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
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
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
word trāsubstantiatiō or of the proof thereof by determining the sense of scripture And this it may be is it wherin Tonstall also followeth him If they meane otherwise the matter is not great for one single author or two contradicted by others carry noe credit with vs in matter of beleife though to say truely Tonstall was noe Schooleman but a Canonist as Cardinal Pole answeareth him very well by letter vpō another certaine occasiō wherein he did swarue from the rules of true Diuinity as I haue seene by the letters of both in both their owne hands Erasmus is noe author to be answeared nor named as you know I haue often told you 33. For the Waldenses and Wickliffe you doe well to lett them passe But the very naming of them shewes you had a good mind to fill out your number of Schoolemen with thē though for the Waldenses I doe not find that they agree with you much in this point of the Blessed Sacrament For they had Masse but once a yeare that vpon Maundy thursday neither would they vse the words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but 7. Pater nosters with a blessing ouer the bread Whereas you may haue your Communion oftener and you vse the words This is my body Not 7. Paters as they did But what neede I say more of them or the Wickliffists either being knowne condemned Haeretiques 34. Now for Durand hee is a Schoolman indeed and a learned one but yet not wholy free from errour in some points and particularly in this of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ For he is of opinion that the change in this Sacrament is noe other then as the natural changes of other substances one into another Durand 4. dist 11. q. 3. and that it is supernatural onely for the manner because it is done in an instant and without the concurrence of naturall causes And that as in theis naturall changes of the elements one into another or other mixt bodyes the forme onely is changed the material part or subiect as Philosophers speake remayning still the same soe also that heere the forme of bread is changed onely the matter or material part of bread and wine remayning Which yet he thought to bee sufficient to verify not onely the realnes of Christ's presence but also the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ For to that purpose he hath these two expresse conclusions 4. dist 10. q. 1. Dicendum saith he quod verum corpus Christi natum de Virgine passum in cruce est realiter in hoc Sacramento I say that the true body of Christ which was borne of the Virgin and suffered on the crosse is really in this Sacrament The other conclusion is this Dicendum quod substantia panis vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi Dur. 4. dist 11. q. 1. It is to bee sayd that the substance of bread and wine are turned into the substance of Christ's Body Whereby it is plaine he held a true and reall presence by a true and reall conuersion of the bread or substance of the bread into the body of Christ discouering also therein your cunning and deluding corruption whereby you would make it seeme to your Reader that these two bee all one the materiall part of bread and substance of bread for soe in the citation of Durand's sentence you glosse the words materiall part with this parenthesis of your owne or substance whereas the material part of bread and substance of bread are two things For the matter in euery compound is but a part of the substance and the absolute denomination of such a specificall substance doth not belong euen to the forme it self alone though it be the more noble and more essentiall part much lesse to the matter or materiall part For we doe not say the forme of fire or water is fire or water but it is that which giueth the being of fire or water to the materiall part or matter which of it selfe is soe farr from hauing any such denomination as some Philosophers doe scarce giue it any proper being of it owne or euen the common name of ens And all agree that it hath noe quality noe actiue power nor force of it self to doe any thing as being but a meere passiue power 35. Wherefore though the matter of bread should remaine in this conuersion or change yet could not the substance of bread bee said to remaine soe long as the forme is changed noe more then all the bread and meate which you eate may be said to remaine because the material part of all the bread beefe mutton capon pheazant and whatsoeuer els you eate remaineth vnconuerted which as it were a great absurdity in any man to affirme soe is it as great an one in you to affirme that the substance of bread in this Sacrament should not bee conuerted though the material part should remaine for as the onely change of the forme in all natural conuersions is sufficient to verify that this thing is changed into that for example Fire into Water soe might it bee in this For as much as pertaineth to the truth of that manner of speaking Which I onely vrge in Durand's defence not that I allow his doctrine For this was his very reason why he did hold that opinion because he thought it sufficient to verify not onely the reall presence but euen transubstantiation also Which very word he vseth in another place for making answeare to a certaine obiection drawne out of the words of S. Iohn Damascen wherein that Father said that the nature of bread was assumed by Christ As if by that manner of speaking he should seeme to insinuate that the bread remayning the same in nature was Hypostatically vnited to Christ Durand saith thus Durand in 4. dist 10◠q. 1. Sicut in baptismate aqua assumitur vt materia Sacramenti permanens sic panis vinum assumuntur vt materia Sacramenti tranfiens quia materia Sacramenti conuertitur in corpus Christi per consequens dicitur aliquo modo vniri diuinitati non per assumptionem manente natura panis aut vini sed per transubstantiationem in humanitatem priùs assumptam As in baptisme water is assumed as the permanent matter of the Sacrament soe bread and wine are assumed as the transient or passing matter of the Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is turned into the body of Christ And by consequence is said in some sort to be vnited to the Diuinity not by assumption or hypostaticall vnion the nature of the bread or wine remayning but by transubstantiation into the Humanity before assumpted Which words declare his opinion both fully and plainely of the change of the matter of this Sacrament into the body of Christ by Transubstantiation 36. But howsoeuer hee faile in declaring this transubstantiation in that he taketh not the whole substance of the bread to
se in scholae disceptationem incidisse Nec oportere CatholicuÌ„ ad eoruÌ„ argumenta respondere Sin vero argumententur matrimonium cum sacris caeremonijs cum sacra materia cum sacra forma a sacro Ministro administratum quemad modum in ecclesia Romana semper vsque ab Apostolis administratum est si hoc inquam argumententur Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter animose defendat secure contra pugnet Whither our opinion that is his owne be true or false I stand not If the Lutherans will dispute of this kind of Marriages let theÌ„ know they fall vpon a schoole disputation and that a Catholique is not to answeare to their arguments But if they argue that Marriage administred with sacred caeremonies sacred matter sacred forme by a sacred Minister as it hath euer beene administred in the Romane church euen from the Apostles tyme if I say they argue that this is not a SacrameÌ„t of the Church then lett a Catholique answeare confidently let him defend stoutly let him gaine say securely Soe hee 26. Now Sir knight with what face could you alleadge Canus against Matrimony and that for a coÌ„clusion as you say though I say noe for you haue reserued yet a farr lowder lye to conclude with all Which is concerning Vazquez whom heere you honour with an epithet calling him Our learned Iesuit You say then he knew well that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church and then you say he makes a profession to his Disciples that hauing read considered S. Aug he found that when he called it a Sacrament he spake not of a Sacrament in a proper sense that therefore he doth not alleadge S. Aug. his authority against the Haeretiques in this controuersy this you say heere whereto I will putt your marginall note which you haue pag. 145. which hath relation to this place it is this Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacrament properly Now to seuer the true from the false Vazquez indeede saith that S. Aug. speaking of Matrimony doth vse the word Sacrament but in a large sense This is true but it is but Vazquez his priuate and singular opinion not in a point of faith nor any thing neere it but onely of the meaning of one Father in the vse of a word which if it be taken in such a sense is a good proofe for a point of Doctrine if not it is noe proofe against it but there may be other proofes in the same Fathers and other Fathers may hane that very word in in the proper sense But euen this opinion of Vazquez concerning this word of S. Aug. is contradicted by all other Catholique Diuines Bell lib. 1. de Matr. cap. â—â— and Bellar. particularly by diuers good reasons sheweth S. Aug. to vse this word properly when he speaketh of Matrimony This is all that is true in your saying of Vazquez 27. Now I come to the false first asking you a question if Vazquez say Matrimony is noe Sacrament as your marginal note which I spake of before saith I would know what controuersy that is that Vazquez saith hee hath with Haeretiques and for proofe whereof he doth not bring S. Aug his authority of the word Sacrament because in his iudgment it is not effectual what thinke you Sir Humphrey is it not of Matrimony and what controuersy is it but whither Matrimony be properly a Sacrament or noe Which Haeretiques deny and Vazquez affirmes els he can haue noe controuersy with them about it See Sir Humphrey how you looke about you for in this very place and words which you bring to shew Vazquez for you he shewes himselfe against you besides Sir Humphrey looke againe in Vazquez to 4. in 3. p. and soe whether he haue not one whole disputation expresly for the proofe of Matrimony calling it a Sacrament truely and properly prouing it by the definition of the Church and by the authority of other Fathers though he forbeare to vse the authority of S. Augustine for the reason a fore said reprouing Durand's error for saying that it was not a SacrameÌ„t vniuocally with the rest Nay his expresse conclusion concerning the same is this Vazque de Matr. disp 2. cap. 3. Matrimonium est Sacramentum non solum latiori significatione pront est signum coniunctionis Christi ecclesiae fed presse propriè prout est signum gratiae sanctificantis suscipientes sicut reliqua sex Matrimony is a Sacrament not onely in a larger signification as it is a signe of the coniunction of Christ and the Church but precisely properly as it is a signe of grace sanctifying the receiuers as the other six And because you tell vs that he knew well that neyther ancient nor moderne Diuines did conclude it for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church I will add his other words in the same chapter which are these De Sacramento in hac significatione semper hucusque loquuti sumtis Scholastici loquuti sunt c. quam veritatem Graeci semper crediderunt nunc etiam credunt And of a Sacrament in this signification allwayes hitherto we haue spoken and other Diuines haue spoken which truth the Graecians haue euer beleeued still beleeue So as not himself onely but other Diuines also euen the Greeks or Greeke Church not onely doe beleeue and speake but haue beleeued and spoken of Matrimony's being a Sacrament in the proper and strict sense Which considered what intolerable impudency is it in you to tell vs that Vazque should say that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament it were not to be beleeued of any man but that we see it And with this I was thinking to end this § Thereby to leaue a good rellish in the Reader 's mind of your honest and faithfull dealing The rest being nothing but such foolish stuffe as you are wont to talke without rime or reason but onely that there occurred a place of Bellarmine which you abuse soe strangely as that I could not passe it ouer without noting It is thus 26. You say touching your two Sacraments they are knowne and certaine because they were primarily ordained by Christ touching the other fiue they had not that immediat institution from Christ Wherevpon say you the learned Card. noting Bellarmine in the margent is forced to confesse The sacred things which the Sacraments of the new Law signify are threefold the grace of iustification the passion of Christ and aeternall life Touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most euident concerning the other fiue it is not soe certaine Soe say you where in a few lines you haue soe much falshood soe patched vp together that a man knoweth not well what to begin with But to begin you say your two Sacraments are knowne and certaine you meane knowne and certaine that
Church was to be spoken aloud For saith Bell. there were many as may be gathered out the very constitution it self who to hide their owne ignorance did contrary to the receiued custome pronounce those things softly which should haue beene pronounced alowd And this to be soe may appeare plainely by the Law it selfe which you doe not seeme to haue read for you cite it onely out of your Cassander who serueth you to great steed for most of your citations 7. You haue in the next place a text out of the Canon law the former being out of the Ciuil to shew your learning in all sciences Cap. QuoniaÌ„ in plaerisque de off iud Ord. you cite it thus We command that the Bishops of such Cittyes and Diocesses where nations are mingled together prouide meete men to minister the holy seruice according to the diuersity of manners and languages The words are these in Latine Pontifices huiusmodi ciuitatem siue dioceseon prouideant viros qui secunduÌ„ diuersitates rituum linguaruÌ„ diuina illis officia celebreÌ„t ecclesiastica SacrameÌ„ta ministrent instruendo eos pariter verbo exemplo in English thus Letâ— the Bishops of such cittyes ordiocesses prouide meete men who according to the diuersity of rites and languages may celebrate vnto them the diuine offices and administer vnto them the ecclesiasticall Sacraments instructing them both by word and example Whereby you see Sir Humphrey you might haue cited the place more truely though that be not soe much the matter I cite it fully for but for another purpose as you shall see when I haue told you Bellarmines answeare to this obiection which is this that this decree speaketh onely of the 2. languages Greeke and Latine for it was made by Inno. 3. in the Councel of Lateran because CoÌ„stantinople hauing beene taken not long before by the Latines and then there being a Latine Emperor and Patriarch and many Latines by that occasion being mingled with the Grâ—cians in the same citty they made a propositioÌ„ in the Councel that they might haue 2. Bishops one Latine another Greek to this the Pope and Councel make answeare that it is not fit to haue 2. Bishops of one citty but that the Bishops of the citty should substitute another in his roome to celebrate the diuine office and administer the Sacraments according to their owne rites and language and this Bellarm. proueth to be the true meaning of this decree not onely out of the story but also by the effect For if this decree had concerned the Latine Church any way it should haue beene put in practise in some place thereof and most of all in Italy in the Popes sight but there is noe signe of any such thing but plaine proofe to the contrary Which answeare is cleare and solide But besides this answeare of Bellarmines a man may answeare also that the Councel speaketh of two things heere to wit of celebrating the diuine offices and administring Sacraments and then putteth two things more answearing vnto those two to wit rites and languages rites answearing to diuine offices and languages to Sacraments as if it had said let such Bishops prouide men who may celebrate the deuine offices according to the diuersity of their rites and administer the Sacraments according to the diuersity of their languages For indeede it is a matter of necessity in administration of some Sacraments to vse the vulgar language as in marriage Penance but it is not soe of other things For this reason then I cited the place as it is and though you may cauill at this answeare yet I see not though there were noe other why it might not serue for as good an obiection as yours 8. But now you say you will not stand prouing this point any more by citing the particular Fathers but you will bring our owne men confessing that Prayer and Seruice in the vulgar tongue was vsed in the first and best ages according to the praecept of the Apostles and practize of the Fathers And then you bring Lyra Ioannes Belethus Gretzerus Harding Cassand and 2. or 3. more To which I answeare that it is true as these authors say that in the beginning it was soe but what thinke you was the reason euen because those three holy Languages Hebrew Greeke and Latine were most vulgar and common the Hebrew in Hierusalem and the parts adioyning the Greeke in Greece where S. Paul preached most and Latine at Rome other parts subiect to the Romane Empire For if you marke it Sir Humphrey most of your authors which you bring speake this of prayers and benedictions being wont to be made in the vulgar language by occasion of that 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where Greeke was the vulgar And indeede that it was the vulgarnes or commonesse of the tongue that the Apostles reguarded most in their writing of scriptures and the like it is plaine by that that S. Paul of his 14. epistles which he writ to soe many seuerall Nations and persons he writ onely one in Hebrew to wit that to the Hebrewes the other thirteene in Greeke euen that to the Romanes though Greeke were not their vulgar or natural Language and soe did all the rest of the Apostles and Euangelists saue only S. Mathew who writ his Ghospel in Hebrew and as some say S. Marke who writ his in Latine though many doubt of that and say rather that he writt it in Greeke Whereof what other reason could there be but the vniformity which the Apostles would haue to bee obserued in the Church by vsing for scriptures and diuine Offices those languages which were more vniuersal and common to most nations thereby to draw all to vnity Which though it could not be soe absolute as to come to the vse of one onely language yet they restrained it to those few most vniuersal languages Hebrew Greeke S. Hillar ap Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dâ—i c. 15. and Latine Which were dedicated vpon the crosse our Sauiours title being written in those three languages by mystery as holy Fathers note to signify that by them Christ his name and faith was to be most published and preached ouer the whole world And for proofe hereof we say it hath not beene euer heard of that any part of scripture was originally written in other language or that there was any Liturgy of the Apostles or neere their tymes or any translation of Scriptures in other language much lesse was it euer heard that the Scriptures were reade in the meetings of Christians or celebration of the diuine Mysteries in other language then that wherein they were ordinarily had and read to wit in some one of those languages Of later tymes we confesse there hath beene vse of other languages as Arabick Chaldaick and the like but yet soe as that the Church hath euer made choyce of some one language which hath beene very common to many kingdomes and Nations not proper to any particular
which Bellarmine obiecteth against and answeareth but he hauing proued that those prayers and spiritual canticles which the Apostles would haue to be made in the Church in the vulgar tongue that the people might vnderstand answeare Amen were not the publique prayers of the Church but priuate exteÌ„porary deuotions though in the Church with others he obiecteth in behalf of an Haeretique thus you will say that as the Apostle would haue those prayers to bee made in a vulgar tongue to the end the people might answare Amen soe he ought in like sort to wish that the diuine Office might be celebrated in the vulgar tongue that the people might answeare Amen To this hee answeareth denying the consequence because the diuine Office was celebrated in Greeke which was vnderstood by many though perhaps not by all and this was enough for the Apostle did not desire that all should answeare whereas the other languages which they spoke by the guift of tongues were such many tymes as not one man there vnderstood them not euen the speaker himself and this was Bell. First answeare which you leaped ouer Sir Humphrey Lib 2. de Ver. Dei cap. 16. because you saw it was a good and proper for our case for it is the same of our Latine and their Greeke for though all doe not vnderstand Latine yet many doe and almost euery body enough to answeare Amen Bellarmines second answeare is that which you make or rather marre by mistranslation besids saith hee because then the Christians were few all did sing together answeare in the diuine Offices which is a reason why it was more necessary for the people to vnderstand the language but afterwards the people increasing the Offices were more diuided and it was onely left to Clarks to performe the common prayers and prayses in the Church soe as though it might bee then more needfull for the people to vnderstand because they were to answeare yet now it is not because they are not to answeare and sing but that belongs to Clarks Now in Englishing Bellarmines words besids other smaller faults you haue these two which I note You say the office of publique seruice was diuided whereas Bellarmine saith not soe but that offices were more diuided that is the seueral functions in the Church to wit that which belonged to Priests and Clarks was left to them and that which belonged to the people was left to the people or they to it for to them it did not soe properly belong to sing and answeare but onely for that tyme of necessity when the number both of Clarks and people was but small the other fault is that you translate Solis Clericis onely to the Church whereas it is to the Clarcks alone or by themselues which though it may be the same in sense I see not why you should take that liberty to alter at you pleasure in the translations of other men's words And soe much for your authors Honor. gemma anime lib. 1. cap. 103. Innoc. 3. lib. 3 de Mâ—ss cap. 1. 13. Now to come to your conclusion of this § you tell your Reader that you will lett him vnderstand one special cause of the alteration of the office in the Romane Church which is a story out of one Honorius of certaine Shepheards who hauing learned the words of consecration because in the primitiue tymes say you the Canon of the Masse was publiquely read and vnderstood of all Io Beleth de diu offi cap. 44. and pronouncing the words of consecration ouer their bread and wine in the fields the bread and wine were suddainly transubstaÌ„tiated into flesh and bloud and themselues strucken dead by the hand of God Wherevpon you say that by Honorius his confession the canon of the Masse was anciently read alowd and which is strange say you also that Shepheards did transubstantiate bread and wine by which you tell vs farther it seemeth the alteration of the Church seruice into the Latine and vnknowne tongue was occasioned the same story you say is told by Innoc. 3. and Io. Belethus adding a reason withall out of them why the words of consecration are pronounced secretly to wit ne Sacrosancta verba vilescerent Least the holy words should grow contemptible Thus you talke freely Sir Humphrey as if all were Ghospel you say 14. But you must giue other men for all that a little leaue to make doubt thereof and first you runne heere from one thing to another to wit from seruice in a knowne or vnknowne tongue to soft or lowd pronouncing of the words of consecration or of the Canon of the Masse Secondly you say that by occasion of this Story which you tell vs the Church altered the seruice in to the Latine and vnknowne tongue wherein Sir Humphrey you forgett your self much for you told vs before that that alteratioÌ„ was brought in by Pope Vitalian about the yeare 666. which cannot well agree with this story of yours for if it were a late story neere Honorius his tyme that relateth it that was neere 500. yeares after Vitalian's tyme if the story be an ancient one as there is one some what like which I shall by and by speake of in the booke called Pratum spirituale then that was a good while before Vitalian's tyme for the man that writeth it liued in Honorius 1. his tyme which was the 6. Pope before Vitalian and that author writeth it by the relation of a graue ancient man who knew one of the persons that were actours in this busines now an old man the thing hauing happened when hee was but a boy soe that there might very well bee 80. or 100. yeares betweene the tyme of this story and Pope Vitalian Thirdly I see not why this story should cause soe great an alteration as to change the Church-Office or Masse into another tongue for it might haue serued the turne very well to reade the Canon or speake the words of consecration softly that others might not heare or learne them Or if they must be chaÌ„ged into an other tongue not to be knowne why into Latine the most knowne tongue in the whole world besids where this thing hapned the Church-language was Greeke which was not soe common to the vulgar which if it did not hinder the irreuerence committed there how should it be likely that changing it into Latine onely would hinder it heere Moreouer if it did not cause any change in the Easterne Church where it hapned why should it cause any in the Westerne Church where perhaps this story was not heard of for a long tyme after And indeede lett the language be what it will any man may learne some few words and abuse them if he will therefore that will helpe little Lastly me thinks it had beene meete for you Sir Humphrey to haue said somewhat when this change was made or what language it was that was vsed before or bring some author for your self for of these 3. which you
answeare is that Polydore speaketh not of the ancient Fathers of the new Testament but of those of the old whom therefore he nameth veteres patres the old Fathers and in particular nameth Moyses and Ezechias the reason indeede why they did condemne the worship of images was feare of idolatry but the reason of that feare was as he saith because noe man hauing seene God they knew not what shape to giue thim and discoursing of the brazen serpent which was a figure of Christ vpon the crosse he saith a long tyme after God put on humane sharpe and being made man was seene and knowne by mortall men and in that humble shape by his owne power wrought miracles beyond credit the same whereof made men come flocking vnto him who did soe behold and reuerence his face without doubt shining with the brightnes of diuine light that they thē first beganne to paint and carue his effigies now already imprinted in their minds And there telling to that purpose the story out of Eusebius of the hemorrhoisse and 2. pictures of our Sauiour made by himself one sent to Abagarus the other giuen to Veronica he also saith thus it is a constant opinion that S. Luke did paint in certaine tables the figure of our Lady which to this day are in some places kept most holily and worshipped most religiously Then relating out of Eusebius how the images of the Apostles were framed and kept by Christiās citeth the words following out of him Insignia etenim veterum reseruari ad posterorū memoriam illorum honoris horū vero amoris iudiciū est For the reseruing of the signes markes or thing belonging to the aunciēts to the memory of posterity is a signe of honor to thē loue in these Hēce saith Polydore is growne worthily a custome of placing in the Churches reuerencing the statues as well of our Sauiour as his SS But because by the memory of Saints as it were an exāple or sample set before our eyes which the images represent men are stirred vpp to vertue imitatiō the honour of the image passeth to the honour of the original as S. Basil saith therefore the Fathers haue not onely admitted that custome but by the authority of the 6. Synod at Cōstantinople vnder Constātine Iustinian the 2. his sonne it was decreed as may appeare by the canonical decrees that the holy images of SS should be had in Churches worshipped with great veneration being to ignorant people in place of the holy Scripture whereto also Frankincense is offered and tapers are lighted and there adding 2. or 3. Councels more decreeing the same againe he concludeth thus Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tantaque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitue dubitare seu aliter somniare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe sanctissimorum patrum decreto constitutum What man is there therefore so disolute and endewed with soe much boldnes who will or can doubt or otherwise dreame that I may not say iudge or thinke of the worship of images then at last hath beene approued by the Decree of soe many most holy Fathers Thus farr Polydore to whose demaund why may not I answeare that Sir Humphrey Linde is the man soe dissolute and audacious that dares not onely dreame but waking with all his witts and sences that he hath about him and speaking and writing dares I say not onely doubt of but absolutely deny the lawfulnes of the worship of images And not onely this but euen to bring thee ô Polydore Virgil to witnesse with him against the Romane Church that all the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church condemned the same What would this authour say to you Sir Humphrey if he were aliue to see himselfe abused by you and which is yet more euen after Dr. White was conuict of this dissolutenes and audaciousnes yet you would be at it againe Heereby a man may see there needes noe other confutation but onely right citing of your owne authours 17. For Peresius his words are nothing against vs for they touch onely vpon a schoole point whether the picture be to be adored with the same worship as the prototype or thing represented or with an inferiour worship the former opinion onely he denieth because saith he there is neither proofe out of scripture tradition of the Church common consent of Fathers or determination of a general Councel which very saying of his is enough to condemne you who will not acknowledge sufficient authority in tradition Fathers or Councel to belieue a thing which you like not But to make it plainely appeare how much you wrong Peresius in bringing him against the worship of images I will bring a place 2. leaues before that which you cite out of him it is this Manifeste habes c. Peres de tradit cap. de imag It is manifest that the vse and worship of images hath beene vniuersally in the Church from the tyme of the Apostles and that the dis-esteeme of them began from forlorne and infamous men 500. yeares after the Church was planted and truely if the worship and reuerence be done deuoutly and sincerely this institution is holy and profitable which both Apostolique tradition hath introduced the vse of the vniuersal Church affirmed the consent of very famous and generall Councels both in the East and West being added thereto which also euen natural reason doth dictate Thus farre are Peresius his owne words whereby any man may see whether Sir Humphrey you deale well with him or not to pretend his authority against our vse and worship of images Agobard de pict imaginib in bibl PP 18. Now for Agobardus whō you seeme to make great acount of if you consider him a little better you will find little cause he writeth indeede a booke de picturis imaginibus the whole drift whereof is onely against the idolatrical vse or abuse of images against which he speaketh very much by occasion of some abuses in his tyme as it is meete hee and euery good man should And for the same end he bringeth many authorityes of the ancient Fathers all which speake plainely against idolatry and likewise he bringeth that canon of the Councel of Eliberis which you bring out of him that noe picture should be painted on the walls vnderstanding it in the same sense which I alleadged in my second answeare to that Canon before to wit for auoyding superstition in some young and vnexperienced Christians conuerted from gentility But for those words which follow in your citation of him to wit these There is noe example in all the scriptures or Fathers for adoration of images I doe not find them in him this I am sure of that they are not ioyned with the former as you heere ioyne them Thus indeede he saith in a certaine place habuerunt antiqui Sanctorum imagines vel pictas vel sculptas sed causa historiae ad
Testament there where you tooke out your note All which annotation if you had read well vnderstood Annot. in cap. 14. 1. Cor. you could neuer haue said more of this matter the inconueniences are much vanity curiosity contempt of Superiours disputes emulations contentions schismes horrible errours profanations and diuulgation of the secret mysteries of the dreadful Sacraments which of purpose were hidden from the vulgar as S. Denys Eccl. Hier. cap. 1. and S. Basil de Sp. Sancto cap. 27. testify thus that note Besides the very ignorance of the Latine tongue and coÌ„sequently of all sacred learning which would follow thereof onely in Clergy men is ten hundred tymes more harme then that fruite in the Layity is good to say nothing of the vnity of the Catholique Church excellently represented and maintained heereby whereof and of other reasons also I spake before the Church therefore which is to reguard the publique good what is best and fittest all things considered might most prudently haue ordained the vse of the Latine tongue although it had not beene in vse from the beginning as it hath beene and for the common good euen with losse of some fruit to some priuate men though indeed that fruite be noe necessary or needful fruit nor euen fruit at all the inconuenience being well waighed and compared with the fruit Now of this controuersy in this manner also none of your authorityes doe vrge but onely Caietans who though he were a good a learned man yet in him the prouerb is verified quandâ—que bonus dormitat Homerus He is noted to be often mistaken in matters of Diuinity which was his proper professioÌ„ but much more in scripture wherein hee was not soe well skilled and soe committed many faults and in this particular he is greatly mistaken for he expoundeth that chapter of S. Paul to the Corinthians to be of publique prayer of the Church wherein being soe plainely deceiued noe wonder he might say it were better to haue it in a vulgar tongue soe also for that end he wishes there were not Organs nor Singing in the Church that men might vnderstand the words the better Wherein if his iudgment be good and to bee followed why haue you Organs and singing in your church neither were you soe well aduised in alleadging his authority for a Puritane may also make vse thereof against you and whereas Caietans reason is the aedification of the Church he is mistaken in the very end of prayer which is not aedification or instruction of the people but the honor of God immediatly For in prayer the Priest doth not speake to the people but to God in behalfe of the people wherein the people doth onely ioyne with him For which vnderstanding of the Priest's prayers is noe way necessary 11. But now I come to Gabriel who you say was soe farre from approuing vocal prayer in an vnknowne tongue that on the contrary he giueth 7. special reasons why it should be vnderstood by the people But this is most false Sir Humphrey for Gabriel doth not speake of prayer in a knowne or vnknowne tongue nor of publique prayer but onely of priuate prayer and of vocal prayer as it is compared with mental prayer and giueth these 7. reasons which you alleadge but not for proofe of what you say but onely to shew that beside mental prayer it is also conuenient to vse vocal prayer some of which reasons indeede haue noe place but where the words are vnderstood but yet other some haue For thus he saith Gab. in can lect 62. Sufficit oratio mentalis quoad Deum qui inspector est cordis vtilis tamen est priuata vocalis propter plures causas quas assignant Doctores Alexander Thomas caeteri Mental prayer is sufficient for as much pertaineth to God who is the beholder of the hart yet priuate vocal prayer is profitable for many causes which the Doctors Alexander Thomas others assigne theÌ„ assigneth those 7. reasons Soe as it is plaine he saith nothing in this but what others say that his question is not of prayer in a knowne or vnknowne tongue but of vocal prayer in general 12. Your 7. and 8. points of Safe doctrine of not Worshipping images and praying to Saints I putt together being short not needing much answeare For reason you alleadge none nor authority hut onely Erasmus Cassander Chemnitius Who are all of as good authority as your selfe For as for a word which you alleadge out of S. Aug. though you note not the place I say it is not to purpose for it is but this tutius iucundius loquâ—â— ad meum IESVM I speake more safely and more sweetly to my IESVS You doe not say then to whom and from hence you might as well inferre that while S. Aug. was vpon the earth he should not so much as speake to any man or desire their prayers as well as inferre there vppon that he should not pray to any Saint 13. Your last point is our doctrine of Meritts whereto not hauing said sufficiently at first you thinke to say more now but the truth is you haue more words but not more matter For heere you proue it onely out of a word of S. Bernard's saying Ser. 1. in Psal Qui habitat dangerous is the habitation of those that trust in their owne merits and soe say we but we say withall that to acknowledge that Almighty God rendereth a crowne of iustice to good works done by his grace and hyre to those that labour in his vineyard is not to trust in a man 's owne merits but to acknowledge the mercy iustice and fidelity of God For this not onely a man may acknowledge that hath good workes but also a man that hath none nor thinketh hee hath any and consequently noe whit confideth in his owne merits Ser. 61. in câ—nt Another place is out of the same Saint but out of an other of his works where he asketh what safe rest or security can the weake Soule find but in the wounds of our Sauiour And soe say we too but what doth this hinder but a man may say as I said before that God rewardeth the good works of his Seruants out of his iustice and fidelity which out of his Mercy he gaue them grace to doe but heere I note that in the citing of this place in the text you putt the two first words in Latine thus Vbi tuta as if you would make one thinke S. Bernard pointed at your Safe way may not a man without wrong to your witt thinke such a conceit might come into your head though S. Bernard were dead many ages agoe I will not say soe of you Sir Humphrey but yet thought is free as they say Well your next author is Waldensis who as you tell vs thinketh him the sounder Diuine Suar. to 3. de gr lib. 12. cap. 1. n. 2. that simply denieth such Merit but you say not
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
yet the bread and cupp is but one and the same from whence it followeth not that all must drinke thereof but onely that all that drinke drinke but of one and the same cup. Thirdly he answeareth that at most take the words how you will they can signify noe more but onely the practize of that tyme. All this doth Bell. say which you could craftlly dissemble and make your Reader beleeue as if hee shuffled ouer the matter onely with a different reading without farther reason but in this you Linde it as you doe euery where els 5. A 4. author is Origen out of whom you haue these words touching the Sacrament of Christ's body Thus much be spoken of the typical and symbolical body to which you say Sixtus Senensis makes answeare that he suspecteth the place to bee corrupted thus you heere and a little after you come about with Origen againe and say if we produce Origen Ribera the Iesuit saith he was full of errours which the church alwaies detested To the first place I answeare that beside that answeare of Sixtus Senensis which I doe not see you disproue V. Bell. de Euch lib. 2. cap. 8. you know other Catholique authors giue other answeares Some say not onely that place to be corrupted but that whole worke of his to be dubiae fidei of vncertaine auctority Others explicate that other places brought out of the same worke by Peter Martyr against Gardiner not of the Sacrament of Christ's body but of a certaine holy bread which was want to be giuen to such as did not communicate in place of the Eucharist whereof there is frequent mention in antiquity but Bellarmine hath a plaine and substantial answeare that these words are spoken of the Eucharist and that they are nothing against the real presence neither doe I see any cause in the world why a man should decline the authority or try any other way of answeare For is it not most true that it is the typical and symbolical body of Christ in as much as it is representatiue of Christ himselfe vpon the crosse or euen as he is now in heauen in as much as it is a pledge of aeternal life especially seing Origen in many other places alleadged by Bellarmine speaketh most plainely of the reall praesence Now for the later place I see not why you should be troubled at Ribera's words of Origen For hee doth not speake them by way of answeare to any obiection though you please to say soe for your words are these if we produce Origen as if you did obiect some place out of him which you doe not or weakning his authority for his owne aduantage for he writeth noe cōtrouersy but onely by way of general aduice he himselfe as he saith hauing anciently beene well inclined towards Origen for the fame of his learning but finding him soe deepely censured by many holy Fathers and general iudgmēt of the Church he altered his opinion of him this I say hee speaketh onely by way of aduice being to comment vpon Malachias the Prophet and being there to treate which were the best interpreters of scripture without any reguard to any obiection or controuersy Now what is this to your purpose or what can you except against it I see not nor any man els nor euen your selfe I thinke if you marke what you say But why should you alleadge Ribera the Iesuit as if he were the onely man that did condemne him See in Bellarm. de Script Eccles whether he be not censured of errour by S. Basil and condemned of haeresy and reckoned among Haeretiques by S. Epiphanius as for S. Hierome it is well knowne how deepely he cōdemneth him Who also trāslated one of Origen's works full of errours to that end to desplay them and euen in the 5. General Councel to say nothing of particular men there is anathema said to him and his writings euen as to Arius Macedonius Eunomius Nestorius and Eutyches and yet you could find noe body that should tax Origen of errour but one poore Iesuit though almost all this be mentioned by the same Iesuit and in the same place which you cite soe as you could not choose but see it What then shall a man say to this your manner of dealing 6. A fift Father is Theodoret touching transubstantiation Who say you saieth the substance of bread and wine ceaseth not in the Sacrament to which you tell vs Valencia makes answeare that he erred in the Councel of Ephesus though afterward he repented him as if this were all the answeare that either he or any man els giueth or as if euen that were not true which Valencia saith of Theodoret's erring in the Councel of Ephesus Chap. 9 §. 3 but to this place I answeared before shewing it neither to bee against vs nor that to be Valencia his onely answeare but the last onely of 3. or 4. besides other men's answeares 7. The 6. is Epiphanius touching images of whom you say out of a certaine Epistle of his he found a vaile at the entrance of the church representing the image of Christ or some Saint which he cut in pieces and withall commāded that none such should be heereafter suffered to hang there to this you say Sanders and Baronius make answeare that they are not S. Epiphanius his words but the words of some counterfaict image-breaker as if these two were the onely men that said soe or as if they said soe onely because it was against the worship of images without farther reason of their saying or as if that were their onely answeare but in all these you faile fowly For it is not the answeare of these two alone but the common of allmost all learned men nor the onely answeare nor vpon any one or more man's bare word That it is not the onely answeare may be seene in Bellarmine who bringeth two more Bell. lib. 2. de imag cap. 9. one out of Waldensis who supposeth it to haue beene soe done by Epiphanius in reguard of the Anthropomorphit haeretiques raigning at that tyme the other is of Marianus Victorius some others saying that that was not the image of Christ or any Saint but of some profane man hung there in the Church as if it had beene the picture of some Saint that being noe fit place for it by occasion whereof I cannot but note your corrupt citing of this testimony as you call it of Epiphanius for whereas the pretended words are these Cum inuenissem imaginem hominus pendentem in ecclesia tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nescio enim cuius erat When I had found the image of a man hanging in the Church as if it were the image of Christ or some Saint for I know not whose it was You say thus that he found a vaile representing the image of Christ or some Saint which is plaine corruption For S. Epiphanius saith in plaine manner it was neither the image of Christ or any Saint but
that it was the image of a man he knoweth not who Which if it had beene Christ's or any Saint's he would haue knowne whose it was neither would he haue called the image of Christ or any Saint the image of a man and then he maketh a comparison or likenesse betweene the hanging of that picture and the picture of Christ or some Saint Which sheweth plainely both that it was not Christ's nor any Saint's and also that it was the custome to hang the images of Christ and his Saints in the Church It is also an idle senselesse expression of yours when you say a vaile representing the image of Christ For the vaile was not the picture of a picture and therefore did not represent the image but represented the man You leaue alsoe out those words nescio cuius erat I know not whose it was By all which is discouered both your corruption and the probability of this answeare suppose these words were Epiphanius his whereas indeede they are not and this is the third answeare which you onely take notice of but without taking notice or answearing any of the reasons alleadged by any man for the same Whereas Bellarmine alleadgeth noe lesse then 9. all very good and substantiall ones and some of them moral demonstrations as that those words are a peece added at the end of the epistle put to noe man knoweth how nor with what connexion another is that S. Hierome hauing translated that Epistle whereto these words are added maketh noe mention at all of them or any such vaile a third is that in the 7. general Councel where the Iconoclasts or image-breakers alleadged all that euer they could out of any author they neuer mentioned any such authority as this of Epiphanius which sheweth that either the words were not there or at lest that they had not any shaddow of probability against the images of Christ and Epiphanius the Deacon in that Councel proueth two such places to haue beene corrupted by Haeretiques and inserted in the works of S. Epiphanius more may be seene in other authors for this shall serue to discouer your honest and vpright dealing with Epiphanius Sir Humphrey and shew what cause you haue to cōplaine of our eluding or reiecting the Fathers 8. But yet I shall discouer the same more going thorow with the rest of the Father's testimonies the next of which is S. Cyprian's touching tradition thus From whence is this tradition for the Lord commanded vs to doe those things which are written to which you say Bellarmine maketh answeare that S. Cyprian wrote thus when he thought to defend his owne error and therefore it is noe meruaile if he erred in soe reasoning it is true Sir Humphrey Bellarmine maketh this answeare and it is a very good one and of it selfe doth serue the turne For it is most true that S. Cyprian there writt in defence of rebaptization which he maintained and because he saw it could not be impugned by the written word but onely by vnwritten tradition which S. Stephen Pope then vrged against him he reiected that tradition and fled to Scripture wherein the badnes of his cause put him to that hard shift For proofe whereof I will but onely aske you whether you thinke S. Cyprian was then in an error or not I presume you will not deny but he was otherwise you must grant that we may baptize such as haue beene baptized in your Church and are conuerted to ours or that you must baptize such of ours as fall to yours because you may say yours is noe haeresy but rather ours But whether soeuer you say of these two you I suppose will not nor indeede can grant rebaptization for it is contrary to your beleife practize Well then it is an error Likewise this error is not otherwise maintained but by denial of vnwritten tradition and cannot be ouerthrowne but by holding them and therefore it must follow of necessity that it is an error to deny tradition Or thus if this rebaptization be an error and that it follow of that principle of holding to the written word onely then is that principle false For it is an ordinary rule in Logicke that if a conclusion be false or impossible the premisse or principle from whence it followeth must of necessity be false or impossible and this rule is grounded vpon a certaine axiome that ex vero nihil sequitur nisi verum Of truth there followes nothing but truth Soe rebaptization being an errour as you cannot deny that principle of the onely written word from whence it followeth and wherevpon it dependeth must needes be false Whereby you may see Bellarmines argument to be good and your owne to be of noe force Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. But besides Bellarmine added some authority to his reason thereby giuing it a great deale of credit which is that S. Aug. doth answeare and confute that whole Epistle of S. Cyprian's out of which these words are taken Soe that you might haue said that S. Augustine doth elude and reiect S. Cyprian's authority as well as Bellarmine but that for shame me you could not be soe bold with S. Augustine as you might be with Bellarmine though both said but the same thing 9. The 8. testimony is S. Chrysostomes touching priuate Masse in these words It is better not to be present at the Sacrifice then to be present and not to communicate Bellarm. say you maketh this answeare that Chrysostome spake this as at other tymes by exceeding the truth when he would onely incite men frequently and worthily to communicate Where first you wrong Bellarmine in strayning his words to the worst sense and as I may say truely mis-translating them For whereas he saith that S. Chrysostome spake this by excesse per excessum are his words you say by exceeding the truth which is false For it is not all one to say that a man speaketh by excesse and by exceeding the truth For there is a figure in Rhetorique called hyperbole or excesse Which whosoeuer vseth is not said presently to exceed the truth or speake vntruelly as you would make Bellar. say of S. Chrysost but onely to speake by hyperbole or excesse wherein the intent of the speaker is not to be taken soe precisely to the vtmost of his words but with a graine of salt as we say because by that manner of speach a man intendeth onely to signify the greatnes of the matter of which he speaketh whither it be commending or discommending And it is certaine some men vse this figure more then others and specially those who are more eloquent and who are to frame their discourse to the mouing of a popular or vulgar auditory such as S. Chrysost was therefore for answeare of the matter Bell. saith well that this Saint being greatly moued with his peoples coldnes in deuotion and backwardnes in coming to the holy mysteries spake by excesse to make them more apprehend the illnes thereof as we
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
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
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