thou art not to be the author but the keeper not the institutor but a scholler not leadinge but followinge Soe as by Timothee the whole Church being vnderstood as the same author saith or especially the whole body of Pastors it followeth that the Church createth not anie new articles of faith but teacheth onely that which she hath learned of the Prophets and Apostles 6. From which followeth that other thing which I meāt to tell the Knight for his learning which also I touched before in a word to wit that when points of doctrine before in controuersy and vndefined come to bee defined by the Church the doctrine is not therefore new because it is de fide or matter of faith now which it was not before as he most falsely and fondly supposeth for an vndoubted truth and vpon this his owne idle fancy buildeth many goodly arguments like soe many castles in the ayre For out of this hee thinketh it to follow that we vary in our doctrine that because forsooth there be many things now de fide which were not before and whereof Doctors did dispute which seing we may not now doubt of therefore the faith is in his iudgment altered But this sheweth nothing but the poorenes of his iudgmēt For by this he might proue that the sunne as it riseth higher and higher and by spreading his beames giueth light in some places att noone where it did not in the morning that therefore it is changed in it selfe then which what can be more absurd 7. And that it is the same of the Church and the Sunne Cant. 6.9 appeareth by that place of the Canticles Quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens pulchra vt Luna electa vt sol terribilis vt castrorum acies ordinata Who is she that goeth forward as the morning rising faire as the moone chosen as the Sunne terrible as an ordered army of tents Which words noe man euer doubted to be literally vnderstood of the Church Euen then as the Sunne may goe spreading his beames more and more with out increase or change of it owne light in it selfe soe may the Church goe more and more spreading the beames of her diuine faith with out increase or alteratiō of the faith in it self And as the Sunne beame may shine in a valley or roome of a house where it did not shine before soe may the Church spread the light of her faith shewing such or such a point to be a diuine truth which before was not soe knowne to bee or which though it were a diuine truth in it self yet it was not soe to vs. 8. For more declaracion whereof I may yet bring another more scholerly example which is of the principles of seuerall sciēces which are to bee the premisses in demonstratiue arguments of those sciences in which principles or premises are contained diuers truthes which may be drawne out of them by many seuerall conclusions one following of another these conclusions were truthes in themselues before though they did not soe appeare vnto mee till I saw the connexiō they had with the premisses and how they were contained in them And by the many seuerall conclusions which are soe drawne the truth of those principles and premisses doth more shew it self but not receiue any increase or chāge in it self thereby Euen soe we say in the prime principles of our Faith reuealed immediately to the Prophets and Apostles and by them deliuered vnto the Church are contained all truths which any way belonge to our Faith ād whereby the Church hath in succeeding ages destroyed seuerall haeresies as they haue risen without creating or coyning new faith or altering the old but out of the old grounds and premisses drawing those conclusions which destroy new haeresies and shew them to be cōtrary to the ancient faith And in that manner the Church hath growen and increased in knowledge by degrees and shall still goe growing and increasing to the end of the world Greg. moral lib. 9. cap 6. as sheweth S. Greg. his discourse vpon those worde of Iob. Qui facit Arcturum Oriana Hyadas c. Where he saith thus Vrgente mundi fine superna scientia proficit largius cum tēpore excrescit As the world draweth to an end the heauenly knowledge profiteth and with tyme increaseth Wherein also she resembleth our B. Sauiour her cheife Lord and heauenly Spouse who though in grace and knowlegde he neuer receiued the least increase from the first instant of his Conception Luc 2.52 yet the Scripture saith after proficiebat sapientia aetate gratia apud Deum homines To wit because he shewed it more in his words and actions 9. This is farther confirmed by the manner and practize which our Catholique Doctors and Fathers euer obserue in and out of Councells in prouing or defining points of faith to wit by hauing recourse to the authority of scripture and tradition beleife and practize of the Church in the searching whereof the holy Church ioyneth humane industry with God's holy grace and assistāce For when any question or doubt of faith ariseth particular Doctors seuerally dispute and write thereof then if farther neede require it the holy Church gathereth together her Pastors and Doctors in a Councel to examine and discusse the matter more fully as in that first Councel of the Apostles Act. 15.6 whereof the Scripture saith Conueneruntque Apostoli seniores videre de verbo hoc The Apostles ad Ancients assembled to consider of this word The Pastors coming soe together and hauing the presence of our Sauiour according to his promise and his holy Spirit out of the Prophetical and Apostolical Scriptures and Traditiōs ioyning therewith the authorityes and interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors out of praecedent tymes she doth infallibly resolue and determine the matter not as new but as ancient orthodox and deriued from her Forefathers making that which was euer in it self a diuine truth soe to appeare vnto vs that now we may not make farther question thereof 10. Vinc. Lerin cap. 27.28.29 seq And this being the common doctrine deliuered by our Catholique Doctour I thinke it not amisse somewhat farther to confirme and authorize the same by an excellent discourse of that holy and ancient Father Vincentius Lerinensis not reciting his very words because it would bee too long but onely the substance which is this Hauing proued by the word Depositum out of S. Paul that a Pastour Priest Preacher or Doctour there meant by Timothee must onely deliuer the doctrine which is deposited with him or in his hands not found out by him which he hath receiued not inuented whereof hee is not to bee author or beginner but the Keeper or Guardian hee saith that if such a man haue abilityes for it hee may like another Beseleel adorne sett out and grace the pretious iewels of diuine faith by expounding more clearely that which before was beleiued more
Essay of your poore endeauours to make the world see it is noe difficult matter for a meane Lay man to proue the ancient Visibility of the Protestant profession prouoked thereto by a Iesuit's challenge to shew out of good authors that the Protestant's church was visible in all ages before Luther and this you vndertake to doe not onely out of the most orthodox fathers but alsoe out of the Romish Bishops Doctours Cardinals c. This essay of your labours Sir Humphrey is poore indeede not to stand complementinge with you as I shall after shew and for your proofes out of Fathers and other writers in the Romane Church wee shall there also see what ones they are that is either nothing to the purpose or out of Authors branded with the marks of heresy or at least temerity and singularity For the challenge it selfe wherein consisteth the state of the question I say heere that you doe not sett it downe soe truely and fully as you should For you were to shew the Visibility of your Church by naming some who in all ages did professe the Protestant faith as it is now taught and professed in England entirely beleiuing all that is heere beleiued and beleeuinge nothing els that is contrary vnto it Which you might haue done if it could be done out of some good histories without standing vpon proofes of the particular points of doctrine out of this or that author for that was not to the present purpose 5. Neither were it sufficient as you say in your next paragraphe seeing it is confessed on all sides that the faith of Christ in the first age had visible Professours therefore to proue that the Faith of the Church of England is that which was deliuered to the Saints by Christ and his Apostles without farther recitall of succeeding witnesses this I say were not sufficient For the chalenge then which you were now to answeare and controuersy which you were to handle was not soe much of the truth of this or that particular point or of the doctrine euen in generall but of the Church it self which was to deliuer the doctrine and by which we were to come to the knowledge of the truth who the men were that were trusted to keepe the depositū which S. Paul gaue Timothy charge of where the Church was which the same S. Paul calleth the howse of God the pillar and firmament of truth Which was the seede of Christ whereof I say prophecieth and promiseth in the person of God the Father to his Sonne that hee would neuer take away the words of truth from their mouth Hoc foedus meum cum eis dicit Dominus Spiritus meus Isai 59.21 qui est in te verba mea quae posui in ore tuo non recedent de ore tuo de ore seminis tui de ore Seminis Seminis tui dicit Dominus amodo vsque in sempiternum This is my couenant with them saith our Lord. My spiritt that is in thee and my words that I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seede and out of the mouth of thy Seed's seede saith our Lord from this present and for euer Who they bee to whom our blessed Sauiour himself in person and with his owne mouth promised that he would send the Spirit of truth to remayne with them for euer and that himself would be with them to the consummation of the world Soe as this controuersy being of the Church it self which was to be found out by the visibility and succession thereof not soe much by the doctrine it could be no way sufficient to proue that the doctrine of the Protestant church was taught anciently though that can neuer bee proued For as I say the question is not of the doctrine but of the persons Wherein the Iesuit tooke the right way like a wise man and a good scholar to find out the Doctrine which is a thing more spirituall and lesse subiect to the sense by that which is corporall and more subiect to the view of all sorts of men For this is the way that all Scholars in the teaching of all Sciences take to wit to beginne with that which is knowne and euident and by it to come to the knowledge of that which is hidden according to Aristotel's Doctrine 6. And this hath euer beene the way which the holy fathers haue taken eyther in prouing the Catholique faith or disprouinge of heresies Soe Tertullian (a) praescrip cap. 32. lib. 3. car adu Marcio soe Irenaeus (b) lib. 3. cap. 1.2.3 lib. 4. cap. 43.45.46 soe Cyprian (c) ep 52. 76. Optatus (d) lib. 2. aduer Parm. and most of all that great Doctour S. Augustine (e) psal 2. part Don. ep 165. de vtil credend cap. 7. in seuerall places and particularly in his booke de vtilitate credenai where writinge to his freind Honoratus whom he laboureth to draw from the Manichaean heresy and putting case that he did doubt what religion to follow he saith without doubt he were to beginne his enquiry from the Catholique Church Proculdubio ab Ecclesia Catholica sumendum exordium For saith hee whereas there be among Christians many heresies all which desire to seeme Catholiques and call others Haeretiques there is one Church as all graunt if you reguard the whole world refertior multitudine vt autem qui nouerunt affirmant etiam veritate sincerior caeteris omnibus sed de veritate alia quaestio est More full of people and as they that know her for truth more sincere then any other but of the truth it is another question Soe as heere Saint Augustine maketh the first question of the Church it self Which he maketh to bee the first thing that a man that doubteth and seeketh to saue his soule must enquire after leauing the truth of the doctrine to be disputed in the second place praescr cap. 19. The like also hath Tertullian giuing withall a good reason thereof for making this prescription or exception against Haeretiques that we are not to admitt them soe farre as to dispute with them of Scriptures he sayth it is first to be disputed Quibus competat fides ipsa c. to whom faith it selfe belongeth to the which the Scriptures pertaine From whom and by whom and when and to whom that discipline was deliuered whereby men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shal be the truth of scriptures and expositions and all Christian traditions soe Tertullian In whose iudgement it is plaine that we are first to seeke the persons that professe the faith that is the Church because there certainely is the truth to be found Which is the course wee Catholiques take and perswade other men to take following the stepps of our Forefathers to wit to seeke out the Visible Church whereas Haeretiques
not much short of idolatry For Tertull doubteth not to aequal them Nec dubitare quis debet neque ab idolatria distare haereses Tertul. de praeser cap. 40. quum auctoris operis eiusdem sint cuius idolatria Neither ought any man to doubt that heresies doe not differ from idolatry since their author and worke is the same which idolatry Nay in some respects haeresy goeth beyond idolatry as S. Thomas well sheweth and S. Hierome saith absolutely and without limitation 2.2 q. lib. 7. in Esai Nemo tam impius est quem Haereticus impietate non vincat There is noe man soe impious whom an Heretique doth not surpasse in impiety Therefore your comfort is vanity since your profession is impiety And soe much for that matter 16. Now if any man will but lend an eare he shall heare a fine conceit of yours whereby to proue your Faith ancient vniuersall and what not That is by answearing our question where your Church was before Luther in this manner Of the foure Creeds to wit of the Apostles of Nice of Athanasius and Pius 4. You beleeue 3. which were beleeued before Luther of the 7. Sacraments you beleeue 2. which we confesse also to haue beene instituted by Christ of Scriptures you acknowledge 22. books For canonical which we allow which were soe beleeued before Luther's tyme. why rather 7. Councels then 17. or 19. Of the 7. generall Councels 4. are confirmed by Parlament in England not called by Luther The traditions vniuersally receiued and which we confesse to bee Apostolicall are deriued from the Apostles to you as you say not from Luther The prayers in your common prayer booke are the same Say you in substance with our ancient liturgies not broached by Luther the ordination of Ministers is from the Apostles not from Luther If therefore say you the 3. creeds the two principall Sacraments the 22. books of canonicall scripture the fower first generall Councels the Apostolique traditions the ancient Liturgies the ordination of Pastors were anciently vniuersally receiued in all ages in the bosome of the Romane Church euen by the testimonyes of our aduersaries is it not a silly and senselesse question to demand where our Church was before Luther all this is your discourse Sir Knight and most part your very words wherein you seeme to thinke you haue soe satisfied our question that in your iudgment it is silly and senselesse to demaund it any more But it will easily appeare on the contrary side what a silly senselesse thing it was for you to frame such a discourse to your selfe and much more soe to publish it to other men as if any body els had soe little witt as to be pleased therewith For be it soe that these points of doctrine were ancieÌ„tly taught as they are now taught by the Romane Church what followeth that you had a Church before Luther nothing lesse For a Church consisteth not of points of Doctrine or faith onely but much more of men professing such and such Sacraments rites such a faith religioÌ„ If therefore you will shew vs a Church you must shew vs such a company of men which till you can shew the question remaineth vnansweared If you say they were the same men of which the Romane Church did then consist which you seeme to say in that you tell vs your Church was in the bosome of the Romane Church I answeare that is not to the purpose For as now since Luther's tyme you are a distinct company making a Church such as it is by your selues soe you must shew a company of men in like manner distinct in former tymes from ours and your antiquity is onely to begin from such a tyme as you began to bee a distinct company from vs You must not thinke to stand and contend with vs for antiquity and then pretend our antiquity to bee yours But you must shew a distinct Succession of Bishops a distinct common wealth or people professing that Faith onely which you beleeue practizing those rites ceremonies and Sacraments onely which you haue when you haue done this you may better demand what a silly senselesse question it is to aske where your Church was before Luther 17. But because you mention your being in former ages in the bosome of the Romane church not onely heere but els where often in this your treatise as if thereby you would make your Church seeme one and the same with ours or at least to descend from ours Tertull. de praesâ—r cap. 36. and soe to participate of our Visibility and Vniuersality I will alleadge you a saying of Tertullians which doth soe fully answeare the matter that you will take but little comfort in the manner of your descent Thus it is Tertullian hauing alleadged for his eight prescription against Haeretiques the authority of the Apostolique churches which then kept the very authentical letters written To them by the Apostles and especially of the Romane Church which he calleth happy for that to it the Apostles powred forth all their whole doctrine together with their bloud and there putting downe a briefe summe of some speciall points thereof concludeth in theis words Haec est institutio non dico iam quae futuras haereses praenunciabat sed de qua haereses prodierunt Sed non fuerunt ex illa ex quo factae sunt aduersus illum Etiam de oliua nucleo mitis opimae necessariae asper oleaster exoritur Etiam de papauere fici gratissimae suauissimae ventosa vana caprificus exurgit Ita haereses de nostro fructificauerunt non nostrae degeneres veritatis grano mendacio siluestres This is the institution I doe not say now which did foretell Haeresies to come but out of which haeresies haue come But they were not of it from the tyme that they became against it Euen out of the kernel of the mild fatt and necessary or profitable oliue the sower bastard oliue groweth From the seede alsoe of the most pleasant and sweete figtree ariseth the windy and vaine or empty wild figtree And soe haue haeresies fructified out of ours but they not ours degenerating from the graine of truth and becoming wild by vntruth or lying Thus farr Tertullian Acknowledging indeede that haeresies haue their beginning from vs that is that the men that broach them come out of our Church but that they are noe more ours when they beginne once to be against vs. And that the dishonour thereof redoundeth not to vs but to themselues hee declareth by the two similitudes of the oliue and figgetree comparing vs to the true and fruitfull trees and them to the bastard vaine and wild trees issuing out of the former All which if you consider well Sir Humphrey you will find it but a small honour for you to haue come out of the Romane Church though you haue layen neuer soe long in the very bosome thereof as you
bragge for from the tyme you haue begunne to be against it you are not of it And soe much for that 18. Now for these points of Doctrine by you named wherein you agree with vs and which you hauing no Succession of your owne you cannot haue it by any other meanes but by and from vs which therefore are ours and not yours we doe not question you for your antiquity and vniuersality but for these other points wherein you disagree as when you deny the doctrine declared by the Councel of Trent when you deny our seauen Sacraments deny the truth of one of these two Sacramēts to wit the real presence of our Sauiour's body bloud necessity efficacy of the other to wit Baptisme Deny our canon of scripture our number of Councels our traditions c. For this is your faith properly as you are a distinct company or Church Shew your doctrine in all these points that is your deniall of them to haue beene anciently and vniuersally taught or euen before Luther's tyme and you haue said something which you not doing I cannot but wonder to see you soe silly and senselesse to vse your owne words as to thinke you haue said something to the purpose We aske you the antiquity of your doctrine that is wherein you disagree from vs and you answeare vs with the antiquity of soe much as agreeth with ours which is to answeare vs with the antiquity of our owne You haue beene pleased to shape your selues a religion out of ours and you pleade the antiquity of ours But that will not serue your turne that shape which you giue it is the forme and essence of your religion soe long then as that is new your religion is new Neither can you say the same of our points defined in the Councel of Trent as you seeme to say by asking Where our Church was◠where our Trent doctrine and articles of the Romane Creede were receiued de fide before Luther this you cannot likewise say to vs for the defining made not the Doctrine new but bound men by authority of a Councel to beleeue what they did beleeue plainely by tradition Vinc. Lerin cap. 32. as Vincentius Lerinensis saith that the Church by the decrees of her Councels hath done nothing els but that what she had before receiued by tradition onely she should also by writing consigne to posterity Nec quicquam Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit ecclesia nisi vt quod prius a maioribus sola traditione susceperat hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturae chirographum consignaret Of which see more in the first chapter heere 19. After this you aske againe if your doctrine lay inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church which say you no Romanist can deny if it became hidden as good corne couered with chaffe or as fine gold ouerlayed with a greater quātity of drosse whether it must bee therefore new and vnknowne because the corne was not seuered from the chaffe the gold from the drosse before Luther's tyme and then you bid vs because we call your Doctrine nouelty to remoue the three Creeds the two Sacraments the 22. canonical books the 4. first generall Councels apostolical traditions and see whether our Church wil not proue a poore and senselesse carcasse This is your learned discourse Sir Humphrey to which I answeare asking First what Romanist doth acknowledge your doctrine to haue layen inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church Did euer any man write soe did euer any man say soe vnto you nay what Romanist hath euer forborne vpon occasiō offered to deny and deny it againe you teach not onely those bee two but that there be but two Sacramēts which what Romanist euer acknowledged to haue beene taught in the Romane Church one of your Sacraments is an empty peece of bread and a supp of wine which what Catholique will euer say was Taught in the Romane Church you allow 4. Councels and but 4. you allow 22. books of canonical Scripture and but 22. will any Catholique euer allow this to haue beene Catholique doctrine take away your but and then it may passe but then you take away your religion But heere is one thing that giueth mee much cause of wonder which is that you talke of traditions as distinct from Scripture which is a thing that I did little expect from a man of your profession and I euer tooke you to be soe fallē out with them that you made the denial of them a fundamental point of your Religion and that therefore you would not endure the word traditions euen in holy Scriptures where it might be taken in a good sense but alwaies translated or rather falsifyed it into ordinances though both the Latine and Greeke word did signify traditions most expresly But this your allowing of traditions is not a thing that I reprehend in you though some Puritane Ministers may perhaps not let you passe soe gently with it but that that followeth to wit that you should bee soe vnaduised as to acknowledge your Church or Doctrine which you simply and confusedly take for the same being very different as I haue often said to haue beene inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church and to haue become hidden like good corne couered with chaffe and like gold couered with drosse till Luther's tyme and yet to say that it was visible before that tyme is the corne seene when it is couered with chaffe the gold when it is couered with drosse Answ to Cooks rep ep dedicat nu 20. 20. My Lord Cooke shewed himself somewhat wiser when asking himself the question which we aske you to wit where your Church was before Luther he answeared it made no great matter where it was soe hee were certaine it was confessing thereby that his Church was indeede inuisible but yet in being which because it seemed hard to perswade any man he brought a fine similitude of a wedge of gold dissolued and mixed with brasse tinne and other mettalls which he said did not therefore loose his nature but remained gold though we could not determine in what part of the masse it was contained This was somewhat more like for a man by such a similitude to goe about to proue that a Church might subsist inuisibly for the which neuerthelesse a Catholique Diuine told him his owne very soundly but for you Sir Knight to proue the Visibility of your Church by such a Similitude it were not to be beleeued vnlesse a man did see it in print You labour to proue your Church to haue beene visible before Luther's tymes and yet you confesse her to haue begunne her Visibility by Luther for thus you aske was there noe good corne in the granary of the Church because for many yeares space till Luther's dayes it was not seuered from the chaffe to seuer the corne from the chaffe wherewith it was couered is to make it visible if then Luther did first seuer it he
this point alone Nor did Campian meane that there was neuer any man that did agree with you in any one of your erroneous points but that there was neuer any house village or citty that did agree with you in your whole faith and religion or made the same Church with you And for the mangling and razing one of Aelfrick's latine epistles wherewith you charge vs first Sir it is not like by this that he saith in his Homily wherewith you say the Epistles agree that there is any thing against vs and if there were know you Sir it is not our fashion to deale soe with authors but if there bee any thing contrary to the Catholique faith we doe what is to bee done publiquely as hauing authority and knowing what wee doe correcting moderne authours in what they erre for ancient authours noting onely what is amisse V. reg indi de correct lib. §. 4. but not razing or blotting out any thing that corner correcting we leaue for such corner companions as shunne the light And soe your principall argument being answeared I goe on to the rest 11. First you tell vs wee are diuided among our selues touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of transubstantiation some deriuing it as you say from the words of Christ some from his benediction before the words some from the exposition of the Fathers some from the Councel of Lateran some from Scriptures some from the determination of the Church where to fill paper and make a shew you repeate againe the same things For what difference for as much as pertayneth to this matter is there betweene the determination of the Church and the Councel of Lateran betweene Scriptures and the words of Christ But to let that goe I say first your phrase of deriuing is improper as you vse it For we deriue our Doctrine by Succession from those men that haue gone before vs by degrees to the Apostles tyme shewing that in all ages and tymes it hath beene taught and beleeued but to speake properly we not deriue but proue the truth of our doctrine out of Scriptures Councels Fathers c. though the deriuation be also a proofe but yet different from that of Scriptures and Councels Secondly you speake very generally and confusedly For whereas there bee diuers things in question betweene you and vs as the realnes of Christ's presence in the Blessed Sacrament and Transubstantiation others among Catholiques themselues as whither or how farr these points may bee proued out of Scripture Tradition c. or by what words or actions this change is made you make no distinction at all of any of these things nor speake any thing certainely or constantly of any of them but runne hopping vpp and downe from one to another now forward now backward that noe mā can tell where to find you but though this confusion of yours cause a little more trouble and length in answearing yet in the end it will discouer your ignorance and vanity the more 12. To begin then with you I would know to what purpose you alleadge our authors in things controuerted among themselues onely eyther now because they are not defined or heertofore when other things then controuerted were not defined though they be since and consequently out of controuersy Doth this difference of our authors make any thing for you noe verily but much against you for their modest manner of disputeing of these things with dew submission to the Catholique Church to whose censure they leaue themselues their opinions and writings their silence as soone as She doth speake is a manifest cōdemnation of your haeretical pride that will stand to noe iudgmēt but your owne and euen those opinions of theirs which you take hold of they virtually retract soe farre as either they may bee any way against the authority of the Catholique Church or in fauour of Haeretiques which are the onely things you seeke Therefore in any thing wherein they may dissent from the common beleefe as they doe not binde vs soe they doe not fauour you But of this I said enough in the first Chapter Though in the authorityes which you heere alleadge there be not much neede of this for either they say nothing against vs or you corrupt them as I shall shew 13. And to begin with Caietan in matter of the real presence you say out of Suarez he taught that these words THIS IS MY BODY doe not of them selues sufficiently proue transubstantiation without the supposed authority of the Church and that therefore by command of Pius V. that part of his commentary is left out of the Romish edition Thus you Where first according to your vsuall liberty of falsifying you put in the word supposed of your owne to make the speech sound somewhat contemptibly of the Church Whereas there is noe such word in Suarez his Latine text which you cite in the margent Secondly you putt in the word Transubstantiation which Suarez there speaketh not of as is euident but onely of the real presence which is a distinct thing though you cōfound them And in that Suarez indeede the whole Schoole of Deuines doe worthily condemne Caietane for saying that those words THIS IS MY BODY doe not sufficiently proue the real presence of our Sauiour's body For singularity whereof Caietan is often noted in matters of such moment is very much to bee condemned in a Diuine therefore Pius V. with great reason commanded that to be blotted out agreeably to the rules praescribed in the Romane index for correcting of books Whereof you complaine much as thinking Caietane somewhat to fauour your side yet you are extreamely mistaken and by alleadging Caietanes authority in this you giue your selfe a wound For though hee doe not giue soe much to the bare words of the Scripture as to be sufficient of themselues to proue the Reality of Christ's presence yet hee saith that ioyning the authority of the Churches exposition of them they are sufficient as he saith in expresse words which your self after cite and yet you can alleadge him for you as you thinke heere and which is more impudency you are not ashamed to say that Caietan denieth the bread to bee transubstantiated by those words For where hath Caietan such a word or euen shaddow of a word You thinke perhaps because in his opinion those words doe not sufficiētly of themselues proue the verity of Christ's presence that therefore they doe not sufficiently cause it but if you thinke soe as you seeme you are much mistakē for those are two different things For example in Baptisme the words I baptize thee c. besides the clensing of the soule from sinne original actuall cause also the remission of the temporall punishmēt imprint a spiritual character in the Soule though these effects cannot bee proued out of the signification of the wordes and soe alsoe a man might say of the forme of the Eucharist the proofe depending vpon the speculatiue signification of
conueniret sub vtraque specie fieri communionem quam sub altera tantum hoc enim magis consonum est eius institutioni integritati refectioni corporali exemplo Christi c. that is If wee reguard the Sacrament and the perfection thereof it were more conuenient to haue the communion vnder both kinds then vnder one For this is more agreeable to the institution thereof and the integrity and corporal resection and the example of Christ c. Where first you leaue out in your English translation those words habito respectu ad Sacramentum though you put them in Latine in the margent Which words are the life of the sentence and plainely shew that Tapper doth not speake of the conueniency absolutely and all things considered but in some respect to wit in respect of the Sacrament or in respect of the signification of our Sauiour's passion which is more expresse in both kinds then in one in respect of the institutioÌ„ which was in both in respect of the integrity because as the Diuines say both the Species are partes integrantes as two peeces of bread in one loafe though both together haue noe more essential perfection then one alone And in respect of corporal refectioÌ„ which as it requireth meate and drinke soe the spiritual refection is more expresly signified by both though noe lesse effectually performed by one Soe that this while Tapper speaketh not of the absolute conuenieÌ„cy but onely in some respects wherein I appeale to the Reader whether you haue kept your promise of not wilfully or wittingly mis-citing or mistranslating any author For heere it appeareth how you haue mis-traÌ„slated leauing out as a maÌ„ may say the principal verbe which shall yet more appeare by that which followeth immediatly in the same author which is this Alia tamen consideratione reuerentia vz. Quae huic Sacramento dbetur vtque in eius vsu vitemus omneâ—â—â—reuerentiaÌ„ minus conuenit atque etiam malun est nulloque modâ— expediens ecclesiae vt populus Christianus sub vtraque specie communicaret Bâ—â— in another consideration to wit of the reuerence which is dew to this Sacrament and to the end we may auoid all irreuerence it is lesse conuenient and euen it is ill and noe way expedient for the Church that the Christian people should communicate vnder both kinds Loe you Sir Humphrey was it honestly done of you to leaue out this being the other halfe of the sentence answearing to the former which of it selfe was imperfect and which was the authors absolute iudgment and determination Can any man euer giue you credit more but because Sir I will not leaue any scruple in any mans minde concerning this authors meaning and that by the perfection and integrity which he spoke of in the former part of the senteÌ„ce he did not meane the want of any spiritual fruite I will adde one word more out of him which is this In omissione calicis nulluÌ„ interuenit peccatum aut periculum nec aliquod gratiae spiritualis iactum in the omitting or leauing of the Chalice there is noe sinne or daÌ„ger or losse of any spirituall grace What could hee say or we desire more 10. Wherefore to come to your coÌ„clusion which you draw out of that that because many Fathers and learned men doe agree in saying that the Communion in both kinds was most frequent in the Primitiue Church therefore they giue testimony of your doctrine it is most foolish for we also agree with them in the former and yet deny your doctrine which is that all men are bound to receiue in both kinds consequently that it is not lawfull for theÌ„ to receiue it in one kind and that soe to receiue it is to receiue but an half Communion and such like absurdityes This is your doctrine for proofe whereof you haue not brought one word out of any author but brought some that say absolutely and expresly the contrary as Val. Tapper Bell. c. Nay what will you say if a man shall shew you out of your owne statute Lawes made now in this your tyme of Reformation some approbatioÌ„ or allowance of the CommunioÌ„ in one kind 1. Edw. 6. cap. 1. which is the thing you exclaime soe against vs for See in the Lawes of K. Edw. 6. reuiued and coÌ„firmed by Q. Elizabeth whether they doe not say onely that the CoÌ„munion is to bee commonly deliuered ministred to the people vnder both kinds 1. Eliz. ca. 1. vith this exception also vnlesse necessity otherwise require Looke you Sir Humphrey is it not heere allowed vpon necessity though the necessity be not expressed what or how great it must be but hence it followeth that if particular necessity may excuse in a particular case if the necessity shall proue great vniuersal it may be also sufficient for abstayning from one kind vniuersally or generally and howsoeuer it sheweth Communion in both kinds not to bee so strictly commanded by Christ For if it were noe necessity could excuse it in one Kind 11. And soe this might serue for this matter but that I am loth to lett passe a worthy saying of yours in the very end of this § Which is this And as coÌ„cerning the halfe Communion which is receiued in the Romane Church for an article of faith as it wants antiquity and consent of Fathers by their owne confession soe likewise it wants a right foundation in the Scriptures which an article of Faith ought to haue Thus you where with your worships good leaue a man may tell you you haue as many faults as words we teach all the coÌ„trary to wit that it is not halfe communion but that Christ is receiued whole and entire and a true Sacrament and as much spiritual fruit necessary to saluation in one kind as both as the Councel of Trent by your confession defineth We say it neither wanteth antiquity nor consent of Fathers as you may see in Bellarmine and many others We say it doth not want a right foundation in the Scriptures for as I said before we proue it out of the scriptures V. Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. both of the old new testament the doctrine and example of our Sauiour And his Apostles expressed in scripture Wee say also to conclude therewith that it is most false of all which you take euery where for a very truth as if it were agreed vpon on all sides to wit that an article of faith must haue sufficient and expresse proofe of scripture Whereas the cleane contrary is truth and as generally concluded among all Diuines and Fathers as you boldly affirme yours which assertion therefore of yours I heere absolutely deny once for all and though I neede not stand prouing it being euery where in all our authors yet for the Readers sake I will cite one place of S. Ierome coming first to my memory who hauing proued a point of faith against the Luciferian Haeretiques out of
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
apostasy and future damnation to each other this poore Frier repented himself and therevppon came backe to his monastery and did penance rather choosing to suffer a little outward austerity then to carry about in the bottome of his soule such an inward assured testimony and beleife of his aeternall damnation as he saw these two did I might say more of the man's fine feates but there be bookes in dutch particularly of them as I heare and soe I say noe more but that in this your learned Buxhorne whom you Sir Humphrey of Licentiate make a Doctor as in all your other learned men that blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian hit the right veyne and discouered the true cause of their apostasy when he told the Vniuersity men it was not any Charks or Hammers that held them backe as I may say also it was not any razing of euidences that made Boxhorne fall from his faith but that there were certaine Lutheran baites where-with many of them were catched which were Aurum gloria delitiae veneres Gold glory delights and Venus of which some are catched with one some with another and soe you see this your learned Professor had soe deepely swallowed the last of the fower baites that it made his stomacke turne at the Catholique faith which exhorted him to contemne some of them as gold glory and forced him to forbeare others as his base and bestial delights and soe forsaking all obedience to humane and diuine lawes at one clapp became a rebell to his Prince an Apostata to religion and enemy to the Catholique faith therefore of such fellowes there is noe other account to bee made but let them goe as the Scripture saith of one of their chiefe Leaders Act. 2.25 Vt abiret in locum suum That hee might goe into his owne place Of the 14. Sect. the title whereof is this Chap. 14. Our aduersaries conuicted of their defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture it selfe CHAPTER XIV 1. TO this section the Knight giueth a beginning by occasion of Boxhornes words in the last section of an idol in the temple Wherevppon he very wittily tells vs that when we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place we must flye to the mountaines of the Scriptures as S. Chrysostome saith but yet he thinks we will not come to triall of scriptures because saith he are we not all eye witnesses that Christ and his Apostles are called in question at the Popes assizes and there arraigned and condemned of obscurity and insufficiency in their ghospel is not the sacred bible saith he ranked inter libros prohibitos in the first place in the catalogue of forbidden books then he bringeth Corn. Agrippa complayning of the Inquisitors that they will not admitt men to proue their opinions by scriptures This is the Knight's discourse which vpon examination will proue as foolish as he thinks it witty I answeare therefore that though Catholiques hold for most certaine that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith nor that out of it alone all controuersies can be decided as for example that in particular which bookes be canonical Scripture which not Yet for most things now a dayes in controuersy many Catholiques haue offered to try the matter by onely scripture some hauing also written books of good volume Anker of Faith to shew the Scripture in the plaine and obuious sense to make positiuely for vs our Doctrine in most points against vs in none Whereof a man may also haue a briefe tast in the defence of the cēsure in the praeface in these points following of Supremacy real presence iustificatiō absolutiō Vowes traditions obseruance of the cōmandements satisfaction prayer for the dead prayer to Saints c. in which respect therefore I may aske you Sir Humphrey how you come to be soe sure that we will not come to the triall of Scriptures for though we ground many points vpon tradition and practize of the Church yet doe not we ground others vpon plaine and expresse authority of Scripture from which you are faine to fly running into this or that corner of I know not what figuratiue or tropical interpretation or euen denying the very bookes of Scripture nay what point is there that we doe not bring better proofes out of Scripture for it which yet we neede not then you can bring against it which yet is absolutely needfull on your part you standing soe vpon Scripture as you doe 2. As for that which you say of the Popes questioning Christ his Apostles at his Assizes for obscurity and insufficiency this is a speach vttered I suppose by you onely in the feruor of an haereticall spiritt wherein therefore a man is not to looke for much truth but yet I may aske wherein I pray you doth the Pope question or condemne Christ of obscurity insufficiēcy what hath Christ left written to be questioned or condemned his Apostles Euangelists indeede haue left some things in writing of which some are hard euen by the iudgmēt of Scripture it selfe 2. Pet. 3.16 for soe saith S. Peter of the Epistles of S. Paul which saith he the vnlearned and inconstant doe abuse as they doe others Scriptures to their owne perdition Aug. Conf. lib. 12. c. 14. and S. Augustine findeth soe much difficulty in the first verse of the whole Scripture which to a man seeming is as easy as any other verse what soeuer that hee is faine to acknowledge the wonderfull profoundnes thereof it is S. Peter and S. Aug. therefore that call to their assizes if you will needs haue it soe and there arraigne and condemne S. Paul Moyses of obscurity not the Pope soe for insufficiēcy if any body condemne it it is S. Iohn in saying that 2. Thess 2.14 all things are not written S. Paul in willing the Thessaloniās to hold the traditiōs which they had learned whither by speach or letter by word of mouth or writing they are the Apostles Doctors of the Church that acknowledge that hardnes of Scripture or what soeuer it is which your Worship is pleased to call insufficiency What impertinent flaunting is this then in you Sir Humphrey to tell vs the Pope questioneth Christ and his Apostles To talke thus of Assizes and arraigning as if you would haue vs know you are the Sonne of a Grand-Iuror whom it is pitty you did not succeede in the place since you haue the termes soe ready in your mouth 3. But to lett that passe I likewise answeare you for our ranking the bible in the first place of prohibited bookes as you say we doe that it is false and false againe For it is not in the catalogue of such bookes onely in the rules which concerne the index there is mention how the free vse of vulgar translations is not to bee permitted Reg. 4. but for the Latine vulgar translation there is noe manner
to name that Father or Catholique Doctor to whose iudgment we will not stand for trial of the controuersies betweene you and vs and if hee be for you in one I will vndertake he shal be against you in 5. or 10. others for that one With what face then can you say we decline them but because I imagine you reflect most in this saying vpon this worthy worke of your owne I leaue it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader whether I haue soe declined one author either moderne or ancient or whether I haue not shewed euery one which you haue brought to be quite against you Now for the Scripture because you say wee decline it as vnperfect I challeÌ„ge you to name the man that saith it is vnperfect for that reason declineth it You fathered indeede that terme vpon Lessius but I shewed it to be most false for that he hath not the word at all in that chapter much lesse doth he say it of Scripture and lesse againe doth he decline the trial thereof in reguard of the imperfection but onely in reguard that it being a written word noe haeretique can be conuinced by it as I shewed also euen now out of Tertullian who saith it is but lost labour to dispute with an haeretique out of scripture But because I see your drift in the often repetition of the word imperfect is onely to beget in men's minds an hard conceit of vs De prâ—â— cap. â— as if we made small account of scripture I would know of you who they be that haue preserued the Scripture with such care for soe many ages who they bee that haue translated commentend and expounded them who they be that haue made soe many decrees in particular and general Councels for the preseruation authority reuerence and dew vse of them who they bee that haue filled libraries with learned works not onely expounding the particular passages but frequently and largely declaring their necessity dignity vtility and other perfections Veu B. 2 â—p Sr. â—p Let any man by these effects iudge who reuerenceth them most Catholiques or Protestants Let him compare the labours of the one with the labours of the other and then he shall soone find the truth of this matter 8. But because you still talke of our declining of Scripture besids that it is false as I said before for we are content to admitt any kind of triall with you to take that alsoe out of your mouth I answeare you farther that in this we coÌ„descend more vnto your infirmity being willing to try all wayes to gaine you then we neede or you can of right challenge For we acknowledge that saying of Tertullian's most true Whereby hee as it were stoppeth this gapp against you Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus non admittendos eos ad vllam de scripturis disputationem sihae sunt vires eorum anne eas habere possint dispici debet cui competat possessio Scripturarum ne is admittatur ad eas cui nullo modo competit We stopp vp this entrance chiefly that they that is haeretiques are not to be admitted to the disputation of Scriptures if in these their force consist we must see whether they may haue them to whom the possession belongeth lest he be admitted therevnto to whom it in noe wise belongeth as also that other place wherein conformably to the question which heere he maketh this being an important point hee defineth de praesc cap. 15. 37. Non esse admittendos haereticos ad incundam de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere That haeretiques are not to be admitted to the challenge of Scriptures whom without Scriptures we proue not to pertaine to Scriptures that is not to haue any thing to doe with them For saith he if they be haeretiques they cannot be Christians and not being Christians they can haue noe right to Christian writings Wherefore Sir Humphrey while you stand bragging of Scriptures and chalenging vs we may say vnto you as the same Tertullian saith consequently in the same place Qui estis quaÌ„do vnde venistis quid in meo agitis non mei quo denique Marcion iure siluam meam caedis c. Who are you when and whence haue you come what doe you in my ground you that are not mine by what right ô Marcion dost thou fell my wood by what leaue ô Valentine dost thou turne my fountaines by what authority ô Apelles dost thou remoue my bounds It is my possession what doe you others heere sowing and feeding at your pleasure It is my possession I possesse it of old I possesse it first I haue the Originals from the owners whose the thing was I am the heyre of the Apostles as they haue bequeathed vnto mee by will as they haue committed to my custody as they haue adiured mee soe I hold For you truely they haue euer dis-inherited you and cast you of as strangers and enemyes This is Tertullian's discourse and wordes wherein it is but changing the names Marcion Valentine and Apelles into Luther Caluin Beza or if you will into Sir Hum. Linde and it will fitt as well as if it were made for you or spoken in answeare of what you say heere that if you bring Scripture we decline it for heereby you may see how much you are mistaken We doe not decline it but we decline you from it telling you it is none of yours you haue nothing to doe with it the Scriptures were committed to the Church by the Apostles to be kept they are the Churches euidences therefore noe man out of the Church as you are hath to doe with them as Tertullian telleth you heere ep dedic n. 6. and as I told you in my dedicatory epistle out of another place of his that we must first seeke out where that faith is to which the Scriptures belong where the men to whom Christian discipline was deliuered You must first shew your selues to be these men to haue this faith before we can admitt you to the Scriptures You must first shew your selues owners of the land before you can claime the writings and euidences which belong vnto it and which make good the title Therefore Sir Humphrey I cannot lesse admire your impudency in this which you say of Scriptures then in any thing els which in all this Lindy treatise you haue said though indeede as you goe drawing towards an end you shew you self still more like your self in this kind as shall appeare by the following Sections Chap. 15. Of the 15. Sect. the title being this Our chiefest aduersary Cardinal Bellarmine testifieth the truth of our doctrine in the principal points of controuersy betwixt vs. CHAPTER XV. 1. IN this Section your drift is to proue the truth of your doctrine out of Bellar. who you say is inforced to confesse the antiquity and Safety of your doctrine and plainely to acknowledge the
owne authors and why may not he doe the like to vs for the reason is cleane different They haue noe publique authority which can define what is Faith and what not but that is left not onely to euery priuate Doctour or Minister but to euery priuate Lay man and Woman And though it be true that it is noe conuincing proofe to vrge one particular Protestant Doctor 's authority against another there being not two among them of one opinion wholy much lesse one bound to answeare for the other Yet we are faine and may with good reason vse it because they haue noe certaine rule of Faith wherewith we may vrge them Authority of Church they haue none Scripture they haue indeede but soe mangled corrupted peruerted by translation and misinterpreted according to their owne fancies that as they haue it it is as good as nothing Traditions they haue none Councels they haue not any among themselues nor will stand to ours Consent of Fathers or Schoolemen they care not for Consent of Doctors they haue not among themselues nor can haue without an heade neyther if they had would any man thinke himself more bound by that then by consent of Fathers what then is left but to vrge them with the authority of such as they acknowledge for their brethren But with vs the case is farre different for we haue diuers infallible rules of faith though all with some reference to one principal rule As Scripture in the plaine and literal sense which is out of controuersy tradition or common beleefe and practize of the whole Church Councels either general or particular confirmed by the See Apostolique the authority of that Holy See it self defining ex cathedra though without either generall or particular Councel the common and vniforme Consent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoolemen deliuering any thing vnto vs as Matter of Faith 15. All these six rules of faith we acknowledge wherewith let this Knight or any Protestant in the world vrge vs we flinch not wee doe not deny the authority but are ready to make good whatsoeuer is taught anie of these wayes What folly then is it for a man to stand vrging vs with the authority of any one priuate man who may straggle out from the rest though to goe farther then we neede in such great liberty as wee giue Protestants wee giue them leaue to vrge vs with the authority of any one single Doctour in a point wherein hee is not contradicted by other Catholique Doctours or which other Catholiques doe not wholy disauow What more can a man desire And yet againe though the Knight or any other Protestant should bring such a single author for his opinion yet is there such a maine difference betweene him and them that noe Protestant can iustly pleade that single Catholique author to be wholy of his opinion or beleife in that point to say nothing of others wherein they differ For the Protestant holdeth his doctrine stifly not meaning in any case or for any authority to change or leaue it which is it that that maketh a man properly an Haeretique Whereas the Catholique euer holdeth it with indifferency ready to leaue it whensoeuer the Catholique Church shall determine otherwise Which if Sir Humphrey will be but content to doe wee will beare with all his errours because then they will be soone amended What little helpe then is hee like to haue from Catholique authors or what likelyhoode is there for him to make good his paradoxes or rather his most absurd heresies out of our owne Cardinals Bishops Doctors Schoolemen c. whom he putteth all in the plural number as if the number were to bee very great Whereas God knoweth they come very poore and single as shall appeare and some bee Cardinals of his owne creating only as I shall after shew but this hee doth for credit of his cause though it bee with losse of his owne 16. And all this which heere I say is to bee vnderstood supposing that indeede he cite Catholique authors and cite them truely as heere hee promiseth which promise for as much as concerneth true citing how hee performeth I shall afterwards make manifest heere onely I shall adde a word concerning his authors who he promiseth vs shal bee Catholiques Whereas indeede for the most part they are either knowne Haeretiques or some such men as though with much adoe they may passe for Catholiques as Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Cassander and the like yet they gaue themselues soe much liberty in they writings as they came to bee noted for it and their works forbidden Of which I will not therefore make any account as noe other Catholique doth But when I come to such authorityes as there be many in this booke I meane to make noe other answeare but that the author is condemned or booke forbidden in the index librorum prohibitorum the table of forbidden bookes Wherein I cannot but note Sir Humphrey's ill fauoured and dishonest dealing in pretending to cite only our owne Doctors and Schoolemen and yet afterwards obtruding such as he knoweth to bee subiect to soe mayne exception and soe to bee by vs disauowed and reiected as incompetent Iudges or witnesses 17. But there is noe other to bee expected at such a man's hands and therefore I will neyther looke for better nor say more of it but by this occasion adde a word or two concerning the Index expurgatorius which soe much troubleth the consciences of these men Which being rightly vnderstood noe man of reason and iudgment can be offended with it For it is nothing but a continuance of the same care which hath beene euer obserued in the Church of God for preseruing of the Catholique fayth and integrity of life from the corruption of Haeretiques and other wicked men who by bookes bring great preiudice both to Faith and manners vnlesse special care be vsed for praeuenting thereof Of the necessity and iustnes of which course there be whole books written by diuers learned Catholique Doctors neyther can any body dislike thereof but onely Haeretiques who indeede find themselues mightily aggreiued therewith as being by this course depriued of a chiefe meanes of spreading their wicked doctrine by books though indeede they haue noe more cause to complaine then Necromancers Iudiciary Astrologers Southsayers Witches Magicians and euen bad Catholiques who publish naughty and lasciuious books for this care of the Church doth extend to all whatsoeuer may be offensiue or hurtfull eyther to faith or good manners 18. But because Sir Humphrey will needs haue it that the bible is also forbidden and the Father's writings appointed to bee corrected and rased I answeare that for the Bible indeede it is not permitted in the vulgar language to euery body without any reguard or distinction of persons as it neuer was nor ought to bee as is well proued by authority of Fathers and reason in the preface of the Rhemes testament But yet it is not soe forbidden but that it
Gentiles doe Doth not this answeare you Sir Humphrey Doe you not heere find a difference betweene that worshipp and ours betweene idolatry and religion betweene their adoring the creature of wood and colour in place of the creator and our adoring the creator represented by the creature betweene their adoration of idolatrous damned Philosophers and our worshipp of the blessed Saints and Seruants of God liuing with him in glory This is too too grosse for such a subtile knight as you are Now for proofe of your doctrine by Succession from the 2. commandement it is ridiculous to call it Succession though you tooke the place of scripture in the true sense as you doe not For how doth your doctrine succeede the commandement a man may proue his doctrine out of scripture but not deriue the Succession thereof out of that proofe For this Commandment it is neither the second but an explication of the first nor is it truely translated for there is not the word Image in that place of scripture 9. A fift point is Communion in one kind which hee saith wee haue from the Manichees and from the Nazarites who it is not like as Bellarmine saith did drinke of the Chalice against their Vow nor yet like that they did wholy abstaine from the Communion Out of which hee gathereth that they did communicate in one kinde onely And heere saith the Knight is their best Succession from Haeretiques and an vncertaine example of the Nazarites Whereas his doctrine he saith is taught by Christ himself Drinke yee all of this This is the Knight's discourse But to answeare him I say that before euer there was Manichee in the world the B. Sacrament was administred sometymes in one kind sometymes in both The Manichees abstained indeede from receiuing the chalice out of one haeretical principle as now our Haeretiques stand to haue it for another like principle against which as in that tyme the Church forbad the vse of one kind soe now it forbiddeth the vse of both kinds and may againe giue way when it shall seeme conuenient for the vse of both kinds the doctrine euer remayning the same as vpon another occasion I said before For that word of our Sauiour Drinke yee all of this from whence the Knight draweth the Succession of his doctrine it was spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests not to the Layity Of which I shall haue occasion to speake againe afterwards 10. But to come to an end of this matter the Knight draweth our inuocation of Saints and Angels from the Angelici our Works of Supererogation from the Cathari our Worship of the B. Virgin from the Collyridians our Forbidding Priests to marry from Tatianus and the Manichees who he saith Forbad it in their Priests Putting downe the Latine words in Sacerdotibus As if those special words were in S. Epiphanius whom hee citeth But this serueth for nothing V. Gual chron but to shew the man's shamelesnesse more and more For the Angelici they were Heretiques swaruing from the rule of the Catholique faith by excesse that is honouring Angels more then their dew or more then creatures as Heretiques of these tyme doe by defect that is not honouring them soe much as is dew nor as creatures specially honoured imployed by God for the good of mankind The Cathari or Puritans as he interpreteth the word himself a man would thinke should belong more to him that is either a Puritane or a Brother or at least a Reformer then to vs Catholiques But the Cathari were Noâ—atians who out of pride and self conceit as if they were more cleane and holy did condemne Catholiques for admitting men to pennance though they sinned neuer soe often soe grieuously whereas they Saints forsooth if a man did for feare deny his faith they would haue nothing to doe with him any more Now what is in this like our works of Supererogation that is works which a man is not bound vnto The Collyridians exceeded the measure of honour dew to our B. Lady for they did offer sacrifice vnto her as the Antidico Marianitae did erre contrarily denying her dew honour whom the Knight did forbeare to name lest he might seeme to name his owne sect Now Catholiques goe in the midle they doe not offer sacrifice vnto her that honour being dew to God alone but they giue her all the honour that can belong to a pure creature Tatianus and the Manichees disallowed all marriage but that they did disallow it specially in Priests I doe not find in Epiphanius as the Knight would make men beleeue by putting the words in Sacerdotibus in Latine and in a distinct letter Though indeede it be lesse allowable in Priests then in other men 11. It being then soe that of these haeresies which heere the Knight reckoneth whereof he would make vs guilty there is not one of them that any way coÌ„cerneth vs but rather as a man might easily proue that he his Church are guilty of almost all of them how vainely and fondly doth hee conclude this Section by saying these and the like errours taught in the church of Rome are either lineally descended from the aforesaid Haeretiques or at least haue neere affinity with them how vaine I say and fond is this saying of his how neere they come any man may iudge by what I haue heere said as also of the linealnes of the discent of our Doctrines from former Haeretiques or of his from the Apostles For whereas the line should be drawne along by a continued Succession from the beginning to the end hee nameth sometymes one onely man or tyme for the whole 1500. yeares sometymes not soe much as one man but onely a bare place of scripture corrupted or misinterpreted Which what Succession it may make let any indifferent man be iudge Wherein it seemeth the very guiltines of his owne conscience doth make him misdoubt a little that he hath not sufficiently performed his promise as may bee gathered out of these words of his If I haue failed in calculating the right natiuity of their ancient doctrine c. but for all that he saith he is sure that wee are vtterly destitute of a right Succession in person and Doctrine from the Apostles and ancient Fathers as hee saith shall appeare by many testimonies of the best learned among vs. But the knight hath soe ill performed his promises past that hee cannot looke any man should giue him credit for those that are to come And for that which hee is sure of that we haue noe Succession in person and doctrine that is soe false and soe apparantly false as that it is not to bee doubted but he that shall auerre it will make noe scruple of any lye how lowd soeuer For doe not our catalogues of Popes sold and printed in London testify the contrary for Succession in person what clearer testimony can there be in the world of personal Succession then to haue two hundred and odd
Ghospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of the Church then the bare words of scripture and proueth it by this that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and vse of the Church noe man can be able to proue that any Priest now in these tymes doth consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Masse that is Masse in these tymes Not saith hee that this matter is now doubtfull but that the certainty thereof is had not soe much out of the words of the Ghospel as of the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of soe long tyme which they haue left to posterity For saith hee againe though Christ of bread made his body and of wine his bloud it doth not follow by force of any woord there sett downe that wee as often as wee shal attempt any such thing shall doe it which vnlesse it bee soe said we cannot hee certaine thereof These are his very words where you see how together he deliuereth two points of Catholique doctrine the one of the real presence the other of tradition for vnderstanding of the Scriptures Neither doth he say that the reall presence in our Masse now a dayes is not proued out of Scripture but not out of it alone without the interpretatioÌ„ of the Fathers which wee acknowledge generally necessary in the exposition of Scriptures neither doe you therefore rightly argue the real presence is not proued soe much out of the bare words of Scripture as out of the interpretation of Fathers and Tradition of the Church ergo not out of scripture This I say is an idle argument For the Father's interpretation Tradition of the Church Doth but deliuer vs the sense of the Scripture 17. What then haue you heere out of Bishop Fisher to proue any of your 4. points not one word For if his words did proue any thing they should proue against the real presence not against transubstantiation which is your coÌ„trouersy And for those other words which you bring out of this same holy Bishop and Martyr for a conclusion thus non potest igitur per vllam Scripturam probari it cannot bee proued by any scripture they discouer your dishonesty most of all For by breaking of the sentence there you would make your Reader beleeue they had relation to the words next before by you cited as if the Bishop did say that it could not bee proued by any scripture that Christ is really present in our Masse whereas there is a whole leafe betweene these two places but the onely bare recital of the Bishops words shall serue for a coÌ„futation which are these Non potest igitur per vllam ScripturaÌ„ probari quod aut Laicus aut Sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguineÌ„ atque Christus ipse confecit quum necâ—stud in scripturis contineatur It cannot therefore bee proued by any Scripture that either Lay man or Priest as often as hee shall goe about that busynes shall in like manner of bread and wine make the body and bloud of Christ as Christ himselfe did seeing that neither that is contained in Scriptures By which it is plaine that his drift is onely to proue that there is noe expresse words in scripture whereby it is promised that either Priest or Lay man shall haue power to coÌ„secrate that though Christ did himself coÌ„secrate coÌ„manded his Apostles soe to doe in remeÌ„brance of him that yet he did not adde any expresse promise that the same effect should alwaies follow wheÌ„soeuer any man should offer to consecrate Which is not against vs. For we gather that power to pertaine to the Apostles Successors in Priesthood out of the words Concil Trid. Sess 22. q. 1. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem not barely but as they haue beene euer vnderstood by the Church which is so farre from being against vs that wee might rather vrge it against you vpon the same occasion that Bishop Fisher doth to wit for proofe of the necessity of traditions and authority of the Church for vnderstanding of scriptures And soe by this it is manifest how much you haue abused this holy Bishop's meaning as you doe other two Bishops that follow 18. The one is Gul. Durandus Bishop of Maunde out of whom it seemeth you would proue the words This is my body not to bee of the essence of this Sacrament For what els you would haue with him I see not but specially because hauing cited him thus in English Christ blessed the bread by his heauenly benediction and by vertue of that word the bread was turned vnto the substance of Christ's body Then you putt these words in Latine tunc confecit cum benedixit them he made it when hee blessed it Whereby you seeme to put the force of this testimony in those words as if by them you would proue out of Durandus that Christ did not consecrate by the words this is my body but by that blessing But Durand himself shall disproue you Sir Knight For thus he saith Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua conuertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM He blessed it by the heauenly blessing and power of the word by which the bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ Durand rat cap. 41. n. 14. to wit THIS IS MY BODY Hoc est corpus meum Which last words I would gladly know Sir Humphrey why you cut of but I neede not aske for any man may see it was because you would not haue that powerful benediction whereof this authors speaketh to consist in those sacred words but Durand both in this very senteÌ„ce and often in the same place attributeth most plainely that power to those very words not to any other blessing as may appeare in that he saith that wee doe blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis By that power which Christ hath giuen to the words 19. Odo Caemeracensis is the other Bishop that followeth whom for the same purpose you cite and as much to the purpose his words are these as you bring them Christ blessed the bread and then made that his body which was first bread and soe by blessing it became flesh for otherwise hee would not haue said after he had blessed it this is my body vnlesse by blessing it he had made it his body Which words you putt in the margent in Latine imperfectly and translate euen them corruptly Benedixit suum corpus You translate Christ blessed bread qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro which in true English is thus That which was bread before by blessing is made flesh You translate otherwise as may appeare by your words though I see not to what end you should soe
seuerall places you offend in another kind For whereas the Councel saith that though Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrament in both kinds and soe giue it to his Apostles you leaue out that of the last supper and that of the Apostles both which were putt downe there for very good reasons and to our purpose That determining of the tyme of the last supper leaueth it free for vs to thinke that Christ might at some other tyme after his resurrection communicate some of his Disciples in one kind as some Fathers thinke he did his two Disciples at Emmaus or at least thereby did foreshew the lawfulnes of Communion in one kind as Suarez sheweth out of S. Aug. and others Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 71 sect 1. That word of the Apostles is likewise put downe to shew that that particular fact of Christ and command did pertaine onely to the Apostles who were then ordained Priests and in them to such as should succeede them in that office whereas you by leauing out that word would faine haue it seeme as if that of both kinds did pertaine to all Thus much then for the Councel of Trent 7. Now lett vs heare what you say against this Communion in one kind First obseruing your strange folly in saying that one that shall heare two Councels one accursing another condemning for Haeretiques such as shall deny the lawfulnes of one kind would gladly know the reasons whereas you your self note in the margent a treatise of Gersons against the haeresy of the Lay communion in both kinds acknowledging that he shewes the causes For if he shew cause why doe you call for 〈◊〉 as if there were none giuen if he doe not why doe you say he doth But to lett that passe with the rest of your non sequiturs You bring the two places of scripture before cited Drinke yee all of this and doe this in remembrance of mee Which places you may see answeared in Bellarmine with all the enforcement and vrging that Luther Caluin Kemnitius Melancthon Bell. de Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. Brentius and all the rable of them can bring The answeare in a word is this that the former words were spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests as appeareth more plainely by S. Marke who sheweth all which our Sauiour meant of Mar. 14.23 when he said Drink yee all of this For saith S. Marke and they did drinke all thereof The later words import onely the distribution in one kind being spoken as appeareth by S. Luke immediatly after the consecration of the bread Luc. 22 19. before the consecration of the Chalice And though they should haue beene spoken after both How will you proue to which action of our Sauiours for he did more then one at that tyme that pronowne Hoc had relation or which it did demonstrate The sense therefore and explication thereof is to be taken from the Fathers and Church who vnderstand noe such precept in those words as is the giuing of both kinds 8. Another argument of yours is the practise of the Primitiue Church for which you bring ten or eleuen authors which needed nâ—t For we would haue granted you that without all that labour but what proueâ—â— out that that all must doe soe now You must first proue it a practize grounded vpon some diuine praecept indispensable or els it followeth not but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practize in the vse and administration of the Sacraments as it was to change the Sabboth into the Sunday though the obseruing of the Sabboth were a diuine praecept Nay you must proue that it was general soe as none did or might doe otherwise but that you caÌ„not doe For Bellarmine euen in the place heere cited by you teacheth that euen then all did not receiue in both kinds and heere by the way I note two things One is that whereas Bell. in the place heere cited saith he proued before that all did not receiue in both kinds that of the prouing you leaue out putteing a little line which might giue a man some notice of something wanting which yet is a litle better dealing then commonly you vse though not soe good as you promised vs at first Another that whereas Bell. bringeth six maine reasons deduced out of scriptures partly out of the figures of the old testament and partly out of the doctrine and examples of our Sauiour and his Apostles in the new and in one of those reasons which is deduced out of the practize of the Primitiue Church he bringeth six seueral rites or practices which our aduersaryes cannot deny euidently conuincing the frequent vse of one kind you in your 7. Sect. heere before bring but one coniectural place which I there promised to answeare as if Bellarmine had noe more nor noe better proofs euen which coniecture you neither doe nor can impugne For it is grounded vpon two places of scripture thus Bellarmine saith it is a probable coniecture that the Nazarites among the first Christians in Hierusalem did communicate in one kind Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. He proueth it thus one scripture saith of these first Christians in Hierusalem that they were all perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles and breaking of bread which is the receiuing of the Eucharist as all agree Among these there were many Nazarites as it is most probable for there were many continually among the Iewes Which being soe there was another scripture that did forbid a Nazarite to drinke wine or euen eate a grape raisin or soe much as the stone it was not like then that they did receiue in both kinds For either they must make the former scripture false if they did not communicate at all or they must breake the command of the later by communicating in both kinds This Bellarmine doth not say is a conuincing proofe for such he hath a great many others but onely probable and such noe man can deny it to bee Why then should you stand geering at it without once saying what is false or improbable 9. Touching the rest of your authors which you bring for proofe that it was the common practise of the Primitiue church for the Layty to communicate in both kinds I allow of their authority they affirming onely that it was the practise not any command But for as much as you bring one authority to proue the more conueniency of Communion in both kinds quite contrary to the author's meaning I meane heere to haue a saying vnto you for it this author is Ruardus Tapperus whom you cite thus It were more conuenient the communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone for this were more agreeable to the institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and the Fathers of the Primitiue church Râ—ar Tapp 〈◊〉 15. the Latine being thus habito respectu ad Sacramentum eiusque perfectionem magis
scripture which they stood vpon he answeareth thus Et etiam si sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset Dialog 2. con Lucifer totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting the consent of the whole world on this side should haue the force of a praecept And soe there is an end of this 5. § Of Prayer and seruice in a knowne tongue §. 6. 1. In this § the Knight speaketh against the practise and doctrine of the Catholique Church in two things One is for vsing the publique seruice in a tongue not knowne to the vulgar people another for saying some part of the Masse with a lowd voyce so as the people cannot heare The practice of which two things though the Knight confound them into one was seuerally and distinctly approued by the Councell of Trent anathema pronounced against whosoeuer should condemne either of them Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Councel's owne authority thinking also euen by it to make good the contrary practise of his Church For saith hee the Councel in saying that the Masse doth containe great instruction of the faithfull people or as he translateth the words of the Councel in the beginning of this § great instruction for the common people And that it is to be interpreted vnto them doth consequently affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the aedification of the Church and this he cōfirmes with an argument of his owne thus And without doubt saith hee the Apostles being cōmanded to shew forth the Lord's death till his coming it was not intended to shew it to the walls or in a silent vnknowne voyce as it is now vsed in the Romane Church but to pronounce it openly to bee heard and vnderstood of the hearers Soe farre our Knight Now to reckon with him 2. Because the Councel of Trent saith that the Masse containeth great instruction of the people and that for that end it is to be interpreted vnto them he saith it consequently affirmes the practize of the reformed Churches to be better for aedificatiō of the Church Doth it soe Sir Humphrey by what Logicke doth this cōsequēce follow or by what figure of Rhethoricke do You take one thing for another the Councel saith that though the Masse containe great instruction yet it doth not follow that it should bee in the vulgar tongue you tell vs the Councel by cōsequence doth affirme it to follow the Councel thinketh it better to retaine the general and long continued practise of the Church of not vsing the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Masse but for instruction of the people to interprete something of what is read you say it approueth the contrary custome of your Church if it had soe had it not beene an easier matter to haue appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue but the Councel knew well that course was not soe fitt neither in respect of the publique good of the Church nor in reguard of the priuate good of the faith-full people for many reasons 3. First for the general practise and custome which hath beene obserued in the Church of God of hauing the Masse and publique office in Latine all ouer the Latine or Westerne Church both in Italy Spaine France Germany England Africke all other places and soe likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent had as much variety of vulgar languages in it as the Latine Church hath Which custome is not to be forsaken especially for Haeretiques out of that their false perswasiō that it is noe good or lawful practice Secōdly for the vniformity which is fit to be vsed in such things and vnity of the Catholique Church which is excellently declared also much maintained by this Vnity of Langage in the Church-office For as lāguage is a thing most necessary for cōmerce amōg men in ciuill matters so also in ecclesiastical and without this vse of Latine in this māner there could not bee that cōmunication betwene men of learning neither would mē of one countrey be the better for the writings of others there would be litle meeting of men of seueral nations in Councels little study of Councels of Fathers others who haue all writtē in Latine or some learned language whereas the vse of the Latine tongue in the Church is the cause of all the contrary effects as we see by experiēce Thirdly the vse of vulgar tongues in the Masse and Church-office would cause not onely great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by soe many seueral translations not onely in seueral countries but by seueral translations in euery countrey of any small extent euen in the same place vpon a litle change of tyme for as we see in euery age the vulgar language reciueth a great alternation of which translations the Church would not be able any way to iudge scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other which therefore for the well trāslating thereof requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost which noe priuate man can promise himselfe Lastly the vse of a vulgar language in such things would breede a great cōtempt of sacred things with prophanes and irreligiosity besids the daunger of haeresy which cometh noe way sooner then by mis-vnderstanding of holy scripture Neither are any more apt to mis-vnderstād it then the simpler sort of people if they once take vpon them to vnderstand These reasons then among others but most of all the tradition of the Church drawne euen from the Apostles by perpetual Successiō and practise might perswade the Councel to thinke that though some benefitt might come to some few particular men by vnderstanding what is written yet it was absolutely better to retaine the same custome still and euen to remedy that inconuenience another way to wit by explaning something of what is read in the Masse which the Councel declareth by a similitude very proper for the purpose to wit by breaking of bread to little ones fort it is euen as necessary for ordinary people to haue the Scriptures soe declared as for children to haue their bread broken and as vnfit to giue such men the Scripture it self whole to reade or to reade it soe vnto them as to giue a little child a whole great loafe Neither if a man marke the Councel of Trent's words well doth it say that the Masse doth containe instruction in that sense as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would bee an instruction but onely that it containeth great instruction that is many things which might be good for the people to learne being explicated which a man might truely say though euen when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be vnderstood without helpe of an expositor how then Sir Humphrey doth the Councel acknowledge your
prouince or country 9. And heere it is to be noted further for answeare of your authorityes in this point Sir Humphrey that whereas some of our authors are of opinion that S. Paul in that 14. Chap. of the 1. to Corinth where he speaketh of prayers in a knowne tongue is to be vnderstood of the publique prayers of the Church that explication is contradicted by most of our other authours and there be many reasons out of the very text and circumstances against it as namely that the men which are heere reprehended for their ostentation of languages are the People not the Priests as appeareth by the whole epistle as I noted heere before § 3. n. 5. vpon another occasion as also because this pertaineth to women also who it seemeth did vse to speake among the rest which S. Paul therefore reprehendeth as an abuse and forbiddeth Thirdly S. Paul speaketh of the infidells coming in and being present at those their meetings and conferences Which therefore could not bee of the Church office and Sacrifice of the Masse to which Infidells were not admitted Wherefore it cannot be of the publique prayers of the Church which belonged onely to Priests to make publiquely for others in the Church But though it were soe and that some doe put themselues to more straits then they neede in interpreting S. Paul of publique prayers yet doth it not auaile you Sir Humphrey For euen those men giue a reason of difference why now it needeth not to wit because now as S. Thomas of Aquine saith People are sufficiently acquainted with the ecclesiastical rites and men know very well what is done by being present and seing though they doe not vnderstand the particular epistles and Ghospels which are seueral according to the Sundayes and holy dayes but the rest of the Masse being the same continually they vnderstād it sufficiently for exercise of their deuotion though not to satisfy the vaine curiosity of such people as you breed vp in the pride of an heretical spirit to beleeue nothing but what they see and contemning whatsoeuer they doe not see or vnderstand our people know sufficiently what the Priest meaneth by turning to them saying Dominus Vobiscum Oremus Orate Fratres and the like I say sufficiently to lift vpp their minds to Almyghty God to ioyne in their harts minds with the Priests in that prayer which he maketh publique for them as well as any learned Clarke that vnderstandeth the English of the words Soe as our authours by you cited helpe you not a whit in this matter 10. But now because you say this prayer in the vulgar tongue was vsed by the praecept of the Apostles and practise of the ancient Fathers I would know of you where this precept is expressed either in scripture or out of scripture in any author of credit I doe not find soe much as any shaddow of a praecept in scripture S. Paul in that epistle to the Corinthians which your men for the most part stand vpon doth not condemne that Prayer in an vnknowne tongue as you doe for he both saith it is good though he preferre the guift of Prophecy before it and also he alloweth the vse of it but wishing withall that some other should interpret it as you see the Councel of Trent wisheth Pastours and Curats to doe of the Masse and mysteries therein contained Where then is the precept commanding a knowne tongue or forbidding an vnknowne tongue and this I say supposing for disputations sake two things which are neither of them soe to wit that S. Paul there speaketh of publique prayer of the Church-office and that the Latine Greeke or Hebrew tongues are rightly called vnknowne tongues or any way comprehended vnder that appellation in S. Paul 11. Now for the practice of the Fathers which you speake of but name none I would gladly know Sir Humphrey what Father you haue whose authority or example you can bring for your selfe in this matter name him if you can We shew you Fathers and learned men of many seuerall nations and of different tymes vsing the Scriptures onely in some one of these 3. holy languages For example Italians Spaniards French German English Polish Africans and others vsing the Latine and diuers ancient Fathers of seueral countries as S. Cyprian S. August in Afrik S. Ambrose in Italy S. Prosper in France Others in other countries citing the very words which we to this day vse in our Masse Duran de ritib. lib 2. cap 31. Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. 16. as Sursum corda Habemus ad Dominum and the like whereof you may see more in our authors And yet being soe destitute of all proofe for your selfe and soe ignorant of ours which we haue in aboundance you can talke soe cōfidently of the praecept of Apostles and practize of Fathers But you will say you bring Lyra Belethus Gretzerus c. to proue what you say Whereto I answeare noe such matter for first they speake not a word of any praecept Secondly some witnesse only the practise of that tyme yet withall giuing the reason why it neede not be soe now others speake nothing that way for example Io. Belethus euen as you cite him saith onely that in the Primitiue Church noe man was to speake in tongues vnlesse some body were to interprete from whence he saith is growne our custome when the Ghospell is read to expound it which is quite against you for he acknowledgeth speaking of languages which you deny and expounding which according to you will not be needfull Others againe speake but doubtfully as S. Thomas of Aquine Dicendum forte saith hee It is to bee said that it may be that in the Primitiue Church Benedictions were vsed in the vulgar language whom yet you make to speake absolutely and certainely Thirdly though some say the prayers of the Church were vsed in a language vnderstood by the people yet noe man saith that that language was any of the ordinary vulgar languages or indeede other then Hebrew Greek or Latine Wherefore all the authors you can bring though you should bring ten for one in this manner will nothing auaile you 12. Now for your citation and translation of such authours as you bring I could find many faults but I passe them ouer onely Bellarmine I cannot lett passe because you abuse him somewhat more grosly for you bring an obiection of his out of one place and an answeare out of another there being noe connexion or correspondence betweene the answeare and obiection as you make it thus It may be obiected say you out of him that in the tyme of the Apostles all the people in diuine seruice did answeare one Amen And this custome continued long in the East and West Churches as appeare c. Which is true but nothing to the present purpose for men may answeare Amen to the publique prayers of the Church without their being in a vulgar language Neither is it the thing
way would you thinke they made you a material God Philo's authority then is not to the purpose 7. For the Iewes now adayes who Sir Edwin Sands saith are auerted from the Christian faith by hauing the Crucifix shewed vnto them I answeare it is noe wonder they that cannot endure Christ how should they endure his crosse S. Paul preached Christ crucified though he were a scandal or stumbling blocke to their ancestours and must we leaue to preach him though their children stumble at the same blocke noe Sir Humphrey we must not cease to preach Christ nor can we preach him without his crosse They goe both together noe man can loue him and hate his crosse nor hate his crosse and loue him Wherefore you in alleadging their hate of the Crosse as an argument why you should also hate the same you tacitely confesse you loue Christ as well as they doe 8. But now for your conclusion which you inferre heerevpon that it is agreed vpon on all sides that the Iewes in the old law for 4000. yeares neuer allowed adoration of images and this say you was concerning the Images of God the Father I see not what premisses you inferre it vpon nor who agreeth with you in it you name fower authours one Catholique one Iew one Magician one Protestant the Protestant to wit Sir Edwin Sands speaketh not of any picture of God the Father as you say you meane but of the Crucifix or image of Christ vpon the crosse the Magician to wit Cornelius Agrippa saith the Iewes did abhorr images but he is noe man to build vpon be it true or false which he saith all is one coming out of such a fellowes mouth The Iew to wit Philo saith that the invisible God is not painted which we graunt as I said before according to his owne nature The Catholique indeede to wit Vazq saith that Images in state of adoration were altogether forbidden but yet granteth the adoration of other things of the same kind as the arke and temple neither doth his opinion auaile you for euen according to it you must confesse that the example of the Iewes in that is noe President for our tymes but besides others say adoration of images was somewhat allowed euen then and they proue their saying by the example of the Cherubins in the Temple which were adored how then is it agreed vpon on both sides but much more I may aske how you come to say the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of images for almost 4000. yeares when as the people of the Iewes were not such a people aboue 2000. yeares V. Bell. in chronolog Moyses liued about the yeare 2403. Christ was borne anno mundi 3984 nay Moyses liued not past 1500. before our Sauiour soe that of your owne liberality and skill in chronology you haue added 2500. yeares to make your doctrine seeme ancient Lastly you doe not marke your owne impertinency and contradiction in all this which you haue said Your contradiction in that you say that this which you haue said is concerning the images of God the Father whereas your authorityes are to the contrary to wit of other images your impertinency in that you stand bringing these things against the Decree of the Councel of Trent which speaketh not of God the Father his pictures but onely of Christ and his Saints pictures against which they make nothing 8. But bethinking your self a little after you say you will descend to see what order was taken by Christ and his Apostles in the new Testament for representation of him and his Saints and all the order that you find taken or that you your self take is to say that this law of the old Testament was moral which though Vazq and other Diuines contradict yet you say Bellarmine is of that opinion Well be it soe let it be moral as you would haue it what are you the better Doth Christ or his Apostles say soe or is this the order that they haue taken if it bee not you are neuer the neerer For it is but a matter of opinion betweene Diuines in the Catholique Church farr from any such authority as you promise By which a man would haue expected some euident cleare place either of the Ghospel or Apostolical writings to proue that Images were not to be adored at all or noe more then in the old law of the Iewes But whereas this was to be expected at your hands you put vs vpon it to bring some example or precept out of the Ghospell for adoration of images but we say that needeth not for as in the old law notwithstanding that command bee it moral or caeremonial men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple the arke in the Temple and the Temple it selfe soe may wee much more in the new adore the pictures of Christ and Saints and this is enough without any new precept or example 9. Moreouer we are not to be vrged to this considering wee teach many things out of vnwritten traditions and therefore there may be some precept and example both of our Sauiour and his Apostles Io. 20.30 21.25 though not written in Scripture because as S. Iohn saith all is not written or rather a very small part is written as his words import Thirdly we say we haue the example of our Sauiour and his Apostles testified both by good authentical histories and the perpetual practize of the Church against which it is insolent madnes to dispute as S. Aug. saith Many great and graue authours make mention of 3. seueral images made miraculously by our B. Sauiour himselfe V. Durant de rit lib. 1. cap 5. Euseb Eua. Procop. Adr. 1. Damasc Const Porphyragenitus â—onar Nicep Pho. Niceph. Call one was that which he sent to Abgarus king of Edessa who had desired to see him which request of his our Sauiour did in some sort satisfy by sending him his picture another was that of Veronica which he made with wiping his face as he was carrying his Crosse and gaue to that deuout woman that tooke soe much pitty of him as to giue him a handkerchife at that tyme to wipe his face all bedewed with bloud and sweate A third was one which Nicodemus gaue to Gamaliel all which are testified not onely by graue and learned authours but I may say euen by God himselfe though not inscripture yet by great and wonderful miracles whereof there can be noe doubt in reguard both of the number and credit of the authours which report them Wee haue the example alsoe of S. Lukes painting our B. Lady which very pictures are kept to this day and authorized likewise by God himself by many and wonderfull miracles Which though you perhapps may make your selfe merry withall with your Ministers yet I hope the iudicious Reader will more reguard the authority of the lest of these authours who are not in number soe few as 20. I meane for ancient authours then the impious scornes of a hundred such yesterday people as
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
wind INDVLGENCES §. 8. 1. Wee are now come to the last § of this chapter which is Indulgences which you Sir Humphrey beginne after your wonted manner with the tenth article of our Creede as you call it and the Decree of the Councel of Trent teaching that Christ hath left that power of granting Indulgences in his Church and that the Church hath vsed the same from most ancient tymes and that therefore they are to be retained in the Church condemning also whosoeuer shall terme them vnprofitable or deny authority in the Church to grant them Which doctrine you allow not of as not being agreable to Christ institution nor the practize of the primitiue Fathers You confesse indeede that in the Primitiue Church there was a power in the Bishops to remit or mitigate the seuerity of the punishment which by the Canons men were to vndergoe for certaine great crimes which mitigation you allow to haue beene called by the name of Indulgence and in that sense you take that relaxation of the incestuous Corithian by S Paul Thus farr you goe well with vs but now you say the Indulgence of the Roman Church is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ his Saints termed the treasure of the Church Which treasure you say is applyed to the soules in Purgatory and that which was formerly vsed for mitigation of punishment is now reduced to priuate satisfaction and that which was formerly left to the discretion of euery Bishop in his Diocesse is transferred wholy to the Pope and this not onely for some few yeares in this life but for many thousāds in Purgatory after death 2. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Which though you seeme to take to be a very good and substantiall one yet is it nothing soe For first it neither proueth any thing nor ouerthroweth our doctrine of Indulgences though that were true which you say of the difference betweene our Indulgence of these tymes and those of the primitiue Church for the vse of those tymes is not our onely ground for this point of doctrine but wee haue others both of scripture tradition vndoubted practice of the Church for aboue a thousand yeares at least and this of the practise of the Primitiue church in relaxation of the punishment of the poenitential canons is not vrged by vs at lest by some of our Diuines as an euidēt conuincing proofe but onely as coniectural and probable Suar. to 3. in 3. pars disp 49 sect 2. n. 4.5 s◠q. it is not then to the purpose for you to stand soe much vrging the difference betweene the Indulgences of our tymes and those of other former tymes as if by doeing that you had done all that was to be done 3. But besides to answeare Secondly you haue not done euen that for you doe but onely make shew as if you would haue men thinke they were different without shewing wherein the difference consisteth Nay euen out of that which you graunt of those ancient Indulgēces you may be disproued in what you deny of ours for to begin with the very word Indulgence you graunt it to haue beene in vse in those tymes But you say ours is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ Which though alleadged as a difference yet doe I not see wherein the difference is For theirs was an absolution because it was an vnloosing or vntying For whereas by the Canons for certaine great crimes men were bound or tyed to vndergoe such penance for example to fast with bread and water soe many dayes in a weeke for soe many moneths or yeares not to be admitted to the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Masse and the like By this indulgence or pardon which you grant they were vntied or loosed from soe much or soe little as by that pardon they were freed from and soe is it in our Indulgence wherefore the difference is not in the absolution which is nothing but loosing or vntying It can not be also in the guilt which must needs be remitted in your indulgēce as well as in ours For a man is not free soe long as he is guilty if then they were freed by that pardon the guilt was taken away thereby It is not likewise in the temporal punishmēt which is alike remitted in the one and other For it was temporal punishment or penance which men were freed from in those tymes by indulgence and soe it is temporal punishment which wee are now adayes freed from by our indulgence Wherefore I doe not vnderstand what you meane Sir Humphrey when you seeme to make a difference in this saying that Indulgences which were first vsed for mitigation of punishments are now reduced to priuate satisfactiōs For what were not those Indulgences giuen to priuate men for satisfaction or in lieu of that satisfaction which they were to make by the Canons and are not ours mitigation of the same vnlesse you put the force in this that there the punishment was onely mitigated or lessened that in our Indulgence all is taken away which yet is false on both sides for neither in ours is all the punishment taken alwayes away and in those sometymes all was taken away as we see by the example of the Corinthian whom S. Paul doth forgiue without limitation besids this I do not imagine what you cā meane in these words 4. The difference also is not in the authority or power whereby this pardon is graunted for then it was granted by the Bishops and soe it is also now For euery Bishop in the Catholique Church hath this power But you will say Humphrey not soe much now as then be it soe that is against your selfe for that is your complaint that it is more vsed now then in those tymes But you say againe the Pope hath more now then he had then and that all is transferred wholy to him To which I answeare that this later part is false all is not soe wholy transferred but that euery Bishop hath his part of this power ouer his owne subiects though with some limitation and though the Pope should take it wholy to himself and from other Bishops what is this against Indulgences doth it alter the nature of them because the Pope giueth them either more by himself or more liberally then he did heeretofore by others The power was in many before now it is in one that one then hath more power then he had before but is it not the same kind of power wherefore the difference cannot consist in this but thinke not Sir that I grant you the Popes power to be more now then at that tyme it was nor lesse then thē now it is It was the same of this power as of all other his power of binding loosing whereof this is one branch which did euer extend ouer the whole Church ouer all pastors and all and euery one of
riffe raffe stuffe as your Ministers are wont to eeke out their books and sermons without being able to shew any bull of Pope or testimony of good author of any Indulgence soe granted which though you or they could yet were is not to the purpose noe more then your prophane iest out of Guiciardin of playing a game at tables for an Indulgence For what suppose that were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their potts haue made soe bold with almighty God himself as to drinke an health vnto him and were not this a fine argument to proue that there is noe God besids Guiciardin's history translated by Coelius Secundus Curio which I suppose you to cite for it is most like you are noe Italian is forbidden in the Romane Index that Curio being an Haeretique of the first classe But passing from your merriments you tell vs seriously that you will not say it was a strange presumption for a Councel to determine an vncertaine Doctrine vpon the Popes infallibility and opinion of Schoolemen but you venture to say it is a weake and senselesse faith that giueth assent to it without authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers Your meaning is by a fine rhetorical figure to say it is presumption by saying you will not say soe but Sir Humphrey I will goe the plaine way to worke with you and tell you it is intolerable presumption for you suppose you were a man of learning to take vpon you to censure of presumption soe great a Councel as that of Trent wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour whereof was so great that your night owle Haeretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited and promised to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish and for such a fellow as you to make your selfe iudge thereof what intolerable presumption is it it is presumption with you forsooth for a Councel to define a point of faith vpon the perpetual and constant beleife and practize of the Catholique Church vpon the common consent of Doctours being both of them sufficient rules of faith of themselues there being withall sufficient testimony of Scripture in the sense which it hath euer beene vnderstood by Catholique interpreters and yet it is not presumption for you without Doctour without Father without Councel without Scripture without any manner of authority to goe against all this authority 13. Now whereas you say it is a senselesse and weake faith that giues assent to doctrine as necessary to be beleeued which wanteth authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answeare you doe not know what you say it sheweth plainely you haue not read one of those Fathers of whom you soe much bragg who all agree that there be many things which men are bound to beleeue vpon vnwritten tradition whose authorities you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. but for consent of Fathers it is true it is requisite because we haue not the tradition but by consent of Fathers but this consent of Fathers is noe more required to bee by their expresse testimonies in writing then in the Scripture it selfe For where doe you find that the holy Fathers did know beleeue or practize noe more but what they did write or that any one did write in particular all the whole beleife of the Catholique Church the Fathers did in their writings as the Apostles did in theirs that is write of this or that particular matter as the particular occasion of answearing some Haeretique or instructing some Catholique did require and therefore mentioned noe more then was needfull for that end But the consent of Fathers is most of all proued by the practize of the Catholique Church of the present tyme seing that practize being without beginning cannot otherwise haue beene but from those that haue gone before from tyme to tyme and though you make a difference yet certainely it is the same of the consent of Catholique Doctours in the present tyme as it was of holy Fathers in former tymes who were the Doctors of those tymes and as they were Fathers not soe properly in respect of those tymes wherein they liued as of succeeding ages soe the Doctors of these tymes are Fathers in respect of those that shall come after them Neither can the consent of Doctors in the Catholique Church more erre in one tyme then another the auctority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwaies the same noe lesse in one tyme then another Tert. de praescr cap. 28. And Tertullian's rule hauing still place as well in one age as another to wit Quod apud multos vnum inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is the same amongst many is noe error but a tradition The common consent therefore of Doctors and particular Churches is alwaies a sufficient argument of tradition and antiquity and consequently a sufficient ground for a Councel to define a matter of faith against whatsoeuer nouel fancy of any Haeretique that shall take vpon him to controll the same This I doe not say that wee want sufficient proofe of antiquity for any point but to shew that we neede it not soe expresse in ancient authors but that the very practize of the Catholique Church is sufficient to stopp the mouth of any contentious Haeretique noe lesse then in ancient tymes when that proofe of foregoing Writers could haue noe place For soe S. Paul thought he answeared sufficiently for defence of himself and offence of his contentious enemy 1. Cor. 11. when he said Si quis videtur contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei If any man seeme to be contentious we haue noe such custome nor the Church of God And soe much more may we now say of our long continued customes of many hundreds of yeares Wherefore your exception Sir Humphrey against the Councel of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences without such testimony of scripture antiquity as you require is vaine as that is also false which you heere againe repeate that an article of faith cannot be warrantable without authority of scriptures For faith is more anciēt then Scripture for to say nothing of the tymes before Christ faith was taught by Christ himself without writing as also by his Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written and soe it hath beene euer the common consent of all holy and learned men that as noe lesse credit was to be giuen to the Apostolical preaching then Writing soe noe lesse creditt is still to be giuen to their words deliuered vs by tradition then by their writings the credit and sense euen of their writings depending vpon the same tradition among whom the cleane contrary principle is as certaine and vndoubted as this of yours is with you
you see his meaning to be absolutely to condemne idol-worship and approue image-worship Neither doth your noting of the greeke word in the margent in proofe that S. Peter speaketh of idol-worship auaile you For Val. speaketh onely of the Latine word which is more indifferent and in some authors signifieth the same that imago and euen the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be now by the vse of Fathers Councels and Doctours determined to signify an empty or vaine image of a thing which is not according to that of S. Paul idolum nihil est in mundo an idol is nothing in the world Cor. 7.4 yet if a man respect the primitiue signification or etymology it might perhaps be taken more indifferently for it cometh from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth species or forma the seeming shape or beauty of a thing or person but it is true that in the signification of words we must follow the ecclesiastical rule Neither doe I allow Valencia his vse of the word Simulachrum and explication of S. Peter's text or euen his argument drawne from thence though the point of doctrine which he defends be true to wit image-worship But this is to shew you how he might vse the word harmelesly especially declaring himselfe plainely by other words though for you to stād trifling cōtēding about words when you see his meaning is a signe of your want of matter But heere by the way I cannot but note how to vrge the matter more against Valentia you runne your selfe vpon the rockes for you obserue that the word vsed by Saint Peter in that place signifieth idol-worship not image-worship Wherein you seeme plainely to confesse that image-worship and idol-worship and consequently an image and an idol are not all one Whereby as you thinke to aduantage you self in this place against the Iesuit soe you doe not marke that herein you contradict your selfe and the whole currant of your owne Doctors whose chiefe argumēts against images are certaine places of Scriptures against idols which you also bring before For if an image an idol be not all one then are all your arguments nothing worth or if they be then is Valentia's argumēt good choose which you will And therefore if you cast vpp your counts aright you will find you haue lost more then you haue gained by this citation of Valencia 15. A fift point of vncertainty you deliuer in these words Concerning the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist it is most euident saith Bellarmine but cōcerning the rest of the Sacramēts it is not soe certaine And out of Canus you say the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that they doe not resolue whether it giueth grace or noe thus you Sir Humphrey to which I answeare that for the place of Bellarm. you are conuinced before of manifest corruption For whereas Bellarm. saith it is certaine Cap. 9. §. 4. in fine but not soe manifest you leaue out not manifest and change certaine into not certaine besids what is that which Bellarmine saith is not manifest but certaine that these two are Sacraments the rest not noe such matter Sir Knight it is their signification which he speaketh of yet not their signification of grace which they cause but their signifying of the passion of Christ which is the beginning and aeternal life which is the end of the grace giuen by the Sacraments this signification he saith is certaine but not so euident in the rest of the Sacraments For Canus you corrupt him as fowly also For first you ioyne two seueral places together as if they were but one in Canus himself then make him say that the Diuines doe not resolue whether it that is Matrimony giues grace or noe which is most flatly false For as I shewed before he granteth it with all Diuines to be properly a Sacrament his two places seuerally are thus the Diuines speake soe diuersly of the matter forme of Matrimony that it were folly for a man to resolue any thing certaine this is one whereof I spake more before shewed that his meaning is not to say that it is not certaine whither it be a Sacrament or not or whither it haue a matter and forme Cap. 9. §. 4. for that I shewed to be most certaine and by most expresse words of his owne but that noe man can say determinately which is the matter and which the forme Which as Bellarmine saith well is not soe necessary for vs to know but that without it we may and ought to acknowledge a true Sacrament it is enough to know what is requisite for celebrating a true Sacrament and what those things are without which it is not a Sacrament though we doe not know which of those things is the matter which the forme For exāple if a Priest in baptisme vse true water and the right words he doth administer a true Sacramēt though he should not know which is the matter and which the forme nay though he should thinke the words to be the matter and water the forme though the cleane contrary be truth The other place of Canus is that he saith that Matrimony contracted without a Priest is noe Sacrament because in his opinion the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme and of that kind of Matrimony he consequently denieth it to giue grace but of Matrimony absolutely and as it is vsed in the Catholique church he neuer made doubt See before his words 16. The last matter of vncertainty is of our traditions which you say you are vncertaine whereas the Scripture is written to giue vs certainty For this saying you alleadge noe Catholique truely nor falsly and therefore it is not to be counted of being soe manifestly false For whence haue we the certainty of the very Scriptures themselues but by tradition and much more of the sense and meaning of the Scriptures Besids as I haue often said and shewed this your prime principle is not onely false but contrary to expresse Scripture and contrary to the common consent of all Fathers which the Reader may see in whole treatises written heereof Wherefore to come to an end of this your Section of certainty we find nothing in matter of faith vncertaine in the Catholique church nothing certaine on your side but onely that you are alwaies and euery where Sir Humphrey Linde Of the 11. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 11. The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the greater Safety comfort and benefit of the Soule in the Protestant faith then in the Romish CHAPTER XI 1. FROM certainty you come to Safety whereof you needed not haue made soe distinct mention and proofe it following necessarily and manifestly that that faith which is most certaine in it selfe is also most safe for men to follow as also it cannot be Safe without certainty Wherefore as you were not able to proue it certaine in your former
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
that suppose he doe know thē to be good yet they haue not that goodnes from him or as they are his but as they are from almighty God and by his grace And yet more we teach that he may fall againe and loose all his labour which doth exceedingly diminish confidence of a man's selfe soe as we leaue nothing for a man to trust to of himselfe but that he must giue all to God as S. Paul did in saying 1. Cor. 15.10 non ego sed gratia Dei mecum not I but the grace of God with mee qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur That he that doth glory may glory in God and to shew that we haue nothing of our selues we say againe with the same Saint quid habes quod non accepisti What hast thou which thou hast not receiued Now on the other side examine you your owne doctrine a little better and see whither it doth not teach the contrary vaine cōfidence in most of these points as that a man must assure himself that his sinnes are forgiuen that he must assure himself of his saluation that he cannot fall from grace and the like Which ground supposed how can he worke his saluation with feare trembling as S. Peter teacheth And soe we haue answeared 3. points of Safety which you begin withall out of your owne inuention Now you come to other points of Safety which you proue by authority of other men 5. The first of these and fourth in order is Communion in both kinds which you say is better then in one kinde alone you proue it out of Cassander Vazq Hales and Valencia I answeare that for Cassander you know he is noe author to be alleadged against a Catholique For Vazq it seemeth you are not so well skilled in him as to cite him out of his owne works but out of the frēch Minister Chamier who is another great mā with you But for the matter it is true some few Catholiques as Vazq Hales p. 4. q. 11. m. 2. ar 4. § 3. for Valencia I shall tell you more anone are of opiniō that it is of greater merit and fruit to receiue in both kinds then in one But I aske you why it should be more safe to follow those two then 10. 20. 30. or 40. Other Diuines to the cōtrary For my part I doe not see any reason for it if you waigh the matter by reason or by number and authority of Doctors Secondly neither of these two doth acknowledge any danger in our practice of one kind but allow it for good and lawfull For soe saith Hales quia Christus integrè sumitur sub vtraque specie bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum sicut fere vbique fit a laicis in ecclesia Because Christ is receiued entirely vnder each kind it is very lawful to receiue the body of Christ vnder the kind of bread onely as it is vsed almost euery where by the Layity in the Church And Vazq employeth a whole disputation in the proofe of the same Truth out of Scripture and tradition shewing withall that the Latine Church did with very good reason forbid Communion in both kinds and soluing all the arguments of the Haeretiques against it Soe as he acknowledgeth not your doctrine to be either safe or the same with his but a cleane different haeresy For his is a Schoole opinion not of the safety but of the fruitfulnes of Communion in One or both kinds Yours is an haeresy denying the sufficiency of one kind and vrging both as a matter of necessity for the integrity of the Sacrament and fulfilling of Christ's praecept and denying also the authority of the Church for dispensing therein And though in speculation Vazq rather allow both kinds to be more fruitfull yet all circumstances considered he deemeth Communion in one kind absolutely better for many great reasons pertayning to the reuerence of the Sacrament and common good which doe not onely counteruaile but farre surpasse the want of that fruit which is giuen more by the other kind all necessary grace being giuen by one alone as he teacheth And for Hales besids that he holdeth it very lawfull to communicate in one kind onely which is directly against you I thinke a man that would goe about it might easily puzle you out of him euen for soe much as pertaineth to the perfection of the spiritual fruit p. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar 1. For thus he saith to that which is said that he that receiueth vnder the forme of bread onely receiueth the Sacrament perfectly and entirely I answeare that this Sacramēt is receiued two wayes spiritually and sacramētaly Wherefore I say that quantum ad spiritualē sumptionē perfectè accipit for as much as pertaineth to the spiritual receiuing he receiueth it perfectly but not so for the Sacramētal receiuing Now this perfection of a Sacrament he explicateth before to consist in the representation which saith he is not soe perfect in one kind as both Which we also grant though we say the fruit to be the same in One and both kinds See Sir Humphrey how you can get out of this brake Now for Valencia your third author whom you cite in the margent saying that he affirmeth the same to wit with Hales and Vazq let any man see whether you doe not play him a Lindy-tricke For these are his words in the very same chapter by you cited Val de leg vs. Euchar. cap. 6. Hoc sacramentum tam est per se fructuosum efficax in altera specie quam in vtraque specie This sacrament is of it selfe as fruitfull and effectual in one kind as in both and soe your doctrine in this point is as safe and comfortable as your citation of this author is true 6. The fift of your safe and profitable points is of your communion of Priest and people together the safety you proue not by any thing but your owne bare word For the profitablenes of the Sacrifice indeede you proue it is more when the people communicate with the Priest out of the Councel of Trent Harding and Bellarmine but Sir that is not the controuersy between you and v◠but this whether the Priest may not say Masse vnlesse he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether it be more profitablenes for the Priest that he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether the Sacrifice be lesse perfect in it selfe in that case or not Of this you say not a word as neither doe your authors which you bring for they speake onely of the fruit which would redound to the people which we grant to be greater when they communicate with the Priest then when not But of the forme or matter of controuersy they all determine absolutely against you their whole drift in those places being none other but to disproue you as may easily appeare to any man that will looke in them and I haue partly shewed before