderne authours in what they erre for ancient authours noting onely what is amisse V. reg indi de correct lib. §. 4. but not razing or blotting out any thing that corner correcting we leaue for such corner companions as shunne the light And soe your principall argument being answeared I goe on to the rest 11. First you tell vs wee are diuided among our selues touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of transubstantiation some deriuing it as you say from the words of Christ some from his benediction before the words some from the exposition of the Fathers some from the Councel of Lateran some from Scriptures some from the determination of the Church where to fill paper and make a shew you repeate againe the same things For what difference for as much as pertayneth to this matter is there betweene the determination of the Church and the Councel of Lateran betweene Scriptures and the words of Christ But to let that goe I say first your phrase of deriuing is improper as you vse it For we deriue our Doctrine by Succession from those men that haue gone before vs by degrees to the Apostles tyme shewing that in all ages and tymes it hath beene taught and beleeued but to speake properly we not deriue but proue the truth of our doctrine out of Scriptures Councels Fathers c. though the deriuation be also a proofe but yet different from that of Scriptures and Councels Secondly you speake very generally and confusedly For whereas there bee diuers things in question betweene you and vs as the realnes of Christ's presence in the Blessed Sacrament and Transubstantiation others among Catholiques themselues as whither or how farr these points may bee proued out of Scripture Tradition c. or by what words or actions this change is made you make no distinction at all of any of these things nor speake any thing certainely or constantly of any of them but runne hopping vpp and downe from one to another now forward now backward that noe mā can tell where to find you but though this confusion of yours cause a little more trouble and length in answearing yet in the end it will discouer your ignorance and vanity the more 12. To begin then with you I would know to what purpose you alleadge our authors in things controuerted among themselues onely eyther now because they are not defined or heertofore when other things then controuerted were not defined though they be since and consequently out of controuersy Doth this difference of our authors make any thing for you noe verily but much against you for their modest manner of disputeing of these things with dew submission to the Catholique Church to whose censure they leaue themselues their opinions and writings their silence as soone as She doth speake is a manifest cōdemnation of your haeretical pride that will stand to noe iudgmēt but your owne and euen those opinions of theirs which you take hold of they virtually retract soe farre as either they may bee any way against the authority of the Catholique Church or in fauour of Haeretiques which are the onely things you seeke Therefore in any thing wherein they may dissent from the common beleefe as they doe not binde vs soe they doe not fauour you But of this I said enough in the first Chapter Though in the authorityes which you heere alleadge there be not much neede of this for either they say nothing against vs or you corrupt them as I shall shew 13. And to begin with Caietan in matter of the real presence you say out of Suarez he taught that these words THIS IS MY BODY doe not of them selues sufficiently proue transubstantiation without the supposed authority of the Church and that therefore by command of Pius V. that part of his commentary is left out of the Romish edition Thus you Where first according to your vsuall liberty of falsifying you put in the word supposed of your owne to make the speech sound somewhat contemptibly of the Church Whereas there is noe such word in Suarez his Latine text which you cite in the margent Secondly you putt in the word Transubstantiation which Suarez there speaketh not of as is euident but onely of the real presence which is a distinct thing though you cōfound them And in that Suarez indeede the whole Schoole of Deuines doe worthily condemne Caietane for saying that those words THIS IS MY BODY doe not sufficiently proue the real presence of our Sauiour's body For singularity whereof Caietan is often noted in matters of such moment is very much to bee condemned in a Diuine therefore Pius V. with great reason commanded that to be blotted out agreeably to the rules praescribed in the Romane index for correcting of books Whereof you complaine much as thinking Caietane somewhat to fauour your side yet you are extreamely mistaken and by alleadging Caietanes authority in this you giue your selfe a wound For though hee doe not giue soe much to the bare words of the Scripture as to be sufficient of themselues to proue the Reality of Christ's presence yet hee saith that ioyning the authority of the Churches exposition of them they are sufficient as he saith in expresse words which your self after cite and yet you can alleadge him for you as you thinke heere and which is more impudency you are not ashamed to say that Caietan denieth the bread to bee transubstantiated by those words For where hath Caietan such a word or euen shaddow of a word You thinke perhaps because in his opinion those words doe not sufficiētly of themselues proue the verity of Christ's presence that therefore they doe not sufficiently cause it but if you thinke soe as you seeme you are much mistakē for those are two different things For example in Baptisme the words I baptize thee c. besides the clensing of the soule from sinne original actuall cause also the remission of the temporall punishmēt imprint a spiritual character in the Soule though these effects cannot bee proued out of the signification of the wordes and soe alsoe a man might say of the forme of the Eucharist the proofe depending vpon the speculatiue signification of
he bringeth these which you could not but see Wherefore in this you come short of the very Minister's honesty How little then must you needs haue Lastly I answeare this very authority is against you in the two things in controuersy betweene vs to wit the real presence and transubstantiation both which it alloweth and is against vs onely in one not soe properly in controuersy to wit in that it saith this change is wrought not by the words this is my body but by the benediction that goeth before Which benediction it doth not say whether it were a word or a deede and it is as like to bee some word as otherwise but whether word or deede it is as easy to consecrate by these words this is my body as by any other words or outward deede Soe as herein Sir Humphrey you haue noe helpe from any man eyther Salmeron or the Graecians or euen your freind Chamier for he discouereth your bad dealing 22. After this matter of the Blessing you come backe againe to the proofe of transubstantiation out of Scriptures telling vs that Bellarmine saith it is not altogether improbable that there is noe expresse place of Scripture to proue it without the declaration of the Church as Scotus said for though saith Bellarmine that place which we brought seeme soe plaine that it may compell a man not refractory yet it may iustly bee doubted whether it bee soe or noe seing the most learned and acute men as Scotus haue thought the contrary In which words Bellarmine saith but what we granted before to wit that though the words of consecration in the plaine connatural and obuious sense inferre transubstantiation yet because in the iudgment of some learned men they may haue another sense which proueth onely the real presence without transubstantiation it is not altogether improbable that without the authority of the Church they cannot enforce a man to beleeue transubstantiation out of them What of all this nothing to your purpose Sir Knight though in translating this saying of Bellarmines you haue corrupted it in two places The one that whereas Bellarmine said one scripture or place of scripture which he brought to proue transubstantiation was soe plaine as to enforce a man not refractory You change the singular number into the plural as if Bellarmine had said the Scriptures were soe plaine c. Which is a corruption of yours thereby insinuating as if Bellarmine taught the Scriptures to be plaine and with out difficulty soe as euery body may vnderstand them which indeed is an ordinary saying of you Protestants but as ordinarily denied by vs Catholiques The other is that whereas Bellarmine saith men most learned and acute as Scotus was You say the most learned and acute men such as Scotus Which word the you cannot but know alters the sense much For it importeth as if the better part of learned and acute men went that way which is false and contrary to the Cardinal's words and meaning 23. You tell vs now in the next place that you will proceede from Scriptures to Fathers as if you had said mighty matters out of scripture not hauing indeede said one word out of it either for your selfe or against vs. Well let vs see what you say out of the Fathers Alfonsus a Castro say you was a diligent reader of the Fathers yet after great study and search returnes this answeare of the conuersion of the body and bloud of Christ there is seldome mention in the Fathers But Sir you are noe diligent reader nor faithfull interpreter of Alfonsus a Castro For his words as you your selfe putt them downe in Latine in the margent are thus Alphon a Castro lib. 8. verbo Indulgent De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio That is Of the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is sedome mention in ancient writers Wherein he saith true and you most false For though of transubstantiation there be rare mention yet of the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention as Bellarmine sheweth at large And herein it is that you shew your selfe a faithlesse interpreter de Euchar. l. 3. cap. 20. But if a man consider Castro his meaning he shall find you to haue abused that much more then his words For his drift in that place is to shew that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writes of a thing or plaine testimony of scripture that yet the vse and practize of the Church is sufficient bringing for an example this point of transubstantiation whereof he saith there is seldome mention and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne whereof saith he there is more seldome mention and then maketh his inference vpon it thus yet who but an Haeretique will deny these things you might then as well Sir Humphrey and better too in Castro his iudgment haue denied the holy Ghost to proceede from the Sonne then the bread to be transubstantiated into Christ's body And herein it is that you shew your selfe noe diligent nor vnderstanding reader of Castro 24. After him cometh one Yribarne a disciple of Scotus whose words you also corrupt in the translation which it is enough to tell you of For the matter he saith it was of the substance of faith in the primitiue Church that Christ was really present vnder the formes of bread and wine yet was it not soe of transubstantiation wherein he seemeth to hold with his Master Scotus Who was of opinion that transubstantiation was not a point of faith till the Councell of Lateran For which you your self confesse he is censured by Bellarmine and Suarez which were answeare enough For as I told you in the beginning wee doe not bind our selues to defend euery singular opinion of one or two Doctors contrary to the common opinion of others But besides I answeare that Scotus plainely auerreth transubstantiation and proueth it out of the ancient Fathers who vse the very word of conuersion which is all one with transubstantiation For thus he saith in a certaine place Respondeo quod nec panis manet contra primam opinionem nec annihilatur vel resoluitur in materiam primam Sâ—â—t 4. dist 1â— 9.3 contra secundam opinionem sed conuertitur in corpus Christi Et ad hoc multum expresse videtur loqui Ambrosius cuius vndecim authoritates supra adductae sunt plures habentur de consecrat dist 2. I answeare that neyther the bread remayneth against the first opinion nor is annihilated or resolued in to materia prima against the second opinion but is changed into the body of Christ And to this purpose S. Ambrose seemeth to speake very expresly out of whom 11. authorityes are brought before and more are to bee had de consecr dist 2. S. Amb. de iis qui myst initiant cap. 9 de Sacrament lib. 4. cap. 3. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1.
Thus Scotus not onely teaching transubstantiation himself but prouing it out of S. Ambrose who maketh most frequent mention of the change and conuersion of the very nature of bread Which is the thing expressed by the word transubstantiatiō By which it is plaine that Scotus must haue held this Doctrine for the substance thereof to bee as ancient as S. Ambrose at the least and if soe ancient then euen from the beginning His meaning therefore in saying it was determined of late in the Councel of Lateran is onely this that whereas the words of consecration may be vnderstood of the real presence of our Blessed Sauiour's body either by transubstantiation that is by change of the bread into his body or otherwise soe that the substance of the bread doe remaine the Church hath determined that the words are to bee vnderstood in the former sense as may bee gathered by his manner of speaking of the Churches expounding of Scriptures which he saith she doth by the same Spirit wherewith the faith was deliuered to Vs to wit by the Spirit of truth V. Scot. in 4. Sent. dist 11.9.3 Which is nothing against the antiquity of transubstantiation And though it were also the cōmon beleife of the Church from the beginning yet it might well be said not to haue beene de substantia fidei Yribarne speaketh because it had not beene soe plainely deliuered nor determined in any Councel till Greg. the 7. his tyme wherein it was first defined against Berengarius and that but by a particular or prouincial Romane Councel Which notwithstanding the article in it selfe might bee ancient though not soe expresly deliuered as I declared more amply in the first chapter 25. You haue little helpe then Sir Humphrey from Alfonsus a Castro Scotus and Yribarne which although you had yet were not that sufficient for discharge of your credit you hauing promised vs acient Fathers against transubstantiation which these three are not for one of them to wit Yribarne is perhaps now aliue another to wit Alfonsus a Castro liued not past 100. yeares agoe the third to wit Scotus about 300. yeares since which is farr from the antiquity of Fathers as wee ordinarily speake of them Wherefore bethinking your selfe at last you bring vs a Father or two to wit S. Aug. and Theodoret telling vs that S. Aug. is soe wholy yours that Maldonat expounding a place in the 6. of S. Iohn saith that he is perswaded that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes and seene that Caluin expounded the same place as he did he would haue changed his mind and for Theodoret you say that Valentia obseruing him to say that the consecrated elements did remaine in their proper substance and shape and figure he maketh the like answeare that it is noe meruaile if one or more of the ancient fathers before the question was debated did thinke lesse considerately and truely of transubstantiation This is all that euer you haue out of the Fathers Which how little it is and how much to your shame shall vpon examination appeare Aug er 26. in Io. 26. For S. Augustine then what is it that he saith in fauour of you in expounding that verse of the 6. of S. Iohn where our Sauiour saith Your Fathers haue eaten Manna and are dead he that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer He saith that their Fathers that is the naughty and vnbeleeuing people of the Iewes dyed to wit spiritually in their soules because they in eating Manna did consider onely what it presented to their outward senses and not what it represented vnto their minds by faith whereas the good men among them as Moyses Aaron Phinees and others who he saith were our Fathers and not theirs did not dye to wit spiritually because they did not cōsider it onely according to the sense but according to faith remēbring that it was but a figure and a figure of this heauenly bread which we haue as the same holy Father saith expresly in the same place Hunc panem significauit manna Manna signified this Bread and he saith it is the same of Iudas and other bad Christians which receiue of the Altar and by receiuing dye because they receiue it ill Doth not this make much for you now Sir Humphrey Doe not you see how wholy S. Aug. is yours How he saith that Manna was a figure of this our heauenly bread that we receiue it from the altar Doth not all this make finely for you but you will say then if it make nothing for vs why doth Maldonate say that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes hee would haue interpreted otherwise I answeare not that this interpretation is for you but because the other is more against you to wit thus Whereas S. Augustine giues the reason why they that did eate Manna dyed to bee because they did not eate it with faith Maldonate maketh the difference to bee not soe much betweene the persons which did eate as betweene the foode which they did eate saying that our Sauiour maketh this a special prerogatiue of the B. Sacrament farre aboue the Manna that this holy Sacrament giueth life to them that eate it which the Manna did not giue of it selfe And indeede with dew reuerence be it spoken to S. Augustine's authority this interpretation is more sutable to the text and discourse of our Sauiour in that whole chapter which is to compare and preferre that true bread which he said his heauenly Father did giue before that of Manna which Moyses gaue their Fathers It is more also against the Haeretiques of these tymes in reguard it is more for the honour of the Blessed Sacrament which they labour might maine to depresse and that is the very reason why Caluin rather followeth the former interpretation not for any loue to Truth or reuerence which hee beareth to S. Augustines authority 27. How false then and absurd is that scoffing speach of yours Sir Humphrey in the next leafe of your booke where you say ironically thus S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the corporal presence For he would haue changed his opinion if he had liued in these dayes as if forsooth Maldonate did say that S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the reall presence and that he would haue changed his Opinion concerning the same if he had liued now in these tymes You heereby insinuating as if S. Augustine thought otherwise thereof then we now teach But how grosly false this is may appeare plainely by what I haue heere said to wit that it is not the reall presence whereof either S. Aug. or Maldonate speaketh but how they that eate Manna haue dyed and they that eate the body of our Lord shall liue according to our Sauiour's saying which is cleane a different thing Wherein Sir HVMPHREY you be LINDE S. Aug. somewhat but Maldonate you be Linde much more by making as if he acknowledged S. Augustine to bee against the real presence and that he should
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
you and they are 10. As for that which you say out of Mr. Fisher that though there bee noe expresse practice or praecept of worshipping the image of Christ yet there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawfull it is as well and truely said by him as that is falsely foolishly impertinently which you say therevpon that from the law of God and grace we are come to the law of nature and to declare an article of faith by the light thereof Mr. Fisher saith the light of nature sheweth it to be lawfull which is true you say he declareth it an article of faith from the light of nature which is false there is great difference betweene those two to be lawful and to be an article of faith the light of nature may reach to shew a thing to be lawfull but not to make an article of faith for that must be grounded vpon the supernatural light of diuine reuelation which is farr aboue the natural light of humane reason though by your fauour Sir Knight as scornefully as you speake of the light of nature it haue somewhat more to doe also in matters of faith then you are aware of For out of one premisse reuealed and another euident by the light of nature there may be drawne a conclusion of faith or at least such as may sufficiently ground a definition of a Councel and practize of the Church and likewise the light of nature hath place also in all the mysteries of our faith in some shewing the reasons or congruences in all shewing that there is noe falshood or impossibility And the light of nature is the guift and law alsoe of God Why then should you speake soe contemptibly of it but onely that you want it in great part and consequently know not the worth thereof 11. But it is strange heere to see how though you cannot find in your hart to allow the light of nature alleadged for adoration of images you can alleadge it against them but euen as wisely as you deny it for them You say Varro an heathen Philosopher by the instinct of nature professed the contrary by saying the Gods are better serued without images The Latine is castius Dij obseruantur sine simulachris Aug. 4. de Ciuit. ca. 31. Which saying you tell vs S. Aug. comendeth and soe he doth indeede but vnderstandeth him farr otherwise then you doe For he doth take Simulachrum not for an image as you doe falsely but for an idol as it is indeede and soe commendeth Varro for coming neerer to the knowledge of the true God and going farther from idolatry in that he neither acknowledgeth any Deity in those material idols nor that multiplicity of Gods but rather alloweth the opinion of them that held that God was the soule of the world which though it were also an errour in him yet S. Augustine saith it cometh neerer to truth in that it teacheth but one God and him not a material or corporal but a spiritual and invisible substance for proof whereof Varro alleadgeth that for aboue an hundred yeares the Romanes had worshipped their Gods without those material idols which whosoeuer brought in saith hee did take a way the feare and added or increased the error he meaneth that they that brought in those idols tooke away all feare of the Gods because men seeing those idols proposed for Gods contemned them and this is that which he saith castiùs dij obseruantur sine simulachris The Gods are more chastly or purely obserued or feared without those idols Now what is this against vs. doe not we say the same thing much more amply and more fully I see not then why you should bring it vnlesse it were to vsher in a thing which you haue out of Eusebius to giue the reason as you say why these Fathers condemned the worshippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters in these words Because saith Eusebius the men of old of an heathenish custome were wont after that manner to honour such as they counted Sauiours Wherevppon you say that after images had gott footing among Christians the Bishops and Emperours by Councels and commands tooke special care to preuent both the making and worshipping them and thereto you bring a Canon of the Councel of Eliberis that noe pictures should be in Churches least that which was worshipped should bee painted on the walls And an authority out of the Ciuill law of a Decree made against adoration of images which I shall cite when I come to answeare it This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Wherein you haue giuen soe sufficient testimony of notorious bad dealing especially in the 2. places of Eusebius and of the Ciuill law that if there were nothing els falsified or corrupted in your whole booke this were enough vtterly to deface all memory of you from among honest men 12. The matter is this hauing brought onely S. Aug commending Varro his saying against Idolls you say in the plural number these Fathers as if you had brought some great number of Fathers and withall you say these Fathers condemned the worhippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters what words haue you brought out of any father one or other to this purpose from the very beginning of this § either condemning the woship of images in vs Christians or calling vs Haeretiques or idolaters for it how then can you haue the face to say it soe boldly but we must not aske you reason for any thing you say but take it as you say it Well you tell vs Eusebius giueth the reason why the Fathers condemned vs for Haeretiques and idolaters which importeth that Eusebius concurreth with those Fathers in iudgment whose fact he giues a reason for But what if Eusebius doe not condemne it can you desire to be counted an honest man I presume you cannot Well let vs then see whether he doe soe or not Making mention of the Citty of Caesarea Philippi by occasion thereof he relateth a story of the Woman which was cured by touching the hemme of our Sauiours garment Eus. hist lib. 7. cap. 14. and how coming home after her cure to Caesarea Philippi where she liued she made her selfe a brazen statua sett vpon a high stone before her owne doore as if she were kneeling vpon her knees and holding vp her hands like one praying and looking towards another statua of a man standing straight vpp with long garments downe to the foote stretching out his hād to the Woman which statua the people said was the Statua of IESVS Vpon the very basis or foote of this statua they said there grew a certaine strange and vnvsual kinde of herbe which as soone as it grew vpp soe high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment it had vertue to cure diseases of euery kind Which statua Eusebius saith continued to his tyme and that he saw it himselfe Neither is it to be wondered saith hee going on with his discourse that
their subiects though he did permitt the vse thereof to others some tymes more sometymes lesse according to the difference of tymes places and persons But this of the extent of the Popes power in this kind is not a matter for this place but it pertaineth to that disputation of the Popes authority in general It is enough heere if we proue the same power and vse of giuing Indulgences now as was in most ancient tymes as the Councel of Trent declareth and you your selfe confesse in as much as you graunt that Indulgence and Pardon was granted by the Byshops then Which we proue to be the same now for neither doth the Councel of Trent stand saying who hath more or who hath lesse of that power for that was needlesse the question being with Haeretiques who denyed the power wholy to be in God's Church 5. The difference then betweene our Indulgence and that of the primitiue Church is not in this that is in the power of granting it Wherein thē you may say as you seeme indeede to say that it consisteth in this that ours is by application of the merits of Christ and his Saints which we terme the treasure of the Church And that their was a free relaxation without any such reguard to this treasure But the difference cannot also be in this for the Bishop's power whereby he did pardon then was grounded in the merits of Christ for what he did he did in the person of Christ as S. Paul saith of himself in forgiuing the Corinthian Neither did he forgiue the guilt of the temporal punishment wholy gratis or freely without any manner of satisfaction to the iustice of Almighty God in as much at lest as these penances were imposed for satisfaction for the fault in the sight of God alsoe this I say the Bishop neither did nor could doe for Christ himself did not forgiue sinne soe but by shedding of his bloud For as S. Paul saith in lege sine sanguine non fit remissio In the Law there is no forgiuenes without bloud Heb. 9.22 Whereby the holy Apostle proueth that without the shedding of Christ's bloud there is noe remission of sinne and all forgiuenes of sinne as well for the guilt as punishment is dependent thereof Wherefore what the Bishops did forgiue in this manner they did forgiue by application of Christ his merits Now these merits were not new but the former merits of his life and passion for Christ did consummate all by one entire oblation of himselfe as S. Paul saith Heb. 10.14 if then it were by vertue of those merits then must they needs lye in store ready to be applied to men as they did dispose themselues to receiue the fruit of them and the Pastours pleased to dispence them and why then may not Christ's merits lying thus in store for the neede of all men be compared to a common treasure and be called by that name Soe farr forth then as those Pardons were grounded in Christ's merits or granted by application of them to the penitent there is noe difference betweene theirs and ours 6. Now for the merits of the Saints you seeme to say that they had noe part in those indulgences that is those Indulgences were not giuen by application of the merits of the Saints But therein you are also mistaken Sir Humphrey For euen in that place of Saint Paul wherein you allow him to speake of Indulce he saith he doth forgiue the Corithian not onely in the person of Christ but for their sakes also which importeth the prayers and deserts of Saints to haue some place in the bestowing of that indulgence and soe likewise it was the practize of the Primitiue Church as you cannot but know for Martyrs that had made a good confession of their faith and endured torments for the same to make intercession to the Bishops for releasing part of the punishment dew to others who out of weaknes failed therein and what was this but by applying the superaboundant merits of the one to supply the want of the other and that this was not by way of impetration or fauour onely at the Bishop's hand but by application of the very Martyr's merits appeareth by Tertullian Tertull. lib. de pud cap. 12. who being become now an Haeretique did reprehend that custome saying that a Martyr's merits were litle enough for himselfe without hauing any surplusage to helpe others withall wherein yet he doth not seeme to deny this application if men haue to spare of their owne satisfactions as noe question many and almost all great Saints haue For though they may continually as long as they are in this world increase in grace and merits for soe much as pertaineth to essential merit without hauing to spare but rather still needing which kind of merit they cannot part with to others yet for that other fruit of their works and sufferings which pertaineth to satisfaction and temporal punishmēt dew for their owne sinnes they may haue sufficient for themselues to spare also to helpe others For example a man falleth into some one sinne for which he cometh to be soe sory after that he betaketh himself to a state of penance during his whole life leading the same in great austerity of fasting watching praying and in the exercise of all Vertues and it may be hauing first obtained pardon of the fault it self by harty contrition and humble confession by those good works obtaineth also remission of the temporal punishment within the space of 1. 2. 3. 7. 10. or 12. yeares for examples sake he then leading the same life still 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. yeares more as many haue done what shall become of all that satisfaction which is ouer and aboue for that sinne or sinnes which he committed before it doth not perish nor passe without fruite though not of him yet of others at least who are members of the same mistical body with him soe then some men haue merits superaboundant to this effect and these merits may be communicated to other members of the same body and these merits are not lost nor forgotten by almighty God though they be not applied presently why may not they then be said to lye in deposito as money in a treasury 7. In this therefore is not the difference betweene our Indulgence and those which you allow wherein then I see not vnlesse it be that we extend our indulgence to the dead as indeed you seeme to make it in part To this I may answeare first that it is another controuersy or another point at least of the same controuersy For Indulgences are applied in a different manner to the liuing and the dead and that definition which you giue that Indulgence is an absolution from the guilt of temporall punishment doth not pertaine to the dead for absolution is a iuridical act to be performed by a Superiour and iudge towards an inferiour and a subiect being vnder his power which the soules in Purgatory are
not in respect of the Pope Wherefore you in going to indulgence for the dead seeme to allow them for the liuing or rather shew you cannot say against them Now for applying indulgences to the dead though the manner of application be different and that we doe not find examples altogether soe ancient as of the former yet the things is in some sort the same supposing you grant the power of applying Indulgences to the liuing as you cannot deny your owne ground being laid thus therefore I shew the matter to be the same supposing another point alsoe of faith which is not heere to be disputed of to wit the communion of Saints or communication which is betweene the Saints liuing and dead either raigning in heauen or suffering in satisfaction of their sinnes in Purgatory This I say supposed the punishment which was dew heere by the poenitential canons may be taken away as you confesse which being not taken away by indulgence nor suffered heere according to the Canons must be suffered there why may it not then be taken away by applying indulgences to them there as well as by works which other men may doe for them heere on earth Which according to the Catholique faith are auaileable for them there in Purgatory Which communion or communication among themselues being grounded in the society and vnity which they haue with Christ why may not the same Vnity and society be sufficient for them to partake of the merits and satisfactions of Christ and his Saints who haue gone before and left that treasure of their merits as well as by the merits and sufferings of men liuing heere vpon earth there is noe difference then nor reason why you should grant that ancient manner of indulgence and denye ours now a dayes or why you should grant indulgences for the liuing and not for the dead soe long as they pertaine to the communion of Saints and haue neede thereof 8. Now for that which you adde heere to make our Indulgences applied to the soules in Purgatory ridiculous by saying we grant them for many thousand of yeares after death thereto citing an old Sarum booke of the howers of our Lady it is false and idle False both because your authority which you cite doth not mention Purgatory but onely saith that whosoeuer shall say these these prayers shall gaine soe many thousand yeares of pardon Which is noe more for the dead then for the liuing but onely that you doe not vnderstand the matter either of the one or other or rather they are for the liuing onely For Indulgences are not to be applyed to the dead vnlesse that be expressed in the grant which is not soe expressed in this grant of yours It is also false because the very thing which you say and would proue by your authority is false to wit that we giue Pardons for thousand of yeares in Purgatory after death For we doe not soe neyther doe we vnderstand those Pardons wherein are mentioned such numbers of yeares soe as if men were without those Pardons to remaine soe long in Purgatory But we vnderstand those yeares according to the poenitential canons by which many yeares penance were dew for one sinne And many men's sinnes being both very grieuous and a man may say without number according to the account of the ancient poenitential canons they may soone amount to thousands of yeares which though a man cannot liue to performe heere in this world nor euen in Purgatory for the length of tyme yet he may in Purgatory in few yeares space nay few moneths or few weekes space suffer soe much punishment as is answearable to all that penance of many thousands of yeares which a man should haue performed heere if he could haue liued soe long in which case a man may haue a pardon of soe many thousand yeares as well as a plenary both coming to one What strangenesse then or impossibility is therein this discourse if you did vnderstand it that you should thinke onely by a scorneful laugh to disgrace or disproue it It is also idle for you to vrge any thing that you find in any old booke as if that were presently of vncontrollable authority being nothing soe For we defend nothing but what hath sufficient approbation or allowance of the Catholique Church which many such old books as you cite want you should therefore haue added that withal if you had meant to proue any thing thereby 9. Now after this you tell vs that long before Luther's dayes by relation of Thomas Aquinas whom yet you cite not but onely out of Valencia some whereof opinion that ecclesiastical Indulgence of it selfe could remitt noe punishment neither in the Court of God nor of the Church but that they were a pious kind of fraud to draw men to doe good works but this opinion you say the Iesuit condemneth for erroneous and why I pray you Sir could you not as well say that S. Thomas did condemne the same not onely for erroneous but impious also but onely because you would make your Reader thinke it was condemned onely by the Iesuit and not by S. Thomas or rather that hee did as it were winke at it but how farre S. Thomas was from that and how free on the other side any man may see by this that putting the question in the 1. ar of his â—5 q. of the Suppl whither indulgences auaile any thing he maketh answeare that all grant that they auaile something because it were impious saith he to say that the Church did doe any thing in vayne and in the 2. art asking how much they auaile he saith that some say they auaile to euery one but according to their faith and deuotion he himsef saith it is very perilous to say that they doe not auaile soe much as they sound that is to soe much effect or pardon as they are giuen for Wherefore the antiquity of this opinion nothing auaileth you but rather doth you harme it being then condemned for an errour as likewise it auaileth you not that you bring halfe a dozen of our authours witnessing that there is noe expresse proofe of Scripture nor of some ancient Fathers as S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose c. for Indulgences For we grant there is not soe expresse mention of them as of many other points because there was not soe much vse of them though out of some Fathers also much more ancient then S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose c. we proue the vse of them to wit out of S. Cyprian and Tertullian as you may see in Bell. the one aboue 100. Lib. 1. de indulg cap. 3. the other aboue 200. before any of these Fathers and besides them the authority of certaine Councels as that of Nice Ancyra and Laodicea though if we had not either of these Fathers nor any els nor of these Councels yet would not that follow which you ground therevpon to wit that we want antiquity and consent of Fathers For it is a
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
and yours Ministers 14. See Tert. de praescr cap. 21. Epiph. Chrisost Basil The particular testimonyes you may see in Bellarmine to whom I remitt you onely for S. Aug. I cannot omitt to make more particular mention of him in this place by reason of a certaine sentence which you haue brought in the end of this § as alsoe of euery one of the 6. Damascen alios ap Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. foregoing §§ still coÌ„cluding with this saying of that holy Father Siue de Christo fiue c. Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church or concerning any other thing that pertayneth to our faith I will not say we who are noe way to bee compared to him that said but if an Angel from heauen shall preach vnto you beside what you haue receiued in the legal and euangelical scriptures lett him be anathema And in the end of euery one for the most part adding the particular controuersy of that § as for example in this of Indulgences you say if wee or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you any thing concerning the faith of Indulgences besids that you haue receiued c. and soe in euery of the other particular points Whereby you would perswade your Reader that Saint Aug. would haue nothing beleiued but what can bee proued by expresse words of Scripture Wherein I appeale to your owne conscience as bad as it is whither this be not damnable dishonest dealing both towards S. Aug. and towards your Reader For if you haue read S. Aug. as you pretend how can you be ignorant how many points of faith he doth defend against seueral Haeretiques either onely or chiefly by the tradition and Practise of the Catholique Church De Bap. câ—nt Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7. lib. 5. cap. 23. as single Baptisme against the Donatists Consubstantiality of the sonne Diuinity of the Holy Ghost and euen vnbegottenesse of the Father the first person in Trinity against the Arrians and the Baptisme of Children against Pelagius to say nothing of prayer for the Dead Cont. Maxi. lib. 3. cap. 3. ep 174. de Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. De cura pro mortuis ep 118. Obseruation of the Feasts of Easter Ascension Whitsuntide and the like nay this truth was so grounded with him that he counted it most insoleÌ„t madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practize of the Catholique Church Which is of soe great authority with him as that he saith in one place that when we follow it we follow the truth of the Scriptures these are his words Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus c. Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 33. The truth of the Scripture is held by vs when we doe that which seemeth good to the whole Church which Church the authority of the Scriptures themselues doe commend that because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue whosoeuer is afraid to bee deceiued by the obscurity of this questioÌ„ may haue recourse to the Church the which the holy Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate vnto vs soe he there and that it may farther appeare that to deny this authority and practize of the Church is not onely to deny the authority of Scripture but euen of Christ himselfe I cannot heere omitt to note a place of the same Saint his booke de vnit ecclesiae Where hee treateth this very point very particularly and excellently soe as to take away all doubt of his opinion therein For heere he doth of purpose intend to shew that where plaine proofe of Scripture is wanting we must haue recourse to the Church prouing it thus by occasion of the question of rebaptization and supposing that there is noe proofe of Scripture either way Puto si aliquis sapiens c. I thinke saith hee if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony to wit Aug. de Vnit. eccles cap 22. of his wisedome and that he should be asked in this question we should not doubt to doe what he should say lest we should seeme to gainesay not him soe much as Christ by whose testimony hee was commended Now Christ beareth witnesse of his Church And a little after againe he saith that Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practize of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himself Who by his testimony commendeth the Church By which discourse and comparison any man may see that in S. Augustines iudgment the Churches word is warranted by Christ as much as if he should haue named any one man in particular whose words he would make good and whom consequently we should follow that by refusing or leauing him we should leaue Christ himself Soe as nothing can be more plaine and euident to declare this holy Fathers opinion in this point of the Churches authority in the beleife and practize euen of things not expressed in Scripture And this may sufficiently coÌ„uince you Sir Humphrey of malicious deceipt in alleadging that other place of this holy Father soe contrary to his meaning declared in soe many places and soe plainely 15. But because you may yet make difficulty in this testimony which you alleadge as though it alone should stand against all other that can be alleadged out of him and that noe interpretation of any man els can be able to satisfy you I will alleadge his owne words interpreting the meaning of S. Paul's words which he alleadgeth vseth in this testimony to shew that the word beside doth not import that a man must not beleeue any thing but that which is expressed in Scripture but that a man must not beleeue any thing contrary For thus he saith The Apostle did not say if any man euaÌ„gelize to you more then you haue receiued Aug. to 98. in Io. but beside that which you haue receiued For if he should say that he should praeiudicate that is goe against himselfe who coueted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith But he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was c. These are the Saint's very words in that place By which it is plaine that he taketh the word praeter beside not in that sense as to signify more then is written as you would vnderstaÌ„d it but to signify the same that contra against or coÌ„trary to what is written For otherwise there would be noe sense in his saying or opposition coÌ„sisting of two members with difference of the one from the other Which to be his meaning is yet more plaine by his whole discourse which is to shew what maÌ„ner of knowledge or priuate reuelation is to bee admitted indeede there hee alloweth of such as it not against the rule of the Catholique faith contra regulam Catholicae fidei reprehends only in Haeretiques such kind of knowledge as is also contrary or against the rule of faith and then obiecting
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
I take you in earnest as you seeme to meane it and aske what certainty you or any Protestant hath or can haue that you are Christians if you thinke that your Christianity dependeth vpon the Sacrament of Baptisme If you thinke it doe not as it is the doctrine of the Puritans indeede that Baptisme is not any cause of grace but onely a signe or seale of the adoption which they receiue by carnal propagation from their faithfull parents and it seemeth also yours by what you say both heere and before in your 4. § of Sacraments in the definition of a Sacrament if I say you thinke soe then I confesse you neede not feare the Minister's want of intention but that pertaineth to another disputation but yet you haue as little certainty or lesse of your christendome still for what know you whither your Parents were of the faithfull or noe that is whither they did beleiue there was a God or what they did beleiue of him and soe of your owne Children if their christendome depend vpon yours or your wiues faith it may be they may bee much more vncertaine thereof then we are by depending vpon our Priests intention for noe man can know your inward beleife but find you what you will we shall still find some man's intention or other that shall make your faith or Christendome vncertaine vnlesse you can proue you were Christned by God himselfe which sure you will not goe about to doe 8. But howsoeuer you extenuate the force and necessity of Baptisme for Matrimony I suppose you will not wholy abrogate it though you put it out from among the Sacraments and of it I aske what certainty you can haue of the lawfulnes of your owne Marriage or legitimation of you children You cannot say but the validity of that contract dependeth vpon the intention and consent of the partyes though not of your Minister as wee alsoe say it dependeth not vpon the intention of our Priest but of the partyes which marry which we say commonly are the Ministers in this Sacrament Wherefore if for example your wife had no intention when she spake the words of Marriage it is noe Marriage but fornication and consequently your Children are bastards nay though the matter should haue depended wholy vpon your owne intention in your marriage and that you be a great deale more sure of it then you can be as it is now depending vpon your wiues intention also yet is that surety farre from the certainty of diuine faith and soe you are in noe better case for that matter then wee For Order I might likewise instance the same among you but a small deale of Order serues your turnes for I see not any thing done by vertue of your Ordination which any man or woman may not doe without it Therefore for vs I answeare it is cleane a different thing of the certainty of the Catholique faith which we maintaine and of euery man's priuate or particular beleife of his owne iustification or saluation which we deny to be soe certaine the one being grounded vpon the authority of God's diuine truth and reuelation the other vpon humane knowledge or rather coniecture it is one thing to say there be 7. Sacraments and that these Sacraments doe giue grace where they are duely administred with all things requisite on the part both of the giuer and receiuer and another to say they are soe to me that is that in my receiuing of any one of them all things haue concurred both on the Priests part and myne the former is reuealed by God and propounded by his Church the later is not reuealed in any scripture and therefore by your owne rule can be noe matter of faith For the inconuenience therefore which you say may follow though any way that you can inuent I doe not thinke but there wil be two for one and farre greater I answeare that though in matter of Baptisme Ordination c. there may happen some defect in this or that particular case for want of intention matter forme or the like yet it belongeth to the prouidence of almighty God not to permitt any vniuersal or euen great defect to happen and soe though we be not certaine by certainty of diuine faith that this or that man in particular is truely baptized and ordained a Priest yet we are certaine by the certainty of diuine faith that not onely there be such Sacraments but that they are also truely administred in the Catholique Church soe as there can be noe danger of the fayling of either or of any danger which may ensue therevpon to the notable praeiudice of faith and saluation of soules and withall though we be not certaine by certainty of faith of euery particular yet wee haue moral certainty that is as much certainty as there can be of any humane thing which dependeth of the action or intention of any man which as we see it is enough for men to rest themselues secure in all worldy matters concerning their liues and goods which most men prize aboue their soules soe it may also giue a man sufficient security in matters of his soule especially since as we say if he be not wanting to himself almighty God will not of his goodnes suffer him through another man's fault to want any thing necessary for his saluation but will incite him to contrition for forgiuenes of his sinnes or to make doubt and seeke whether he haue those necessary thinges or noe But yet with this security there remaineth a place for an holy feare which may keepe downe our pride and make vs shake of all torpour exercizing our selues in good workes and working our saluation with feare and trembling But of this kind of faith it is not that wee meane when wee dispute with haeretiques of the certainty of true faith but of faith as it is a beleife and doctrine deliuered in general abstracting from this or that man whether he beleeue aright or be certaine of his beleife that is that he beleeueth wherefore Sir Humphrey in changing the question herein you committ a notable grosse aequiuocation of termes which is a fowle fault in a Scholler as you are forsooth 9. But from this you passe to another point of vncertainty or rather an other kind of proofe of our vncertainty thus You say we are vncertaine whether the Saints heare our prayers or not and whither some that we pray vnto be Saints in heauen or diuels in hell the later you proue out of Caiet because he saith that the miracles whereon the Church groundeth the canonization of Saints cannot be infallibly knowne and out of Saint August and Sulpitius the one saying some were tormented in hell which were worshipped on earth the other saying that the common people worshipped for a Martyr one that was damned and who appeared and told them soe the former vncertainty to wit whether the Saints heare our prayers Gab. in can lect 31. Mag. in 4. d. 45. you proue out
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
what then what is this to many other points which we say cānot be knowne by onely scripture Were this a good consequence the Church is knowne by onely Scripture ergo all things els and euen Scripture it selfe is knowne onely by scripture surely noe and yet this consequence must be good or els Sir Humphrey your argumēt is not good Besids these words may be vnderstood of the Scriptures compared with other Writings that is that the Church is knowne to vs onely by Scriptures not by other Writings whereof either none speake soe clearely of the Church or none are like therevnto for authority which yet doth not exclude other proofes or markes of the Church And indeede the Church is most knowne and best proued out of Scripture of any point of our faith as may appeare by this that S. Aug. proueth the same soe notably out of Scriptures onely gainst the Donatists in a particular booke of that matter De vnit eccles Aug. in Psal 30. and in another place he saith the Scriptures speake more plainely of the Church then of Christ himself because the holy Ghost foresaw it was more to be contradicted and what might not these words be taken somewhat in the same sense but this shall serue for that place 3. You come next with two places of Saint Aug. whereof one was answeared before and it is onely where you tell vs he saith that many are tormented with the Diuel who are worshipped by man on earth to this Bellarmine say you answeareth that perhaps it is not S. Augustines making you Reader beleeue as if Bell. neither gaue other answeare nor any reason of this answeare Whereas he doth both his reason why he thinketh it not Saint Augustines is both because he could neuer find any such place in him it is like he should find it if it were there he hauing beene soe diligent a reader of S. Augu. as appeareth by his works he was Bell. de Sanct. beat lib. 1. cap. 9. as alsoe because noe Haeretique that obiecteth it doth note the place where it is to be found as they are wōt to doe in their other obiections and it is like would doe in this if they could find it but because Sir Humphrey you are a man soe well read in S. Aug. and stand soe vpon answeare of this place Doe you but tell vs where it is and you shall then see what we will say vnto you meane while looke a little better in Bellar. againe and tell vs whether there be not 3. or 4. other answeares See also before cap. 10. The other place of Saint Augu. is as you say touching the Popes supremacy because S. Augu. in those words of our Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church taketh not Peter and this rocke to be all one but the Rocke to bee our Sauiour himself and Petrus to bee a deriuatiue onely of Petra to which you tell vs Stapleton makes answeare that it was lapsus humanus for want of knowledge of the Greeke and caused by the diuersity of the two languages Latine and Greeke Which answeare though you relate in a slight fashion as if you tooke it to be in sufficiēt yet you neither doe nor indeede can say against it if you know Greeke and Latine or if you doe not goe but to some of your Ministers and get them to looke in their owne Greeke Lexicons I meane sett out by Haeretiques and see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be an adiectiue and a deriuatiue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be not a substantiue signifying the very same thing and let them looke yet farther into the original tongue it self to wit the Syriake wherein our Sauiour spake Lib. 1. Ro Pontif cap. 25. and see whither they be not more the same to wit the onely word Cephas in both places On the other side it is well knowne Saint Augu. professed noe great skill in Greeke as hee witnesseth of himselfe in many places Aug. in Psal cont Partem Donat ep 165. Besids Saint Augu. doth not bring this exposition to derogate from Saint Peter's primacy which he confesseth in 20. places as may be seene in Bellarmine and where for proofe thereof he vseth the very word Petra which heere he distinguisheth from Petrus calling the Seate of Peter this rooke Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae Reckon saith he to the Donatists the Priests from euen the seate of Peter that is the rocke which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome How then doth he deny S. Peter's primacy and perpetuity of his Sea Againe Sir Humphrey you might finde other answeares for Saint Augu. himselfe in his retractations putteth both the explications wherein the word Petrae is spoken of Christ and of Peter leauing the choise to the Reader allowing both interpretations which you doe not because one is flat against you Whereas we doe not reiect either as being against vs but onely we shew the one not to be soe good because it standeth not soe with the original tongues which that Saint was not soe well skilled in and literal sense of scripture which noe Haeretique can deny 4. The 3. place is out of S. Ignatius for proofe of Communion in both kinds Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 26 One cupp is distributed to all to which you say Bellarmine makes answeare that in the Latine books it is not found that one cupp is giuen to all but for all against which you can say nothing but giue me cause to say much against you For first Bellarmine doth not say one cupp is giuen for all but saith vnus calix totius ecclesiae One cupp of the whole Church Which is the true reading and indeede another thing Secondly though you make as if Bellarmine did onely barely say this without farther reason or proofe yet is it farre otherwise for as for the reading he saith that though the Greeke haue it as the Haeretiques commonly cite that is as you doe heere yet the true reading is as the Latine translation which we follow hath it whereto he saith there is more trust to be had then to the Greeke books of S. Ignatius which wee haue now Whereof he bringeth this proofe that the testimonies cited out of him as we find in the works of S. Anastasius and Theodoret agree better with our Latine translation then the Greeke which is now extant Which is a plaine proofe of the betternes and greater purenes thereof as being taken out of the ancient Greeke editions Besids that Bellarmine proueth this euen out of the Magdeburgians because they cite this very place at we doe Neither doth he answeare this authority onely by the variety of the reading but withall he giueth 2. answeares more one that S. Ignatius putteth all the force in the vnity of the bread and cupp thus that though many eate many drinke
sense for aske any schoole-boy whether cùm with the subiunctiue and indicatiue moode be all one the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine alleadgeth thus Seing saith he it is euident as Saint Hiero. speaketh that hee was noe man of the Church these being Saint Hierom's very words heere then you see againe that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reiect Tertullian nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him but almost all the Fathers Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many Vinc. Lerin cap. 24. Hilar. in comment in Math. cap. 5. and Saint Hilarius saith there that Tertullian's later errours did detract a great deale of authority from his approued writings Soe then it is noe wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers And soe you may say that S. Hierome Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reiect and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine 12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you say that if you cite him Canus makes answeare Hierome is noe rule of faith Can. de locis lib. 2. cap. 11. but you tell vs not where or vpon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome noe more then you doe the three former Fathers though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of which is the Canon of Scripture you haue Saint Hierome a little more fore you in shew then in any thing els or more then you haue any other of the Fathers yet I dare say you wil be loath to stand to his iudgment euen in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament according to the Canon of the Iewes which you also follow if a man should vrge you with S. Hieromes authority euen in this point I beleeue you would say the same or more then Canus doth to wit that he is noe rule of faith for S. Hierosme alloweth the booke of Iudith to be canonical Scripture Proef. in Iudith though it bee not in the Iewes canon which yet you reiect and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle à plaerisque reijcitur it is reiected by most Descript eccles Verb. Petrus Apost wherein yet you doe not follow him this is for the matter Now for the words you doe not cite Canus right for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is noe rule of faith though that be true as I shall shew presently but thus hauing alleadged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus For neither is it true saith Canus that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in determining the canonical books Which is most true S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church but the Church is his rule Hier. praef in Iudith as appeareth in that he reckoneth Iudith among the Canonical books vpon the authority of the Church Neither is it all one to say S. Hierome is noe rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture which not and to say he is noe rule of faith Besides if Canus had said S. Hierome is noe rule of faith he had said most true and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome and speaking euen of his writings thus Aug. ep 19 Solis eis scripturarū libris c. I haue learned to giue that feare and honour to those onely bookes of scripture which are now called canonical as to beleeue most firmely that noe author or writer of them hath erred any thing in writing but others I reade soe that though they excell neuer soe much in any holinesse learning I doe not therefore thinke it true because they thought soe but because they haue beene able to perswade either by those canonical authors or by probable reason that they say true and there he goeth on specifying euen S. Hierome himselfe and saying vnto him that he presumeth he would not haue him soe wholy approue of his writings as to thinke there is no error at all in them The like he hath in another place shewing plainely that any priuate Doctor may erre Lib. 2. de Bap. cont Donat. cap. 3 and consequently can be noe rule of faith Yet for all that the authority of any such is very great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others or is not by them gaine said For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradition and beleife of the Church which is a sufficient rule Is this then to reiect and elude the Fathers to say that one is noe rule of faith if it be then doth S. Aug. reiect and elude them it is plaine therefore you doe but cauill for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth 13. After S. Hierome you come to Iustin Irenaeus Epiphanius and Oecumenius whom say you if you cite Bellarmine answeares I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from errour Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6 Heere againe as else where you forbeare to tell vs the matter for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them For this would haue discouered your falshood and vanity The matter then is concerning the damned spirits whether they suffer anie punishment for the present tyme before the day of iudgment or not these fathers thinke not the common consent of all other fathers and of the whole Catholique Church is against them in it How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error but I pray you Sir Humphrey bethinke your selfe well and tell vs againe whether this be any point controuerted betweene you and vs I know it is a thing which you might better maintaine then most or perhaps any one point of your faith hauing these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein but yet I doe not find by your 39. articles or any other sufficient authority that you hold that error much lesse as a chiefe point of your faith Wherefore it is false that you say when you cite these Fathers For you doe not cite them neither is their errour in a matter of controuersy betweene vs I note heere also in a word that whereas Bellarmine saith onely he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of Iustin Irenaeus c. from errour you make him say the opinion of these men as if he did speake but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong For though he doe not in all things and alwaies approue the opinion of euery particular man yet doth he allwaies speake with great reuerence of the holy Fathers as all Catholiques doe 14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Salmeron the Iesuit makes answeare weake is the place which is
drawne from authority for pauperis est numerare pecus It is the signe of a poore man to number his Cattell Thus you say of Salmeron in a few lines discouering a great deale of fals-hood For first it is false that you produce Fathers against the Conception of our Lady That being noe controuersy betweene you and vs but onely among our selues wherefore if there be any such consent of Fathers it is not you that produce them but our owne authors you onely out of the great good affection you beare forsooth to our B. Sauiour are ready to embrace any opinion that may more derogate from the dignity of his blessed Mother but what doe crowes looke for but carren Secondly it is false that Salmeron acknowledgeth any such vniforme consent of Fathers against him or that he makes any such answeare to them It is true indeede he saith the contrary part alleadge for themselues the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and specially of Saint Augustine Which he answeareth another way but for those which he answeareth as you say here they are onely later authours or Doctours as shall after appeare Thirdly it is false that hee acknowledgeth any vniforme consent euen of these later Doctours against himselfe for he opposeth a farre greater multitude of Doctours against them vsing that saying of Elizaeus the Prophet 4. Reg. 6.16 plures nobiscum sunt quam cum illis there be more with vs then with them Where then is the consent Fourthly it is a cunning tricke if not a false for you to make this answeare seeme Salmeron's onely whereas he professeth to haue it out of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas of Aquine citing two or three seuerall places of Saint Augustine but it is well at lest that though you contemne their authority yet you doe not doe it soe openly but couertly onely vnder the shaddow of a IESVIT This therefore might be answeare enough for you to shew that we doe not reiect or elude the Fathers seing we haue our answeares out of them but to explaine the meaning of Salmeron's saying that the place of authority is weake a little more I will alleadge S. Thomas of Aquine his obiection and answeare he obiecteth that the science of Diuinity cannot be argumentatiue 1. p q. 1. ar 8. and 2. because saith he it must argue out of authority or reason not out of authority because according to Boetius the place of authority is most weake not out of reason because then faith hath noe merit to this he answeareth that it argueth out of Diuine authority and saith that Boetius is to be vnderstood of humaine authority which he also saith is the weakest kind of proofe Soe as by this Salmeron's meaning is plaine not to reiect authority but onely to preferre reason before humaine authority as it is most plaine that it ought to be preferred Besids Salmeron giueth other answeares as that he opposeth also a contrary multitude of Doctours he opposeth the force of reason he opposeth the consent in a manner of the whole Church concluding therefore that though some of the cōtrary part number a great many authors some 200. some 300. some but 15. yet the very nūbering sheweth them to be few according to that saying Pauperis est numerare pecus it is onely for a poore man to number his cattell whereas a rich man's cattell or other wealth is not soe soone counted insinuating thereby that his authors are soe many that they are not to be numbred and indeede he hath almost as many Vniuersityes kingdomes commonwealths religious orders and other communityes for him as the other side hath single authors By all which it is apparent that there is noe such absurdity in his saying as you would haue it seeme for he slighteth not authority but preferreth onely greater authority before lesse and reason before both which noe man in his right witts can deny to be very good reason where then was your reason Sir Humphrey when you read Salmeron it was straying after some haereticall fancy 15. By this then that hath beene said in this whole chapter it may appeare how like your selfe you make that vaunting conclusion to your reader that by what you haue heere said he hath heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the chiefe points made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues For disproofe whereof I should vrong my Reader 's iudgement if I should stand bringing other arguments then those which I haue done already in answearing euery particular place which you bring Wherein I haue shewed not one Father of all these to be against vs vnlesse it be in some one or two points wherein they are as much against you and in things which both you acknowledge for errours and are contradicted by the common consent of other fathers wherein I hope my deeds will waigh more with any man of iudgement then your words Chap. 13. and soe I passe to another section Of the 13. Sect. which is thus entituled by the Knight Our aduersaries conuinced of a bad cause and an euill conscience by razing of our records and clipping their owne authors tongues CHAPTER XIII 1. IN the later end of the former section the Knight saith that many in our owne Church haue spoken freely and truly in particular points of doctrine with his and against our tenets For which the Inquisitours haue passed their censure vpon them blotting out such lines or leaues as make against vs and now in this section he nameth some authours in particular To which I say that for the former part the Knight saith very true there be and euer haue beene some light new fangled people who giue too much liberty to their wandring thoughts and penns suffering themselues like chaffe as they are to be blowne hither and thither with the wind of inconstancy And such people they are for the most part that become haeretiques though some also remaine in the vnity of the Catholique church yet soe as they suffer some things to escape which deserue censure Wherefore the Catholique church to preuent the danger and harme which may come by such bookes taketh the best order that can be in Catholique countries that noe such bookes be printed till they be reuiewed and approued not to containe any thing contrary to faith and good manners but because there haue beene many such writings published this last age by occasion of heresy and liberty which came therewith to the great preiudice of the Catholique faith there hath beene a course taken for the restraint of all such not onely writings of Haeretiques but euen of Catholiques which haue any tange of haeresy either vtterly forbidding them or correcting them soe as they may be safely reade without danger of faith and good life And this kind of care hath euer beene vsed in the Catholique church though more or lesse as the necessity of tymes hath beene greater or lesse Act. 19.18 Soe we see in scripture it selfe some that
followed curiosities becoming Christians confessed their deeds and burnt their books Soe we see afterwards the books of Arius were commanded to be burnt and men forbidden to keepe them vnder paine of death Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 6. and soe of others which I will not heere stand vpon onely contenting my selfe with one exāple of this kind which for the antiquity and authority may be both proofe and warrant for the practize of the Catholique Church now at this tyme wherein the Haeretiques doe soe much cry out against the Inquisition and index expurgatorius 2. This example is that of Gelasius 1. Pope about the yeare 490. who in a Councel at Rome gathered for that end made a Decree to declare what Scriptures were canonical what Fathers and Doctours might be safely read and what not whereof hauing made a catalogue he addeth these words in the end Item opuscula atque tractatus omnium orthodoxorum c. Also we decree to be read the workes and treatises of all the orthodox Fathers who in nothing haue strayed from the company of the holy Romane Church nor haue been separated from the faith and preaching thereof but by the grace of God haue held with the same euen to the last day of their life and then before he come to make a catalogue of the haereticall books which he forbiddeth he saith thus Coetera quae abhaereticis c. Other things which haue beene written or preached by Haeretiques or Schismatiques the Catholique and Apostolique Romane Church doth noe way receiue of which some few that come to mind and are to be shunned by Catholiques we thinke good to sett downe heere and soe there setteth them downe Now I would know of the Knight or anie man els that crieth out soe bitterly against our Index expurgatorius what he can say against it that he may not say against this decree and Councel of Gelasius and against which we may not defend our selues by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts 3. But of this matter therefore I neede not say more it being euident by the light of nature that supposing there be a certaine rule of faith to which all men must cōforme their thoughts sayings and writings and that the swaruing from it is a declining to haeresy it pertaineth to the Catholique Romane Church which must of necessity be this rule of faith For it hath neither spot nor wrinckle as Gelasius saith which cannot be said of any Church els what soeuer to preuent the danger that may come by such books forbidding the vse of them and a more dangerous and vnnatural part it would be in her not to vse this care then it were in a Mother that should see sugar and ratts-baine lye together and seing her child going to tast thereof should forbeare to warne it but leaue the choice thereof to the child But of this matter I said somewhat in the beginning and there being diuers learned treatises of this subiect particularly I neede say noe more but remitt such as desire satisfaction to them or euen to the very rules sett downe in the beginning of the Index expurgatorius which are grounded vpō soe good reason as I presume noe indifferent man that readeth them can disallow of them I will not therefore stand particularly to examine euery particular authour and iustify the Inquisition for it would be both a long needlesse labour Onely I cannot omitt one authour called Bertram whom to turne my speech to you Sir Humphrey me thinks you among all men liuing should neuer soe much as name considering how much disgrace you haue sustained by translating his booke and venturing your owne credit and the credit of your Church vpon the faith thereof and for him I answeare that though his booke were proued plainely to containe good Catholique doctrine in the matter of transubstantiation yet because it was obscure in many places and thereby gaue occasion of erring and indeede was of vncertaine authority this onely being certaine that it hath beene in this last age published by Haeretiques we know not out of what records with some errours of their owne inserted therefore it might well be forbidden by the Inquisition but I say you should of all men liuing most labour to haue the memory thereof blotted out therewith to obliterate your owne shame 4. Another thing which I am also to note is concerning your coting of a Canon of the Councel of Laodicea in this section whereat I wonder that the inquisition hauing said nothing to it why you should reckon it heere among such authours as you say are razed or clipped by the inquisition But let vs heare what it is that you say to it you cite the Canon thus in English onely We ought not to leaue the Church of God and inuocate Angels saying withall that in the same Councel published by Merlin and Crabbe by change of a letter Angelos is turned into Angulos Angels into Angles and Corners thus that we must not leaue the Church of God and haue recourse to Angles or Corners and this say you lest soe faire an euidence of an ancient Councel should be produced against inuocation of Angels V. Bin. to 1. Concil thus you Sir Humphrey wherein first is to be noted your error in chronology concerning the tyme of this Councel which you make to be the yeare 368. which was 43. Con. Laodien can 35. yeares after the 1. Councel of Nice whereas it was celebrated before that Councel Secondly your corruption in the translation and cutting of of the Canon which is thus Non oportet relicta ecclesia ad Angelos abominandae idolatriae congregrationes facere quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultae huic idololaetriae vacans Anathema sit quoniam relinquens Dominum IESVM Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola Noe man must leauing the Church of God make congregations to the Angels of abominable idolatry and whosoeuer shal be found exercizing this secret idolatry let him be anathema because leauing IESVS Christ the Sonne of God he hath come to idols Now where in this Canon doe you find the word inuocation of Angels Which is the thing that you pretend to be forbidden and much lesse doe you find such inuocation of Angels as we vse For in this Canon is onely forbidden such idolatrical inuocation as the Simonian and other haeretiques did vse praeferring the Angels before Christ and making them the creatours of the world and the onely or chiefe mediatours without whose helpe there was noe accesse to be had to God which is the same wicked haeresy which Saint Paul speaketh against Coloss 2. as all interpreters vnderstand him By whose words it is plaine that those Haeretiques left Christ and had recourse to Angels in this sense Nemo vos seducat non tenens caput c. Let noe man seduce you not holding the head that is not holding by Christ Now where doe you finde that we by inuocation of Angels forsake Christ
to name that Father or Catholique Doctor to whose iudgment we will not stand for trial of the controuersies betweene you and vs and if hee be for you in one I will vndertake he shal be against you in 5. or 10. others for that one With what face then can you say we decline them but because I imagine you reflect most in this saying vpon this worthy worke of your owne I leaue it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader whether I haue soe declined one author either moderne or ancient or whether I haue not shewed euery one which you haue brought to be quite against you Now for the Scripture because you say wee decline it as vnperfect I challeÌ„ge you to name the man that saith it is vnperfect for that reason declineth it You fathered indeede that terme vpon Lessius but I shewed it to be most false for that he hath not the word at all in that chapter much lesse doth he say it of Scripture and lesse againe doth he decline the trial thereof in reguard of the imperfection but onely in reguard that it being a written word noe haeretique can be conuinced by it as I shewed also euen now out of Tertullian who saith it is but lost labour to dispute with an haeretique out of scripture But because I see your drift in the often repetition of the word imperfect is onely to beget in men's minds an hard conceit of vs De prâ—â— cap. â— as if we made small account of scripture I would know of you who they be that haue preserued the Scripture with such care for soe many ages who they bee that haue translated commentend and expounded them who they be that haue made soe many decrees in particular and general Councels for the preseruation authority reuerence and dew vse of them who they bee that haue filled libraries with learned works not onely expounding the particular passages but frequently and largely declaring their necessity dignity vtility and other perfections Veu B. 2 â—p Sr. â—p Let any man by these effects iudge who reuerenceth them most Catholiques or Protestants Let him compare the labours of the one with the labours of the other and then he shall soone find the truth of this matter 8. But because you still talke of our declining of Scripture besids that it is false as I said before for we are content to admitt any kind of triall with you to take that alsoe out of your mouth I answeare you farther that in this we coÌ„descend more vnto your infirmity being willing to try all wayes to gaine you then we neede or you can of right challenge For we acknowledge that saying of Tertullian's most true Whereby hee as it were stoppeth this gapp against you Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus non admittendos eos ad vllam de scripturis disputationem sihae sunt vires eorum anne eas habere possint dispici debet cui competat possessio Scripturarum ne is admittatur ad eas cui nullo modo competit We stopp vp this entrance chiefly that they that is haeretiques are not to be admitted to the disputation of Scriptures if in these their force consist we must see whether they may haue them to whom the possession belongeth lest he be admitted therevnto to whom it in noe wise belongeth as also that other place wherein conformably to the question which heere he maketh this being an important point hee defineth de praesc cap. 15. 37. Non esse admittendos haereticos ad incundam de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere That haeretiques are not to be admitted to the challenge of Scriptures whom without Scriptures we proue not to pertaine to Scriptures that is not to haue any thing to doe with them For saith he if they be haeretiques they cannot be Christians and not being Christians they can haue noe right to Christian writings Wherefore Sir Humphrey while you stand bragging of Scriptures and chalenging vs we may say vnto you as the same Tertullian saith consequently in the same place Qui estis quaÌ„do vnde venistis quid in meo agitis non mei quo denique Marcion iure siluam meam caedis c. Who are you when and whence haue you come what doe you in my ground you that are not mine by what right ô Marcion dost thou fell my wood by what leaue ô Valentine dost thou turne my fountaines by what authority ô Apelles dost thou remoue my bounds It is my possession what doe you others heere sowing and feeding at your pleasure It is my possession I possesse it of old I possesse it first I haue the Originals from the owners whose the thing was I am the heyre of the Apostles as they haue bequeathed vnto mee by will as they haue committed to my custody as they haue adiured mee soe I hold For you truely they haue euer dis-inherited you and cast you of as strangers and enemyes This is Tertullian's discourse and wordes wherein it is but changing the names Marcion Valentine and Apelles into Luther Caluin Beza or if you will into Sir Hum. Linde and it will fitt as well as if it were made for you or spoken in answeare of what you say heere that if you bring Scripture we decline it for heereby you may see how much you are mistaken We doe not decline it but we decline you from it telling you it is none of yours you haue nothing to doe with it the Scriptures were committed to the Church by the Apostles to be kept they are the Churches euidences therefore noe man out of the Church as you are hath to doe with them as Tertullian telleth you heere ep dedic n. 6. and as I told you in my dedicatory epistle out of another place of his that we must first seeke out where that faith is to which the Scriptures belong where the men to whom Christian discipline was deliuered You must first shew your selues to be these men to haue this faith before we can admitt you to the Scriptures You must first shew your selues owners of the land before you can claime the writings and euidences which belong vnto it and which make good the title Therefore Sir Humphrey I cannot lesse admire your impudency in this which you say of Scriptures then in any thing els which in all this Lindy treatise you haue said though indeede as you goe drawing towards an end you shew you self still more like your self in this kind as shall appeare by the following Sections Chap. 15. Of the 15. Sect. the title being this Our chiefest aduersary Cardinal Bellarmine testifieth the truth of our doctrine in the principal points of controuersy betwixt vs. CHAPTER XV. 1. IN this Section your drift is to proue the truth of your doctrine out of Bellar. who you say is inforced to confesse the antiquity and Safety of your doctrine and plainely to acknowledge the
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
it against the Haeretiques which denied it And a little after againe he goeth on thus to say nothing of this Wisedome which you doe not beleeue to be in the Catholique Church there be many things els which may most iustly hold mee in the bosome thereof There holdeth me the consent of people and nations there holdeth mee authority begunne by miracles nourished by hope encreased by charity strengthned by antiquity There holdeth me the succession of Priests from the very seate of Peter to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his flocke to the present Bishoprique Lastly the very name of Catholique holdeth me And after againe These therefore soe many and soe great most deare chaines of the Christian name doe rightly hold a man beleeuing in the Catholique church though for the slownesse of our vnderstanding or merit of our life truth doe not shew it selfe soe very clearely But with you that is Manichees and I may say Protestants or any other sect whatsoeuer where there is nothing of all these to inuite and hold mee there soundeth onely a promise of truth Thus farre Saint Augustines very words by which any man will perceiue that he made soe much account of the learning of the multitude of people and nations of miracles of antiquity of Succession of the name of Catholique in our Church which you account nothing as by them to hold himself in the bosome of that Church insinuating withall that the want of them in haereticall congregations is sufficient to deterre any man from them how much soeuer they prate of Truth Safety Certainty and I know not what 5. In graunting vs therefore these things and acknowledging the want of them in your selues in the iudgement of Saint Augustine you confesse ours to be the true Church and your owne a false and haereticall conuenticle As likewise you doe in that you make the smalnes of number to bee a note of the true Church Saint Augustine shewing it to be none For whereas the Donatists did bragge thereof hee confuteth them thus De vnit eccl cap. 7. Quid est haeretici quod de paucitate gloriamini si propterea Dominus noster IESVS CHRISTVS traditus est ad mortem vt haereditate multos possideret What is it ô yee Haeretiques that you bragge of the smalnes of your number if Christ were therefore deliuered vp to death that hee might by inhaeritance possesse many And there he goeth on prouing the same farther out of diuers places of Scripture and namely by 9. or 10. most plaine places out of Esay the Prophet and then concludeth againe vbi est inquam quod de paucitate gloriamini Where I say is it that you bragge of your fewnes are not these the many of whom it was said a little before that he should possesse many by heritage but of this the Scriptures are soe full and soe cleare as I may well deny him the name of a Christian that denieth it Wherefore for that place of a little flocke which you bring in shew onely to the contrary Aug. ep 50. ad Bonif. ep 48. ad Vinc. S. Aug. explicateth it not of the Church in general but of the good who are small in number in comparison of the wicked or of Christ's flocke or church at that tyme in the beginning lib. 4. cap. 54 in Luc 12. And S. Bede expoundeth it two wayes one of the smal number of the elect in comparison of the reprobate the other of the Church in general in reguard of the humility wherein Christ will haue it to excell increase to the end of the world how much soeuer it be dilated in number quia videlicet ecclesiam suam quantalibet numerositate iam dilatatam tamen vsque ad finem mundi humilitate vult crescere For that place of S. Paul it patronizeth not your ignorance one iott For it is onely meane of those whom our Sauiour at first made choyce of to preach his faith and make knowne his name vnto the world who indeede were not many in number being but 12. nor great in wisedome according to the flesh not hauing beene brought vp in learning but to meant trades as fishing the like nor mighty nor noble being but poore and obscure for wealth and parentage and this for a speciall reason as S. Ambrose declareth in these words Aduerte caeleste consilium non sapientes aliquos non diuites Lib. 5. comment in Luc. non nobiles sed piscatores publicanos quos dirigeret elegit ne traduxisse prudentia ne redemisse diuitijs ne potentiae nobilitatisue authoritate traxisse aliquos ad suam gratiam videretur vt veritatis ratio non disputationis gratia praeualeret Marke the heauenly Wisedome he did not choose some wise or rich or noble but Fishers and publicans to send lest he might seeme to haue brought any to his grace by wile redeemed them by riches or drawne them by authority of power or nobility that reason of truth and not the grace of disputation might preuaile 6. And soe Christ made choyce of a few simple men to conuert the world that thereby it might appeare that the conuersion thereof was not a worke of any wordly or humane but of diuine power and vertue But if they should not conuert the world that is great multitudes and seuerall nations kingdomes and countries wise powerful and learned men but onely some such small handful as you would haue your little flocke to be some weake vnlearned and poore people as you will haue your Church to consist of it had beene noe wonder at all For we see many Sect-maisters draw great multitudes after them farre greater euery way then your Church of England This place therefore which you bring for defence of the smalnes of your number and want of learning in your Church sheweth it not to be the true Church which for number is to be numberlesse and for extent to be spread ouer the world Psal 18. In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum saith holy Dauid their sound went all ouer the earth Whereas you acknowledge the contrary a marke of your Church the true Church is to consist of many wise mighty and noble personages gathered and drawne to the true Catholique faith by those few vnlearned weake and ignoble people For soe S. Paul after in the same place seemeth to insinuate saying Quae stulia sunt mundi c. The foolish things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the wise and the weake things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the strong and the base things of the world and the contemptible hath God chosen and those things which are not that he might destroy those things which are Soe as you see these few weake and ignorant men were to subdue the learning might and wisedome of the world to Christ and draw it to his Church and this is that which Dauid saith that he
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
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
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
may looke in Poss bibl select lib. 8. cap. 32. Nor doe I see what that meaneth that you say of men that liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church where they dwell For if it be soe that they may make shew of one thing outwardly and meane an other inwardly as I see not what you cā meane els then I say it is the most damnable dangerous dissimulation of all other the most sure way not to be saued in any religion For neither the outward profession of a religion without the inward beleife nor inward beleife with an outward contrary profession can saue a man What then is it you would say a man may see you are in straights faine you would not goe absolutely against that which many Protestants say that a Catholique may be saued in his religion yet that will not stand neither with your owne iudgement as it seemeth nor bitter speeches which you haue spoken of the Catholique church as calling it Babylon the Seate of Anti-christ and such like nor drift of your booke which is wholy to draw men away from the Catholique faith and therefore you would faine find some ignorant people who should be Catholiques and noe Catholiques liue Catholiques and dye Protestants in outward shew Catholiques in inward beleife Protestants Which are two great and grosse absurdities and withall doe not serue the turne For in neither of these two cases is that proposition verified that a man dying a Papist may be saued for he doth not dye a Papist Neither can that ignorance which you speake of alleadging the place of saint Paul saue men noe more then it could doe him who doubtlesse should neuer haue found such mercy as to be saued had he not first found the mercy to be drawne out of that his ignorance wherein he was This I doe not say that it is absolutely impossible to find one soe inuincibly ignorant as may not be saued without a distinct and particular profession of the Catholique Faith and abrenunciation of the Protestant but I say it is a metaphysical and morally impossible case For how shall a man receiue pardon of his sinnes be enabled to walke the way of God's commandments while he liueth or be armed against the combats of the Deuil at his death without receiuing the Sacraments of the Church which is a sufficient profession of faith wholy distinguishing him from the Protestant or any other sect Therefore the Knight's chiefe answeare to the argument is a plaine denial that a Papist can be saued especially in England or in any Protestant State where there is a course taken to bring him to the knowledge of the contrary though yet he doe not pronounce damnation on our persons as he saith we doe on his But wherein doe we pronounce damnation vpon their persons more then he on ours he and others of his opinion say our doctrine is damnable and consequently that noe man can be saued by it we say the same of his doctrine and that noe man can be saued by it for this or that particular man we doe not take vpon vs to giue any absolute iudgment but that we leaue to God 6. But now for that which he saith of vs that we cannot be saued and that it is farre from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points of controuersy betweene Catholiques and Protestant to be of an inferiour alloy soe as a man may hold either way without peril of saluation I will appeale onely to his owne men and to such as I presume he will not deny to be good men at lest chiefe men of his owne Church For the points therefore in controuersy as frewill prayer for the dead honouring of reliques reall presence transubstantiation communion in one or both kinds worshipping of images the Popes primacy his being Vicar of Christ and head of the Church auricular Confession and the like they are all acknowledged some by one some by another not to be material points soe as a man may without perill beleiue either way and one maine point to wit the real praesence is said by some to be but as it were the grudging of a little ague The seueral authours are Perkins Cartwright Whitgift Fulke Penry Some Sparke Reynolds Bunny Whitaker Iohn Frith in Fox in his acts and other English writers beside Melancthon Luther and other Latine writers whose names may be seene in the Protestants apology where their very words are sett downe Protest apolog tr 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. and places of their works exactly cited which therefore for breuityes sake I omitt heere to doe and shall onely content my self with citing some for the other point which the Knight denieth to wit that we may be saued First noting by the way that heere is a full iury of good men and true in the iudgment of any Protestant who giue vpp their verdict against our good Knight Sir Humphrey as honest a Middlessex Iuror as his father was and as great a freind of Iuryes as he is confessing the points in controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy to keepe his owne word of art And which is specially to be noted whereas a mayne reason why our Knight is loth to yeild the points in controuersy to bee matters of indifferency is because the fresh bleeding wounds of the Martyrs of his Church witnesse the daunger of our religion among these authours there is one Iohn Frith a famous Foxian martyr who acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth noe man of necessity to saluation or damnation whether he beleiue it or not and the like the same man also saith of prayer for the dead which Mr. Iohn Fox relating and not disapprouing he is to be presumed to approue and so both the Martyr Frith and Fox the martyr-maker whose authority me thinks should be more worth then an hundred of his Martyrs are against our Knight and notwithstanding all their bleeding wounds and sufferings will giue him leaue to thinke his points of controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy and many of them not onely soe but euen absolutely condemne his very beleife and doctrine as a man may see fully proued in the examen of Iohn Fox his Calender to which I remit him contenting my self with one onely Martyr whom I presume our Knight will acknowledge for a great one to wit V. Protest apolog tr 2. cap sect 5. Iohn Husse this man Luther saith did not depart one fingars breadth frō the Papacy Iohn Fox saith he held Masse transubstantiation vowes freewill praedestination informed faith iustification merit of good works images of Saints And indeed of the haeresies now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants he held onely one to wit Communion in both kinds in all the rest he held with vs this Martyr then must needs sooner allow vs to be saued then Protestants but heere is enough of this idle matter 7. Now therefore to the other point whether we liuing
and dying in our present Romane faith may be saued or not Wherein though the Knight be verily persuaded we cānot alleadging Whitaker's authority for the same and saying that the best learned of his Church haue beene farr from granting saluation to any Papist being withall soe zealous and earnest in this beleife as he wisheth it farr from the thoughts of good men to thinke soe yet by his Worship's leaue it is the iudgment of many great men of his Church nothing inferiours in that which he taketh for learning and goodnes to Mr. Whitaker or any man els of his opinion for example Mr. D. Barrow saith he dareth not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder writers doe aknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God If the Church of God then certainely Sir Humphrey a man may be saued therein Mr. Hooker saith the Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the howse of God a lymme of the Visible Church of Christ you in the beginning of your booke bring this Hooker's authority acknowledging vs to be of the family of IESVS CHRIST in as much as we beleiue the articles of the Apostles Creede which are the maine parts of the Christian faith wherein we still persist as he confesseth beleeuing then the maine points and being of the family of IESVS CHRIST there can be question in his iudgmēt but we may be saued Mr. Bunny saith we are noe seueral Church from them nor they from vs and that neither can one of vs iustly account the other to be none of the Church of God We may then as well bee saued as you and we are as much of the Church as you D. Some saith the Papists are not altogether aliens from God's couenant for in the iudgment of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministery a true Christ c. and saith he if you thinke that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you thinke absurdly and dissent from the iudgment of the learned Protestants Loe you Sir Humphrey doe not you thinke absurdly and dissent from the learned Protestants in denying vs saluation Doct. Couel saith thus We affirme them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the church of Christ and that those that liue and dye in that Church may notwithstanding bee saued 8. I could bring others to the same purpose as D. Field and Dr. Morton saying that we are to be accounted the Church of God whose words may be seene in the Protestants apology tract 1. Sect. 6. Sub. 1. 2. 3. but these may serue the turne I hope fully to disproue your assertion Sir Knight for heere be 7. authors alleadged whom your Church of England hath euer held for good and learned men From whose thoughts it was not soe farre as you would haue it to thinke we might be saued but rather soe deepely grounded that they auerre it constantly and say also that it is the iudgment of all learned Protestants and that it is absurd to thinke otherwise Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey what a Linder you shew your self vpon one Witakers authority to determine a matter soe peremptorily against the iudgment of soe many great Doctors of your owne side and to say that it is the iudgment of the best learned Protestants and that it is farre from the thoughts of goodmen to thinke otherwise what may a man thinke by this you doe with our Catholique authors and fathers whom you neither haue soe much to doe with nor vnderstand soe well nor care soe much for as you doe for these Sage men forsooth of your owne the pillars of your Church and writing in your owne Mother tongue whereof it is to be presumed you can skill a little more then of Latine But now for the maine matter or argument which you intended to answeare how is it answeared You see soe many learned Protestāts thinke we may be saued liuing and dying in our faith without your limitation of inuincible ignorance and meerely in reguard we are a true Church the family of Christ the howse of God holding the foundation of faith and that the points of controuersy are not of such necessary consequence whose number and authority though perhaps it be not sufficient to reforme your iudgment yet to vs it is sufficient to ground this argument that since Protestant Doctors make noe doubt but we may be saued in our faith and noe Doctor of ours saith soe of your faith it is out of doubt the Safer way to embrace ours the force of which argument you goe not about to auoide otherwise then by denying that to be the opinion of learned Protestants which being proued to be so manifestly the argument still hath his force and the more because you cannot answeare it And soe I come to your last Section Chap. 18. Of the 18. Section the title being this Prouing according to the title of the booke by the confession of all sides that the Protestant religion is safer because in all positiue points of our doctrine the Romanists themselues agree with vs but in their additions they stand single by themselues CHAPTER XVIII THE substance of this section is contained in the title and in nothing but to turne the Catholiques argument mentioned in the former section the other way for the Protestant side but yet soe ill fauouredly that it may be turned backe againe with much more disaduantage of the Protestant cause For by it a man may proue any haeresy that euer was nay Iudaisme and Turcisme to bee a Safer way then the Catholique faith or euen the Knight's Protestant faith He beginneth then with putting the case we may be saued and then laying for a ground that it is Safer to persist in that Church where both sides agree then where one part standeth single in opinion adding withall that if he make not good the title of his booke to wit that he is in the Safer way hee will reconcile himself to the Romane Church creepe vpon all fower to his Holinesse for a pardon And then falleth to proue it in this manner that because Both agree saith hee in the beleife of heauen and hell and that we stand single in the beleife of Purgatory and Limbus puerorum we are not therefore in soe Safe a way soe of the merits and Satisfactions of Christ all agree that men are to be saued by them but wee stand single in the addition of the Saints merits and our owne satisfaction and soe forward of the number of Sacraments images prayer to Saints the like Which is the whole discourse of this Section 2. Whereto I answeare first that that his ground of Safety which he thinks he taketh from Catholiques is folish impertinent and without sense as se setteth it downe For thus he saith it is the Safer way to persist in that Church where both sides agree then where one part
stands single by themselues in opinion For I would know what Church is that wherein there be two sides to agree or disagree or what Church that is that doth not stand single in opinion by it self if it be a Church of a different faith as we speake heere of a Church a Church must haue vnity it being a company of men all professing the same faith and religion therefore it is plaine there is no sense in this principle of his as it is his or as he putteth it downe but as the Catholiques put it it hath very good sense thus that whereas there be seueral professions and churches the question being which of these is the safer way we Catholiques say the Catholique church is the safer way and this we proue because not onely we our selues say it adding withall that all our ancestours haue beene saued therein and that therefore we may doubtlesse be saued in it as they were but also for that our very enemyes who are of a different profession graunt we may be saued therein But as for the Protestants noe man saith they can be saued in that faith but onely themselues Whereby it is plaine that our is the safer way for both sides agree in the possibility of saluation among vs and both sides doe not soe agree in possibility of saluation among them But though his principle haue no sense as he putteth it yet because I see by his ensuing discourse what he would be at I come to that also His meaning then is this that it is safer to hold those points of doctrine onely which both sides hold then those wherein they differ because in them both sides agree and in these one side standeth single by it self and the holding of those former points our Knight counteth all one as to persist in a Church where both sides agree But he is much deceiued for the holding of those points alone doth not make a man of any Church at al. For a mā to be of any Church he must hold all the points that are taught of Faith in that Church be vnited with those of the same professiō in Sacrifice also Sacraments which are things essentiall to a Church Wherefore the holding of those points wherein both sides agree precisely neither make a man Catholique nor Protestant But to be a Catholique a man must beleiue all thing els whatsoeuer the Catholique church teacheth as necessary to saluation and to be a Protestant besides the beleife of those things wherein we agree he must stand to the deniall of those which are in controuersy betweene vs. 3. In which case I would aske him whether he doe not stand single as well as wee by affirming of what we deny or denying what we affirme or rather whether he and his church be not soe much more single then we as they haue not one on their sides for euery milliō which we haue haue had on ours In this singlenes of opiniōs thē the question remaineth the same still as before whither of these single sides is to be embraced for of the rest there is not any doubt Soe as in this Sir Humphrey hath alsoe altered the question for whereas the question was of the matters in controuersy which side was truer he hath altered it thus whether the things in controuersy or out of controuersy be safer Which is but a slippery cunning tricke of his and which will not serue his turne to make good the title of his booke For we by holding the points which are out of doubt are as safe as he for we hold them as much as he and for the rest we are vpon euen termes with him thus farre that he is as well single in those things wherein he dissenteth from vs as we in those wherein we dissent from him though in this we be Safer that his men confesse wee may be saued holding those things wherein we differ from them and noe man of ours holdeth that they can be saued holding obstinately whatsoeuer they differ from vs in Soe as euen by this is answeared all this maine argument whereof the Knight was soe confident as therevpon to ventute his reconciliation with the Church of Rome and creeping vpon all fower to his Holinesse for a pardon to creepe vpon all fower indeede is a very fitt gate for men soe deuoid of reason as to make such discourses and vse such malicious insinuations as if men vsed to creepe vpon all fower to the Pope But good Sir Humphrey since you talke soe much of creeping and like it soe well you may remember that it is the proper punishment of pride as you may see in Nabuchedonozor whose Pride which he tooke in his great citty Babylon seemeth farre short of that which you take Dan. 4. not onely in this great worke of your Safe Way counterposing and preferring it before the knowne way of the Catholique Church but euen in this contemptuous and sacrilegious gest of God's holy anointed and contempt of his Church And for Pardon as light as you make of it it were penance little enough for you indeede to creepe on all fower to Rome holy men haue done very neere as great penance for farr lesse faults and for your reconcilement to the Church though we be glad of the saluation of any poore soule whosoeuer he bee yet we would not haue you mistake you self soe farre as to thinke that wee make any such special account of your particular person aboue other men 4. Now that this rule of yours as you propound it may leade and Secure a man in any haeresy or euen in Iudaisme and Turcisme as well as in your Protestant faith I proue thus Arius may say he agrees with vs Catholiques in all things saue onely in the Diuinity of the second person of Trinity whom he acknowledgeth with vs to be an holy man and that we stand single by our selues in the assertion of his Diuinity Macedonius may say the same of the Holy Ghost Nestorius of the plurality of persons in Christ Eutyches of the Singularity of Natures Sergius Pyrrus and the Monothelytes of the vnity of Will in Christ Ebion Cerinthus Marcion and almost all Haeretiques in their seueral heresies as Anabaptistes Brownists and who soeuer els may say as you doe of the points controuerted that we stand single by our selues in them and soe that it is the safer way to beleeue onely that wherein they and we agree Nay as I said he Iewes may make the same argument thus that they agree with vs that there is One God creator of heauen and earth that there be 22. books of canonical Scriptures the Law and Prophets iust as you doe for the rest we stand single and the Turke may say he agreeth with vs that Christ is an holy man and a Prophet for the rest we stand single and that therefore he is in the Safer way What can you say Sir Humphrey for defence of your argument for though Iewes and Turks
doe not agree with vs in the profession of the Christian Faith yet I see not why that should be necessary by this your argument and thereby a man may see what a good guide you are and how Safe a way you goe and whether the saying of Salomon be not truely verified of your Safe way Prou. 14.12 Est via quae videtur homini recta nouissima eius deducunt ad mortem There is a Way which seemeth to a man straight and the end of it leadeth to Death and consequently to Hell For what other is the end of Haeresy Iudaisme and Turcisme whereto your rule doth leade all such as wil be ruled thereby THE CONCLVSION HAuing therefore thus demonstrated the period of your Safety to be death and hell which is the lott and portion of all wicked Sectaries as Arrians Eunomians Macedonians Eutychians Monothelites Wickliffians Hussits Anabaptists as also Iewes and Turkes all which in the last section I haue proued by your owne rule to be in as safe a way as you are I may now for a conclusion demand what all this that you haue hitherto said is to the Iesuit's challenge which you heere pretend to answeare he hauing required at your hands that you should shew as I said in the beginning a visible Church and Succession in all ages from the Apostles tyme to this of ours a Succession I say or catalogue of Doctours and Pastours teaching your 39. articles and of people professing the same faith which now you professe this being the thing which was required at your hands I would gladly know where it is that you haue performed it in this your booke in what section or in what number In the first 7. sections you talke of the causelesse bitternesse of the Romane Church against yours of the causes of contention of reformation of corruptions in faith manners of many Catholiques that haue come to dye Protestants of the deriuation of our Doctrine from ancient Haeretiques and yours from Christ and his Apostles all which supposing you say true I would know what it is to the purpose For where be the men heere named in whom the profession of your doctrine hath continued and by whom it hath beene deriued from the tymes of the Apostles to those of Luther and Caluin Likewise in the 8. 9. 10. and 11. sections you stand prouing the Antiquity Vniuersality Certainty Safety of your Faith in generall and in particular as you say with as little order or methode truth or substance as it is little to the purpose though you should haue proued those things neuer soe well and substantially For lett your Doctrine be neuer soe ancient vniuersal certaine and safe if you name not the men that professed it for soe many ages as are from the Apostles to Luther you are but where you were at first For a man may still aske Where your Church was before Luther that is where the men were that professed your Faith For it is not the Faith but the men that we looke after in this place From the 12. section to the end you tell vs of our reiecting and eluding the ancient Father's of correcting and purging other authors of our excepting against Scripture of Bellarmines testification in fauour of your Doctrine in some principal points of our Martyrs of the saluation or damnation of professed Romanists lastly of the Safety of your Faith and beleife All which as I haue before shewed to be most false soe doe I heere say it is nothing to the purpose For where heere is any man named that you can say was yours that is did beleiue and professe the same faith with you nay where is there one such man named in your whole booke before Luther's tyme or euen almost since Vnlesse it be a Chamier a Riuett or a Chemnitius that you can say did any way agree with you it is euident there is not and therefore you your self are forced in the very last page of your booke to confesse as much of a great many of your authors For you say that hauing brought your Reader into a safe way you commend him briefly to CHRIST and his Apostles for his Leaders the ancient Fathers for his Associats and Assistants and the Blessed Spirit for his guide and Conduct but for the other passengers as Cardinals Bishops and Schoolemen which you say accompany you but part of your Way because they are Strangers you will haue him be wary of them Whereby it is plaine you professe not to agree in beleife with any one except Christ his Apostles and ancient Fathers Soe as from their tymes to Luther which was 900. or 1000. yeares The antiquity of Fathers ending by the ordinary account of your Protestants about S. Gregory the great his tyme or before You haue not a man all that tyme that you can say was yours or of the same beleife and Church with you How then can you thinke you haue shewed vs a Safe way when you cannot name vs a man now for the space of neere a 1000. yeares who as may be gathered our of your owne discourse hath walked therein It hath beene vnknowne then all this tyme and therefore for a man to leaue the Knowne way of the Catholique Church wherein it is euident that all sorts of men haue cōtinually in all ages walked to goe into your by-wayes neuer troddē by the foote of any one learned or holy man What were it but to turne out of a common beaten high way leading directly frō one Citty or country to another and to goe into some vast or wild desert where there is noe path or signe of any man that hath euer gone that way noe howse or other thing to giue light direction in which case nothing els is to be expected but that after a great deale of toile and labour a man shall wholy loose himself without euer being able to arriue at his iourneys end Which as it cannot be counted other then a kind of madnes in a Trauailer heere in this world soe can it not also be counted otherwise in a man that professeth to trauell to heauen-ward and therefore it is mentioned in Scripture together with other great crimes for which almighty God professeth to forsake his people bring their land into desolation and aeternall ignominy Quia oblitus est mei populus meus frustra libantes impingentes in vijs suis in semitis saculi vt ambularent per eas in itinere non trito Ier. 18.15 Because my people hath forgotten mee in vaine sacrificing and stumbling in their waies in the pathes of this world that they might walke in them in a way not beaten Wherefore it is in vaine for you Sir Humphrey to talke of Safety Certainty and I know not what els till you can shew vs such a path as the Catholique Church soe troden and beaten by the continual and neuer interrupted Succession of trauellers therein Soe plaine and straight that noe
foole can misse it as Esay the Prophet foretold that the way of Saluation should be vpon the coming of our B. Sauiour which because it is most euident that neither you nor any man els can doe out of the Catholique church I could hartily wish that you Sir Humphrey would consider the matter a little more seriously with your selfe and laying aside all vaine and worldly respects should betake your selfe to the onely true Safe and beaten Way of the Catholique Church but because you I feare are soe farre gone haue as I may say lost your selfe in your heretical fancies as that you are more like to laugh at mee for my paines for presuming to tell such a Doctour as you are the right way then follow my Councell I will heere leaue to say more vnto you and conclude onely in a word to the iudicious Reader who I hope vpon consideration of what hath beene hitherto said wil be better aduised then to follow you farther and will rather leaue you to your owne Way saying to you much in the same manner as did that famous Emperour Constantine to a certaine Nouatian haeretique called Acesius vpon the knowledge of whose heresy he said thus to him Acesi Socrat lib. 1. cap. 21. erigito tibi Scalam solus in caelum ascendito ô Acesius rayse thy selfe a ladder and ascend alone into heauen For soe may a man in like sort wel say to Sir Humphrey Linde ô Sir Humfrey find your self a way and goe to heauen alone by it For I will not goe that way with you which to speake with the learned and holy man Vincentius Lerinensis Vincen. Lerin in commonit cap. 33. If it be to bee followed then must the faith of our holy Fathers be violated either wholy or in great part it must of necessity be said that all the faithfull of all nations all the holy all the chast all the continent all Virgins all clerks Leuites and Priests soe many thowsands of Confessours soe many armies of Martyrs soe many cittyes and peoples soe great for renowne and multitude soe many Islands Prouinces Kings Nations Kingdomes Countries Lastly almost all the whole world incorporated to Christ the head of the Catholique faith haue for soe many ages beene ignorant erred blasphemed not knowing what they beleiued Which being soe faire and cleare a testimony of soe holy a man I hope it wil be farre from the hart of any indifferent and well minded man euer to condemne all our Forefathers for soe many foregoing ages of ignorance errour and blasphemy ô what ignorance errour and blasphemy were it soe to doe and yet into such doe they fal whosoeuer approue this new found way of the poore errant Knight Sir Humphrey Linde And with this I end commending the successe of my Labours to him for whose loue I vndertooke them which is Almightie God and submitting my selfe and all I haue heere saied to the iudgement of the most holy Catholique Romane Church which neither hath euer had nor euer shal haue any spot of haeresy nor euen the least wrinckle of error AN APPENDIX TO the Reader GENTLE READER AS this treatise was vnder the print I came to vnderstand of some few thinges whereof I could not omitt heere to giue thee notice One is of another answeare newly come forth to this booke of Sir Humphrey Lind's which at first made me demurre whither I should goe forward with this of mine or not as well for sauinge of charge as also because it might now seeme needlesse Notwithstanding by the aduise of friends I resolued to goe thorough with it for as they tould me it being brought soe neere an end the charge would be little more and as for the needlednesse they said it was neither needlesse nor new to haue seueral answeares to the same booke for that the same thing might be answeared seueral wayes and the iudgments and affections of men being very diuerse one answeare might be more for one man's gust and another for another's Besides that this knight hauing soe triumphed with his seueral editions it could not seeme altogether needlesse for him to haue seueral answeares that men might see there haue not wanted many that could haue answeared him if they had thought him worthy of answeare For these reasōs therefore I haue beene induced notwithstāding that other answeare to lett this of myne see light Another thing is concerning a fourth edition of Sir Humphrey's SAFE WAY which I neuer heard of till now that this answeare of myne was more then halfe printed at the hearing whereof I was in minde againe to let all alone For hauing vsed onely the third edition and a fourth coming out reuised at it saith by the author I presumed there would be some remarkable change or addition the examination and answeare whereof would require longer tyme then I was now willing to spare a fitter place then the end of a booke But finding meanes to get this 4. edition examining it I found by the number of the pages of the whole booke there being but one onely more in the new then the old the very lines of euery page in a manner agreeing that there could be nothing of moment more in the later then in the former Wherefore I resolued heere to add the answeare of whatsoeuer was added or chāged lest he might except that his last corrected edition was not answeared or perhaps that he was falsely charged if there were someting left out of the fourth which was in the third editiō The whole difference then of the two editions is in these places following first whereas in the third edition in his 9. sect he had made 8. paragraphes treating 8. particular points of doctrine in this 4. edition he hath made nine diuiding the second which was of the Sacrament of the Lord's supper these are the words of his title and the doctrine of transubstantiation into two §§ making this the title of the second § The Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lord's supper and this the title of the third Transubstantiation though he haue not one word either more or otherwise in these two new §§ then he had before in that one wherein he playeth much like a man that would change a shilling into two six-pences onely to seeme to haue more money because he had more peeces And as for his Baptisme why he should put it in the title at all I see not for all that he saith of it in either place is onely this that he thinketh noe man soe blinde or stupid as to deny it to be the same substātially with that of the Primitiue church which is a goodly catch to make soe faire a title for The second place is pag. 174. in the 5. § of the third and 6. § of the fourth edition which is of communion in both kinds where hauing said that a man would gladly know what the reasons were why the Romane church did forbid communion in both kinds and withall cited
Gerson's treatise in the margent which as he there acknowledgeth shewes the causes I there reprehended him for it as may be seene heere chap. 9. § 5. n. 7. Now as it seemes reflecting vpon his owne absurdnes therein in his 4. edition he doth not say that Gerson shewes the causes as he said before but declares them himself out of Gerson saying they were these to wit The length of lay mens beards the lothsomnesse to drinke after others the costlinesse and difficulty of getting wine the frosts in winter the flies in sommer the burden of bearing the daunger of spilling and the peoples vnworthines to equall the Priests in receiuing in both kinds Thus farre are Gerson's words as he citeth them in a different letter continuing the discourse himselfe in this manner And thus for longe beards and vnsweet breathes for a litle paines and noe great charges for frosts in winter and flies in summer I say for these and the like Catholique considerations pretended in the Councel of Constance the church of Rome abolished Christ's institution and laide Anathema vpon all that at this day maintaine the contrary Soe Sir Humphrey prouing himself as impertinent in setting downe Gerson's discourse lamely and ridiculously as he did before in not setting it downe at all for better declaratioÌ„ whereof I shall heere put downe Gerson's words as they lye Gers tract de com laico sub vtraque spe which are these Vnde dicunt plurimi Theologi c. Wherefore very many diuines say that the custome of not coÌ„municating the layity vnder both kindes especially since the multiplication of the faithfull hath beene lawfully and reasonably introduced this for the auoidind of manifold daunger of irreuerence and scandal in the receiuing of this most blessed Sacrament The first daunger is in spilling the second in carriage from place to place the third in the fowling of the vessels which ought to bee hallowed not handled or touched ordinarily by lay-people and much lesse ought the consecrated wine to be sold in shops as it is said to be with such men that is the Bohemians whoe stood for the vse of the chalice the fourth is in the longe beards of lay-men the fifth in the keeping thereof for the sicke because in the vessel it may become vinager and soe the blood of Christ would cease to be there being neither to be receiued nor to be consecrated a new without Masse and soe it might come to passe that pure vinager may come to be giuen in steed of the blood of Christ besids that in summer flies would breede how close soeuer the vessel should be shut some tymes also it would putrify or become as it were noisome to drinke and this reason is very efficacious as also for an other reason when many had drunke before And we may aske in what vessel soe great a quaÌ„tity of wine should be consecrated at Easter for ten or twenty thousand persons the sixt harme is in the costlinesse of wine at lest in many places where there is scarce wine found to celebrate withall in other places where it is not to be had but at a deare rate beside there would be daunger of congeling or turning to â—ee Againe there would be daunger of credulity and this many wayes First that the dignity of the layity is as great in the receiuing of this Sacrament as that of Priests Secondly that soe to doe was euer and is a matter of necessity soe all that haue done and doe thinke practise or teach otherwise haue perished and doe perish and generally all as well clarks Doctors and Prelats whoe haue not opposed themselues against such a custome by word and writing and that they haue peruerted the scripture Thirdly that the vertue and force of this Sacrament is not more principally in the consecration then in the receiuing Fourthly that the church of Rome doth not thinke rightly of the Sacraments nor is heerein to be imitated Fiftly that general Councels and particularly this of Constance haue erred in faith and good manners Sixtly it would many wayes be occasion of sedition and shismes in our part of Christendome as experience sheweth in Bohemia Hitherto are the words of Gerson by the onely reading and comparing whereof it will easily appeare how badly Sir Humphrey hath delt as well in culling out some few reasons of least force as also in deliuering them not in the author's phrase as they lye but in a certaine ridiculous fashion of his owne for first he mentioneth not the two maine heads which containe all the rest and are chiefly to be reguarded in the administration of Sacraments to witt irreuerence and scandall then among the daungers of irreuerence he leaueth that which may most easily happen and cannot indeede be well auoided to wit that with longe keeping as when it is kept for the sicke the species of wine would turne into vinager that it would otherwise corrupt become noysome which Gerson seemeth to count his chiefe reason for he saith of it that it is a very efficacious one Sir Humphrey also leaueth out that other reason that either the vessels wherein it is kept must be let to grow very fowle or be touched and handled by lay people both which are contrary to the reuerence dew to this holy Sacrament he leaueth out that point of scandal in selling of the coÌ„secrated wine to saue the credit of his bretheren of Bohemia whoe vsed soe to doe He leaueth out the manifold daungers of scandal by mis-beleif to wit that heereby men might come to beleeue that it were a matter of necessity that heereby they might come to condemne all that haue taught or practised the contrary or not opposed it that heereby they might come to condemne the practise of the Romane church and condemne general Councels of error in faith all which the Knight was pleased to passe ouer putting downe onely those other which he thought he might make better sport withall for which purpose he also altereth Gerson's words for whereas he speaketh of a little paines noe great charges Gerson saith nothing of paines for charges he saith the quite coÌ„trary to witt that the charge is very great in some places and in others that there is not wine to be had sufficient for the people but onely very little for the Priest to say Masse withall and for altering Christ's institution Gerson saith the expresse contrary to wit that it is an error to say that there is any such institution and that there is noe more necessary by diuine institution but that we doe not contemne it as saith he Doctors teach of Confirmation and Extreame Vnction which are said to be Sacraments not of necessity Which truth being supposed I see not but Gerson's reasons may be good and sufficient to proue his intent which was to shew the manifold irreuerence and scandal which might come by the vse of both kinds for exaÌ„ple is it not an vndecent thing to see