sense for aske any schoole-boy whether cùm with the subiunctiue and indicatiue moode be all one the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine alleadgeth thus Seing saith he it is euident as Saint Hiero. speaketh that hee was noe man of the Church these being Saint Hierom's very words heere then you see againe that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reiect Tertullian nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him but almost all the Fathers Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many Vinc. Lerin cap. 24. Hilar. in comment in Math. cap. 5. and Saint Hilarius saith there that Tertullian's later errours did detract a great deale of authority from his approued writings Soe then it is noe wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers And soe you may say that S. Hierome Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reiect and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine 12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you say that if you cite him Canus makes answeare Hierome is noe rule of faith Can. de locis lib. 2. cap. 11. but you tell vs not where or vpon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome noe more then you doe the three former Fathers though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of which is the Canon of Scripture you haue Saint Hierome a little more fore you in shew then in any thing els or more then you haue any other of the Fathers yet I dare say you wil be loath to stand to his iudgment euen in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament according to the Canon of the Iewes which you also follow if a man should vrge you with S. Hieromes authority euen in this point I beleeue you would say the same or more then Canus doth to wit that he is noe rule of faith for S. Hierosme alloweth the booke of Iudith to be canonical Scripture Proef. in Iudith though it bee not in the Iewes canon which yet you reiect and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle à plaerisque reijcitur it is reiected by most Descript eccles Verb. Petrus Apost wherein yet you doe not follow him this is for the matter Now for the words you doe not cite Canus right for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is noe rule of faith though that be true as I shall shew presently but thus hauing alleadged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus For neither is it true saith Canus that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in determining the canonical books Which is most true S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church but the Church is his rule Hier. praef in Iudith as appeareth in that he reckoneth Iudith among the Canonical books vpon the authority of the Church Neither is it all one to say S. Hierome is noe rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture which not and to say he is noe rule of faith Besides if Canus had said S. Hierome is noe rule of faith he had said most true and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome and speaking euen of his writings thus Aug. ep 19 Solis eis scripturarū libris c. I haue learned to giue that feare and honour to those onely bookes of scripture which are now called canonical as to beleeue most firmely that noe author or writer of them hath erred any thing in writing but others I reade soe that though they excell neuer soe much in any holinesse learning I doe not therefore thinke it true because they thought soe but because they haue beene able to perswade either by those canonical authors or by probable reason that they say true and there he goeth on specifying euen S. Hierome himselfe and saying vnto him that he presumeth he would not haue him soe wholy approue of his writings as to thinke there is no error at all in them The like he hath in another place shewing plainely that any priuate Doctor may erre Lib. 2. de Bap. cont Donat. cap. 3 and consequently can be noe rule of faith Yet for all that the authority of any such is very great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others or is not by them gaine said For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradition and beleife of the Church which is a sufficient rule Is this then to reiect and elude the Fathers to say that one is noe rule of faith if it be then doth S. Aug. reiect and elude them it is plaine therefore you doe but cauill for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth 13. After S. Hierome you come to Iustin Irenaeus Epiphanius and Oecumenius whom say you if you cite Bellarmine answeares I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from errour Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6 Heere againe as else where you forbeare to tell vs the matter for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them For this would haue discouered your falshood and vanity The matter then is concerning the damned spirits whether they suffer anie punishment for the present tyme before the day of iudgment or not these fathers thinke not the common consent of all other fathers and of the whole Catholique Church is against them in it How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error but I pray you Sir Humphrey bethinke your selfe well and tell vs againe whether this be any point controuerted betweene you and vs I know it is a thing which you might better maintaine then most or perhaps any one point of your faith hauing these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein but yet I doe not find by your 39. articles or any other sufficient authority that you hold that error much lesse as a chiefe point of your faith Wherefore it is false that you say when you cite these Fathers For you doe not cite them neither is their errour in a matter of controuersy betweene vs I note heere also in a word that whereas Bellarmine saith onely he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of Iustin Irenaeus c. from errour you make him say the opinion of these men as if he did speake but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong For though he doe not in all things and alwaies approue the opinion of euery particular man yet doth he allwaies speake with great reuerence of the holy Fathers as all Catholiques doe 14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Salmeron the Iesuit makes answeare weake is the place which is
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
the words the presence of Christ depēding vpon their efficacy which they haue by the institution of Christ as they are the forme of this Sacrament which might bee separated frō the signification though de facto it be not Caiet in com 3. p. q. 75. a. 1. And soe Caietane though hee thinke not the bare signification of the words without the authority of the Church sufficient to proue the presence of Christ's body in the Sacramēt yet he doubteth not to affirme with the Councell of Florence alleadging the very words thereof quod ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi substantia vini in sanguinem conuertuntur That by the power of the very words the substance of the Bread is turned into the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into his bloud Soe as Caietan is nothing for you but very much against you 14. But yet you goe on confidently telling vs that you will produce Cardinals Bishops and Schoolemen to testify that there are noe words in scripture to proue transubstantiation Secondly that those words This is my Body are not of the essence of the Sacrament Thirdly that the ancient Fathers did not beleeue the substance of the Sacramental bread to bee conuerted into Christ's real flesh Fourthly that transubstantiation was not beleeued de fide aboue 1000. yeares after Christ Which fower points how well you proue I must now see Sir Humphrey First noting by the way that though you sett them downe seuerally as if you meant to proue them in order one after another bringing one Cardinal one Bishop and one Schooleman at least for euery one yet you neither obserue order nor soe alleadge authors as shall appeare Though for the first of your 4. points you neede not many authors if you adde the word expresly thus that there bee no words in scripture to proue transubstantiation expresly Which word if you putt in your proposition may passe for true if not it is false and without author For though all Catholiques saue onely Caietan agree that the words of consecration of themselues proue the reality of Christ's presence yet all doe not soe agree that of themselues they proue Transubstantiation For some thinke they might bee verified though the substance of bread should remaine together with Christ's body Yet all agree that out of the words as they are vnderstood by the Church transubstantiation is also proued You might therefore haue spared Gabriel's authority which you beginne with in these words How the body of Christ is in the Sacrament is not expressed in the canon of the bible Which I would haue spared also but because I meane to lay open your falshood in alleadging the same by halfes Cab. lect 40. For thus hee saith Notandum quod quamuis expresse tradatur in scriptura quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur a fidelibus sumitur tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi an per conuersionem alicuius in ipsum an sine conuersione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non inuenitur It is to be noted that though it bee expresly deliuered in Scripture that the body of Christ is truely contained vnder the species of bread and receiued by the faithfull yet is it not soe expressed how the body of Christ is there whither by conuersion of any thing into it or whither it beginneth to bee there without conuersion or turning the substance and accidents of bread remayning In which saying of Gabriels as you left out the former part because it made clearely against you soe you might also haue left out the later as making nothing against vs as is euident of it selfe without farther declaration 15. Your next author is Cardinal de Aliaco who you tell vs thinketh it possible that the bread might remayne with Christ's body and that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue Whereto I answeare what then what is this to your purpose if you were a Lutheran you might haue a little colour but seing you are a Caluinist or Protestant or some such I know not what it maketh nothing at all for you not euen in shew But bee you Caluinist Protestant Lutheran or what you will it maketh not for you Suppose that may be possible more easy c. What is that to our purpose that is not matter of faith for Faith doth not stand teaching metaphysicall possibilityes or impossibilityes what may bee or not bee but what is or is not and which is chiefly to bee considered though this author thinke that way more possible and more easy to be conceiued according to humane capacity yet euen heerein hee preferreth the iudgment of the Church before his owne as his very words by you cited doe testify For he saith that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue if it could accord which the determination of the Church But what is this authority to you Sir Humphrey Which of your 4. points doth it proue Doth it say that transubstantiation is not proued out of Scripture or that the words THIS IS MY BODY is not of the essence of the Sacrament and soe of the rest not a word of all these By which it is plaine you onely looke to say somewhat but care not what 16. After this Cardinal you bring Bishop Fisher whom you might better haue called Cardinal Fisher then some others whom in this booke you call Cardinals For he was created Cardinal indeede though hee had the happines to receiue the Lawrel and purple Robes of Martyrdome in heauen before he could come to receiue the honour of his capp and Scarlet robes of his Cardinalship heere on earth But you say out of him that there bee noe words written whereby it may be proued that in the Masse is made the very presence of the body bloud of Christ You cite him in English and though in the margent you put the Latine a little more truly whereas you say in the English in the Masse the Latine is in nostra Missa in our Masse wherein you shall find some difference in this place yet you putt the whole sentence soe lamely that a man would thinke the Bishop by your citing him to be quite of another mind then hee is For you would make one thinke he did not beleeue the real presence could bee proued out of scripture Io. Roffen cont captiu Babylo c. 4. Whereas the 4. Chapter of the Booke heere cited is wholy imployed in proofe thereof against Luther out of the very words hoc est corpus meum this is my body by which hee destroyeth Lutheran companation and consequently establisheth our transubstantiation and teacheth plainely both there and throughout this whole booke that Christ himselfe did change the bread into his owne body and this out of the very words of scripture but in this 10. chapter which you cite he proueth that the true sēse of the
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
he bringeth these which you could not but see Wherefore in this you come short of the very Minister's honesty How little then must you needs haue Lastly I answeare this very authority is against you in the two things in controuersy betweene vs to wit the real presence and transubstantiation both which it alloweth and is against vs onely in one not soe properly in controuersy to wit in that it saith this change is wrought not by the words this is my body but by the benediction that goeth before Which benediction it doth not say whether it were a word or a deede and it is as like to bee some word as otherwise but whether word or deede it is as easy to consecrate by these words this is my body as by any other words or outward deede Soe as herein Sir Humphrey you haue noe helpe from any man eyther Salmeron or the Graecians or euen your freind Chamier for he discouereth your bad dealing 22. After this matter of the Blessing you come backe againe to the proofe of transubstantiation out of Scriptures telling vs that Bellarmine saith it is not altogether improbable that there is noe expresse place of Scripture to proue it without the declaration of the Church as Scotus said for though saith Bellarmine that place which we brought seeme soe plaine that it may compell a man not refractory yet it may iustly bee doubted whether it bee soe or noe seing the most learned and acute men as Scotus haue thought the contrary In which words Bellarmine saith but what we granted before to wit that though the words of consecration in the plaine connatural and obuious sense inferre transubstantiation yet because in the iudgment of some learned men they may haue another sense which proueth onely the real presence without transubstantiation it is not altogether improbable that without the authority of the Church they cannot enforce a man to beleeue transubstantiation out of them What of all this nothing to your purpose Sir Knight though in translating this saying of Bellarmines you haue corrupted it in two places The one that whereas Bellarmine said one scripture or place of scripture which he brought to proue transubstantiation was soe plaine as to enforce a man not refractory You change the singular number into the plural as if Bellarmine had said the Scriptures were soe plaine c. Which is a corruption of yours thereby insinuating as if Bellarmine taught the Scriptures to be plaine and with out difficulty soe as euery body may vnderstand them which indeed is an ordinary saying of you Protestants but as ordinarily denied by vs Catholiques The other is that whereas Bellarmine saith men most learned and acute as Scotus was You say the most learned and acute men such as Scotus Which word the you cannot but know alters the sense much For it importeth as if the better part of learned and acute men went that way which is false and contrary to the Cardinal's words and meaning 23. You tell vs now in the next place that you will proceede from Scriptures to Fathers as if you had said mighty matters out of scripture not hauing indeede said one word out of it either for your selfe or against vs. Well let vs see what you say out of the Fathers Alfonsus a Castro say you was a diligent reader of the Fathers yet after great study and search returnes this answeare of the conuersion of the body and bloud of Christ there is seldome mention in the Fathers But Sir you are noe diligent reader nor faithfull interpreter of Alfonsus a Castro For his words as you your selfe putt them downe in Latine in the margent are thus Alphon a Castro lib. 8. verbo Indulgent De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio That is Of the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is sedome mention in ancient writers Wherein he saith true and you most false For though of transubstantiation there be rare mention yet of the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention as Bellarmine sheweth at large And herein it is that you shew your selfe a faithlesse interpreter de Euchar. l. 3. cap. 20. But if a man consider Castro his meaning he shall find you to haue abused that much more then his words For his drift in that place is to shew that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writes of a thing or plaine testimony of scripture that yet the vse and practize of the Church is sufficient bringing for an example this point of transubstantiation whereof he saith there is seldome mention and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne whereof saith he there is more seldome mention and then maketh his inference vpon it thus yet who but an Haeretique will deny these things you might then as well Sir Humphrey and better too in Castro his iudgment haue denied the holy Ghost to proceede from the Sonne then the bread to be transubstantiated into Christ's body And herein it is that you shew your selfe noe diligent nor vnderstanding reader of Castro 24. After him cometh one Yribarne a disciple of Scotus whose words you also corrupt in the translation which it is enough to tell you of For the matter he saith it was of the substance of faith in the primitiue Church that Christ was really present vnder the formes of bread and wine yet was it not soe of transubstantiation wherein he seemeth to hold with his Master Scotus Who was of opinion that transubstantiation was not a point of faith till the Councell of Lateran For which you your self confesse he is censured by Bellarmine and Suarez which were answeare enough For as I told you in the beginning wee doe not bind our selues to defend euery singular opinion of one or two Doctors contrary to the common opinion of others But besides I answeare that Scotus plainely auerreth transubstantiation and proueth it out of the ancient Fathers who vse the very word of conuersion which is all one with transubstantiation For thus he saith in a certaine place Respondeo quod nec panis manet contra primam opinionem nec annihilatur vel resoluitur in materiam primam Sâ—â—t 4. dist 1â— 9.3 contra secundam opinionem sed conuertitur in corpus Christi Et ad hoc multum expresse videtur loqui Ambrosius cuius vndecim authoritates supra adductae sunt plures habentur de consecrat dist 2. I answeare that neyther the bread remayneth against the first opinion nor is annihilated or resolued in to materia prima against the second opinion but is changed into the body of Christ And to this purpose S. Ambrose seemeth to speake very expresly out of whom 11. authorityes are brought before and more are to bee had de consecr dist 2. S. Amb. de iis qui myst initiant cap. 9 de Sacrament lib. 4. cap. 3. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1.
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
and yours Ministers 14. See Tert. de praescr cap. 21. Epiph. Chrisost Basil The particular testimonyes you may see in Bellarmine to whom I remitt you onely for S. Aug. I cannot omitt to make more particular mention of him in this place by reason of a certaine sentence which you haue brought in the end of this § as alsoe of euery one of the 6. Damascen alios ap Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. foregoing §§ still coÌ„cluding with this saying of that holy Father Siue de Christo fiue c. Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church or concerning any other thing that pertayneth to our faith I will not say we who are noe way to bee compared to him that said but if an Angel from heauen shall preach vnto you beside what you haue receiued in the legal and euangelical scriptures lett him be anathema And in the end of euery one for the most part adding the particular controuersy of that § as for example in this of Indulgences you say if wee or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you any thing concerning the faith of Indulgences besids that you haue receiued c. and soe in euery of the other particular points Whereby you would perswade your Reader that Saint Aug. would haue nothing beleiued but what can bee proued by expresse words of Scripture Wherein I appeale to your owne conscience as bad as it is whither this be not damnable dishonest dealing both towards S. Aug. and towards your Reader For if you haue read S. Aug. as you pretend how can you be ignorant how many points of faith he doth defend against seueral Haeretiques either onely or chiefly by the tradition and Practise of the Catholique Church De Bap. câ—nt Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7. lib. 5. cap. 23. as single Baptisme against the Donatists Consubstantiality of the sonne Diuinity of the Holy Ghost and euen vnbegottenesse of the Father the first person in Trinity against the Arrians and the Baptisme of Children against Pelagius to say nothing of prayer for the Dead Cont. Maxi. lib. 3. cap. 3. ep 174. de Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. De cura pro mortuis ep 118. Obseruation of the Feasts of Easter Ascension Whitsuntide and the like nay this truth was so grounded with him that he counted it most insoleÌ„t madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practize of the Catholique Church Which is of soe great authority with him as that he saith in one place that when we follow it we follow the truth of the Scriptures these are his words Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus c. Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 33. The truth of the Scripture is held by vs when we doe that which seemeth good to the whole Church which Church the authority of the Scriptures themselues doe commend that because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue whosoeuer is afraid to bee deceiued by the obscurity of this questioÌ„ may haue recourse to the Church the which the holy Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate vnto vs soe he there and that it may farther appeare that to deny this authority and practize of the Church is not onely to deny the authority of Scripture but euen of Christ himselfe I cannot heere omitt to note a place of the same Saint his booke de vnit ecclesiae Where hee treateth this very point very particularly and excellently soe as to take away all doubt of his opinion therein For heere he doth of purpose intend to shew that where plaine proofe of Scripture is wanting we must haue recourse to the Church prouing it thus by occasion of the question of rebaptization and supposing that there is noe proofe of Scripture either way Puto si aliquis sapiens c. I thinke saith hee if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony to wit Aug. de Vnit. eccles cap 22. of his wisedome and that he should be asked in this question we should not doubt to doe what he should say lest we should seeme to gainesay not him soe much as Christ by whose testimony hee was commended Now Christ beareth witnesse of his Church And a little after againe he saith that Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practize of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himself Who by his testimony commendeth the Church By which discourse and comparison any man may see that in S. Augustines iudgment the Churches word is warranted by Christ as much as if he should haue named any one man in particular whose words he would make good and whom consequently we should follow that by refusing or leauing him we should leaue Christ himself Soe as nothing can be more plaine and euident to declare this holy Fathers opinion in this point of the Churches authority in the beleife and practize euen of things not expressed in Scripture And this may sufficiently coÌ„uince you Sir Humphrey of malicious deceipt in alleadging that other place of this holy Father soe contrary to his meaning declared in soe many places and soe plainely 15. But because you may yet make difficulty in this testimony which you alleadge as though it alone should stand against all other that can be alleadged out of him and that noe interpretation of any man els can be able to satisfy you I will alleadge his owne words interpreting the meaning of S. Paul's words which he alleadgeth vseth in this testimony to shew that the word beside doth not import that a man must not beleeue any thing but that which is expressed in Scripture but that a man must not beleeue any thing contrary For thus he saith The Apostle did not say if any man euaÌ„gelize to you more then you haue receiued Aug. to 98. in Io. but beside that which you haue receiued For if he should say that he should praeiudicate that is goe against himselfe who coueted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith But he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was c. These are the Saint's very words in that place By which it is plaine that he taketh the word praeter beside not in that sense as to signify more then is written as you would vnderstaÌ„d it but to signify the same that contra against or coÌ„trary to what is written For otherwise there would be noe sense in his saying or opposition coÌ„sisting of two members with difference of the one from the other Which to be his meaning is yet more plaine by his whole discourse which is to shew what maÌ„ner of knowledge or priuate reuelation is to bee admitted indeede there hee alloweth of such as it not against the rule of the Catholique faith contra regulam Catholicae fidei reprehends only in Haeretiques such kind of knowledge as is also contrary or against the rule of faith and then obiecting
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
what then what is this to many other points which we say cānot be knowne by onely scripture Were this a good consequence the Church is knowne by onely Scripture ergo all things els and euen Scripture it selfe is knowne onely by scripture surely noe and yet this consequence must be good or els Sir Humphrey your argumēt is not good Besids these words may be vnderstood of the Scriptures compared with other Writings that is that the Church is knowne to vs onely by Scriptures not by other Writings whereof either none speake soe clearely of the Church or none are like therevnto for authority which yet doth not exclude other proofes or markes of the Church And indeede the Church is most knowne and best proued out of Scripture of any point of our faith as may appeare by this that S. Aug. proueth the same soe notably out of Scriptures onely gainst the Donatists in a particular booke of that matter De vnit eccles Aug. in Psal 30. and in another place he saith the Scriptures speake more plainely of the Church then of Christ himself because the holy Ghost foresaw it was more to be contradicted and what might not these words be taken somewhat in the same sense but this shall serue for that place 3. You come next with two places of Saint Aug. whereof one was answeared before and it is onely where you tell vs he saith that many are tormented with the Diuel who are worshipped by man on earth to this Bellarmine say you answeareth that perhaps it is not S. Augustines making you Reader beleeue as if Bell. neither gaue other answeare nor any reason of this answeare Whereas he doth both his reason why he thinketh it not Saint Augustines is both because he could neuer find any such place in him it is like he should find it if it were there he hauing beene soe diligent a reader of S. Augu. as appeareth by his works he was Bell. de Sanct. beat lib. 1. cap. 9. as alsoe because noe Haeretique that obiecteth it doth note the place where it is to be found as they are wōt to doe in their other obiections and it is like would doe in this if they could find it but because Sir Humphrey you are a man soe well read in S. Aug. and stand soe vpon answeare of this place Doe you but tell vs where it is and you shall then see what we will say vnto you meane while looke a little better in Bellar. againe and tell vs whether there be not 3. or 4. other answeares See also before cap. 10. The other place of Saint Augu. is as you say touching the Popes supremacy because S. Augu. in those words of our Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church taketh not Peter and this rocke to be all one but the Rocke to bee our Sauiour himself and Petrus to bee a deriuatiue onely of Petra to which you tell vs Stapleton makes answeare that it was lapsus humanus for want of knowledge of the Greeke and caused by the diuersity of the two languages Latine and Greeke Which answeare though you relate in a slight fashion as if you tooke it to be in sufficiēt yet you neither doe nor indeede can say against it if you know Greeke and Latine or if you doe not goe but to some of your Ministers and get them to looke in their owne Greeke Lexicons I meane sett out by Haeretiques and see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be an adiectiue and a deriuatiue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be not a substantiue signifying the very same thing and let them looke yet farther into the original tongue it self to wit the Syriake wherein our Sauiour spake Lib. 1. Ro Pontif cap. 25. and see whither they be not more the same to wit the onely word Cephas in both places On the other side it is well knowne Saint Augu. professed noe great skill in Greeke as hee witnesseth of himselfe in many places Aug. in Psal cont Partem Donat ep 165. Besids Saint Augu. doth not bring this exposition to derogate from Saint Peter's primacy which he confesseth in 20. places as may be seene in Bellarmine and where for proofe thereof he vseth the very word Petra which heere he distinguisheth from Petrus calling the Seate of Peter this rooke Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae Reckon saith he to the Donatists the Priests from euen the seate of Peter that is the rocke which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome How then doth he deny S. Peter's primacy and perpetuity of his Sea Againe Sir Humphrey you might finde other answeares for Saint Augu. himselfe in his retractations putteth both the explications wherein the word Petrae is spoken of Christ and of Peter leauing the choise to the Reader allowing both interpretations which you doe not because one is flat against you Whereas we doe not reiect either as being against vs but onely we shew the one not to be soe good because it standeth not soe with the original tongues which that Saint was not soe well skilled in and literal sense of scripture which noe Haeretique can deny 4. The 3. place is out of S. Ignatius for proofe of Communion in both kinds Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 26 One cupp is distributed to all to which you say Bellarmine makes answeare that in the Latine books it is not found that one cupp is giuen to all but for all against which you can say nothing but giue me cause to say much against you For first Bellarmine doth not say one cupp is giuen for all but saith vnus calix totius ecclesiae One cupp of the whole Church Which is the true reading and indeede another thing Secondly though you make as if Bellarmine did onely barely say this without farther reason or proofe yet is it farre otherwise for as for the reading he saith that though the Greeke haue it as the Haeretiques commonly cite that is as you doe heere yet the true reading is as the Latine translation which we follow hath it whereto he saith there is more trust to be had then to the Greeke books of S. Ignatius which wee haue now Whereof he bringeth this proofe that the testimonies cited out of him as we find in the works of S. Anastasius and Theodoret agree better with our Latine translation then the Greeke which is now extant Which is a plaine proofe of the betternes and greater purenes thereof as being taken out of the ancient Greeke editions Besids that Bellarmine proueth this euen out of the Magdeburgians because they cite this very place at we doe Neither doth he answeare this authority onely by the variety of the reading but withall he giueth 2. answeares more one that S. Ignatius putteth all the force in the vnity of the bread and cupp thus that though many eate many drinke
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
Gerson's treatise in the margent which as he there acknowledgeth shewes the causes I there reprehended him for it as may be seene heere chap. 9. § 5. n. 7. Now as it seemes reflecting vpon his owne absurdnes therein in his 4. edition he doth not say that Gerson shewes the causes as he said before but declares them himself out of Gerson saying they were these to wit The length of lay mens beards the lothsomnesse to drinke after others the costlinesse and difficulty of getting wine the frosts in winter the flies in sommer the burden of bearing the daunger of spilling and the peoples vnworthines to equall the Priests in receiuing in both kinds Thus farre are Gerson's words as he citeth them in a different letter continuing the discourse himselfe in this manner And thus for longe beards and vnsweet breathes for a litle paines and noe great charges for frosts in winter and flies in summer I say for these and the like Catholique considerations pretended in the Councel of Constance the church of Rome abolished Christ's institution and laide Anathema vpon all that at this day maintaine the contrary Soe Sir Humphrey prouing himself as impertinent in setting downe Gerson's discourse lamely and ridiculously as he did before in not setting it downe at all for better declaratioÌ„ whereof I shall heere put downe Gerson's words as they lye Gers tract de com laico sub vtraque spe which are these Vnde dicunt plurimi Theologi c. Wherefore very many diuines say that the custome of not coÌ„municating the layity vnder both kindes especially since the multiplication of the faithfull hath beene lawfully and reasonably introduced this for the auoidind of manifold daunger of irreuerence and scandal in the receiuing of this most blessed Sacrament The first daunger is in spilling the second in carriage from place to place the third in the fowling of the vessels which ought to bee hallowed not handled or touched ordinarily by lay-people and much lesse ought the consecrated wine to be sold in shops as it is said to be with such men that is the Bohemians whoe stood for the vse of the chalice the fourth is in the longe beards of lay-men the fifth in the keeping thereof for the sicke because in the vessel it may become vinager and soe the blood of Christ would cease to be there being neither to be receiued nor to be consecrated a new without Masse and soe it might come to passe that pure vinager may come to be giuen in steed of the blood of Christ besids that in summer flies would breede how close soeuer the vessel should be shut some tymes also it would putrify or become as it were noisome to drinke and this reason is very efficacious as also for an other reason when many had drunke before And we may aske in what vessel soe great a quaÌ„tity of wine should be consecrated at Easter for ten or twenty thousand persons the sixt harme is in the costlinesse of wine at lest in many places where there is scarce wine found to celebrate withall in other places where it is not to be had but at a deare rate beside there would be daunger of congeling or turning to â—ee Againe there would be daunger of credulity and this many wayes First that the dignity of the layity is as great in the receiuing of this Sacrament as that of Priests Secondly that soe to doe was euer and is a matter of necessity soe all that haue done and doe thinke practise or teach otherwise haue perished and doe perish and generally all as well clarks Doctors and Prelats whoe haue not opposed themselues against such a custome by word and writing and that they haue peruerted the scripture Thirdly that the vertue and force of this Sacrament is not more principally in the consecration then in the receiuing Fourthly that the church of Rome doth not thinke rightly of the Sacraments nor is heerein to be imitated Fiftly that general Councels and particularly this of Constance haue erred in faith and good manners Sixtly it would many wayes be occasion of sedition and shismes in our part of Christendome as experience sheweth in Bohemia Hitherto are the words of Gerson by the onely reading and comparing whereof it will easily appeare how badly Sir Humphrey hath delt as well in culling out some few reasons of least force as also in deliuering them not in the author's phrase as they lye but in a certaine ridiculous fashion of his owne for first he mentioneth not the two maine heads which containe all the rest and are chiefly to be reguarded in the administration of Sacraments to witt irreuerence and scandall then among the daungers of irreuerence he leaueth that which may most easily happen and cannot indeede be well auoided to wit that with longe keeping as when it is kept for the sicke the species of wine would turne into vinager that it would otherwise corrupt become noysome which Gerson seemeth to count his chiefe reason for he saith of it that it is a very efficacious one Sir Humphrey also leaueth out that other reason that either the vessels wherein it is kept must be let to grow very fowle or be touched and handled by lay people both which are contrary to the reuerence dew to this holy Sacrament he leaueth out that point of scandal in selling of the coÌ„secrated wine to saue the credit of his bretheren of Bohemia whoe vsed soe to doe He leaueth out the manifold daungers of scandal by mis-beleif to wit that heereby men might come to beleeue that it were a matter of necessity that heereby they might come to condemne all that haue taught or practised the contrary or not opposed it that heereby they might come to condemne the practise of the Romane church and condemne general Councels of error in faith all which the Knight was pleased to passe ouer putting downe onely those other which he thought he might make better sport withall for which purpose he also altereth Gerson's words for whereas he speaketh of a little paines noe great charges Gerson saith nothing of paines for charges he saith the quite coÌ„trary to witt that the charge is very great in some places and in others that there is not wine to be had sufficient for the people but onely very little for the Priest to say Masse withall and for altering Christ's institution Gerson saith the expresse contrary to wit that it is an error to say that there is any such institution and that there is noe more necessary by diuine institution but that we doe not contemne it as saith he Doctors teach of Confirmation and Extreame Vnction which are said to be Sacraments not of necessity Which truth being supposed I see not but Gerson's reasons may be good and sufficient to proue his intent which was to shew the manifold irreuerence and scandal which might come by the vse of both kinds for exaÌ„ple is it not an vndecent thing to see
as appeareth by Saint Augustine in the same booke take the cleane contrary course iust as you doe heere Sir Humphrey 7. This therefore being the thing which you should haue done and you being soe mistaken in it what can be expected at your hands but that by declining the question in steede of vindicatinge your Mother's cause and maintayning your owne credit you betray the one and ouerthrow the other being not able to shew your pedigree and Succession and in steed of making men see it is noe difficult matter to proue your visibility to make them see it is not onely difficult but also impossible For though you pretend facility in words yet in deeds you shew impossibility That then which you say in your brauery that you will meete the aduersary vpon his owne ground and deale with him at his owne weapō euery man seeth how false and vaine a florish it is For your aduersaryes ground that hee appointeth you is to shew your Succession in all ages and his weapon is a catalogue of Bishops and Pastours succeeding one another Euangelists and Doctours the former to gouerne the later to instruct such as S. Paul mentioneth Ephes 4.11 And he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Euangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministery vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntill wee meete all into the vnity of Faith Bring such a Succession of Pastours such a people liuing in this or that Citty or Countrey professing the same faith and beleife which Protestants now doe and you meete your aduersary vpon the same termes for of this kind of weapon he hath offered you many as Genebrard Gualterus Bellarmine Sanders and many others Bring such a catalogue of your owne like one of these and then you discharge your creditt which till then lieth engaged And for this you should not haue needed to take all that paines nor putt your selfe to those straites of prouing out of our owne Bishops Cardinals Doctours c. that your Doctrine hath beene taught in former ages For to be as liberal with you agayne the Iesuit would haue giuen you the freedome to take all manner of Writers whether Catholiques or Haeretiques Pagans Iewes Turkes or what profession els soeuer they were of to see whether out of all together you could patch vpp a Catalogue or bring any the least mention of such a goodly people and commonwealth as wee see suddainely started vpp in the world vpon the reuolt of Luther For we Catholiques haue a publique testimony of the Visibility of our Church from all sorts of men all sects and professions whatsoeuer that being a condition and property whereof the whole world cannot but take notice and consequently all manner of men must necessarily witnesse 8. And therefore Sir Humhrey while you thinke you haue hitt the bird in the eye by prouing though you should proue it as you neuer can out of our Cardinals Bishops and Doctours that your faith was taught in former ages you are cleane mistaken For Visibility and antiquity are two different properties antiquity properly belongeth to the doctrine and beleife of the Church but Visibility properly belongeth to the Church it self as it is a Church to wit a community commonwealth or kingdome consisting of men liuing in a certaine forme of gouernment and professing a certaine outward forme or face of Religion by Sacrifice Sacraments and other rites tending to the worship of God and Sanctification of themselues wherein all that are of that Community doe participate and thereby are distinguished and differenced from all such as are not of the same Community and profession Wherefore you being chalenged to shew such a community and flying from that to proue the antiquity of your Doctrine out of our Fathers and Schoolmen what els doe you doe but confesse your Church to want Visibility and your selfe honesty by endeauouring to deceiue men with a specious title of a safe way intending indeed to leade them from the true safe way of the Catholique Church into such certaine by-ways and corners as our B. Sauiour foretold vs of when hee said that False Prophets should come and tell vs loe here is Christ or there doe not beleeue them And by this you may perceiue how vnfittly you ioyne or rather confound antiquity and Visibility by saying in the very beginninge of this your Epistle the ancient visibility of the Protestant profession and soe in many other places For Visibility must as well be new to follow your manner of speaking as ancient that is it is a thing which hath beene without interruption is and euer must bee to the worlds end in the true Church of God and is noe more tyed to these primitiues or ancient tymes then to these later of ours nor noe more to those tymes of ours then to those that shall come after vs againe Or if it more belong to one tyme then another it rather belongeth more to succeeding tymes For as it is cleare by the Prophecies going before our B. Sauiour's coming and the accomplishment of the same after his coming the Church was to beginne as all things els in this world from a small beginning and after by tyme and continuance receiue a greater encrease and by little and little come to spread ouer the whole world at which tyme it must needs be more visible then in the beginninge Soe that little Stone Dan. 2.36 which the Prophett Daniel speaketh of in figure of the Kingdome of Christ which is his Church grew by little and little to be soe great a mountaine as it filled the whole Earth at which tyme certainely it was more visible then at first when it was but beginning Soe the Church which began at Hierusalem from thence was spread by degrees to other Countries and is to goe on increasing to the vtmost bounds of the Earth to the very end of the World must needes be more visible and apparant as it goeth more dilating it self in space of place and continuance of tyme. 9. But now you come vpon vs with a counter challenge demanding by what authority of scriptures and ancient Fathers we haue imposed new articles of Christian beleife vppon Preists and people for as you say truth denyes antiquity and vniuersality to the principal articles of the new Roman Creede and you say our best learned Romanists professe that most of them were vnknowne to antiquity Wherefore after a digressiō against implicite faith and our altering and changing the ten commandements as you say very wisely you wish that they that vrge a catalogue of such Protestants as haue in all ages professed your 39. articles should produce one anciēt orthodox father in euery age for these 1500. yeares who hath held all our Trent articles de fide and that then you will acknowledge our Professours visible in all ages our Cardinals Bishops Schoolemen mistaken that they are to bee reformed by an
Index expurgatorius you will acknowledge the nouelty of your Church and submitt your selfe with an implicite faith to the Romane Church Soe you for your counterchalleÌ„ge Sir Humphrey had you marked the challenge well you might haue spared it for the Iesuit required you to performe nothing but that which many on the Catholique part haue performed ready to your hand that is that you should bring such a Catalogue of succession for proofe of the Visibility of your Church as we did many of ours as Sanders Bellarmine Gualterus others You aske by what authority we impose new articles of beleife vpon men this question is not to the purpose but I answeare by denying your suppositioÌ„ for we doe not impose new articles vpon men but defend the old against new faÌ„gled fellowes neither is this the proper place for you to require or for vs to bring proofes out of Fathers Scriptures of particular points whereof you cannot but know that many great and learned men in the Catholick Church haue written great volumes which noe haeretique hath euer yet durst venture to answeare how then can you soe brasenly say that our owne best learned confesse that the articles of the Trent-Creede as you call them are vnknowne to antiquity what point is there defined in the Councel of Trent which is not proued by way of authority of scriptures fathers by Iudocus Coccius by way of reason and solution of arguments by Bell. by way of history by Baronius to say nothing of others some may perhaps say that some points there defined were not before defined by any general Councel but to bring any Catholique to say that they are new or that they were not anciently nor commonly beleeued I dare say Sir Humphrey is more then you can proue but suppose any one may say that there is noe proofe extant in any ancient author of this or that point must it therefore follow that it is new noe surely for all things are not written as S. Iohn verifyeth of our Sauiour's owne words and deeds how much lesse then other things which yet are generally taught and practized in the Catholique Church which very practize without farther proofe S. Augustine maketh to be an argument of antiquity Aug cont Don. lib. 4.24 but of this newnesse of faith whereof you soe ignorantly complaine and likewise of implicite faith I shall say more afterwards 10. Now for our leauinge out the second commandement wherewith you tax vs and changing the fourth from sanctify the Sabboth to Sanctify the holydayes it is pitty you are soe hard driuen as when you are called vpon to proue your Succession and Visibility of your Church to fall vpon vs for the commandements a thing of soe different nature and soe triuiall For first it is false that we leaue out that which you call the second commandment Looke in our bibles and see whether you find it not there in all Editions and translations as well English as Latine or any other language whatsoeuer How then doe we leaue it out you will say we leaue it out in our catechismes true but to leaue a thing out of a catechisme is not absolutely to leaue it out as long as it is els where But besids to answeare you another way wee leaue out many other things as that God is a iealous God that hee reuengeth the Sinnes of the Father to the 3. and 4. generation and the like though they goe intermingled with the commandements in the text and this we doe without blame because they eyther pertaine not precisely to the commandement or are sufficiently expressed in the very words of the commandement it self Soe wee say of this that it is either contayned in the first commandement being onely an explication of the same or if it be a distinct precept as some Deuines say then is it ceremoniall onely and consequently abrogated with the whole Law 11. Soe likewise for the other commandement of Sanctifying the Holy-dayes I answeare that in our bibles or text of scripture we keepe the word Sabboth and in most and best catechismes also as for example Canisius Bellarmines large catechisme and others but specially in that of the Councel of Trent sett out by authority of Pius V. Which were answeare enough to shew we make noe such mystery of it since sometymes we say Sabboth sometymes Holydayes as indeede we well may the sense being the same and we may better vse this liberty in catechismes where we stand not soe much to cite the very words of scripture as to declare the meaning of them though in the text it selfe we keepe precisely to the very words Where yet we explicate it in the same sense following therein the example of Scripture it self which vseth those words indifferently as may appeare Leuit. cap. 23. Where other Holydayes beside the Saturday or Sabboth are called Sabbata 3. or 4. tymes in that one chapter and in the beginning thereof those dayes which are called Sabbata are called twice Feriae sanctae Holydayes Soe as you Sir Humfrey in making such a deale of difference betweene Sabboth and Holyday shew your self to be but shallowly read in scripture Besids I may answeare to this as to the former obiection that this coÌ„mandment was partly ceremonial to wit for as much as pertayneth to that particular day of saturday and partly natural to wit soe farre as it obligeth to the obseruing of some daye or tyme holy indeterminately 12. But if we be such great offenders for changing â—â—e word Sabboth in some of our catechiâ—mes into Holyday what are you for changing the very commaÌ„dement while you stand working vpon Saturday and rest vpon Sunday soe changing the Sabboth it self but what stuffe is this for you to trouble your gentry Readers withall in the very beginning of your booke and in your Epistle dedicatory forsooth and not onely to touch vpon it heere but to print the commandements faire in a leafe by themselues with a marginal note of Ledaesma's catechisme of 2. or 3. editions as if you would make your Reader stand at some goodly gaze but by this a man may easily guesse what matter hee is like to find in the booke it selfe I could haue noted a thing of the same kind of yours in this Epistle in the first leafe where you say truth is iustifyed of her Children whereas the text of scripture is Wisedome is iustified c but that I did not count it worth speaking of 13. Touching your great boast that if we can shew one good author in euery age for this 1500. yeares who hath held our Trent articles as you call them de fide you will confesse our Doctours Schoolmen c. to be mistaken and to neede an index expurgatorius and that you will submitt your self to the Romane Church acknowledging the nouelty of your owne church Forasmuch as this your promise seemeth by the manner to be but a proud vaunt to delude the simple reader to make him more confident
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
soe long as they haue sufficient ground to beleeue it which neuer wanteth in the Catholique Church and out of it is euer wanting By this any man may see whether this distinction of explicite and implicite faith doe not stand with very great reason and consequently whether the Knight who laugheth thereat doe not shew himself most worthy of laughter 22. Especially if wee adde withall that it is not soe much this implicite faith that hee speaketh against as diuine faith in generall for that he counteth implicite faith when a man is bound by a blind kind of Obedience as he calleth it to submitt his iudgment to the Catholique Church which is the true property of diuine faith and that is it which he countes simplicity and calleth it implicite faith to beleiue that whereof we vnderstand not the reason but heerein he destroyeth the very nature of faith expressely contradicting S. Paul's definition thereof which is this Hebr 11.1 Faith is the substance of things to bee hoped for an argument of things not appearing and S. Aug plainely saith that is faith to beleeue that which thou dost not see and S. Greg. addeth Greg. ho. 36. in Euang. that faith hath noe meritt where humane reason giueth experiēce Soe as for a man to speake against this kind of implicite is plaine infidelity and therefore I shall say noe more of it but onely supposing it as a most certaine and commonly receiued principle of the Fathers and point of absolutely necessary Christian humility for a man soe to submitt his iudgment in what hee vnderstandeth not I shall conclude with a word of Vincent Lerinensis wishing such men as haue suffered themselues out of praesumption to bee carried away with some nouell opinions out of the Catholique Church to returne therevnto by this humility of implicite faith in these words Dediscant bene quod didicerunt non bene cap. 25. ex toto ecclesiae dogmate quod intellectu capi potest capiant quod non potest credant Let them vnlearne well that which they haue learnt not well and out of the whole doctrine of the Church Lett them cōceiue what can bee conceiued what cannot let them beleeue Which authority alone is sufficient to warrant our distinction of explicite and implicite faith against all Sir Humphrey's scornefull laughter Chap. 2. And soe hauing noted thus much in this place by occasion of his praeambles I come now to the examination of his sections Whether the Church of Rome bee with out cause bitter against the reformed Churches as the knight affirmeth CHAPTER II. 1. THe Knight's first section is to proue that the Church of Rome is without cause bitter against the reformed Churches That she is bitter he proueth because wee stile him and his not onely by the common name of Haeretiques but also by other special reproachfull epithites pertayning to the seuerall Sects of Zuinglius Luther Caluin c. Secondly because we accurse and excommunicate them and will not let them liue with vs whereas wee admitt Iewes and Infidels That all this is without cause he proueth first by an authority of Theodoret which speakes of a contention betweene two factions in the Church of Antioch and the reason to allay it because saith Theodoret both parts make one and the same confession of their faith for both maintaine the Creede of the Nicene Councel Secondly by the authority of Bellarmine whom hee maketh to say that the Apostles neuer propounded as common articles of faith other things then the articles of the Apostles Creede the ten commandements and some few of the Sacraments because these things are simply necessary and profitable for all men the rest are such as a man may bee saued without them Thirdly he maketh it an vndeniable truth that the reformed Church and the Romane are two Sisters and that the Romane Church fayling and becoming an Harlott it was well done of his Church to seperate her self least she might bee partaker of her plagues And soe goeth on inueighing bitterly against the Romane Church to the very end of the Section whereof this is the whole substance which I haue brought into this methode the better to answeare it 2. That wee Catholiques stile the Knight and his Reformers by the common name of Haeretiques wee deny not that some particular Catholique authors stile some of them that is the Zuinglians Lutherans and others by other reproachfull names wee also deny not But why this Knight should complaine as if he were iniured in all the seuerall names that are giuen to the seuerall sects of Haeretiques I see not vnlesse it soe bee that hee be of all their seuerall religions which yet I see not how hee can bee they being soe many and soe contrary among themselues But be he of one or other or more and lett him but goe into Germany and professe himself a Caluinist or a Zuinglian hee shall finde soe good entertaynment and such gentle termes at the Lutheran's hands as I dare boldly say he will neuer complaine more of the bitternes of Catholiques against him and his Brethren For the word Haeretique which is the worst of all other as contayning all in it self he cannot but know that it hath euer gone with such as haue held new particular doctrines different from the common doctrine of the Catholique Church and therefore the word according to the etymology is noe word of contumely but a word signifying the nature of the thing and it is onely growne by custome to bee contumelious because the thing it self to wit haeresie is the most detestable thing in the world If then the thing ot crime of haeresie pertaine to à man and that hee be notoriously guilty thereof I see not what great bitternes it is to giue him the name of Haeretique If I would I could vrge his bitternes much more in the same kind and in this very section as for example where hee calleth the Catholique Church an harlott the whore of Babylon the Pope Anti-Christ Catholiques Idolaters and a great deale more But I lett all that passe making onely this answeare that wee doe nothing in this matter of names which seemeth to him soe great a point of bitternes but what we can warrant by very good authority and example euen of scripture Act. 13.11 2. Cor. 11.15 S. Paul called that enemy of faith Elymas the Magician Sonne of the Diuell Enemy of all iustice and false Apostles in general that is Haeretiques he calleth the Ministers of Sathan In an other place Philip. 3.2 1. Io. 2.18 Ep. Iud. he calleth Haeretiques by the name of Doggs S. Iohn calleth them Antichrists S. Iude is most vehemēt against them giuing them many bitter epithetes and comparing them to Cain to Balaam to Core Our Sauiour himself said of one of his Disciples that hee was a Diuell Ioan. 6. which hee meant of Iudas who is ordinarily and worthily ranked among Haeretiques Which considered Sir Humphrey you should neuer
doctrine and person to bee drawne from Idolaters Haeretiques and Capharnaits Of the first of these three Theodoret saith that those haeretiques made two Christs one below another aboue of whom they say that he had dwelt in many before and at last came downe hither or as others declare it that at last he came and rested in IESVS the Sonne of MARY An haeretical fable indeede which noe man can tell what to make of but wherein is it like to our transubstantiacion these haeretiques make two Christs wee acknowledge but one and the same both in heauen and in the consecrated host Marcus as Irenaeus saith by the helpe of the Diuell through art magique changed the colour of the wine in the cup or chalice which the knights is pleased of himself to call sacramentall into seueral colours The Catholique Priest doth the cleane contrary for the colour and other accidents remayning he changeth the substance of the wine into the Bloud of Christ by the Omnipotent power of almighty God For the Capharnaits they thought they should eate Christ's body peece meale and after the manner of the flesh whereon they feede we receiue Christ whole and entire not in the forme and shape of flesh but of breade and in a spiritual though real manner What likenesse then in all these doctrines with ours to a man in his right witts 7. A third point is of the Supremacy of the Pope which he fetcheth from Phocas Emperour who he saith first gaue it to the Bishop of Constantinople 600. yeares after Christ But to giue vs more antiquity he saith the Gētils were our first founders and benefactors For which he alleadgeth the saying of our Sauiour The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship ouer thē Luc 22.25 and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactors Heere he saith we are deriued from bloudsuckers and Gentils vsurping power ouer kings in things spiritual and temporal whereas his doctrine he saith is from Christ Whosoeuer wil be great among you let him be your Minister and whosoeuer wil be chiefe among you let him be your seruant This is his discourse To which I answeare that the knight is egregiously mistaken in saying that Phocas gaue that authority to the Bishop of Constantinople though if hee should haue giuen it or rather attempted to giue that which he could not giue to the Bishop of Constantinople what is that to vs Doe we deriue our Succession from Constantinople was there not a Bishop of Rome and was hee not acknowledged for heade of the Church some hundreds of yeares before euer there was a Bishop of Constantinople or a Constantinople or euen a Constantine himself What then doth he tell vs of the Bishop of Constantinople or Phocas or any such rather the cleane contrary for all true history telleth vs that whereas Iohn that ambitious Bishop of Constantinople vt habetur in ep Pelag. to 1. Conc. would haue had that title of Vniuersall Bishop whereby hee might seeme to aequall the Bishop of Rome though in words he protested neuer to doe any thing against the See Apostolique wherein he had beene supported by Mauritius the Emperour and vpon whom therefore and all his V. Cedr Lonar alias ap Coqu cont progr 22. pag. 327. almighty God shewed the seuerity of his iudgments when Phocas came to bee Emperour though otherwise a naughty cruel mā he made a constitution declaring that the Church of Rome Plat. in Bonif. 3. which is head of all Churches should bee soe called and held by all forbidding the Bishop of Constantinople the vse of that title which he tooke vpon him of himself Out of which commonly the Protestants obiect that the Bishop of Rome hath receiued his authority from Phocas which is a most absurd and foolish conceipt For the Bishop of Rome's authority is farre greater then can be giuen by any earthly man and which being giuen by our B. Sauiour himself heere vpon earth the Bishops of Rome had possessed and exercized continually for the space of more then 600. yeares before Phocas his tyme. How then could it come from him But this sheweth the knight's ignorance and absurdity which is our busines in this place first in saying that Phocas made such a Decree in behalf of the Bishop of Constantinople which sheweth his ignorance for that Decree was made by Phocas in fauour of Bonifacius Bishop of Rome against the Bishop of Constantinople Secondly in alleadging that for a reason or ground of the Bishops of Rome's authority which is commonly alleadged euen by Protestants against it who by exalting the Bishop of Constantinople would willingly depresse the Bishop of Rome 8. As for the knigt's other argument or his place of Scripture of the kings of the Gentils I see not what it is that hee would say to the purpose Our Sauiour indeede telleth his Disciples hee will not haue them imitate the domineering manner of gouernment of those Kings but contrarywise that hee that is cheife among them shal bee as a Seruant to the rest Which Councel is hath euer beene most obserued by the Bishops of that holy See of Rome who therefore haue vsed to stile themselues SERVVS SERVORVM DEI. THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD but will this knight therefore haue it that by reason of this humility there must not bee any Superiority that because he must carry himself like a seruant therefore hee must not feede the Lambes and sheepe of Christ If he meane this as I see not what els he should meane I say noe more but that it is a conceipt worthy of him But besides what a fine line of Succession is heere Doth the Pope succeede either Phocas or any other king or kings of the Gentils to what purpose then are they named 9. But to goe yet on with his toyes hee deduceth our worship of Images from the Basilidians and Carpocratians who saith hee did worship images and professed that they had the image of Christ made by Pilate for which hee citeth S. Irenaeus in the margent His owne doctrine he deriueth from the second of the ten commandements according to his owne translation Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image Heere againe the Knight giueth yet more ample testimony of his notorious naughty dealing For why when he said that these Haeretiques had the picture of Christ made as they said by Pilate why I say could not hee haue gone on with S. Irenaeus who speaking of that and other pictures both painted and carued which they had saith Has coronant Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophoram to wit cum imagine Pythâgorae Platonis Aristotelus reliquorum reliquam obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt They crowne them and propose them with the images of the Philosophers of the world to wit Pythagoras Plato Aristotle and the rest and vse such other obseruation towards them as the
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
bee changed into the whole body of Christ he doth not say it confidently and certainely but doubtfully and with dew submission to better iudgment and especially to the Church Saluo meliori iudicio existimari potest c. are his words 4. dist 11. q. 3 Sauing better iudgment it may bee thought c. and in answeare of an argument to the contrary wherein was obiected the common consent of others against him he saith that that notwithstanding yet soe long as their saying is not confirmed by the Church it is lawfull to thinke the contrary In which words he sheweth two things one that his Opinion was contrary to the common current of the Catholique Doctors of his owne tyme. Which is contrary to that which you said that hee and his fellow Schoolemen professed that doctrine openly for you see he acknowledgeth all others to bee against him neither doth he himself professe it soe openly for he speaketh it doubtfully and with submission to better iudgment The other thing is that hee plainely acknowledgeth the authority of the Church to bee such as that it is not lawfull for any man to hold opinion against it But though hee should haue said nothing thereof in this place it is sufficient that in the praeface of his Commentary vpon the Maister of the Sentences hee submitteth all his works to the correction of the holy Romane and Catholique Church to which hee acknowledgeth the interpretation of all doubts of the holy Scripture to belong Which profession without more may serue to excuse and free him from the crime of haeresy either in this or any other point wherein hee may haue chaunced to erre as Bellarmine doth therefore iustly excuse him 37. Now for Gaufridus and Ostiensis our owne Proctors as you call them as you haue the obiection soe you shall haue the answeare alsoe out of Durand Durand in 4. dist 10. q. 1. Thus then hee obiecteth against the praesence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament Ostiensis and Gaufridus note 3. opinions concerning the manner of being of the body of Christ vpon the altar of which one saith that the bread is the body of Christ another saith that the bread doth not remaine but is changed and that the accidents alone doe remaine Which seemeth to be approued by that text of Cap. firmâ—ter The third opinion saith that the substance of bread doth remaine and is together with the body of Christ vpon the altar Behold that they call it an Opinion of the remanency of the substance of bread neither doe they say it is reproued nay rather they referre it to the confession of Berengarius which was approued by the Councel Thus the obiection sett downe and vrged by Durand not cited out of them Now his answeare is this For that which is afterwards said of Gaufrid Ber. and Hostiens Glossers vpon the Chap. firmiter it is to be answeared that though they recount three opinions they approue none for true but onely that of the body of Christ's being vpon the altar by transubstantiation of the bread and wine And if they doe not expresly call any of them erroneous it followeth not therefore that it is not erroneous For they did not know all the passages of holy Scripture from which the fore said opinion doth differ Thus the obiectioÌ„ answeare in the very words as they lye in Durand Out of which first it is cleare these men are onely Canonists noe Schoole Diuines such as you pretend heere to alleadge Though you alsoe insinuate the same somewhat in as much as you call them our Proctors Wherein yet you mistake your termes the word Proctor being not soe fitt for soe great Doctors of the Canons as they were for how thinke you vould your Ciuill or Canon Doctors of the Arches take it at your hands to be called Proctors or your great Lord Sir Edoward Cooke and Doctor as I may say of your common Law to be called an Attourney at Law SecoÌ„dly heereby appeareth also your corruptioÌ„ in saying that they taught that this opinion was not to be reiected for thus you putt it in a different letter This opinion say they was not to bee reiected whereas they say noe such thing But onely Durand enforcing the obiection to the vtmost as Diuines are wont to doe the more fully to answeare taketh hold that they call it an opinion and likewise taketh hold that they doe not say it was reproued or that it ought to be held for an error Thirdly hence it appeareth that both they themselues did not allow of it in that they held onely that middle opinion of traÌ„substantiation for true and that though they did not soe expresly coÌ„demne it of error yet it doth not follow but that it was error for they knew not all the passages of scripture Scripture being not their study Thus then all your Schoolemen are answeared and consequently this whole § of Transubstantiation PARAGRAPH 3. OF PRIVATE MASSE 1. In this third § Sir HuÌ„phrey preteÌ„deth to make good the doctrine and practize of his Church and ouerthrow outs in point of priuate Masse as he calleth it beginning with the curse of the Councel of Trent against such as coÌ„demne it for vnlawfull And then bring an article of Ireland to the coÌ„trary which saith that for the Priest to receiue the Eucharist without a coÌ„petent number of Communicants is against the institution of Christ practize of the primitiue Church For proofe of this his doctrine he bringeth the words of Christ 1. Cor. 11.1 Take yee eate yee And those of S. Paul Be yee followers of mee euen as I am alsoe of Christ As likewise those other When you come together tarry one for another And the cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the CoÌ„munion of the bloud of Christ and heere the knight saith out of Hugo de S. Victo whom hee of his owne free goodnes is pleased to create a Cardinal both heere and els where to make vp the number of his Cardinals Bishops c. that it is called a Communion because the People in the primitiue Church did coÌ„municate together And he saith of himself that it is soe called because the Priest and people communicate together After this he bringeth a Canon of the Councel of Nantes forbidding Priest to say Masse alone For to whoÌ„ saith the Canon doth the Priest say The Lord bee with you to which he addeth 12. or 13. of our authors in proofe that anciently the people did communicate euery day witnessing therein as he saith the antiquity of his Doctrine and intimating the nouelty of ours and he telleth vs also that the Councel of Trent concludeth with a well-wishing to his Doctrine in saying that it wisheth that the people would communicate not only spiritually but also sacramentally adiudging his communion to be more fruitfull This is the summe of this whole § 2. To which I answeare beginning with this last of the Councel of Trent that the Rearder
you must doe before your communion Annotat. after the order of administringe the communion neyther will it serue the turne to haue one or two to beare the Minister company but there must bee a competent number for example saith your booke if the Parish consist of 20. persons there must be 3. or 4. at least otherwise the Minister must not communion it And by this rule a man may say proportionably if the parish haue twenty hundred or 20000. there should be 3. or 4. thousand to communicate at once And if a sicke body would receiue he may not receiue alone but hee must haue some body to beare him company and not onely one or two but many or a competent number as your booke saith which therefore is to bee considered according to the number of Parishioners This and much more may bee said of the prettines of your seruice and good fellow communion but heere is enough of such an idle subiect and soe hauing answeared your third Paragraph of priuate Masse as you call it I come to the 4. PARAGRAPH 4. OF THE SEAVEN Sacraments 1. In this 4. paragraph which is of our Seauen Sacraments the Knight hoyseth vpp all the sailes of his eloquence and putteth to all the force of his witt as if both by wind and oare he would goe quite beyond vs in this point of our faith wherein for that cause he doth enlarge himself beyond the ordinary measure of his paragraphs and filleth his margents with citations of Fathers and of Schoolemen laying first for a foundation a wise discourse of his owne Which I will alsoe beginne with without longer prefacing with him He setteth downe first the Canon of the Councel of Trent accursing whosoeuer shall say the Seauen Sacraments of the new Law were not instituted by Christ Sess 7. caâ— 1. de Sacr. in gen or that there bee more or fewer then Seauen or that any of them is not properly and truely a Sacrament Which decree saith Bellarmine ought to suffice though we had noe other For if we take away the authority of the present Church and present Councell the decrees of all other Councels and the whole Christian Faith may be brought into doubt Which canon of the Councell and authority of Bellarmine he cryeth out against and saith it is a foundation of Atheisme for in his iudgment the word of Christ alone is sufficient for all Christians which hee proueth by those words of S. Paul I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsel of God Act. 20. And that wee may know he speaketh of the written Word he bringeth Bellarmines authority saying that those things are written which were by the Apostles preached generally to all And hee is soe confident against this point of the Seuen Sacraments that hee is content the curse shall light vpon him if any learned man shall shew it out of any Father of the Primitiue Church or any knowen author for about a thousand yeares after Christ This is his beginning whereat I will make a stay and answeare not to take too much at once Hee thinketh it then a foundation of Atheisme to say that if wee take away the authority of the present Church and present Councel wee may call in question the whole Christian Faith And why soe good Sir Humphrey What Atheisme is it to say that there is one Faith that that Faith is to bee found onely in the Church that that Church cannot fayle or erre at any time and consequently that that Faith which it teacheth cannot faile or erre and especially that then the Church can least erre when it is gathered together in a General Councel and defineth matters of Faith with approbation of the Supreme Pastor of God's church and that if such a Councel may erre the Church may erre that if the Church may erre the Faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently that there can bee noe certainty is this the way to Atheisme to teach that there must be some certaine meanes to learne true faith and beleife in God and that if there bee none such there can bee noe certainty would a man thinke that it should euer enter into any man's mind to say that the affirming of this infallibility were the way to Atheisme Whereas the denyall thereof is the most direct way that can be imagined vnto Atheisme For take this infallibility away and there is noe rule of faith if noe rule noe faith if noe faith noe right beleife in God which is the height of Atheisme 2. But because you Sir Humphrey are not capable of this Discourse as euident and demonstratiue as it is I will goe about with you another way I would know of you whither if wee should take away the holy Scripture or written word it would not follow in you iudgment that the whole Christian faith might bee called in question I say in your iudgment for whether it would or would not in myne I doe not say any thing heere certainely it would For some rule men must haue and that is your onely rule Now againe doe not you know that S. Gregory the great did often say write that he did hold the fower first Councels in the same honour that he did the 4. Ghospels which was the same as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Ghospels Why may it not then follow that vpon deniall of the authority of those 4. Councels the authority of the ChristiaÌ„ faith may be shaken as well as by deniall of the Ghospell V. Bâ—ll lib. 2. de Concil cap. 3. and this which I say of S. Gregory I may say of many other Fathers in reguard of all or some of those 4. Councels and particularly of that of Nice which whosoeuer should haue denyed was noe lesse to haue bene counted an Haeretique then if he should haue denied the Ghospell 1. Eliz 1. you your selues in your Parliament Lawes giue great authority to those 4. first Councels euen as much if you vnderstand your selues well speake consequently as S. Gregory doth for you are coÌ„teÌ„t to acknowledge for heresy whatsoeuer is condemned for such by any of them Which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith coÌ„sequently of infallible authority you ioyne theÌ„ in the same ranke with the canonical Scriptures You giue also the like authority to other general Councels but with this lymitatioÌ„ that these later must haue expresse scripture whereby to coÌ„demne a thing for heresy but which is most of all to bee noted in the same statute you giue power to the Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Conuocation to adiudge or determine a matter to bee heresy Which is the very same as to giue it power to declare faith or to bee a rule thereof which if it may agree to such an assembly or Court of a temporal Prince and Kingdome I see not why it may not agree to a
General Councel as being the Parliament of Christ his Church to which he hath promised his speciall assistance But this is by the way 3. Now out of this authority which you graÌ„t to those ancient Councels I goe a little farther with you and aske what you can say more against the present Church and present Councel of Trent then against the Church of that tyme Councels of those tymes whatsoeuer you can say of the Church now that it may erre may as wel be said of the Church of that tyme. For our Sauiour's promise for the perpetuity infallibility thereof is as much for one tyme as another for our tyme now as for those then What you say now of the Councel of Trent that it is disclaymed by a great part of the ChristiaÌ„ world may be said much more of the Councel of Nice which was gaine said both by more other maÌ„ner of men then the Councel of Trent the same may bee also said of some of the rest soe forth of any thing els that you can obiect Wherefore to conclude if it were not atheisme to say then that by questioning the authority of the Nicene Decrees the authority of the whole Christian faith might bee questioned I see not why it should bee Atheisme to say the same of the Councel of Trent But you thinke it is Atheisme to deny the Scriptures alone to be sufficient For that is the sense of your inference But it is farre otherwise For all Catholiques say they are not soe and yet they beleeue that there is a God and honour and worshipp him as their God But this of the alone sufficiency of Scriptures is a seuerall matter of it selfe Onely for your place of S. Paul it is plaine you peruert it For he speaketh not of the written word but of the doctrine of Christ by him preached as is manifest by his owne very words there Which are these Act. 20.20 Vos scitis quomodo nihil subtraxerim vtilium quominus annunciarem vobis docerem vos publice per domos testificans c. You know how I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable but that I preached it vnto you and taught you openly and from howse to howse testifying to Iewes and Gentils penance towards God and faith in our Lord IESVS CHRIST For neyther had S. Paul then writteÌ„ his Epistle to the Ephesians to whom he there spoke For he wrote it out of prison from Rome and euen the second tyme of his imprisonment which was many yeares after this speach Whereas at the tyme of this speach he was but going to HierusaleÌ„ where being takeÌ„ after some tyme of imprisonmeÌ„t hee was sent to Rome And you might as wel haue aleadged those words of our Sauiour to his Disciples All that I haue heard froÌ„ my Father I haue made knowne to you Io. 15.15 As these of S. Paul and yet is well knowne our Sauiour did not deliuer any one word in writing to his Apostles Neither doth Bellarmines saying helpe you any thing for though those things which are necessary for all in generall to know which are but few be written there bee yet many more not written which are necessary to bee knowne by some in the Church though not by all Now for the curse which you are content shall light ypon you if wee shew the number of Seauen Sacraments to haue beene the beleife of the Church for a thousand yeares after Christ bee not too forward to draw malediction vpon your self it will come fast enough to your cost It is an heauier thing then you are aware of to haue the curse of a Mother and such a Mother as the Church which doth not curse without cause nor out of passion For as the Scripture saith Maledictio Matris eradicat fundamenta Eccle. 3.11 The malediction of a Mother doth roote out the foundatioÌ„s 4. Hauing thus praefaced against the authority of the Councel of Trent you come neerer to the matter giuing vs a new definition of a Sacrament to wit that it is a seale witnessing to our consciences that God's promises are true For as you say God by his word declareth his mercie and sealeth and assureth it by his Sacraments and in the word we heare his promises in the Sacraments we see them Out of which you inferre Baptisme and the Lord's Supper to bee proper Sacraments because in them the element is ioyned to the word and they take their ordinance from Christ are visible signes of an inuisible sauing grace In which words is contained another farre different definition of a Sacrament hauing noe manner of connexion or dependence vpon the former Out of which againe you inferre that the other 5. beside Baptisme and the Eucharist are noe Sacrements not CoÌ„firmation because it was not instituted by Christ not Pennance Order because they haue noe outward element not Matrimony because it was before Christ's tyme and is common to Turks and infidells neither doe you see forsoothe how it can be a holy thing and yet forbidden as it is to Priests And from this you tell vs that if the curse of the Councel take place then Woe to all the ancient Fathers of whom you name these following Ambrose Austin Chrysostome Bede Isidore Alexander of Hales Cyprian Durand and Bessarion This is your discourse 5. To which I answeare That for your formet definition it is a senselesse one without ground in any father Lib. 1. de Sâ—tâ—r in gen cap. 14. 16. or other author but onely Kemnitius and Caluin and which is largely refuted and proued most absurd by Bellarmine to whom I remit you For how can the Sacraments be seales or giue vs aâ—â—urance of his words when all the assurance wee haue of the Sacraments is his word this is idem per idem Besides what promises are these that are sealed or if they bee seales what neede we more seales or Sacraments then one or if there may bee more why not seauen as well as two Againe how doe we see the promises of God in the Sacraments when a man hath receiued the Sacrament of Baptisme what other assurance hath hee that his sinnes are forgiuen or that he is the Child of God and heyre of his kingdome then the word of God promising that vertue to the Sacrament or how can any man see by the SacrameÌ„t that he is soe these are but foolish fancies bredd in haeretical braines and soe to be contemned For your other definition it is not much better being Melancthons Vbi supra related and refuted by Bellarm. which therefore I leaue and answeare onely that which you say that two Sacraments haue the word and element and ordinance of Christ The other 5. not For Confirmation and Extreame Vnction you cannot deny the element and word to wit oile and the forme but you deny the ordinance of Christ For proofe of which and other particulars it wil be too long to stand vpon it
say you to this Sir Humphrey haue I not iust cause heere to tell you your owne but I forbeare you 23. Extreame vnction is next of which you tell vs that Bellarmine saith that that anoyling which the Apostles vsed Mar. 6. was not Extreame vnctiō that Caietane saith the same of the anoyling which S. Iames speaketh of p. Iacq 5. Likewise of Hugo Peter Lombard Bonauenture Altisiodorensis You say that they held it was not instituted by Christ Well what of all this be it soe that one thinke it not to bee mētioned in S. Marke another not in S. Iames others not to haue beene instituted by Christ What then Doth therefore any one of all these deny it to be a Sacrament nay doe they not all say and maintaine the cōtrary most expresly which is more do not you your self out of your freind Cassander acknowledge that in Peter Lombard's tyme the number of seauen Sacraments was determined though not before as out of the same Cassander you wisely say For Hugo Vict. as I shewed before determines the number of seauen Sacramēts somewhat before Peter Lombard's tyme but to lett that goe if in Peter Lombard's tyme there were seauen Sacraments acknowledged then was Extreame vnction one But you will say that out of that which those 5. anciēt Diuines say to wit that it was not instituted by Christ it followeth that it is noe Sacrament I answeare had you liued in their tymes they would haue denied your consequence But had they liued now in yours they would haue said that Christ did institute it For that is now defined which then was not soe for them you are answeared Now for Bellarmine he saith well it is not deduced out of that place of S. Marke what then out of noe place els or if out of noe place els but by tradition should it bee noe Sacrament What argumēts are these Sir Knight to cōuince a Catholique or any man of learning withall but Catetan you tell vs saith it is not that which S. Iames speaketh of what then Suppose he say well and truely Doth he therefore say it is noe Sacrament noe surely noe more then he denied the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be the true body bloud of Christ though hee thaught the real presēce not to be sufficiently proued out of the very words of Consecration without the interpretation of the Church but as both in one and other he did erre for as much as pertaines to the proofe of those articles out of scripture which is not soe much the matter betweene you and vs soe did he not erre for the things themselues But had he liued to see this sense of the scripture declared and this verity of Extreame vnction defined out of hat place of S. Iames by the interpretation of the Councel of Trent Conc. Trid Sess 14. de extr vnct c. 1. he would haue submitted his iudgment 24. As for the Sacrament of Order you say that Soto telleth vs that Ordination of Bishops is not cruely and properly a Sacrament Well be it soe let Soto say soe Doth he deny the Sacramēt of Order in the Church others deny the fower lesser orders to be Sacraments and some deny Sub-deaconship to be soe what then Doe they deny the Sacrament of Order in the Church to be properly and truely a Sacrament as you doe this is boyes play Sir Humphrey There is a question among Catholiques concerning the Episcopal power and character whither as it is distinct from Priesthoode it be a Sacrament of it self whether there be a new character or the same extended and the like some say I some say noe what is this to you it is not matter of faith whereof wee are not to dispute with you but keepe you off at the staffes end or rather out of doores When you are once receiued into the Catholique Church we may admit you to speake of a Schoole point not till then 25. Lastly about Matrimony you make much adoe First you tell vs Durand denieth it to bee a Sacrament strictly and properly To which I answeare that he saith indeede it is not a Sacrament vniuocally agreeing with the other six which cometh much to one with what you say neyther wil I stand with you for a small matter but looke in Bell. for answeare Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 5. who handleth that matter of Durand largely lib. 1. de Matr. c. 5. I onely say briefly that all acknowledge an errour in him Diuines of his owne tyme did note it for such though then the matter were not soe clearely defined Secondly you say Caietan saith the prudent Reader cannot inferre out of the words of S. Paul Eph. 5. Sacramentum hoc magnum est that Matrimony is a Sacrament he doth not be it so Neither doe we inferre it vpon that word Sacramentum but doth Caietan deny it to be a Sacrament because it is not inferred from that word Noe surely What then doe you bring him for though it be not inferred from this place may it not be inferred from another or if neither from this nor tother may it not bee deduced out of Tradition Thirdly you say that for a conclusion our owne Canus telleth vs that the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that he should bee accounted a foole who in soe great difference of opinions would take vpon him to establish a certaine and knowne doctrine Canus saith rem aliquam certam Which you translate a certaine and knowne doctrine Which you might as well and as easily haue translated any thing certaine and more truely though this bee but a smal matter to stand vpon onely I note it because I see your drift is from the diuersity of opinions which is among Catholique Diuines in assigning the matter and forme of Matrimony wherein Canus saith it were a foolish thing for a man to take vpon him to determine any thing for certaine and cleare Your drift I say is to make your Reader beleeue that Canus saith the doctrine of Matrimony's being a Sacrament or not is vncertaine and vnknowne but this is but one of your ordinary trickes Well to come to Canus He saith true that there is difference among Diuines concerning the matter and forme of this Sacramēt but he himself maketh the chieffe difference by bringing V. Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 7. in a new and singular opinion of his owne By which he saith that the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme of this Sacrament and consequently that if there be a Marriage made without a Priest it is noe Sacrament in his opinion But whither it be true that you Sir knight would make vs thinke that in his iudgment Matrimony is noe Sacrament he shall beare witnesse himself Can. loc lib. 8. cap. 5. Siue nostra opinio vera sit siue falsa nihil moror Si Lutherani de hoc matrimoniorū genere disceptare voluerint intelligant
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
say mention the story there is not one that maketh any mention of changing the Church-Office into Latine vpon it but onely they alleadge it by occasion of the secret reading of the Canon of the Masse which was the thing they had in hand 15. Now for the story it self you cannot but know that it is answeared by Bellarmine it being obiected formerly by Kemnitius Bell lib. 2. de Miss cap. 12 his answeare then is that there is such a story related by good authority in Pratum spirituale but there neither the bread nor wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heauen nor the shepheards strucken dead but onely layd for dead 24. howers after which they came to themselues againe which is neither impossible nor improbable Now for these three authours that you cite none of them doth relate it out of any author or with any special credit but onely out of a report which they expresse by the word Fertur and therefore some of them as Honorius and Belethus might be mistaken in some of the circumstance though Innocentius be not Innoc. 3 lib. 3. de Miss cap. 1. for he saith noe more of it but this that it is reported that when certaine shepheards did sing the words in the fields they were strucken from heauen which is true Now this supposed as the story doth not make any way against vs for we grant that the words were anciently pronounced alowd in some place Soe it maketh against you who deny that any where they were spoken softly for the author of this story giuing a reason how the boyes came to learne the words saith thus Prat. Spirit cap. 196. Quoniam verò quibusdam in locis alta voce consueuerant presbyteri sancti sacrificij orationes pronunciare pueri vt propius astantes saepius eas audiendo didicerant Because in some places the Priests were wont to pronounce the prayers of the holy sacrifice with a lowd voyce the boyes as standing neerer by often hearing had learned them Loe Sir Humphrey it was but in some places that they did say those prayers alowd Soe that withall this labour you haue proued nothing but against your selfe Well then you haue failed in the proofe of your doctrine in this as in the rest withall the corruption and tricks you can vse let vs see what you doe in the next §. 7. Worship of Images 1. This 7. § of Image-worshipp our Knight beginneth after his ordinary manner with an article as he calleth it of our Romane Creede wherein we professe that the Images of Christ our Lady and the Saints are to be had and retained and that dew honor and Veneration is to be yeilded vnto them and then bringeth the Decree of the Councel of Trent Sess 25. for the same point in these words We teach that the images of Christ the Virgin mother of God and other Saints are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and that dew honour and worshipp is to be giuen them Which Decree he might haue translated a little better and more clearely by saying that those images are to be had and retained especially in Churches the Latine word being praesertim and his translating thereof chiefly and placing it soe oddly giueth cause to thinke he had an euill meaning therein as if he would haue his Reader thinke that the Councel taught that these Images were the chiefe things to bee had in Churches which is not the Councel's meaning as is plaine the words being very cleare in Latine But this is but a note by the way not as a thing that I stand vpon 2. This our Doctrine of image-worship he doth absolutely deny and condemne as a wicked and blasphemous opinion first because it not onely wants authority of scripture which he saith an article of faith ought to haue but because the scripture doth flatly and plainely forbid it and in the margent citeth Leuit. 26. Ex. 20. Deut. 4. Esay 40. This censure is somewhat deepe Sir Humphrey vpon such sleight ground because forsooth we haue noe proofe of scripture for though you thinke it necessary to haue expresse proofe of scripture to make a matter of faith yet as I said before you are much mistaken wherefore you ought not to stand still vrging it in such manner as if it were a certaine and vndoubted principle yet this I graunt you that though expresse Scripture be not necessary to make a matter of faith yet if you haue expresse scripture against it it is true it can be noe matter of faith but by your leaue none of those places which you note make any mention of image-worship but idol-worship which you cannot but know to be a different thing hauing beene soe often told it as you haue beene by vs therefore your first proofe fayling all failleth for though you put a First yet I see noe second and soe much for that 3. But because heere had beene an end too soone of soe good a matter you tell vs Vazq saith all images were forbidden soe farr forth as they were dedicated to adoration and Cornelius Agrippa saith the Iewes did abhorr nothing more then images to the same purpose you alleadge Philo the Iew speaking of the Iewes of those tymes and Sir Edwin sands of the Iewes that are now adayes Wherevpon you conclude that it is agreed vpon on both sides that the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of images for 4000. yeares and from thence you descend to the new Testament wherein you say the same law remayneth because it was morall for though some Catholiques teach that it was a positiue caeremonial law yet others say it was natural and for that you alleadge Bellar. wherefore the law being not abrogated you would haue some exāple or precept in the Ghospel for adoration of which you say Mr. Fisher acknowledgeth there is not any expresse but that there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawful Soe as from the light of nature say you an article of faith must be declared Well this is your discourse Sir Humphrey which in a word is but this The Iewes might not haue nor adore images ergo we may not For asweare whereof I might say in like sort the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things ergo we may not but because you may say these precepts are caeremonial therefore not now in force the other natural therefore in force for the present I will onely make this argument to shew the connexion of your antecedent and consequent the Iewes might not make any similitude or likenesse of any thing in heauen or earth to adore it for a God ergo we may not make or haue the images of Christ and Saints to reuerence and honour them as the pictures of Saints onely and not Gods is not heere a good and a substantiall argument trow you and yet it is yours Sir Humphrey 4. But say you there was such a command of
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
of restraint though if there had beene we might very well haue warranted it by the authority of S. Hierome who did noe way admitt such free vse euen of the Latine bibles for hauing spoken largely and learnedly out of Scripture of the hardnes and obscurity of scripture Ep. ad Paulin he complaines that euery body did presume to take reade and teach it before they learned it themselues disallowing that euen such as himself should goe from saecular learning presently to the holy Scriptures and interpret them at their pleasure S. Hierome then thought them hard and was not soe free in allowing the reading of Scriptures as you are For if he doe not allow the reading thereof in Latine to men and Scholars how much lesse would he haue allowed it in English to womē and Children Besides it is noe such cryme to forbid the reading of scripture to some sorts of people as may appeare by this testimony of this holy Father who in the same place also saith moreouer that the beginning of Genesis with the beginning and end of Ezechiel were not to be read by the Iewes till they came to 30. yeares of age which kind of forbidding is noe derogation but a great commendation of the holy scripture And I call it but a kind of forbidding for it is farre different though you make it all one from the forbidding of haereticall bookes For these are forbidden as wicked detestable of themselues dangerous the other out of reuerence and honor dew vnto them and in reguard of the danger which may come by them not of thēselues but in reguard of the weaknes of the Reader for want of necessary learning humility both which a man that is to handle the Scriptures must come well prouided of 4. For Cornelius Agrippa it maketh noe more matter what he saith then what you say for it is but aske my brother if I bee a theife but it is fine that these fellowes cannot be inuited by a generall Councell with promise of all security that can be desired to come and propound what they can say out of scripture or any way els and yet when they come before a Iudge they will dispute forsooth and by disputing auoide the rigour of the Law Indeede I cannot blame them but if this seeme reason to you why doe you deny Catholique Priests the like liberty of Disputation How often and earnestly haue they desired it but could neuer obtaine it But neither euen in that case with vs are people denied any conuenient liberty neither is there any credit to be giuen to Cornelius Agrippa For being a Magitian he may very well be said to haue shaked hands with the Diuell the father of lies Which you your selfe it seemes knowing and suspecting that his testimony would not passe for currant you tell vs we shall heare our owne authors how they speake of the Scriptures For you tremble to speake it as your words are You tell vs some say they are dead characters a shell without a kernel a leaden rule a wood of theeues a shop of Haeretiques imperfect doubtful obscure ful of perplexities with many more epithets which I let passe these being of the very worst and especially the last 4. for which you alleadge Lessius alleadging likewise for euery one of the rest a seuerall authour Whereto not to stand answearing euery one seuerally the matter being the same of one and all I say in generall that these things are spoken not of the Scripture as it is in it selfe that is consisting of both words and meaning as it were life and soule together but of the bare words and letters onely which Haeretiques still doe and euen haue abused as the Diuell himselfe did to our Sauiour and in this sense it is a wood of theeues For as theeues runne into a wood to escape thereby soe doe Haeretiques runne in all controuersies to the letter of the Scripture leauing the true sense and framing a false one according to their owne fancy Tert. de praes cap. 17 Which is that that Tertullian saith that there is noe good to be done with haeretiques by Scriptures for that either they deny the booke or peruert the sense and whatsoeuer wee say they deny or what we deny they defend and so a wood of theeues and shop of haeretiques dead characters and the like are all one the meaning of all being soe as these speeches are not meant of the Scripture properly in it selfe as I saied before but as it is yours or as it is made by you and other Haeretiques and yet alas good man you tremble to heare the words that doe but expresse your owne deeds Alac for you that your stomacke is soe queasy that it cannot endure to heare that which you are bold and hardy enough to doe by your daily practize 5. But because you are soe dainty that your stomacke turneth at what our moderne authors say of you let vs see whether it wil brooke any better what that ancient learned Father S. Hierome saith Let vs see whether your tender conscience wil be soe scandalized at his words as you seeme to be now at ours Hierom. 1. Gal. Marcion Basilides saith he caeterae haereticorum pestes nō habent Dei Euangelium quia non habent Spiritū Sanctum sine quo humanum fit Euangelium quod docetur Nec putemus in verbis Scripturarum esse Euāgelium sed in sensu non in superficie sed in medulla non in sermonum folijs sed in radice rationis Dicitur in Propheta de Deo Michae 2. Sermones eius boni sunt cum eo Tunc Scriptura vtilis est audientibus cum absque Christo non dicitur cum absque Patre non profertur cum sine spiritu non eam insinuat ille qui praedicat alioquin diabolus qui loquitur de scripturis omnes haereses secundum Ezechiel inde sibi consuunt ceruicalia quae ponant sub cubito vniuersae aetatis c. Grande periculum est in ecclesia loqui ne fortè interpretatione peruersa de euangelio Christi hominis fiat euangelium aut quod peius est Diaboli Marcion Basilides and other plagues of Haeretiques haue not the Ghospel of God because they haue not the Holy Ghost without whom it becometh the ghospel of man which is taught Nor let vs thinke that the ghospel is or consisteth in the words of scripture but in the sense not in the superficies or barke but in the pith not in the leaues of speach or word but in the roote of reason It is said in the Prophet of God His speeches are good with him then the Scripture is profitable to the hearers when it is not spoken without Christ when it is not brought without the Father when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the Holy Ghost otherwise both the Diuel who speaketh out of Scripture and all haeresies according to Ezechiel make themselues pillowes out of it to