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
conueniret sub vtraque specie fieri communionem quam sub altera tantum hoc enim magis consonum est eius institutioni integritati refectioni corporali exemplo Christi c. that is If wee reguard the Sacrament and the perfection thereof it were more conuenient to haue the communion vnder both kinds then vnder one For this is more agreeable to the institution thereof and the integrity and corporal resection and the example of Christ c. Where first you leaue out in your English translation those words habito respectu ad Sacramentum though you put them in Latine in the margent Which words are the life of the sentence and plainely shew that Tapper doth not speake of the conueniency absolutely and all things considered but in some respect to wit in respect of the Sacrament or in respect of the signification of our Sauiour's passion which is more expresse in both kinds then in one in respect of the institutioÌ„ which was in both in respect of the integrity because as the Diuines say both the Species are partes integrantes as two peeces of bread in one loafe though both together haue noe more essential perfection then one alone And in respect of corporal refectioÌ„ which as it requireth meate and drinke soe the spiritual refection is more expresly signified by both though noe lesse effectually performed by one Soe that this while Tapper speaketh not of the absolute conuenieÌ„cy but onely in some respects wherein I appeale to the Reader whether you haue kept your promise of not wilfully or wittingly mis-citing or mistranslating any author For heere it appeareth how you haue mis-traÌ„slated leauing out as a maÌ„ may say the principal verbe which shall yet more appeare by that which followeth immediatly in the same author which is this Alia tamen consideratione reuerentia vz. Quae huic Sacramento dbetur vtque in eius vsu vitemus omneâ—â—â—reuerentiaÌ„ minus conuenit atque etiam malun est nulloque modâ— expediens ecclesiae vt populus Christianus sub vtraque specie communicaret Bâ—â— in another consideration to wit of the reuerence which is dew to this Sacrament and to the end we may auoid all irreuerence it is lesse conuenient and euen it is ill and noe way expedient for the Church that the Christian people should communicate vnder both kinds Loe you Sir Humphrey was it honestly done of you to leaue out this being the other halfe of the sentence answearing to the former which of it selfe was imperfect and which was the authors absolute iudgment and determination Can any man euer giue you credit more but because Sir I will not leaue any scruple in any mans minde concerning this authors meaning and that by the perfection and integrity which he spoke of in the former part of the senteÌ„ce he did not meane the want of any spiritual fruite I will adde one word more out of him which is this In omissione calicis nulluÌ„ interuenit peccatum aut periculum nec aliquod gratiae spiritualis iactum in the omitting or leauing of the Chalice there is noe sinne or daÌ„ger or losse of any spirituall grace What could hee say or we desire more 10. Wherefore to come to your coÌ„clusion which you draw out of that that because many Fathers and learned men doe agree in saying that the Communion in both kinds was most frequent in the Primitiue Church therefore they giue testimony of your doctrine it is most foolish for we also agree with them in the former and yet deny your doctrine which is that all men are bound to receiue in both kinds consequently that it is not lawfull for theÌ„ to receiue it in one kind and that soe to receiue it is to receiue but an half Communion and such like absurdityes This is your doctrine for proofe whereof you haue not brought one word out of any author but brought some that say absolutely and expresly the contrary as Val. Tapper Bell. c. Nay what will you say if a man shall shew you out of your owne statute Lawes made now in this your tyme of Reformation some approbatioÌ„ or allowance of the CommunioÌ„ in one kind 1. Edw. 6. cap. 1. which is the thing you exclaime soe against vs for See in the Lawes of K. Edw. 6. reuiued and coÌ„firmed by Q. Elizabeth whether they doe not say onely that the CoÌ„munion is to bee commonly deliuered ministred to the people vnder both kinds 1. Eliz. ca. 1. vith this exception also vnlesse necessity otherwise require Looke you Sir Humphrey is it not heere allowed vpon necessity though the necessity be not expressed what or how great it must be but hence it followeth that if particular necessity may excuse in a particular case if the necessity shall proue great vniuersal it may be also sufficient for abstayning from one kind vniuersally or generally and howsoeuer it sheweth Communion in both kinds not to bee so strictly commanded by Christ For if it were noe necessity could excuse it in one Kind 11. And soe this might serue for this matter but that I am loth to lett passe a worthy saying of yours in the very end of this § Which is this And as coÌ„cerning the halfe Communion which is receiued in the Romane Church for an article of faith as it wants antiquity and consent of Fathers by their owne confession soe likewise it wants a right foundation in the Scriptures which an article of Faith ought to haue Thus you where with your worships good leaue a man may tell you you haue as many faults as words we teach all the coÌ„trary to wit that it is not halfe communion but that Christ is receiued whole and entire and a true Sacrament and as much spiritual fruit necessary to saluation in one kind as both as the Councel of Trent by your confession defineth We say it neither wanteth antiquity nor consent of Fathers as you may see in Bellarmine and many others We say it doth not want a right foundation in the Scriptures for as I said before we proue it out of the scriptures V. Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. both of the old new testament the doctrine and example of our Sauiour And his Apostles expressed in scripture Wee say also to conclude therewith that it is most false of all which you take euery where for a very truth as if it were agreed vpon on all sides to wit that an article of faith must haue sufficient and expresse proofe of scripture Whereas the cleane contrary is truth and as generally concluded among all Diuines and Fathers as you boldly affirme yours which assertion therefore of yours I heere absolutely deny once for all and though I neede not stand prouing it being euery where in all our authors yet for the Readers sake I will cite one place of S. Ierome coming first to my memory who hauing proued a point of faith against the Luciferian Haeretiques out of
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
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
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
such as meant to bee counted Catholiques Wherein I would farther know of him what other difference there is but onely that the Creede of Nice was made for declaration of the Catholique faith in the point of the Diuinity of our Sauiour and this of the Councel of Trent for declaration of all these points controuerted by the Haeretiques of these tymes And yet in one thing more they agree that is that as the Arrians of those tymes cried out against that Creede as being new and hauing words not found in Scripture for example Consubstantiation Soe our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of Faith for the same reasons of nouelty and words not found in scripture as for example Transubstantiation 3. But to come neerer vnto them They allow of the Nicene Creede they will not then I suppose say the Faith therein taught eyther now is or then was new though it were then first declared by authority of any Councel Which if they doe not as indeede they cannot then say I in like sort the profession of Faith sett downe by the Councel of Trent and Pope Pius 4. is noe new Faith but the old Faith of late particularly declared and defined against the haeresies of these tymes I could also in proofe of the same vrge Sir Humphrey with the 39. articles appointed by the authority of the Church of England to bee vniformely taught by all Ministers and which they are to sweare vnto Which articles though they be indeede new coyned as the foundation of a new Church Yet Sir Humphrey being his Mother's Champion will not I suppose yeild her or her doctrine to be new as yet on the other side he cannot deny but those articles receiued some kind of force whereby Protestants were more bound to beleiue and teach them then before From whence I might euidently inferre that a new definition or declaration doth not make the Doctrine new but that ancient doctrine may be newly defined according as new springing heresies shall giue occasion 4. Which being soe it is plaine that all his insulting speeches against the Councel of Trent and Catholique church are but verie smoke and may bee as easily blowne backe vpon Himselfe and his church and that by them hee doth but furnish vs with weapons against himself therein also bewraying his ignorance For whose better instruction if hee be not too wise to learne hee is to know two things in this matter First that we Catholiques doe not call all points of faith howsoeuer taught declared or defined articles as hee seemeth to thinke and the ground of this his errour may bee in that those great maine points of his Churches doctrine called the 39. articles are called by that name of articles But wee call that onely an article V S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 1. ar according to S. Thomas which containeth some speciall reason of difficulty in it self whereby it requireth a particular and distinct reuelacion because it cannot bee inferred or deduced out of any other reuealed truth as for example the point of our Sauiour's resurrection is cleane a different point from that point of his death and passion and this againe from that other of his Natiuity and soe of the rest because each of them requireth a distinct and seuerall reuelacion from the other For Christ might haue beene borne and yet not dye vpon the crosse and hee might haue died and yet not risen the third day from death to life but those other truthes defined by the Church as the vnity of Christ's person against Nestorius the distinction of his two natures against Sergius Pirrhus c. are not to bee called articles because they are sufficiently contained in others and deduced out of them Other Diuines giue other definitions of an article of faith which may also well stand with this of S. Thomas which I follow as the more common but all agree in this that though euery article bee a proposition of Faith yet euerie proposition is not an article of Faith 5. And heerevpon we teach that for articles of faith the Church can make none as she cannot write a canonical booke of scripture but that belongeth onely to the Prophets and Apostles or rather hath beene fully and perfectly performed by them to whom those articles were immediately reuealed by God whereof they deliuered part by writing and part by word of mouth to their posterity the Church Soe as now there neede not any new and particular reuelacions but out of those already made to the Apostles and Prophets which are all laid vpp in the treasury of the Church as a pawne or depositum as S. Paul calleth it other truths are drawne the holy Church and true spouse of Christ euer keeping this pretious treasure with continuall care and vigilancie and dispensing the same faithfully to her Children as neede requireth Whensoeuer any haeretique or other enemy endeauoureth to corrupt or peruert she calling her Pastors and Doctors together to examine the matter being infallibly assisted by that Spirit of truth which our Sauiour promised to bee allwayes with his disciples that is with his Church she declareth what is true and what false as agreeing or disagreeing with or from that doctrine which she hath receiued from her fathers that is Prophets and Apostles vpon whom as vpon a spiritual foundation she is strongly built according to that of S. Paul superedificaii supra fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum Ephes 2 20. Built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The very words Fundamentum foundation also shewing that her doctrine is not of her owne inuention or framing but grounded on them from whom she receiued it and that she hath not any which she receiueth not from them For as in a howse or building there is not the least stone or peece of timber which resteth not vppon the foundation Soe in the doctrine of the Catholique Church there is not the least point which is not grounded or contained in that which was deliuered by the Prophets and Apostles Commonit aduer haer cap. 27. Which truth Vincentius Lerinensis in like sort deduceth out of the word Depositum vsed by S. Paul to Timothee Quid est depositum saith hee id est quod tibi creditum est non quod a te inuentum quod accepisti non quod excogitasti rem non ingenij sed doctrinae non vsurpationis priuatae sed publica traditionis rem ad te perductam non a te prolatam in qua non auctor debes esse sed custos non institutor sed Sectator non ducens sed sequens What is a depositum it is that which thou art trusted with not that which is found by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast sought out a thing not of wit that is not of thine owne inuenting but of learning that is which is learnt not of priuate vsurpation but publique tradition a thing brought to thee not brought forth by thee wherein
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
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
followed curiosities becoming Christians confessed their deeds and burnt their books Soe we see afterwards the books of Arius were commanded to be burnt and men forbidden to keepe them vnder paine of death Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 6. and soe of others which I will not heere stand vpon onely contenting my selfe with one exāple of this kind which for the antiquity and authority may be both proofe and warrant for the practize of the Catholique Church now at this tyme wherein the Haeretiques doe soe much cry out against the Inquisition and index expurgatorius 2. This example is that of Gelasius 1. Pope about the yeare 490. who in a Councel at Rome gathered for that end made a Decree to declare what Scriptures were canonical what Fathers and Doctours might be safely read and what not whereof hauing made a catalogue he addeth these words in the end Item opuscula atque tractatus omnium orthodoxorum c. Also we decree to be read the workes and treatises of all the orthodox Fathers who in nothing haue strayed from the company of the holy Romane Church nor haue been separated from the faith and preaching thereof but by the grace of God haue held with the same euen to the last day of their life and then before he come to make a catalogue of the haereticall books which he forbiddeth he saith thus Coetera quae abhaereticis c. Other things which haue beene written or preached by Haeretiques or Schismatiques the Catholique and Apostolique Romane Church doth noe way receiue of which some few that come to mind and are to be shunned by Catholiques we thinke good to sett downe heere and soe there setteth them downe Now I would know of the Knight or anie man els that crieth out soe bitterly against our Index expurgatorius what he can say against it that he may not say against this decree and Councel of Gelasius and against which we may not defend our selues by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts 3. But of this matter therefore I neede not say more it being euident by the light of nature that supposing there be a certaine rule of faith to which all men must cōforme their thoughts sayings and writings and that the swaruing from it is a declining to haeresy it pertaineth to the Catholique Romane Church which must of necessity be this rule of faith For it hath neither spot nor wrinckle as Gelasius saith which cannot be said of any Church els what soeuer to preuent the danger that may come by such books forbidding the vse of them and a more dangerous and vnnatural part it would be in her not to vse this care then it were in a Mother that should see sugar and ratts-baine lye together and seing her child going to tast thereof should forbeare to warne it but leaue the choice thereof to the child But of this matter I said somewhat in the beginning and there being diuers learned treatises of this subiect particularly I neede say noe more but remitt such as desire satisfaction to them or euen to the very rules sett downe in the beginning of the Index expurgatorius which are grounded vpō soe good reason as I presume noe indifferent man that readeth them can disallow of them I will not therefore stand particularly to examine euery particular authour and iustify the Inquisition for it would be both a long needlesse labour Onely I cannot omitt one authour called Bertram whom to turne my speech to you Sir Humphrey me thinks you among all men liuing should neuer soe much as name considering how much disgrace you haue sustained by translating his booke and venturing your owne credit and the credit of your Church vpon the faith thereof and for him I answeare that though his booke were proued plainely to containe good Catholique doctrine in the matter of transubstantiation yet because it was obscure in many places and thereby gaue occasion of erring and indeede was of vncertaine authority this onely being certaine that it hath beene in this last age published by Haeretiques we know not out of what records with some errours of their owne inserted therefore it might well be forbidden by the Inquisition but I say you should of all men liuing most labour to haue the memory thereof blotted out therewith to obliterate your owne shame 4. Another thing which I am also to note is concerning your coting of a Canon of the Councel of Laodicea in this section whereat I wonder that the inquisition hauing said nothing to it why you should reckon it heere among such authours as you say are razed or clipped by the inquisition But let vs heare what it is that you say to it you cite the Canon thus in English onely We ought not to leaue the Church of God and inuocate Angels saying withall that in the same Councel published by Merlin and Crabbe by change of a letter Angelos is turned into Angulos Angels into Angles and Corners thus that we must not leaue the Church of God and haue recourse to Angles or Corners and this say you lest soe faire an euidence of an ancient Councel should be produced against inuocation of Angels V. Bin. to 1. Concil thus you Sir Humphrey wherein first is to be noted your error in chronology concerning the tyme of this Councel which you make to be the yeare 368. which was 43. Con. Laodien can 35. yeares after the 1. Councel of Nice whereas it was celebrated before that Councel Secondly your corruption in the translation and cutting of of the Canon which is thus Non oportet relicta ecclesia ad Angelos abominandae idolatriae congregrationes facere quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultae huic idololaetriae vacans Anathema sit quoniam relinquens Dominum IESVM Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola Noe man must leauing the Church of God make congregations to the Angels of abominable idolatry and whosoeuer shal be found exercizing this secret idolatry let him be anathema because leauing IESVS Christ the Sonne of God he hath come to idols Now where in this Canon doe you find the word inuocation of Angels Which is the thing that you pretend to be forbidden and much lesse doe you find such inuocation of Angels as we vse For in this Canon is onely forbidden such idolatrical inuocation as the Simonian and other haeretiques did vse praeferring the Angels before Christ and making them the creatours of the world and the onely or chiefe mediatours without whose helpe there was noe accesse to be had to God which is the same wicked haeresy which Saint Paul speaketh against Coloss 2. as all interpreters vnderstand him By whose words it is plaine that those Haeretiques left Christ and had recourse to Angels in this sense Nemo vos seducat non tenens caput c. Let noe man seduce you not holding the head that is not holding by Christ Now where doe you finde that we by inuocation of Angels forsake Christ
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
Donatists who iustified themselues as you Sir Knight iustify your Church Much more of this might bee said but this may serue to shew you not to bee in your right witts that bragg of that which you ought most to bee ashamed of and account that to make for you which makes most against you 9. For that which you talke of goeing out of Aegipt and Babylon which you would haue men vnderstand the Catholique Church as if you were commaunded to goe out from her Doe but once shew vs that Aegypt and Babylon which the Sripture speaketh of were euer the true Church and then you may seeme to haue said some what for your Churches departure from the Romane Which impudence it self cannot deny to haue beene once the true Church You are bold indeede to say that Babylon was a true Church wherewith sometymes the faithfull did communicate but that after it was more depraued the faithfull are commanded to goe out of it But I may aske you where you reade this what Father what Doctour what man euer tooke Babylon in scripture to be vsed for the name of the true Church S. Peter in one of his Epistles speaketh of Rome by the name of Babylon out of which a multitude of Fathers and Doctours proue that Saint Peter was at Rome and now you forsooth bring some of them cited by our authors to that purpose to proue that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church Abusing all those Fathers most egregiously among all whom neuer one meant any such matter but onely by Babylon vnderstood the temporal state and gouernment of the Citty of Rome as it was subiect to those Pagan tyrannizing Emperours which persecuted the Church and people of God wherein it did resemble that other ancient and true Babylon which detayned the Iewes then the true Church and people of God in captiuity and oppression Which also S. Peter's owne words doe sufficiently shew distinguishing most plainely Babylon from the true Church For he saith thus 1. Pet. 5.13 Ecclesia quae est in Babylone coëlecta The Church which is in Babylon coelect saluteth you Not that Babylon was a true Church as your words are Sir Humphrey 10. Now whereas you say that when she was depraued the faithfull were willed to goe out of her that is out of her that was once the true Church You are extreamely mistaken For if you meane any true Babylon as that Citty of Chaldaea or that other of Aegypt or Babylon by similitude and likenes as was Rome in tyme of the HeatheÌ„ Emperours and as many Interpreters thinke towards the end of the world in tyme of Antichrist the citty or temporal gouernment thereof shall againe become of which tyme that of the Apocalypse is meant that the faithfull shall fly for auoyding of the cruelty and tyranny of the persecutours which shall then bee more cruel then euer or if by Babylon you meane the whole company of wicked men from the beginning to the end of the world as S. Aug. taketh it throughout his great worke de ciuit Dei and other Fathers and Doctours and many interpreters vnderstand that place of the Apocalypse 18. If I say you meane it any of these wayes as noe man of vnderstanding euer meant or vnderstood it otherwise then was it neuer any true Church and soe the Children and people of God might well bee willed to gett out of it either locally by motion of the body or spiritually by auoyding the maÌ„ners of the people not hauing any thing with them in their wicked wayes But if you meane as you expresse your selfe that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church and that it may bee depraued that is that the Church of Christ notwithstanding all his promises for the perpetuity thereof as That hee would bee with it to the worlds end That it was built vpoÌ„ a rocke That the Gates of hell should not preuaile against it That he would send the Holy Ghost to bee with it for euer notwithstanding that the Church is his kingdome his inheritance his mysticall body his Spouse that notwithstanding all this I say it should faile it shoull bee depraued it should bee wiolated I know not what to say but to stopp myne eares against that mouth of blasphemy of yours and heerewith end this sectioÌ„ the rest thereof being nothing but the bitter froth of a distempered stomacke and vnworthy of answeare Chap. 3. THE EXAMINATION OF Sir Humphrey's second and third Section CHAPTER III. 1. IN the second Section Sir Humphrey laboureth to proue the contention betwixt the Churches as he calleth them to proceede originally from vs and this by the confessions of our owne The third Section is to proue the corruptions both in faith and manners confessed by some of vs and yet reformacion denied by the Pope Both which are easily answeared First by asking what all this is to his purpose suppose it were true Doth this shew his Church to haue beene alwayes visible or ours to haue beene at any tyme not visible Hee was not to stand vpon matter of contention who was cause or not cause thereof or who would haue mended who not For the errors in faith which hee seemeth to tax â—s with-all in his third section if he can proue them he saith somewhat indeede though yet not soe fully to his purpose For though hee proue vs to haue had some errours it doth not soe presently follow that they of his side haue had none or that therefore their Church hath beene euer visible there is a great deale more required to it then soe And though he should proue some errors to haue beene taught by some particular men or euen in some Country professing the Catholique faith it doth not follow that the Catholique Church hath fayled in faith or ceased to bee visible 2. Secondly I answeare to his second Section which is to proue that the contention proceeded from vs which hee vndertaketh to proue by our owne confession that in all this Section he bringeth but fowre authorities to wit Cassander a Canon of his English Church out of the praeface to Iewels works Camden citing S. Bede Plessy Morney citing Michael Caesenas Of all which onely S. Bede is a Catholique and euen cited by the Protestant Camden and onely for a story which he tels of one Redwalde king of the East Saxons who being first conuerted to Christianity and after seduced by his wife had in the same Church two altars one for Christ's religion another for the Diuels out of which this knight frameth to himself a pretty fancy being desirous heereby to make men beleiue that the like happened in the Romane Church and that some adored God onely others fell to adore Saints and images and the like Which fond conceit what answeare can it deserue For it is but the bare saying of one that doth not vnderstand what he saith For otherwise how could he possibly say such a thing of himself without saying when where or how that happed
faithfull people haue complained of the coldnes of Catholiques in that they doe not communicate soe feruently and frequently as they did in the primitiue Church not of the Priests saying Masse when there bee none to communicate This is therefore also Sir Humphrey-like to say one thing for another Now for the translation of Scriptures you triumph as if those of Doway confessed that they did it importunitate Haereticorum and for this you are faine to be beholding to Casaubon's epistle to Peron which you cite whereas you might haue looked your self in the booke better then Casaubon who was a French man and is supposed not to vnderstand English soe well as you but it may bee you looked in the booke and finding Casaubon tell an vntruth you would tell it after him though you knew it to be such because you thought it made against vs and for the disgrace when you should be charged with it you meant it should light vpon your author but there is shame enough in store for you both You should haue cited the place where these of Doway say soe for I finde it not those of Rhemes indeede who were the same authors say quite contrary in their preface to wit Rhem. test Praef. initio that they doe not translate the scriptures for any of those reasons which Haeretiques vrge but for the more speedy abolishing of haereticall translations and they there shew that there haue beene some vulgar translations of scriptures long before Luther's tyme and that the reading of them was neither generally forbidden nor generally permitted in former tymes noe more then they are now how neere then doe they come 6. As for that which you tell vs out of my L. Cook 's report's that our Catholiques did frequent your Churches till the eleuenth yeare of Q. Elizabeth I answeare that for my Lo Cooke I haue not to meddle with him Answ to Cook reports cap. 16. neyther neede I hee was soe soundly answeared by a Catholique Diuine and soe exposed to the scorne of the world for his notorious falshoods and euen in this particular among others that he neuer had the hart or face to make answeare for himselfe And yet now you are not ashamed to take vpp his false tales and tell them againe afresh Now after this for a leafe together you talke your ordinary fustion that many Catholiques hold this and that and tother point of your doctrine though they dare not communicate openly with you For why I pray should they not dare heere in England where they are compelled thereunto But I lett this passe as being all your owne discourse except onely one thing out of Câ—sterus who saith that a Priest doth sinne more grieuously in marrying a wife then keeping a Concubine Which you seeme to take for a great errour To which I say that in your Ministers who are meere lay men and may marry as freely as any body els it is a greater sinne to haue a concubine then to marry nay to marry is noe sinne But in Priests who cannot marry it is a greater sinne to marry for it is noe marriage and in this Sir I would know of you whether it would not bee a greater sinne for a man to marry another mans wife her husband being aliue then to liue loosely with her at his pleasure nay whether it be not worse for him to liue loosely with her with promise to marry her when her husband dyeth then without such a promise sure it is For a promise in such a case according to the Canons is an impediment that they can neuer marry together Likewise is it not a greater sinne for a man to marrie with à neere kinswoman within the degrees forbidden in which case it is noe Marriage then to liue loosely with her Sure it is and yet this is it which you condemne in Costerus but it makes noe matter what you say 7. And soe I come to Bishop Gardiner who you tell vs dyed a Protestant because when he came to dye he sett the Merits of Christ in the gap to stand betweene Gods iudgment and his sinnes I answeare Sir Humphrey that if you can bring a Catholique that doth not doe soe we will yeild Bishop Gardiner to haue died a Protestant And soe of Bellarmine whom you make men beleeue to haue died a Protestant because hee craued pardon at the hands of God not as a valewer of meritts but as a giuer of mercy For by this rule Bellarmine should not onely haue died but also liued a Protestant for as often as hee said Masse which was euery day throughout the yeare that hee was able for 40. yeares together at least before his death he said those words and soe doth euery Catholique Priest as oft as he saith Masse for they are in the Canon of the Masse Cap Signifiâ—â—sti which is neuer changed but is alwaies the same though the epistles Ghospells and prayers change according to the seueral tymes and feasts What a madnes then is it heere hence to make Bellarmine a Protestant but it is like the rest of your inferences 8. But you haue another thing out of Bellarmine which is that he saith it is most safe to put trust in the onely mercy and goodnes of God It is true Bellarmine saieth soe but yet you leaue out the former part of the sentence which was to be the reason and rule of the later part which is this by reason of the vncertainty of our owne iustice and perill of vaine glory it is most safe c. Wherein I would faine see what there is to make Bellarmine a Protestant For hee doth not deny that there is any confidence to be placed in our good works proceeding from God's grace as you Protestants doe for he had proued in the same Chapter out of Scriptures and Fathers that there might but there hee saith withall that because we know not whether we haue such good works or noe or though perhaps we know we haue yet for feare of vaine glory it is the better way to turne away our eyes from them and looke onely vpon God's mercy Which he proueth by many prayers which the Church vseth in that manner and among others this very prayer whereby you gather him to be a Protestant which as he vsed in his sicknes soe he taught in health how it was to bee vsed without daunger of Protestantisme or any other such error but what Doth this take away all merit of God works or all confidence in them nothing lesse good Sir knight as any man may see without farther declaration Well but though you cannot make Bishop Gardner or Bellarmine-Protestants Lib. 2. de iustif cap. 1. yet you will make Pighius a Caluinist in the point of Iustification But Bellarmine euen there where you cite him cleareth Pighius though not from all errour yet from that imputation of Caluinisme in two respects the one in that his opinion is not wholy the same with Caluin for he
bragge for from the tyme you haue begunne to be against it you are not of it And soe much for that 18. Now for these points of Doctrine by you named wherein you agree with vs and which you hauing no Succession of your owne you cannot haue it by any other meanes but by and from vs which therefore are ours and not yours we doe not question you for your antiquity and vniuersality but for these other points wherein you disagree as when you deny the doctrine declared by the Councel of Trent when you deny our seauen Sacraments deny the truth of one of these two Sacramēts to wit the real presence of our Sauiour's body bloud necessity efficacy of the other to wit Baptisme Deny our canon of scripture our number of Councels our traditions c. For this is your faith properly as you are a distinct company or Church Shew your doctrine in all these points that is your deniall of them to haue beene anciently and vniuersally taught or euen before Luther's tyme and you haue said something which you not doing I cannot but wonder to see you soe silly and senselesse to vse your owne words as to thinke you haue said something to the purpose We aske you the antiquity of your doctrine that is wherein you disagree from vs and you answeare vs with the antiquity of soe much as agreeth with ours which is to answeare vs with the antiquity of our owne You haue beene pleased to shape your selues a religion out of ours and you pleade the antiquity of ours But that will not serue your turne that shape which you giue it is the forme and essence of your religion soe long then as that is new your religion is new Neither can you say the same of our points defined in the Councel of Trent as you seeme to say by asking Where our Church was◠where our Trent doctrine and articles of the Romane Creede were receiued de fide before Luther this you cannot likewise say to vs for the defining made not the Doctrine new but bound men by authority of a Councel to beleeue what they did beleeue plainely by tradition Vinc. Lerin cap. 32. as Vincentius Lerinensis saith that the Church by the decrees of her Councels hath done nothing els but that what she had before receiued by tradition onely she should also by writing consigne to posterity Nec quicquam Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit ecclesia nisi vt quod prius a maioribus sola traditione susceperat hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturae chirographum consignaret Of which see more in the first chapter heere 19. After this you aske againe if your doctrine lay inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church which say you no Romanist can deny if it became hidden as good corne couered with chaffe or as fine gold ouerlayed with a greater quātity of drosse whether it must bee therefore new and vnknowne because the corne was not seuered from the chaffe the gold from the drosse before Luther's tyme and then you bid vs because we call your Doctrine nouelty to remoue the three Creeds the two Sacraments the 22. canonical books the 4. first generall Councels apostolical traditions and see whether our Church wil not proue a poore and senselesse carcasse This is your learned discourse Sir Humphrey to which I answeare asking First what Romanist doth acknowledge your doctrine to haue layen inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church Did euer any man write soe did euer any man say soe vnto you nay what Romanist hath euer forborne vpon occasiō offered to deny and deny it againe you teach not onely those bee two but that there be but two Sacramēts which what Romanist euer acknowledged to haue beene taught in the Romane Church one of your Sacraments is an empty peece of bread and a supp of wine which what Catholique will euer say was Taught in the Romane Church you allow 4. Councels and but 4. you allow 22. books of canonical Scripture and but 22. will any Catholique euer allow this to haue beene Catholique doctrine take away your but and then it may passe but then you take away your religion But heere is one thing that giueth mee much cause of wonder which is that you talke of traditions as distinct from Scripture which is a thing that I did little expect from a man of your profession and I euer tooke you to be soe fallē out with them that you made the denial of them a fundamental point of your Religion and that therefore you would not endure the word traditions euen in holy Scriptures where it might be taken in a good sense but alwaies translated or rather falsifyed it into ordinances though both the Latine and Greeke word did signify traditions most expresly But this your allowing of traditions is not a thing that I reprehend in you though some Puritane Ministers may perhaps not let you passe soe gently with it but that that followeth to wit that you should bee soe vnaduised as to acknowledge your Church or Doctrine which you simply and confusedly take for the same being very different as I haue often said to haue beene inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church and to haue become hidden like good corne couered with chaffe and like gold couered with drosse till Luther's tyme and yet to say that it was visible before that tyme is the corne seene when it is couered with chaffe the gold when it is couered with drosse Answ to Cooks rep ep dedicat nu 20. 20. My Lord Cooke shewed himself somewhat wiser when asking himself the question which we aske you to wit where your Church was before Luther he answeared it made no great matter where it was soe hee were certaine it was confessing thereby that his Church was indeede inuisible but yet in being which because it seemed hard to perswade any man he brought a fine similitude of a wedge of gold dissolued and mixed with brasse tinne and other mettalls which he said did not therefore loose his nature but remained gold though we could not determine in what part of the masse it was contained This was somewhat more like for a man by such a similitude to goe about to proue that a Church might subsist inuisibly for the which neuerthelesse a Catholique Diuine told him his owne very soundly but for you Sir Knight to proue the Visibility of your Church by such a Similitude it were not to be beleeued vnlesse a man did see it in print You labour to proue your Church to haue beene visible before Luther's tymes and yet you confesse her to haue begunne her Visibility by Luther for thus you aske was there noe good corne in the granary of the Church because for many yeares space till Luther's dayes it was not seuered from the chaffe to seuer the corne from the chaffe wherewith it was couered is to make it visible if then Luther did first seuer it he
first made her visible which is that we desire And soe Sir you haue spunne a faire threed You would faine make your Church visible before Luther and you make it inuisible you looke well about you meane while Now that which you say next of taking away the 3. Creeds which you professe two Sacraments 4. Councels and 22. booke of Scripture without which our Church would bee a poore senselesse carcasse is most foolish for who doth speake of taking them away who doth say they are yours you will not say your selfe but you had them from vs What then doe you talke of taking them away and whereas you are bold to say that wee now stile them chaffe and new haeresies it is to shamelesse an vntruth for any man to tell but your selfe and therefore deserueth noe other answeare but that it is SIR HVMPHREY LIND'S you vnderstand my meaning Sir 21. One little thing more there is in this Section which is that whereas some of ours haue termed your religion negatiue in reguard it consisteth most in denyall of such things as we teach as they may well call it you would retort that terme vpon vs because wee deny many things which you affirme But this is not a matter of any moment For they who call your religion negatiue doe not meane that you doe not teach any positiue erroneous point but that most of your doctrine I meane that which is properly yours not taken from vs is negatiue and euen those affirmatiue propositions which you teach if you teach any are but contradictions of other things which we teach are not or may not be done In which respect they may be also called negatiue But for ours it is nothing soe for it consisteth of positiue points deliuered not by way of opposition or denyal for it was before all haeresy though it is true that it hath many negatiue propositioÌ„s and praecepts Besides out of euery positiue point a man may inferre the contrary negatiue Which yet maketh not that a negatiue as you doe in some of those propositions which you alleadge for example you make this a negatiue point that we deny the substaÌ„ce of bread to remaine after coÌ„secration whereas that is onely a negatiue inferred out of this positiue that the substance of the bread and wine is chaÌ„ged into the body and bloud of our Blessed Sauiour which is our doctrine euer was before any haeresy arose but an haeresy arising to the contrary as that the substance of bread remaineth after consecration the Church out of that positiue point deduceth this negatiue that the substance of breade doth not remaine for destruction of that haeresy But of this there is enough and of this whole SectioÌ„ wherein the Gentle Reader may see whether you Sir knight doe not deserue the name and punishment of an Haeretique by your owne Doome not hauing proued either the antiquity or vniuersality or certainty or safety of your Protestant faith out of any author of ours or euen of your owne or any shew of reasoÌ„ or said any thing to the purpose though you haue taken more liberty to abuse those three authors which you alleadge vtter such grosse falsityes then I doe not say honesty but eueÌ„ shame would giue a man leaue but which is most to bee wondered you haue laboured to proue the visibility of your Church by such similitudes as proue the contrary Which is not any praise of goodnes for you intended it not but an argument of the necessity whereto you were driuen by the badnes of your cause and a dispraise of your iudgment in that you see not what you say Of the 9. Section The title whereof is this The testimonyes of our Aduersaries touching the Protestant and the Romane faith in the particular CHAPTER IX 1. OVR Knight hauing promised to proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his faith and nouelty of ours in generall by the testimony of our owne authors Church and performed it brauely forsooth as hath beene shewed in the former chapter he professeth now in this ninth Section Chap. 9. to proue the same in like sort out of our authors in diuers particular points as iustification by faith onely the Sacrament of the Supper and Doctrine of transubstantiation Priuate Masse c. treating euery one heere ex professo and seuerally in distinct paragraphes whose methode I shall also follow in answearing of him §. 1. Of Iustification by faith onely examined 1. This point of his Protestant iustification by faith onely the Knight proueth as hee saith out of a booke published in Anselmes tyme which is called Ordo baptizandi visitandi c. Of which he citeth two or three seueral editions to fill vpp the margents with quotations and to authorize the booke more he telleth vs that Cassander saith it is obuious euery where in libraries Out of this booke he citeth a whole page and a halfe which I list not heere stand writeing out but onely I will take the worst word in it all that is which may seeme to make most against vs and for the Knight which is this the Priest is appointed to aske the sicke man whether he beleeue to come to glory not by his owne merits but by the merits of Christ's passion and that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his Passion to which the sicke man was to answeare I beleeue Wherevpon the Priest gaue him councell to putt his confidence in noe other thing This is the vtmost he can say out of this booke and what is all this to the purpose For first the knight doth not shew vs any authority for this booke or that S. Anselme had any thing to doe with it nor telleth vs of any ancient edition before the yeare 1556. but onely a mention thereof by Cassâ—â—der a classical author indeede and of the first classe in the index librorum prohibitorum in an appendix alsoe to a forbidden booke falsely called Io. Roffensis de fiducia misericordia Dei then which hee could haue said nothing more to disgrace it 2. Besides he telleth vs that the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition willeth those words of comfort as he calleth them spoken by the Priest to be blotted out which were answeare enough seing the knight is to bring vs authority which we may not except against as I told him in the first Chapter And this very alleadging of the Index expurgatorius is a manifest proofe that it is sett out and corrupted by Haeretiques in fauour of their owne doctrine De corrâ—ct lib. §. 3. 4 For otherwise the Inquisitors can not meddle with it or any other author sett out before the yeare 1515. to change or blott out any thing therein but onely where a manifest error is crept in by fraude of Haeretiques or carelesnes of the Printer Thirdly and principally I answeare that there is nothing in this that doth not stand very well being
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.
Thus Scotus not onely teaching transubstantiation himself but prouing it out of S. Ambrose who maketh most frequent mention of the change and conuersion of the very nature of bread Which is the thing expressed by the word transubstantiatiō By which it is plaine that Scotus must haue held this Doctrine for the substance thereof to bee as ancient as S. Ambrose at the least and if soe ancient then euen from the beginning His meaning therefore in saying it was determined of late in the Councel of Lateran is onely this that whereas the words of consecration may be vnderstood of the real presence of our Blessed Sauiour's body either by transubstantiation that is by change of the bread into his body or otherwise soe that the substance of the bread doe remaine the Church hath determined that the words are to bee vnderstood in the former sense as may bee gathered by his manner of speaking of the Churches expounding of Scriptures which he saith she doth by the same Spirit wherewith the faith was deliuered to Vs to wit by the Spirit of truth V. Scot. in 4. Sent. dist 11.9.3 Which is nothing against the antiquity of transubstantiation And though it were also the cōmon beleife of the Church from the beginning yet it might well be said not to haue beene de substantia fidei Yribarne speaketh because it had not beene soe plainely deliuered nor determined in any Councel till Greg. the 7. his tyme wherein it was first defined against Berengarius and that but by a particular or prouincial Romane Councel Which notwithstanding the article in it selfe might bee ancient though not soe expresly deliuered as I declared more amply in the first chapter 25. You haue little helpe then Sir Humphrey from Alfonsus a Castro Scotus and Yribarne which although you had yet were not that sufficient for discharge of your credit you hauing promised vs acient Fathers against transubstantiation which these three are not for one of them to wit Yribarne is perhaps now aliue another to wit Alfonsus a Castro liued not past 100. yeares agoe the third to wit Scotus about 300. yeares since which is farr from the antiquity of Fathers as wee ordinarily speake of them Wherefore bethinking your selfe at last you bring vs a Father or two to wit S. Aug. and Theodoret telling vs that S. Aug. is soe wholy yours that Maldonat expounding a place in the 6. of S. Iohn saith that he is perswaded that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes and seene that Caluin expounded the same place as he did he would haue changed his mind and for Theodoret you say that Valentia obseruing him to say that the consecrated elements did remaine in their proper substance and shape and figure he maketh the like answeare that it is noe meruaile if one or more of the ancient fathers before the question was debated did thinke lesse considerately and truely of transubstantiation This is all that euer you haue out of the Fathers Which how little it is and how much to your shame shall vpon examination appeare Aug er 26. in Io. 26. For S. Augustine then what is it that he saith in fauour of you in expounding that verse of the 6. of S. Iohn where our Sauiour saith Your Fathers haue eaten Manna and are dead he that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer He saith that their Fathers that is the naughty and vnbeleeuing people of the Iewes dyed to wit spiritually in their soules because they in eating Manna did consider onely what it presented to their outward senses and not what it represented vnto their minds by faith whereas the good men among them as Moyses Aaron Phinees and others who he saith were our Fathers and not theirs did not dye to wit spiritually because they did not cōsider it onely according to the sense but according to faith remēbring that it was but a figure and a figure of this heauenly bread which we haue as the same holy Father saith expresly in the same place Hunc panem significauit manna Manna signified this Bread and he saith it is the same of Iudas and other bad Christians which receiue of the Altar and by receiuing dye because they receiue it ill Doth not this make much for you now Sir Humphrey Doe not you see how wholy S. Aug. is yours How he saith that Manna was a figure of this our heauenly bread that we receiue it from the altar Doth not all this make finely for you but you will say then if it make nothing for vs why doth Maldonate say that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes hee would haue interpreted otherwise I answeare not that this interpretation is for you but because the other is more against you to wit thus Whereas S. Augustine giues the reason why they that did eate Manna dyed to bee because they did not eate it with faith Maldonate maketh the difference to bee not soe much betweene the persons which did eate as betweene the foode which they did eate saying that our Sauiour maketh this a special prerogatiue of the B. Sacrament farre aboue the Manna that this holy Sacrament giueth life to them that eate it which the Manna did not giue of it selfe And indeede with dew reuerence be it spoken to S. Augustine's authority this interpretation is more sutable to the text and discourse of our Sauiour in that whole chapter which is to compare and preferre that true bread which he said his heauenly Father did giue before that of Manna which Moyses gaue their Fathers It is more also against the Haeretiques of these tymes in reguard it is more for the honour of the Blessed Sacrament which they labour might maine to depresse and that is the very reason why Caluin rather followeth the former interpretation not for any loue to Truth or reuerence which hee beareth to S. Augustines authority 27. How false then and absurd is that scoffing speach of yours Sir Humphrey in the next leafe of your booke where you say ironically thus S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the corporal presence For he would haue changed his opinion if he had liued in these dayes as if forsooth Maldonate did say that S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the reall presence and that he would haue changed his Opinion concerning the same if he had liued now in these tymes You heereby insinuating as if S. Augustine thought otherwise thereof then we now teach But how grosly false this is may appeare plainely by what I haue heere said to wit that it is not the reall presence whereof either S. Aug. or Maldonate speaketh but how they that eate Manna haue dyed and they that eate the body of our Lord shall liue according to our Sauiour's saying which is cleane a different thing Wherein Sir HVMPHREY you be LINDE S. Aug. somewhat but Maldonate you be Linde much more by making as if he acknowledged S. Augustine to bee against the real presence and that he should
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
in this place you may see Bellarmine and others namely Suar. who beside scriptures bringeth irrefragable proofes of ancient Popes of the Primitiue Church Councels 3. p. to 3. disp 32. and ancient Fathers And for Halensis and one Diuine or 2. more which may say somewhat to the contrary they are not to bee heard against the whole torrent of Fathers Doctors Though euen these acknowledge them true Sacraments instituted by Christ for as much as pertaynes to the effect or promise of grace annexed to them though not for the outward ceremony and words which they thinke was afterwards appointed of which I shall say more by and by 6. For Order and Penance you deny not the institution of Christ but you deny them to haue any outward element ioyned to the word This is strange is not the paten with an host and chalice with wine in it which is the matter in ordayning of a Priest as much an outward element as is the host and wine alone in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a man would thinke Soe and a litle more too and soe of Pennance is not the true sorrow of hart declared by humble confession together with Prayer Fasting or almes deeds enioyned for satisfaction an outward elemeÌ„t or thing to be perceiued by our outward senses Why not then matter for a Sacrament soe also the bodyes of man and woman are they not as much an outward element in the Sacrament of Matrimony as water in Baptisme but you say it was before Christ What then might it not bee a natural contract before and yet after be exalted to the dignity of a Sacrament by Christ Water had the vse of washing from the beginning might not Christ therefore giue power vnto it to cleanse our soules and exalt it to the dignity of a Sacrament the same I say alsoe of bread and wine but say you againe if it bee a holy thing why is it forbidden to some men I aske you againe wheter Order bee not an holy thing You will not deny it If it bee why then is it forbidden to all women which sheweth the ridiculousnesse of your discourse You must know then all good is not for euery body and in good there be degrees of comparison as well as in other things Marriage is good but of an inferiour ranke and not soe agreeable to the high state of Priesthood or religious Life And soe to offer Sacrifice is a good thing indeede and too good for Lay men to exercise as wee see by the reprobation of Saul for presuming to doe it and Ozias his Leprosy wherewith hee was strucken by the hand of God for presuming to offer incense in the Temple 1. Reg 15.2 Paralip 26.19 Why then may not these bee Sacraments by the way you note in the margent that Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be noe Sacrament properly citing a place after in this your owne booke which I shall answeare there and discouer your notorious falshoode 7. Now to the curse whereof you will make the Fathers guilty as well as your self I answeare first that of these Fathers which you name two to wit Halensis and Durand are ordinarily counted amoÌ„g the Schoolemen not amoÌ„g the Fathers as also Bessarion who liued little more then 150. yeares since Secondly that though it bee true that the Fathers vpon seueral occasions mention the Sacraments seuerally sometymes they meÌ„tion two sometymes three sometymes 4.5 or 6. more or lesse as the particular matter which they handle giues occasion yet neuer did any man say there was onely 2.3.4 c. Shew this if you can Sir Knight and you say something els all is but babling that you talke of the Father's mentioning 2.3 or 4. c. And this answeare hath beene often made and cannot bee impugned to which yet you stand still repeating your friuolous obiections ouer and ouer againe without replying vpon the answeare or euen taking notice thereof For a chiefe part of your discourse in this § is but taken out of Chemnitius Bell. lib. 1. de Sacram in gen cap. 14. as may appeare by Bellarmine in his controuersy de Sacramentis in genere where he answeareth all the argumeÌ„ts fully which shall therefore saue me some labour soe as I shall not neede to doe more then point at somethings briefly and discouer your owne proper corruptions 8. Well then you tell vs the Saints Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Bede teach that out of the side of our Sauiour when the bloud water yssued vpon the crosse there came out the Sacraments Baptisme Eucharist Which I doe not see to what other purpose you bring but onely to insinuate thereby as if in their opinions there were but two Sacraments To which I answeare that true it is that some Fathers interprett the bloud and water issueing out of our Sauiour's side to signify those two SacrameÌ„ts but yet you are best looke in your freind Chemnitius from whom you borrow this argument whether he cite all these Fathers for this explication I doe not thinke you will find S. Ambrose and Bede there for S. Aug. it is true he explicateth it soe in some places and otherwise also in others as I shall shew after But for that place which you cite heere I am sure hee hath nothing of two Sacraments onely or of any number of Sacraments at all but onely thus in generall Aug. in Io. tra 15. De latere Christi in cruce pendentis Lancea percusso Sacramenta Ecclesiae profluxerunt Out of the side of Christ hanging vpon the crosse smitten with a speare issued the Sacraments of the Church Which words may as well be verified of seauen as of two Sacraments But be it as you say that all the Fathers explicate that scripture of the two Sacraments Baptisme and Eucharist What then Doe they say that they were then instituted or that there were noe more Sacraments instituted or that other Sacraments did not issue froÌ„ thence also noe such matter All they say is onely that those two Sacraments came from our Sauiour's side simbolically or significatiuely to wit the water signifying Baptisme the bloud the Eucharist But now other Fathers as I touched before to wit Saint Ambrose Saint Hierome Saint Cyril S. Leo Bede and euen S. Augustine in another place say that both bloud and water did signify but one Sacrament onely to wit Baptisme either of bloud by Martyrdome or water or rather that they did signify but onely the Baptisme of water The water of our Sauiourâ—s side signifying the Sacrament it selfe and the bloud signifying the origen or well spring from whence the Sacrament hath all his force and efficacy Which explication Bellarmine well sheweth out of scripture it selfe to bee more literal Bell. lib. 2 cap. 27. Shall a man therefore say there is but one sacrament he might truely as well say so and better too then to say from thence that there bee but two 9. And whereas you say a little after
they are Sacraments because ordayned by Christ primarily the other 5. not And for proofe you bring the Cardinal as if he said the same But in this place the Cardinal speaketh not one word eyther of their being or not being Sacraments or being or not being instituted by Christ as these very words themselues doe shew and any man may see more plainely in Bellarmine himselfe both heere and elsewhere where he handleth those matters teaching the contrary expresly and of purpose What madnes then is it for a man to say the Cardinal is enforced vpon a thing that he dreameth not of to cōfesse cleane another matter Now Bellarmines meaning in that place is onely of the signification of the Sacraments that is what thing they signify because they are sacred signes of something And he saith they signify three things one thing past to wit the passion of Christ another present to wit sanctifying grace which they worke in our soules another thing to come to wit aeternal life which is the effect of grace which three things he saith euery Sacrament doth signify And he saith it is certaine that they doe soe signify But withall that the signification of these three is not soe expresse and alike apparent or knowne in all But most apparent in Baptisme and the Eucharist not soe apparent in the rest Which last words being in Latine thus De alijs Sacramentis non estita notū Of the other Sacraments it is not soe knowne to wit that they signify all these thing you translate or rather corrupt them thus Of the other 5. it is not soe certaine Notum with you is certaine And whereas the oppositiō in Bellarmines saying is betweene knowne and not knowne Bell. de sacr in gen lib. 1. cap. 9. you make it betwene knowne or apparēt and certaine which are not opposite For a thing may be certaine though not manifest as all matters of faith are And then you leaue out that which Bellarmine saith of the certainty thus Tamen certum est saltem implicite illa omnia significare quia cum omnia significent gratiam consequenter etiam significāt principium finem eiusdem gratiae But it is certaine that they signify all these things at least implicitely Because seing they signify grace they consequently also signify the beginning and end of the same grace That is the passion of Christ which is the cause and aeternal life which is the effect of grace Whereby it is euident how shamefully you abuse this good Cardinal and soe I end this § Communion in both kinds §. 5. 1. In this § Sir Humphrey beginneth with the 6. article as he calleth it of the Romane Creede I confesse that vnder one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is receiued And the Decree of the Councel of Constāce which saith that notwithstanding Christ did institute in both kinds yet the Laity are to communicate in one kind Which word notwithstanding the Knight is pleased to glosse thus As it were in despite of God and Man with which he ioyneth the Councel of Trent saying thus Although our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds yet if any mā shall say the holy Catholique Church was not induced for iust causes to communicate the lay people and the non-Conficient Priest vnder one kind to wit of bread onely and shall say they erred in soe doing lett him bee accursed Against this he bringeth two places of scripture the practize of the primitiue Church and soe concludeth the antiquity and vniuersality of his Church This goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humphrey But now you must take vs along with you and giue vs leaue to comin with you a little vpon the matter 2. This you say is the 6. article of our Creede by which a mā may see I said true in the beginning when I told you if it had beene your good pleasure soe to doe you might haue deuided this Creede into 24. articles as well as into 12. for this is but a little libbet in the very later end of that article as you haue put it downe in the beginning of your booke Which peece also you translate out of the Latine falsely and absurdly the Latine being thus Fateor etiam sub altera specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentū sumi I confesse also vnder one kind onely to be receiued Christ whole and entire and a true Sacrament Whereas you say all and whole Christ as if the Councel had said omnis totus Christus where the word all is improper for who speaketh thus all Peter all Paul and it importes as if Christ had many things pertaining to him which were himselfe but yet did not make one and the same thing with him which is not imaginable how it can be whereas totus Christus doth signify One whole Christ And Omnis Christus and totus Christus to any man that vnderstandeth Latine are two wery different things And in your translation you confound totus and integer making them both to signify the same whereas in the Councel they haue a seueral signification totus pertaineth to the integrity of Christ as consisting of essential parts of body and soule and of his personality and Diuinity and integer pertaineth to the integrity of all the parts of his body as head hands feete c. which the Philosophers call partes integrantes By this then you see how a man that were disposed to stand about you might trouble you when in such a small thing as this there may bee found soe many faults 3. For the Councel of Constance which you are soe displeased withall for contradicting the word of Christ as you conceiue me thinkes there might be found a meanes to appease your displeasure if you would but remember that at the same tyme and in the same decree it was also declared that notwithstanding that Christ did institute the Bl. Sacrament after supper yet men should now receiue it fasting which decree I presume you will not condemne Neither will you I dare say glosse the words notwithstanding soe fauourably in your owne behalfe as you did in ours as in despite of God and Man you would receiue your communion fasting though Christ did receiue it not fasting but euen after supper and bid vs doe what hee did in remembrance of him and notwithstanding also that it is not to be doubted as you tell vs out of Bellarmine but that is best fittest to be practised which Christ himselfe hath done Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey how you may be made freinds with the Councel of Constance seing it hath done you as good a turne as it hath done to vs. But because I see not how you could but know this before and therefore haue erred as I may well say wittingly this is too freindly language to talke to you therefore I answeare you plainely in bringing this Decree this you haue brought a staffe to beate your selfe withal For the
practize to be more for aedification of the people Nay doth it not in the Canon expresly condemne it saying anathema to whosoeuer shall condemne the practize of the Romane Church in reading some part of the Canon softly or to whosoeuer shall say that the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue 4. Now for the place of Scripture which you bring to wit that wee must shew forth the Lord's death till his Coming which you say is not intended to the walls as we doe it sheweth sufficiently how well you vnderstand Scripture and consequently how well the common people betweene whom and your self you I dare say thinke there is a great deale of difference would vnderstand them when you being euen a writer soe little vnderstand them For that place of announcing our Lord's death is not vnderstood by words as you vnderstand it but by deeds as it is most plaine by the circumstances wherein they were spoken to wit by consecrating and changing the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord as we doe daily in the Masse in memory of our Sauiours passion For soe S. Paul hauing spoken of the institution and manner to be obserued in the consecration expresly saith as often as you shall doe this you shall announce the death of our Lord. The doing therefore is the announcing not the Saving Besides these words at least in the māner of speaking doe not import any cōmand For you shall find the word annuntiabitis is the indicatiue moode and future tēse if you looke well into your Accidence Sir Humphrey And withall it is somewhat conditional to wit that as often as we shall doe that we shall announce the death of our Lord. Besides Sir Humphrey I neuer heard before that it was all one to speake Latine and to speake to the walls if a man should speake a word of Latine to you were that to speake to a wall You see then you doe not marke what you say 5. But now you haue spoken soe well of your selfe lett vs heare what you can say out of other men And first for Haymo whom you cite for your purpose asking this vnanswearable question as you call it If a man that knoweth onely his Mother's tongue stand by or make a Sermon or giue a Blessing how shall hee say Amen since he doth not know what thou saist Soe you To which I answeare it is true Haymo hath a question to this purpose but not soe much to yours if you marke him well nor soe vnanswearable if you take him altogeather with what he saith before and after your question For soe you shall find he doth not require that all that are by shall vnderstand but that he that supplieth the place of the Idiot or lay man in answearing for the people shall vnderstand for before that Question of yours he maketh this other first quis supplebit vel quis adimplebit locum illius qui te audit non intelligit verba tua who shall supply or who shall fulfill the place of him that heareth thee and doth not vnderstand thy words Which sheweth that he doth not speake of the idiot or ordinary bystander but of one that is to supply his place or make answeare for him which appeareth yet more by that which followeth immediatly after your question thus Si non aderit alius pro illo sciens quid tu dicas qui respondeat Amen 1. Verum est quod tu dixisti vel fiat ita If there shal be none other for him that is in place of the ignorant man who knowing what thou saiest may answeare Amen That is to say it is true which thou hast said or bee it soe done Which plainely sheweth that in Haymo his iudgment it is sufficient if there be one vnderstander to answeare for the rest or for him that doth not vnderstād Nay he doth not seeme to require soe much as that this answearer shall vnderstand all soe perfectly but onely soe farre as to be able to answeare Amen for this is the inconuenience which he maketh to follow therevpon if the answearer doe not vnderstand the language that he doth not know where the prayer endeth for him to answeare Nescit quippe saith he vbi sermonis clausula firmatur For he knoweth not where the cōclusion of the speach is ended For which truely there doth not neede any such great vnderstanding of Latine Soe that though Haymo thinke that the Apostle speaketh in that place of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest as some few other Doctors doe though not soe rightly nor soe conformably to the true intent and drift of the Apostle yet he requireth noe more but that there be one to answeare Amen which surely may be more easily had then for want thereof to be faine to change the whole office of the Church in to English And soe Haymo his vnanswearable question is without any such great adoe answeared Now for S. Paules meaning though your obiection require it not and that it require also a longer disputation yet not to leaue the Reader wholy vnsatisfied thereof I say in a word that S. Paul his meaning in that place where he asketh how he that vnderstandeth not the prayer shall say Amen is not of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest which noe man can doubt of either for the truth or goodnes and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them but of priuate prayers or prayers made by priuate and Lay men ex tempore and on the suddaine not in Latine Greeke or any ordinary knowne tongue but in an extraordinary vnknowne tōgue such as men spake by the guift of tongues which guift was giuen in those beginnings not onely to the Apostles and Preachers but euen to Lay people and to many among the Corinthians which they it seemes grew prowd of and vsed for ostentation For correcting of which abuse the Apostle writeth heere vnto them preferring Prophecy that is exhortation before tongues and giuing many reasons therefore among which this is one that others that heare that prayer in a strange Language are not the better nor can say Amen to it And this to be the Apostles drift the circumstances of the text and persons to whom he writeth plainely shew 6. After Haymo cometh Iustinian the Emperour who say you made a constitution that Bishops and Priests should celebrate the Lord's supper and prayers in Baptisme not in secret but with a Lowd and cleare voyce to this Bellarmine maketh two answeares Bell. lib. 2 〈◊〉 Miss cap. 12 one that Iustinian being a meere secular man had nothing to doe to make Lawes in such matters as it is most true and you cannot but know he is ordinarily taxed for too much taking vpon him in that kind The other that euen that Law doth command nothing more but onely that Bishops and Priests shall pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne
Church was to be spoken aloud For saith Bell. there were many as may be gathered out the very constitution it self who to hide their owne ignorance did contrary to the receiued custome pronounce those things softly which should haue beene pronounced alowd And this to be soe may appeare plainely by the Law it selfe which you doe not seeme to haue read for you cite it onely out of your Cassander who serueth you to great steed for most of your citations 7. You haue in the next place a text out of the Canon law the former being out of the Ciuil to shew your learning in all sciences Cap. QuoniaÌ„ in plaerisque de off iud Ord. you cite it thus We command that the Bishops of such Cittyes and Diocesses where nations are mingled together prouide meete men to minister the holy seruice according to the diuersity of manners and languages The words are these in Latine Pontifices huiusmodi ciuitatem siue dioceseon prouideant viros qui secunduÌ„ diuersitates rituum linguaruÌ„ diuina illis officia celebreÌ„t ecclesiastica SacrameÌ„ta ministrent instruendo eos pariter verbo exemplo in English thus Letâ— the Bishops of such cittyes ordiocesses prouide meete men who according to the diuersity of rites and languages may celebrate vnto them the diuine offices and administer vnto them the ecclesiasticall Sacraments instructing them both by word and example Whereby you see Sir Humphrey you might haue cited the place more truely though that be not soe much the matter I cite it fully for but for another purpose as you shall see when I haue told you Bellarmines answeare to this obiection which is this that this decree speaketh onely of the 2. languages Greeke and Latine for it was made by Inno. 3. in the Councel of Lateran because CoÌ„stantinople hauing beene taken not long before by the Latines and then there being a Latine Emperor and Patriarch and many Latines by that occasion being mingled with the Grâ—cians in the same citty they made a propositioÌ„ in the Councel that they might haue 2. Bishops one Latine another Greek to this the Pope and Councel make answeare that it is not fit to haue 2. Bishops of one citty but that the Bishops of the citty should substitute another in his roome to celebrate the diuine office and administer the Sacraments according to their owne rites and language and this Bellarm. proueth to be the true meaning of this decree not onely out of the story but also by the effect For if this decree had concerned the Latine Church any way it should haue beene put in practise in some place thereof and most of all in Italy in the Popes sight but there is noe signe of any such thing but plaine proofe to the contrary Which answeare is cleare and solide But besides this answeare of Bellarmines a man may answeare also that the Councel speaketh of two things heere to wit of celebrating the diuine offices and administring Sacraments and then putteth two things more answearing vnto those two to wit rites and languages rites answearing to diuine offices and languages to Sacraments as if it had said let such Bishops prouide men who may celebrate the deuine offices according to the diuersity of their rites and administer the Sacraments according to the diuersity of their languages For indeede it is a matter of necessity in administration of some Sacraments to vse the vulgar language as in marriage Penance but it is not soe of other things For this reason then I cited the place as it is and though you may cauill at this answeare yet I see not though there were noe other why it might not serue for as good an obiection as yours 8. But now you say you will not stand prouing this point any more by citing the particular Fathers but you will bring our owne men confessing that Prayer and Seruice in the vulgar tongue was vsed in the first and best ages according to the praecept of the Apostles and practize of the Fathers And then you bring Lyra Ioannes Belethus Gretzerus Harding Cassand and 2. or 3. more To which I answeare that it is true as these authors say that in the beginning it was soe but what thinke you was the reason euen because those three holy Languages Hebrew Greeke and Latine were most vulgar and common the Hebrew in Hierusalem and the parts adioyning the Greeke in Greece where S. Paul preached most and Latine at Rome other parts subiect to the Romane Empire For if you marke it Sir Humphrey most of your authors which you bring speake this of prayers and benedictions being wont to be made in the vulgar language by occasion of that 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where Greeke was the vulgar And indeede that it was the vulgarnes or commonesse of the tongue that the Apostles reguarded most in their writing of scriptures and the like it is plaine by that that S. Paul of his 14. epistles which he writ to soe many seuerall Nations and persons he writ onely one in Hebrew to wit that to the Hebrewes the other thirteene in Greeke euen that to the Romanes though Greeke were not their vulgar or natural Language and soe did all the rest of the Apostles and Euangelists saue only S. Mathew who writ his Ghospel in Hebrew and as some say S. Marke who writ his in Latine though many doubt of that and say rather that he writt it in Greeke Whereof what other reason could there be but the vniformity which the Apostles would haue to bee obserued in the Church by vsing for scriptures and diuine Offices those languages which were more vniuersal and common to most nations thereby to draw all to vnity Which though it could not be soe absolute as to come to the vse of one onely language yet they restrained it to those few most vniuersal languages Hebrew Greeke S. Hillar ap Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dâ—i c. 15. and Latine Which were dedicated vpon the crosse our Sauiours title being written in those three languages by mystery as holy Fathers note to signify that by them Christ his name and faith was to be most published and preached ouer the whole world And for proofe hereof we say it hath not beene euer heard of that any part of scripture was originally written in other language or that there was any Liturgy of the Apostles or neere their tymes or any translation of Scriptures in other language much lesse was it euer heard that the Scriptures were reade in the meetings of Christians or celebration of the diuine Mysteries in other language then that wherein they were ordinarily had and read to wit in some one of those languages Of later tymes we confesse there hath beene vse of other languages as Arabick Chaldaick and the like but yet soe as that the Church hath euer made choyce of some one language which hath beene very common to many kingdomes and Nations not proper to any particular
answeare is that Polydore speaketh not of the ancient Fathers of the new Testament but of those of the old whom therefore he nameth veteres patres the old Fathers and in particular nameth Moyses and Ezechias the reason indeede why they did condemne the worship of images was feare of idolatry but the reason of that feare was as he saith because noe man hauing seene God they knew not what shape to giue thim and discoursing of the brazen serpent which was a figure of Christ vpon the crosse he saith a long tyme after God put on humane sharpe and being made man was seene and knowne by mortall men and in that humble shape by his owne power wrought miracles beyond credit the same whereof made men come flocking vnto him who did soe behold and reuerence his face without doubt shining with the brightnes of diuine light that they thē first beganne to paint and carue his effigies now already imprinted in their minds And there telling to that purpose the story out of Eusebius of the hemorrhoisse and 2. pictures of our Sauiour made by himself one sent to Abagarus the other giuen to Veronica he also saith thus it is a constant opinion that S. Luke did paint in certaine tables the figure of our Lady which to this day are in some places kept most holily and worshipped most religiously Then relating out of Eusebius how the images of the Apostles were framed and kept by Christiās citeth the words following out of him Insignia etenim veterum reseruari ad posterorū memoriam illorum honoris horū vero amoris iudiciū est For the reseruing of the signes markes or thing belonging to the aunciēts to the memory of posterity is a signe of honor to thē loue in these Hēce saith Polydore is growne worthily a custome of placing in the Churches reuerencing the statues as well of our Sauiour as his SS But because by the memory of Saints as it were an exāple or sample set before our eyes which the images represent men are stirred vpp to vertue imitatiō the honour of the image passeth to the honour of the original as S. Basil saith therefore the Fathers haue not onely admitted that custome but by the authority of the 6. Synod at Cōstantinople vnder Constātine Iustinian the 2. his sonne it was decreed as may appeare by the canonical decrees that the holy images of SS should be had in Churches worshipped with great veneration being to ignorant people in place of the holy Scripture whereto also Frankincense is offered and tapers are lighted and there adding 2. or 3. Councels more decreeing the same againe he concludeth thus Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tantaque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitue dubitare seu aliter somniare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe sanctissimorum patrum decreto constitutum What man is there therefore so disolute and endewed with soe much boldnes who will or can doubt or otherwise dreame that I may not say iudge or thinke of the worship of images then at last hath beene approued by the Decree of soe many most holy Fathers Thus farr Polydore to whose demaund why may not I answeare that Sir Humphrey Linde is the man soe dissolute and audacious that dares not onely dreame but waking with all his witts and sences that he hath about him and speaking and writing dares I say not onely doubt of but absolutely deny the lawfulnes of the worship of images And not onely this but euen to bring thee ô Polydore Virgil to witnesse with him against the Romane Church that all the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church condemned the same What would this authour say to you Sir Humphrey if he were aliue to see himselfe abused by you and which is yet more euen after Dr. White was conuict of this dissolutenes and audaciousnes yet you would be at it againe Heereby a man may see there needes noe other confutation but onely right citing of your owne authours 17. For Peresius his words are nothing against vs for they touch onely vpon a schoole point whether the picture be to be adored with the same worship as the prototype or thing represented or with an inferiour worship the former opinion onely he denieth because saith he there is neither proofe out of scripture tradition of the Church common consent of Fathers or determination of a general Councel which very saying of his is enough to condemne you who will not acknowledge sufficient authority in tradition Fathers or Councel to belieue a thing which you like not But to make it plainely appeare how much you wrong Peresius in bringing him against the worship of images I will bring a place 2. leaues before that which you cite out of him it is this Manifeste habes c. Peres de tradit cap. de imag It is manifest that the vse and worship of images hath beene vniuersally in the Church from the tyme of the Apostles and that the dis-esteeme of them began from forlorne and infamous men 500. yeares after the Church was planted and truely if the worship and reuerence be done deuoutly and sincerely this institution is holy and profitable which both Apostolique tradition hath introduced the vse of the vniuersal Church affirmed the consent of very famous and generall Councels both in the East and West being added thereto which also euen natural reason doth dictate Thus farre are Peresius his owne words whereby any man may see whether Sir Humphrey you deale well with him or not to pretend his authority against our vse and worship of images Agobard de pict imaginib in bibl PP 18. Now for Agobardus whō you seeme to make great acount of if you consider him a little better you will find little cause he writeth indeede a booke de picturis imaginibus the whole drift whereof is onely against the idolatrical vse or abuse of images against which he speaketh very much by occasion of some abuses in his tyme as it is meete hee and euery good man should And for the same end he bringeth many authorityes of the ancient Fathers all which speake plainely against idolatry and likewise he bringeth that canon of the Councel of Eliberis which you bring out of him that noe picture should be painted on the walls vnderstanding it in the same sense which I alleadged in my second answeare to that Canon before to wit for auoyding superstition in some young and vnexperienced Christians conuerted from gentility But for those words which follow in your citation of him to wit these There is noe example in all the scriptures or Fathers for adoration of images I doe not find them in him this I am sure of that they are not ioyned with the former as you heere ioyne them Thus indeede he saith in a certaine place habuerunt antiqui Sanctorum imagines vel pictas vel sculptas sed causa historiae ad
wind INDVLGENCES §. 8. 1. Wee are now come to the last § of this chapter which is Indulgences which you Sir Humphrey beginne after your wonted manner with the tenth article of our Creede as you call it and the Decree of the Councel of Trent teaching that Christ hath left that power of granting Indulgences in his Church and that the Church hath vsed the same from most ancient tymes and that therefore they are to be retained in the Church condemning also whosoeuer shall terme them vnprofitable or deny authority in the Church to grant them Which doctrine you allow not of as not being agreable to Christ institution nor the practize of the primitiue Fathers You confesse indeede that in the Primitiue Church there was a power in the Bishops to remit or mitigate the seuerity of the punishment which by the Canons men were to vndergoe for certaine great crimes which mitigation you allow to haue beene called by the name of Indulgence and in that sense you take that relaxation of the incestuous Corithian by S Paul Thus farr you goe well with vs but now you say the Indulgence of the Roman Church is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ his Saints termed the treasure of the Church Which treasure you say is applyed to the soules in Purgatory and that which was formerly vsed for mitigation of punishment is now reduced to priuate satisfaction and that which was formerly left to the discretion of euery Bishop in his Diocesse is transferred wholy to the Pope and this not onely for some few yeares in this life but for many thousāds in Purgatory after death 2. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Which though you seeme to take to be a very good and substantiall one yet is it nothing soe For first it neither proueth any thing nor ouerthroweth our doctrine of Indulgences though that were true which you say of the difference betweene our Indulgence of these tymes and those of the primitiue Church for the vse of those tymes is not our onely ground for this point of doctrine but wee haue others both of scripture tradition vndoubted practice of the Church for aboue a thousand yeares at least and this of the practise of the Primitiue church in relaxation of the punishment of the poenitential canons is not vrged by vs at lest by some of our Diuines as an euidēt conuincing proofe but onely as coniectural and probable Suar. to 3. in 3. pars disp 49 sect 2. n. 4.5 s◠q. it is not then to the purpose for you to stand soe much vrging the difference betweene the Indulgences of our tymes and those of other former tymes as if by doeing that you had done all that was to be done 3. But besides to answeare Secondly you haue not done euen that for you doe but onely make shew as if you would haue men thinke they were different without shewing wherein the difference consisteth Nay euen out of that which you graunt of those ancient Indulgēces you may be disproued in what you deny of ours for to begin with the very word Indulgence you graunt it to haue beene in vse in those tymes But you say ours is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ Which though alleadged as a difference yet doe I not see wherein the difference is For theirs was an absolution because it was an vnloosing or vntying For whereas by the Canons for certaine great crimes men were bound or tyed to vndergoe such penance for example to fast with bread and water soe many dayes in a weeke for soe many moneths or yeares not to be admitted to the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Masse and the like By this indulgence or pardon which you grant they were vntied or loosed from soe much or soe little as by that pardon they were freed from and soe is it in our Indulgence wherefore the difference is not in the absolution which is nothing but loosing or vntying It can not be also in the guilt which must needs be remitted in your indulgēce as well as in ours For a man is not free soe long as he is guilty if then they were freed by that pardon the guilt was taken away thereby It is not likewise in the temporal punishmēt which is alike remitted in the one and other For it was temporal punishment or penance which men were freed from in those tymes by indulgence and soe it is temporal punishment which wee are now adayes freed from by our indulgence Wherefore I doe not vnderstand what you meane Sir Humphrey when you seeme to make a difference in this saying that Indulgences which were first vsed for mitigation of punishments are now reduced to priuate satisfactiōs For what were not those Indulgences giuen to priuate men for satisfaction or in lieu of that satisfaction which they were to make by the Canons and are not ours mitigation of the same vnlesse you put the force in this that there the punishment was onely mitigated or lessened that in our Indulgence all is taken away which yet is false on both sides for neither in ours is all the punishment taken alwayes away and in those sometymes all was taken away as we see by the example of the Corinthian whom S. Paul doth forgiue without limitation besids this I do not imagine what you cā meane in these words 4. The difference also is not in the authority or power whereby this pardon is graunted for then it was granted by the Bishops and soe it is also now For euery Bishop in the Catholique Church hath this power But you will say Humphrey not soe much now as then be it soe that is against your selfe for that is your complaint that it is more vsed now then in those tymes But you say againe the Pope hath more now then he had then and that all is transferred wholy to him To which I answeare that this later part is false all is not soe wholy transferred but that euery Bishop hath his part of this power ouer his owne subiects though with some limitation and though the Pope should take it wholy to himself and from other Bishops what is this against Indulgences doth it alter the nature of them because the Pope giueth them either more by himself or more liberally then he did heeretofore by others The power was in many before now it is in one that one then hath more power then he had before but is it not the same kind of power wherefore the difference cannot consist in this but thinke not Sir that I grant you the Popes power to be more now then at that tyme it was nor lesse then thē now it is It was the same of this power as of all other his power of binding loosing whereof this is one branch which did euer extend ouer the whole Church ouer all pastors and all and euery one of
most stronge argument of antiquity that it is the practise of the Catholique Church tyme out of mind and of consent that noe man is found to haue spoken against it but onely knowne Haeretiques such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 1 therefore you are still out of your bias when you thinke to proue the nouelty of our doctrine by our want of testimony of antiquity For though we haue such testimony for superaboundant proofe yet it is enough that such a thing is thaught and practized in Catholique Church without any memory when it beganne for that is S. Augustines rule continually to proue a thing not onely ancient but euen Apostolical 10. But now to come to your authours in particular you bring Durand in the first place saying that there can be little said of certainty concerning Indulgences ap Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 2. Whereto I answeare that it is true Durand doth not speake soe constantly and resolutely of the threasure of the Church in as much as it consisteth of the satisfaction of Saints whereon Indulgences are partly grounded but he is farr from any haeretical and pertinacious denial thereof much lesse of Indulgences for supposing them as a thing most certaine he disputeth Theological questions of them as other Diuines of his tyme did and making this the first question Dur. in 4. dist 20. q. 3. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae whether Indulgences auaile any thing after the manner of Schooles he putteth two arguments against them in the first place and then cometh with his argument Sed contra agreeing for the most part with his conclusion and agreeing expresly in this place he saith thus In contrarium est generalis consuetudo doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de poena peccatori debita On the contrary is the general custome and doctrine of the Church which would containe falshood if some thing of the punishment dew to a sinner should not be forgiuen by indulgences and then hauing sett downe his resolution that there cannot be much said of certaine because neither the Scripture maketh mention of them nor some holy Fathers whom he there nameth yet he concludeth that in speaking of Indulgences the common manner is to bee followed and soe goeth on with other questions per quem modum valeant ex qua causa vaeleant quis eas possit concedere in what māner they auaile out of what cause who cā graunt thē c. nay and for the treasure of the Church though by way of theological dispute in one place he make some doubt of it yet in others he speaketh plainely and clearely in these words Dur. 4. dist 20. q. 3. Est in ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spiritual Treasure of the Passion of Christ and the Saints who endured much greater torments then their sinnes deserued and therefore the Church may out of this treasure communicate to one or more what may bee sufficient to satisfy for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as shall please the Church to communicate this treasure more or lesse which are nothing els but the communication of the paine of Christ and the Saints to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherefore indulgences auaile by way of solucion or payment in as much as by Christ and his Saints the paine dew to vs is payd So farr this author most clearely truely Catholiquely though after againe he somewhat doubt of this treasure as I said before in as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of Saincts Now for the very place which you alleadge you committ a fault in making it seeme as if he said the ancient Fathers in general did not make any mention of Indulgences and that he did name S. Ambrose S. Hilar. S. Aug. and S. Hierome onely for examples sake whereas it is farr otherwise For presently after he nameth S. Greg. and saith of him that he did institute indulgences at the Stations in Rome Soe as it is plaine he spoke onely of those 4. not of all the Fathers in general And soe much for Durand 11. As for Alphōsus à Castro another of your authors he denieth not all testimony of Scripture as none of the rest doe but onely plaine expresse testimony and though he also confesse the vse of Indulgences not to haue beene soe much in those ancient tymes as since yet he alloweth of them soe farr as to condemne any man for an Haeretique that shall deny them these are his words Alph. a Castr de haeres lib. 8. verb. Indulgent Verum etsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione S. Scripturae testimonium apertum desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam ecclesiae Catholicae vsus a multis annorum centurijs tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur But though there want open testimony of Scripture for approbation of Indulgences they are not therefore to bee contemned because the vse of the Catholique church for many hundreds of yeares is of soe great authority that whosoeuer contemned the same is worthely esteemed an haeretique And againe in the same place Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum to wit indulgentiarum vsus vt ex Stationibus Romae frequentissimis vtrumque colligi potest Among the Romans this vse of Indulgences is said to be most ancient as may be somewhat gathered by the most frequent Statiōs at Rome Looke you Sir Humphrey what a witnesse you haue brought for your selfe Doe you not see how new he maketh this Doctrine of Indulgences Confessing euen the vse of them to be most ancient and of many hundred yeares standing nay doth he not in the same place acknowledge that S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name did graunt some Indulgences which is aboue a thousand yeares Doe you not heare how much he giueth to the Church acknowledging the practise thereof to bee of soe great authority that whosoeuer denyeth the truth of a thing soe practised is worthily to be counted an Haeretique What thinke you now of your selfe to be called haeretique out of your owne mouth as it were that is out of your author's mouth whom you bring for you For Castro his authority then though it had beene more for you then it is in this matter of Indulgences yet you had beene better haue let it alone then to haue it with such a condition The like a man may say of euery author you bring heere for the same purpose but that it is needlesse to stand soe long vpon examining euery one in particular 12. Now after such good authorityes as you bring against Indulgences you thinke you may with authority prate very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences and bringing money to his owne coffers by them but to that I neede make noe other answeare but that it is such
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
I take you in earnest as you seeme to meane it and aske what certainty you or any Protestant hath or can haue that you are Christians if you thinke that your Christianity dependeth vpon the Sacrament of Baptisme If you thinke it doe not as it is the doctrine of the Puritans indeede that Baptisme is not any cause of grace but onely a signe or seale of the adoption which they receiue by carnal propagation from their faithfull parents and it seemeth also yours by what you say both heere and before in your 4. § of Sacraments in the definition of a Sacrament if I say you thinke soe then I confesse you neede not feare the Minister's want of intention but that pertaineth to another disputation but yet you haue as little certainty or lesse of your christendome still for what know you whither your Parents were of the faithfull or noe that is whither they did beleiue there was a God or what they did beleiue of him and soe of your owne Children if their christendome depend vpon yours or your wiues faith it may be they may bee much more vncertaine thereof then we are by depending vpon our Priests intention for noe man can know your inward beleife but find you what you will we shall still find some man's intention or other that shall make your faith or Christendome vncertaine vnlesse you can proue you were Christned by God himselfe which sure you will not goe about to doe 8. But howsoeuer you extenuate the force and necessity of Baptisme for Matrimony I suppose you will not wholy abrogate it though you put it out from among the Sacraments and of it I aske what certainty you can haue of the lawfulnes of your owne Marriage or legitimation of you children You cannot say but the validity of that contract dependeth vpon the intention and consent of the partyes though not of your Minister as wee alsoe say it dependeth not vpon the intention of our Priest but of the partyes which marry which we say commonly are the Ministers in this Sacrament Wherefore if for example your wife had no intention when she spake the words of Marriage it is noe Marriage but fornication and consequently your Children are bastards nay though the matter should haue depended wholy vpon your owne intention in your marriage and that you be a great deale more sure of it then you can be as it is now depending vpon your wiues intention also yet is that surety farre from the certainty of diuine faith and soe you are in noe better case for that matter then wee For Order I might likewise instance the same among you but a small deale of Order serues your turnes for I see not any thing done by vertue of your Ordination which any man or woman may not doe without it Therefore for vs I answeare it is cleane a different thing of the certainty of the Catholique faith which we maintaine and of euery man's priuate or particular beleife of his owne iustification or saluation which we deny to be soe certaine the one being grounded vpon the authority of God's diuine truth and reuelation the other vpon humane knowledge or rather coniecture it is one thing to say there be 7. Sacraments and that these Sacraments doe giue grace where they are duely administred with all things requisite on the part both of the giuer and receiuer and another to say they are soe to me that is that in my receiuing of any one of them all things haue concurred both on the Priests part and myne the former is reuealed by God and propounded by his Church the later is not reuealed in any scripture and therefore by your owne rule can be noe matter of faith For the inconuenience therefore which you say may follow though any way that you can inuent I doe not thinke but there wil be two for one and farre greater I answeare that though in matter of Baptisme Ordination c. there may happen some defect in this or that particular case for want of intention matter forme or the like yet it belongeth to the prouidence of almighty God not to permitt any vniuersal or euen great defect to happen and soe though we be not certaine by certainty of diuine faith that this or that man in particular is truely baptized and ordained a Priest yet we are certaine by the certainty of diuine faith that not onely there be such Sacraments but that they are also truely administred in the Catholique Church soe as there can be noe danger of the fayling of either or of any danger which may ensue therevpon to the notable praeiudice of faith and saluation of soules and withall though we be not certaine by certainty of faith of euery particular yet wee haue moral certainty that is as much certainty as there can be of any humane thing which dependeth of the action or intention of any man which as we see it is enough for men to rest themselues secure in all worldy matters concerning their liues and goods which most men prize aboue their soules soe it may also giue a man sufficient security in matters of his soule especially since as we say if he be not wanting to himself almighty God will not of his goodnes suffer him through another man's fault to want any thing necessary for his saluation but will incite him to contrition for forgiuenes of his sinnes or to make doubt and seeke whether he haue those necessary thinges or noe But yet with this security there remaineth a place for an holy feare which may keepe downe our pride and make vs shake of all torpour exercizing our selues in good workes and working our saluation with feare and trembling But of this kind of faith it is not that wee meane when wee dispute with haeretiques of the certainty of true faith but of faith as it is a beleife and doctrine deliuered in general abstracting from this or that man whether he beleeue aright or be certaine of his beleife that is that he beleeueth wherefore Sir Humphrey in changing the question herein you committ a notable grosse aequiuocation of termes which is a fowle fault in a Scholler as you are forsooth 9. But from this you passe to another point of vncertainty or rather an other kind of proofe of our vncertainty thus You say we are vncertaine whether the Saints heare our prayers or not and whither some that we pray vnto be Saints in heauen or diuels in hell the later you proue out of Caiet because he saith that the miracles whereon the Church groundeth the canonization of Saints cannot be infallibly knowne and out of Saint August and Sulpitius the one saying some were tormented in hell which were worshipped on earth the other saying that the common people worshipped for a Martyr one that was damned and who appeared and told them soe the former vncertainty to wit whether the Saints heare our prayers Gab. in can lect 31. Mag. in 4. d. 45. you proue out
you see his meaning to be absolutely to condemne idol-worship and approue image-worship Neither doth your noting of the greeke word in the margent in proofe that S. Peter speaketh of idol-worship auaile you For Val. speaketh onely of the Latine word which is more indifferent and in some authors signifieth the same that imago and euen the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be now by the vse of Fathers Councels and Doctours determined to signify an empty or vaine image of a thing which is not according to that of S. Paul idolum nihil est in mundo an idol is nothing in the world Cor. 7.4 yet if a man respect the primitiue signification or etymology it might perhaps be taken more indifferently for it cometh from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth species or forma the seeming shape or beauty of a thing or person but it is true that in the signification of words we must follow the ecclesiastical rule Neither doe I allow Valencia his vse of the word Simulachrum and explication of S. Peter's text or euen his argument drawne from thence though the point of doctrine which he defends be true to wit image-worship But this is to shew you how he might vse the word harmelesly especially declaring himselfe plainely by other words though for you to stād trifling cōtēding about words when you see his meaning is a signe of your want of matter But heere by the way I cannot but note how to vrge the matter more against Valentia you runne your selfe vpon the rockes for you obserue that the word vsed by Saint Peter in that place signifieth idol-worship not image-worship Wherein you seeme plainely to confesse that image-worship and idol-worship and consequently an image and an idol are not all one Whereby as you thinke to aduantage you self in this place against the Iesuit soe you doe not marke that herein you contradict your selfe and the whole currant of your owne Doctors whose chiefe argumēts against images are certaine places of Scriptures against idols which you also bring before For if an image an idol be not all one then are all your arguments nothing worth or if they be then is Valentia's argumēt good choose which you will And therefore if you cast vpp your counts aright you will find you haue lost more then you haue gained by this citation of Valencia 15. A fift point of vncertainty you deliuer in these words Concerning the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist it is most euident saith Bellarmine but cōcerning the rest of the Sacramēts it is not soe certaine And out of Canus you say the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that they doe not resolue whether it giueth grace or noe thus you Sir Humphrey to which I answeare that for the place of Bellarm. you are conuinced before of manifest corruption For whereas Bellarm. saith it is certaine Cap. 9. §. 4. in fine but not soe manifest you leaue out not manifest and change certaine into not certaine besids what is that which Bellarmine saith is not manifest but certaine that these two are Sacraments the rest not noe such matter Sir Knight it is their signification which he speaketh of yet not their signification of grace which they cause but their signifying of the passion of Christ which is the beginning and aeternal life which is the end of the grace giuen by the Sacraments this signification he saith is certaine but not so euident in the rest of the Sacraments For Canus you corrupt him as fowly also For first you ioyne two seueral places together as if they were but one in Canus himself then make him say that the Diuines doe not resolue whether it that is Matrimony giues grace or noe which is most flatly false For as I shewed before he granteth it with all Diuines to be properly a Sacrament his two places seuerally are thus the Diuines speake soe diuersly of the matter forme of Matrimony that it were folly for a man to resolue any thing certaine this is one whereof I spake more before shewed that his meaning is not to say that it is not certaine whither it be a Sacrament or not or whither it haue a matter and forme Cap. 9. §. 4. for that I shewed to be most certaine and by most expresse words of his owne but that noe man can say determinately which is the matter and which the forme Which as Bellarmine saith well is not soe necessary for vs to know but that without it we may and ought to acknowledge a true Sacrament it is enough to know what is requisite for celebrating a true Sacrament and what those things are without which it is not a Sacrament though we doe not know which of those things is the matter which the forme For exāple if a Priest in baptisme vse true water and the right words he doth administer a true Sacramēt though he should not know which is the matter and which the forme nay though he should thinke the words to be the matter and water the forme though the cleane contrary be truth The other place of Canus is that he saith that Matrimony contracted without a Priest is noe Sacrament because in his opinion the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme and of that kind of Matrimony he consequently denieth it to giue grace but of Matrimony absolutely and as it is vsed in the Catholique church he neuer made doubt See before his words 16. The last matter of vncertainty is of our traditions which you say you are vncertaine whereas the Scripture is written to giue vs certainty For this saying you alleadge noe Catholique truely nor falsly and therefore it is not to be counted of being soe manifestly false For whence haue we the certainty of the very Scriptures themselues but by tradition and much more of the sense and meaning of the Scriptures Besids as I haue often said and shewed this your prime principle is not onely false but contrary to expresse Scripture and contrary to the common consent of all Fathers which the Reader may see in whole treatises written heereof Wherefore to come to an end of this your Section of certainty we find nothing in matter of faith vncertaine in the Catholique church nothing certaine on your side but onely that you are alwaies and euery where Sir Humphrey Linde Of the 11. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 11. The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the greater Safety comfort and benefit of the Soule in the Protestant faith then in the Romish CHAPTER XI 1. FROM certainty you come to Safety whereof you needed not haue made soe distinct mention and proofe it following necessarily and manifestly that that faith which is most certaine in it selfe is also most safe for men to follow as also it cannot be Safe without certainty Wherefore as you were not able to proue it certaine in your former
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
that suppose he doe know thē to be good yet they haue not that goodnes from him or as they are his but as they are from almighty God and by his grace And yet more we teach that he may fall againe and loose all his labour which doth exceedingly diminish confidence of a man's selfe soe as we leaue nothing for a man to trust to of himselfe but that he must giue all to God as S. Paul did in saying 1. Cor. 15.10 non ego sed gratia Dei mecum not I but the grace of God with mee qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur That he that doth glory may glory in God and to shew that we haue nothing of our selues we say againe with the same Saint quid habes quod non accepisti What hast thou which thou hast not receiued Now on the other side examine you your owne doctrine a little better and see whither it doth not teach the contrary vaine cōfidence in most of these points as that a man must assure himself that his sinnes are forgiuen that he must assure himself of his saluation that he cannot fall from grace and the like Which ground supposed how can he worke his saluation with feare trembling as S. Peter teacheth And soe we haue answeared 3. points of Safety which you begin withall out of your owne inuention Now you come to other points of Safety which you proue by authority of other men 5. The first of these and fourth in order is Communion in both kinds which you say is better then in one kinde alone you proue it out of Cassander Vazq Hales and Valencia I answeare that for Cassander you know he is noe author to be alleadged against a Catholique For Vazq it seemeth you are not so well skilled in him as to cite him out of his owne works but out of the frēch Minister Chamier who is another great mā with you But for the matter it is true some few Catholiques as Vazq Hales p. 4. q. 11. m. 2. ar 4. § 3. for Valencia I shall tell you more anone are of opiniō that it is of greater merit and fruit to receiue in both kinds then in one But I aske you why it should be more safe to follow those two then 10. 20. 30. or 40. Other Diuines to the cōtrary For my part I doe not see any reason for it if you waigh the matter by reason or by number and authority of Doctors Secondly neither of these two doth acknowledge any danger in our practice of one kind but allow it for good and lawfull For soe saith Hales quia Christus integrè sumitur sub vtraque specie bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum sicut fere vbique fit a laicis in ecclesia Because Christ is receiued entirely vnder each kind it is very lawful to receiue the body of Christ vnder the kind of bread onely as it is vsed almost euery where by the Layity in the Church And Vazq employeth a whole disputation in the proofe of the same Truth out of Scripture and tradition shewing withall that the Latine Church did with very good reason forbid Communion in both kinds and soluing all the arguments of the Haeretiques against it Soe as he acknowledgeth not your doctrine to be either safe or the same with his but a cleane different haeresy For his is a Schoole opinion not of the safety but of the fruitfulnes of Communion in One or both kinds Yours is an haeresy denying the sufficiency of one kind and vrging both as a matter of necessity for the integrity of the Sacrament and fulfilling of Christ's praecept and denying also the authority of the Church for dispensing therein And though in speculation Vazq rather allow both kinds to be more fruitfull yet all circumstances considered he deemeth Communion in one kind absolutely better for many great reasons pertayning to the reuerence of the Sacrament and common good which doe not onely counteruaile but farre surpasse the want of that fruit which is giuen more by the other kind all necessary grace being giuen by one alone as he teacheth And for Hales besids that he holdeth it very lawfull to communicate in one kind onely which is directly against you I thinke a man that would goe about it might easily puzle you out of him euen for soe much as pertaineth to the perfection of the spiritual fruit p. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar 1. For thus he saith to that which is said that he that receiueth vnder the forme of bread onely receiueth the Sacrament perfectly and entirely I answeare that this Sacramēt is receiued two wayes spiritually and sacramētaly Wherefore I say that quantum ad spiritualē sumptionē perfectè accipit for as much as pertaineth to the spiritual receiuing he receiueth it perfectly but not so for the Sacramētal receiuing Now this perfection of a Sacrament he explicateth before to consist in the representation which saith he is not soe perfect in one kind as both Which we also grant though we say the fruit to be the same in One and both kinds See Sir Humphrey how you can get out of this brake Now for Valencia your third author whom you cite in the margent saying that he affirmeth the same to wit with Hales and Vazq let any man see whether you doe not play him a Lindy-tricke For these are his words in the very same chapter by you cited Val de leg vs. Euchar. cap. 6. Hoc sacramentum tam est per se fructuosum efficax in altera specie quam in vtraque specie This sacrament is of it selfe as fruitfull and effectual in one kind as in both and soe your doctrine in this point is as safe and comfortable as your citation of this author is true 6. The fift of your safe and profitable points is of your communion of Priest and people together the safety you proue not by any thing but your owne bare word For the profitablenes of the Sacrifice indeede you proue it is more when the people communicate with the Priest out of the Councel of Trent Harding and Bellarmine but Sir that is not the controuersy between you and v◠but this whether the Priest may not say Masse vnlesse he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether it be more profitablenes for the Priest that he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether the Sacrifice be lesse perfect in it selfe in that case or not Of this you say not a word as neither doe your authors which you bring for they speake onely of the fruit which would redound to the people which we grant to be greater when they communicate with the Priest then when not But of the forme or matter of controuersy they all determine absolutely against you their whole drift in those places being none other but to disproue you as may easily appeare to any man that will looke in them and I haue partly shewed before
what merit but it is true Walden as Suarez well noteth though he speake not of this controuersy but against the Pelagians is somewhat too strict V. Bell. lib. 5 de iustif cap. 16. and though he acknowledge the thing yet he doth not soe well like the manner of speaking of merit as alsoe some other Diuines doe not soe approue the word meritum de condigno though in the thing it selfe they all agree to wit that aeternal life is giuen to men as the reward of their good works which is all that others meane by condigne merit Your last authority is a place of Bell. which hath beene answeared before to wit that it is most safe to trust wholy in the merits of Christ Which I wonder why you should alleadge for your doctrine against ours For it is ours as well or more then yours neither doe we cōdemne you for not trusting in your works Chap. 12. or trusting wholy in Christ if so be you doe not deny the necessity and efficacy of good works for purchasing grace and glory And that is your doctrine which you should shew to be Safe but that you cānot nor doe not soe much as goe about Wherefore to come to an end of this Chapter all your proofes sayling in euery point your vaunting cōclusion of the Safety profitt and Comfort of your beleife vanisheth into smoake as the rest doth Of the 12. Sect. the title whereof is this Our aduersaries conuicted by the euident testimonies of the Ancient Fathers either ridiculously elude them or plainely reiect them CHAPTER XII 1. IT cannot be vnknowne to any man of learning or that hath but any the lest acquaintance with the controuersies of this age what great aduantage we Catholiques haue by the writings of the ancient Fathers how highly we esteeme them what confidence we place in them and how we appeale to them for decision of our controuersies and how small respect on the other side Haeretiques shew either to their persons or writings as being in their opinions but men and subiect to errour or rather how contemptibly they speake of them For proofe whereof a man neede not goe farther then that little treatise of Campians 10. reasons the 5. of which is of the Fathers Where a man may see what the Haeretiques say of them they call one an old doting man another they call a childish writer a third they call a dolt and forsaken of God a fourth they call a fabler that knoweth not what he saith a fift they say is bewitched by the Diuell a sixt they say is as damned as the Diuell iniurious to the Apostle blasphemous wicked impious and what Fathers are these thincke you that they name thus who but Denis the Areopagite Hippolitus Cyprian Gregory Nazianzene Ambrose and Hierome and for the writings of the Fathers they say this man's are like dreames and most pernitious another hath foule wennes another writeth like a madd or frantique man another bringeth forth darnel and dreggs others haue left blasphemies to posterity and the like One haeretique preferreth one Caluin before an 100. Augustines another careth not for a thousand Augustines Cyprians Churches whose very words and places are quoted by F. Campian And yet heere is a Knight of the same broode that vndertaketh forsooth in a particular Section to proue that we establish the antiquity of his doctrine decline the certainty and safety of our owne by saying that we auoide the proofe of Fathers wherein he sheweth himself more more impertinent the farther he goeth For whereas there hath beene sometymes one father that hath erred or held some singular opinion different from the common of other Fathers one or two ancient writers that haue euen become Haeretiques because our authors note those things soe as noe Haeretique can but acknowledge that to be true which we say nay and he himself cannot tell what to say against vs he accounteth this forsooth to bee eluding of the Fathers or reiecting their euident testimonyes Neither doth he in all this Section bring one argument or one word of authority to disproue any thing that any authour of ours hath said nor doth hee alleadge euen the reasons which our authors giue of their saying whereas they giue very many solid reasons Soe that for my part I cānot tell what the man meaneth in this manner of dealing nor what to say to him for euen the words of our authours which he bringeth are very sufficient answeares soe as I see not well what more he neede to haue but because in the fashion or sleight manner of speaking he may delude some of his Readers and make them thinke the answeares insufficient I must a little more discouer his impertinency in leauing out some of the answeares and extenuating others and euen in bringing some nothing at all to this purpose 2. And soe to beginne with him he saith in the first place that touching the all sufficiēcy of Scriptures S. Chrysostome saith the Church is knowne tantūmodo onely by the Scriptures heerevpon he askes this question what say the Romanist to this authority Bell. saith hee answeareth it is probable the authour was a Catholique but it seemes to be none of Chrysost thus hee To which I answeare first that I find not this place obiected in Bellar. whereto to giue any answeare at all but there is another place not much vnlike and to that he answeareth that the worke out of which it is taken is not Chrys but another's commonly cited by the name of author imperfecti who Bell. saith was either an Arrian himself or his worke was corrupted by Arrians and this he doth not barely say neyther in his cōtrouersies nor in his booke de Scripto eccles De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. Which is the booke heere cited by Sir Humphrey where Bellarmine saith the thing but not by way of answeare as he makes him I say he doth not onely say it but also proue it by a plaine example or two of Arianisme Verb. Io. Chrysost but because he findeth Catholique doctrine in other places of the same worke and in the same points he rather thinketh the authour to be a Catholique and his worke onely to haue beene corrupted and this is most true and euident Which had the Knight but sett downe thus plainely what had there beene more to be obiected or answeared but he curtails it as if Bell. had said onely it is none of Chrys Which is also soe true plaine as he himselfe cannot gainesay it and yet he is not ashamed for the creditt of his obiection to call it Chrysostomes But the place it selfe is soe farre from prouing the all sufficiency of Scripture as it proueth nothing at all but the insufficiency of Sir Humphreys wit For how many wayes may it be answeared euen supposing that the words were S. Chrysostomes or some other good authour's being but these that the Church is knowne onely by scriptures For I aske him
what then what is this to many other points which we say cānot be knowne by onely scripture Were this a good consequence the Church is knowne by onely Scripture ergo all things els and euen Scripture it selfe is knowne onely by scripture surely noe and yet this consequence must be good or els Sir Humphrey your argumēt is not good Besids these words may be vnderstood of the Scriptures compared with other Writings that is that the Church is knowne to vs onely by Scriptures not by other Writings whereof either none speake soe clearely of the Church or none are like therevnto for authority which yet doth not exclude other proofes or markes of the Church And indeede the Church is most knowne and best proued out of Scripture of any point of our faith as may appeare by this that S. Aug. proueth the same soe notably out of Scriptures onely gainst the Donatists in a particular booke of that matter De vnit eccles Aug. in Psal 30. and in another place he saith the Scriptures speake more plainely of the Church then of Christ himself because the holy Ghost foresaw it was more to be contradicted and what might not these words be taken somewhat in the same sense but this shall serue for that place 3. You come next with two places of Saint Aug. whereof one was answeared before and it is onely where you tell vs he saith that many are tormented with the Diuel who are worshipped by man on earth to this Bellarmine say you answeareth that perhaps it is not S. Augustines making you Reader beleeue as if Bell. neither gaue other answeare nor any reason of this answeare Whereas he doth both his reason why he thinketh it not Saint Augustines is both because he could neuer find any such place in him it is like he should find it if it were there he hauing beene soe diligent a reader of S. Augu. as appeareth by his works he was Bell. de Sanct. beat lib. 1. cap. 9. as alsoe because noe Haeretique that obiecteth it doth note the place where it is to be found as they are wōt to doe in their other obiections and it is like would doe in this if they could find it but because Sir Humphrey you are a man soe well read in S. Aug. and stand soe vpon answeare of this place Doe you but tell vs where it is and you shall then see what we will say vnto you meane while looke a little better in Bellar. againe and tell vs whether there be not 3. or 4. other answeares See also before cap. 10. The other place of Saint Augu. is as you say touching the Popes supremacy because S. Augu. in those words of our Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church taketh not Peter and this rocke to be all one but the Rocke to bee our Sauiour himself and Petrus to bee a deriuatiue onely of Petra to which you tell vs Stapleton makes answeare that it was lapsus humanus for want of knowledge of the Greeke and caused by the diuersity of the two languages Latine and Greeke Which answeare though you relate in a slight fashion as if you tooke it to be in sufficiēt yet you neither doe nor indeede can say against it if you know Greeke and Latine or if you doe not goe but to some of your Ministers and get them to looke in their owne Greeke Lexicons I meane sett out by Haeretiques and see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be an adiectiue and a deriuatiue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be not a substantiue signifying the very same thing and let them looke yet farther into the original tongue it self to wit the Syriake wherein our Sauiour spake Lib. 1. Ro Pontif cap. 25. and see whither they be not more the same to wit the onely word Cephas in both places On the other side it is well knowne Saint Augu. professed noe great skill in Greeke as hee witnesseth of himselfe in many places Aug. in Psal cont Partem Donat ep 165. Besids Saint Augu. doth not bring this exposition to derogate from Saint Peter's primacy which he confesseth in 20. places as may be seene in Bellarmine and where for proofe thereof he vseth the very word Petra which heere he distinguisheth from Petrus calling the Seate of Peter this rooke Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae Reckon saith he to the Donatists the Priests from euen the seate of Peter that is the rocke which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome How then doth he deny S. Peter's primacy and perpetuity of his Sea Againe Sir Humphrey you might finde other answeares for Saint Augu. himselfe in his retractations putteth both the explications wherein the word Petrae is spoken of Christ and of Peter leauing the choise to the Reader allowing both interpretations which you doe not because one is flat against you Whereas we doe not reiect either as being against vs but onely we shew the one not to be soe good because it standeth not soe with the original tongues which that Saint was not soe well skilled in and literal sense of scripture which noe Haeretique can deny 4. The 3. place is out of S. Ignatius for proofe of Communion in both kinds Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 26 One cupp is distributed to all to which you say Bellarmine makes answeare that in the Latine books it is not found that one cupp is giuen to all but for all against which you can say nothing but giue me cause to say much against you For first Bellarmine doth not say one cupp is giuen for all but saith vnus calix totius ecclesiae One cupp of the whole Church Which is the true reading and indeede another thing Secondly though you make as if Bellarmine did onely barely say this without farther reason or proofe yet is it farre otherwise for as for the reading he saith that though the Greeke haue it as the Haeretiques commonly cite that is as you doe heere yet the true reading is as the Latine translation which we follow hath it whereto he saith there is more trust to be had then to the Greeke books of S. Ignatius which wee haue now Whereof he bringeth this proofe that the testimonies cited out of him as we find in the works of S. Anastasius and Theodoret agree better with our Latine translation then the Greeke which is now extant Which is a plaine proofe of the betternes and greater purenes thereof as being taken out of the ancient Greeke editions Besids that Bellarmine proueth this euen out of the Magdeburgians because they cite this very place at we doe Neither doth he answeare this authority onely by the variety of the reading but withall he giueth 2. answeares more one that S. Ignatius putteth all the force in the vnity of the bread and cupp thus that though many eate many drinke
yet the bread and cupp is but one and the same from whence it followeth not that all must drinke thereof but onely that all that drinke drinke but of one and the same cup. Thirdly he answeareth that at most take the words how you will they can signify noe more but onely the practize of that tyme. All this doth Bell. say which you could craftlly dissemble and make your Reader beleeue as if hee shuffled ouer the matter onely with a different reading without farther reason but in this you Linde it as you doe euery where els 5. A 4. author is Origen out of whom you haue these words touching the Sacrament of Christ's body Thus much be spoken of the typical and symbolical body to which you say Sixtus Senensis makes answeare that he suspecteth the place to bee corrupted thus you heere and a little after you come about with Origen againe and say if we produce Origen Ribera the Iesuit saith he was full of errours which the church alwaies detested To the first place I answeare that beside that answeare of Sixtus Senensis which I doe not see you disproue V. Bell. de Euch lib. 2. cap. 8. you know other Catholique authors giue other answeares Some say not onely that place to be corrupted but that whole worke of his to be dubiae fidei of vncertaine auctority Others explicate that other places brought out of the same worke by Peter Martyr against Gardiner not of the Sacrament of Christ's body but of a certaine holy bread which was want to be giuen to such as did not communicate in place of the Eucharist whereof there is frequent mention in antiquity but Bellarmine hath a plaine and substantial answeare that these words are spoken of the Eucharist and that they are nothing against the real presence neither doe I see any cause in the world why a man should decline the authority or try any other way of answeare For is it not most true that it is the typical and symbolical body of Christ in as much as it is representatiue of Christ himselfe vpon the crosse or euen as he is now in heauen in as much as it is a pledge of aeternal life especially seing Origen in many other places alleadged by Bellarmine speaketh most plainely of the reall praesence Now for the later place I see not why you should be troubled at Ribera's words of Origen For hee doth not speake them by way of answeare to any obiection though you please to say soe for your words are these if we produce Origen as if you did obiect some place out of him which you doe not or weakning his authority for his owne aduantage for he writeth noe cōtrouersy but onely by way of general aduice he himselfe as he saith hauing anciently beene well inclined towards Origen for the fame of his learning but finding him soe deepely censured by many holy Fathers and general iudgmēt of the Church he altered his opinion of him this I say hee speaketh onely by way of aduice being to comment vpon Malachias the Prophet and being there to treate which were the best interpreters of scripture without any reguard to any obiection or controuersy Now what is this to your purpose or what can you except against it I see not nor any man els nor euen your selfe I thinke if you marke what you say But why should you alleadge Ribera the Iesuit as if he were the onely man that did condemne him See in Bellarm. de Script Eccles whether he be not censured of errour by S. Basil and condemned of haeresy and reckoned among Haeretiques by S. Epiphanius as for S. Hierome it is well knowne how deepely he cōdemneth him Who also trāslated one of Origen's works full of errours to that end to desplay them and euen in the 5. General Councel to say nothing of particular men there is anathema said to him and his writings euen as to Arius Macedonius Eunomius Nestorius and Eutyches and yet you could find noe body that should tax Origen of errour but one poore Iesuit though almost all this be mentioned by the same Iesuit and in the same place which you cite soe as you could not choose but see it What then shall a man say to this your manner of dealing 6. A fift Father is Theodoret touching transubstantiation Who say you saieth the substance of bread and wine ceaseth not in the Sacrament to which you tell vs Valencia makes answeare that he erred in the Councel of Ephesus though afterward he repented him as if this were all the answeare that either he or any man els giueth or as if euen that were not true which Valencia saith of Theodoret's erring in the Councel of Ephesus Chap. 9 §. 3 but to this place I answeared before shewing it neither to bee against vs nor that to be Valencia his onely answeare but the last onely of 3. or 4. besides other men's answeares 7. The 6. is Epiphanius touching images of whom you say out of a certaine Epistle of his he found a vaile at the entrance of the church representing the image of Christ or some Saint which he cut in pieces and withall commāded that none such should be heereafter suffered to hang there to this you say Sanders and Baronius make answeare that they are not S. Epiphanius his words but the words of some counterfaict image-breaker as if these two were the onely men that said soe or as if they said soe onely because it was against the worship of images without farther reason of their saying or as if that were their onely answeare but in all these you faile fowly For it is not the answeare of these two alone but the common of allmost all learned men nor the onely answeare nor vpon any one or more man's bare word That it is not the onely answeare may be seene in Bellarmine who bringeth two more Bell. lib. 2. de imag cap. 9. one out of Waldensis who supposeth it to haue beene soe done by Epiphanius in reguard of the Anthropomorphit haeretiques raigning at that tyme the other is of Marianus Victorius some others saying that that was not the image of Christ or any Saint but of some profane man hung there in the Church as if it had beene the picture of some Saint that being noe fit place for it by occasion whereof I cannot but note your corrupt citing of this testimony as you call it of Epiphanius for whereas the pretended words are these Cum inuenissem imaginem hominus pendentem in ecclesia tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nescio enim cuius erat When I had found the image of a man hanging in the Church as if it were the image of Christ or some Saint for I know not whose it was You say thus that he found a vaile representing the image of Christ or some Saint which is plaine corruption For S. Epiphanius saith in plaine manner it was neither the image of Christ or any Saint but
sense for aske any schoole-boy whether cùm with the subiunctiue and indicatiue moode be all one the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine alleadgeth thus Seing saith he it is euident as Saint Hiero. speaketh that hee was noe man of the Church these being Saint Hierom's very words heere then you see againe that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reiect Tertullian nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him but almost all the Fathers Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many Vinc. Lerin cap. 24. Hilar. in comment in Math. cap. 5. and Saint Hilarius saith there that Tertullian's later errours did detract a great deale of authority from his approued writings Soe then it is noe wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers And soe you may say that S. Hierome Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reiect and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine 12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you say that if you cite him Canus makes answeare Hierome is noe rule of faith Can. de locis lib. 2. cap. 11. but you tell vs not where or vpon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome noe more then you doe the three former Fathers though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of which is the Canon of Scripture you haue Saint Hierome a little more fore you in shew then in any thing els or more then you haue any other of the Fathers yet I dare say you wil be loath to stand to his iudgment euen in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament according to the Canon of the Iewes which you also follow if a man should vrge you with S. Hieromes authority euen in this point I beleeue you would say the same or more then Canus doth to wit that he is noe rule of faith for S. Hierosme alloweth the booke of Iudith to be canonical Scripture Proef. in Iudith though it bee not in the Iewes canon which yet you reiect and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle à plaerisque reijcitur it is reiected by most Descript eccles Verb. Petrus Apost wherein yet you doe not follow him this is for the matter Now for the words you doe not cite Canus right for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is noe rule of faith though that be true as I shall shew presently but thus hauing alleadged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus For neither is it true saith Canus that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in determining the canonical books Which is most true S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church but the Church is his rule Hier. praef in Iudith as appeareth in that he reckoneth Iudith among the Canonical books vpon the authority of the Church Neither is it all one to say S. Hierome is noe rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture which not and to say he is noe rule of faith Besides if Canus had said S. Hierome is noe rule of faith he had said most true and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome and speaking euen of his writings thus Aug. ep 19 Solis eis scripturarū libris c. I haue learned to giue that feare and honour to those onely bookes of scripture which are now called canonical as to beleeue most firmely that noe author or writer of them hath erred any thing in writing but others I reade soe that though they excell neuer soe much in any holinesse learning I doe not therefore thinke it true because they thought soe but because they haue beene able to perswade either by those canonical authors or by probable reason that they say true and there he goeth on specifying euen S. Hierome himselfe and saying vnto him that he presumeth he would not haue him soe wholy approue of his writings as to thinke there is no error at all in them The like he hath in another place shewing plainely that any priuate Doctor may erre Lib. 2. de Bap. cont Donat. cap. 3 and consequently can be noe rule of faith Yet for all that the authority of any such is very great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others or is not by them gaine said For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradition and beleife of the Church which is a sufficient rule Is this then to reiect and elude the Fathers to say that one is noe rule of faith if it be then doth S. Aug. reiect and elude them it is plaine therefore you doe but cauill for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth 13. After S. Hierome you come to Iustin Irenaeus Epiphanius and Oecumenius whom say you if you cite Bellarmine answeares I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from errour Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6 Heere againe as else where you forbeare to tell vs the matter for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them For this would haue discouered your falshood and vanity The matter then is concerning the damned spirits whether they suffer anie punishment for the present tyme before the day of iudgment or not these fathers thinke not the common consent of all other fathers and of the whole Catholique Church is against them in it How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error but I pray you Sir Humphrey bethinke your selfe well and tell vs againe whether this be any point controuerted betweene you and vs I know it is a thing which you might better maintaine then most or perhaps any one point of your faith hauing these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein but yet I doe not find by your 39. articles or any other sufficient authority that you hold that error much lesse as a chiefe point of your faith Wherefore it is false that you say when you cite these Fathers For you doe not cite them neither is their errour in a matter of controuersy betweene vs I note heere also in a word that whereas Bellarmine saith onely he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of Iustin Irenaeus c. from errour you make him say the opinion of these men as if he did speake but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong For though he doe not in all things and alwaies approue the opinion of euery particular man yet doth he allwaies speake with great reuerence of the holy Fathers as all Catholiques doe 14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Salmeron the Iesuit makes answeare weake is the place which is
drawne from authority for pauperis est numerare pecus It is the signe of a poore man to number his Cattell Thus you say of Salmeron in a few lines discouering a great deale of fals-hood For first it is false that you produce Fathers against the Conception of our Lady That being noe controuersy betweene you and vs but onely among our selues wherefore if there be any such consent of Fathers it is not you that produce them but our owne authors you onely out of the great good affection you beare forsooth to our B. Sauiour are ready to embrace any opinion that may more derogate from the dignity of his blessed Mother but what doe crowes looke for but carren Secondly it is false that Salmeron acknowledgeth any such vniforme consent of Fathers against him or that he makes any such answeare to them It is true indeede he saith the contrary part alleadge for themselues the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and specially of Saint Augustine Which he answeareth another way but for those which he answeareth as you say here they are onely later authours or Doctours as shall after appeare Thirdly it is false that hee acknowledgeth any vniforme consent euen of these later Doctours against himselfe for he opposeth a farre greater multitude of Doctours against them vsing that saying of Elizaeus the Prophet 4. Reg. 6.16 plures nobiscum sunt quam cum illis there be more with vs then with them Where then is the consent Fourthly it is a cunning tricke if not a false for you to make this answeare seeme Salmeron's onely whereas he professeth to haue it out of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas of Aquine citing two or three seuerall places of Saint Augustine but it is well at lest that though you contemne their authority yet you doe not doe it soe openly but couertly onely vnder the shaddow of a IESVIT This therefore might be answeare enough for you to shew that we doe not reiect or elude the Fathers seing we haue our answeares out of them but to explaine the meaning of Salmeron's saying that the place of authority is weake a little more I will alleadge S. Thomas of Aquine his obiection and answeare he obiecteth that the science of Diuinity cannot be argumentatiue 1. p q. 1. ar 8. and 2. because saith he it must argue out of authority or reason not out of authority because according to Boetius the place of authority is most weake not out of reason because then faith hath noe merit to this he answeareth that it argueth out of Diuine authority and saith that Boetius is to be vnderstood of humaine authority which he also saith is the weakest kind of proofe Soe as by this Salmeron's meaning is plaine not to reiect authority but onely to preferre reason before humaine authority as it is most plaine that it ought to be preferred Besids Salmeron giueth other answeares as that he opposeth also a contrary multitude of Doctours he opposeth the force of reason he opposeth the consent in a manner of the whole Church concluding therefore that though some of the cōtrary part number a great many authors some 200. some 300. some but 15. yet the very nūbering sheweth them to be few according to that saying Pauperis est numerare pecus it is onely for a poore man to number his cattell whereas a rich man's cattell or other wealth is not soe soone counted insinuating thereby that his authors are soe many that they are not to be numbred and indeede he hath almost as many Vniuersityes kingdomes commonwealths religious orders and other communityes for him as the other side hath single authors By all which it is apparent that there is noe such absurdity in his saying as you would haue it seeme for he slighteth not authority but preferreth onely greater authority before lesse and reason before both which noe man in his right witts can deny to be very good reason where then was your reason Sir Humphrey when you read Salmeron it was straying after some haereticall fancy 15. By this then that hath beene said in this whole chapter it may appeare how like your selfe you make that vaunting conclusion to your reader that by what you haue heere said he hath heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the chiefe points made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues For disproofe whereof I should vrong my Reader 's iudgement if I should stand bringing other arguments then those which I haue done already in answearing euery particular place which you bring Wherein I haue shewed not one Father of all these to be against vs vnlesse it be in some one or two points wherein they are as much against you and in things which both you acknowledge for errours and are contradicted by the common consent of other fathers wherein I hope my deeds will waigh more with any man of iudgement then your words Chap. 13. and soe I passe to another section Of the 13. Sect. which is thus entituled by the Knight Our aduersaries conuinced of a bad cause and an euill conscience by razing of our records and clipping their owne authors tongues CHAPTER XIII 1. IN the later end of the former section the Knight saith that many in our owne Church haue spoken freely and truly in particular points of doctrine with his and against our tenets For which the Inquisitours haue passed their censure vpon them blotting out such lines or leaues as make against vs and now in this section he nameth some authours in particular To which I say that for the former part the Knight saith very true there be and euer haue beene some light new fangled people who giue too much liberty to their wandring thoughts and penns suffering themselues like chaffe as they are to be blowne hither and thither with the wind of inconstancy And such people they are for the most part that become haeretiques though some also remaine in the vnity of the Catholique church yet soe as they suffer some things to escape which deserue censure Wherefore the Catholique church to preuent the danger and harme which may come by such bookes taketh the best order that can be in Catholique countries that noe such bookes be printed till they be reuiewed and approued not to containe any thing contrary to faith and good manners but because there haue beene many such writings published this last age by occasion of heresy and liberty which came therewith to the great preiudice of the Catholique faith there hath beene a course taken for the restraint of all such not onely writings of Haeretiques but euen of Catholiques which haue any tange of haeresy either vtterly forbidding them or correcting them soe as they may be safely reade without danger of faith and good life And this kind of care hath euer beene vsed in the Catholique church though more or lesse as the necessity of tymes hath beene greater or lesse Act. 19.18 Soe we see in scripture it selfe some that
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
put vnder the elbowes of all ages It is a great danger to speak in the Church lest perchance by peruerse interpretation of the ghospel of Christ there be made the ghospel of man or which is worse the Ghospel of the Diuel Thus farre Saint Hieromes words which mee thinks without more adoe may easily answeare your whole argument for in them this holy Father sayth as much or more as all those Epithets which you bring out of our seueral authours put togeather and withall sheweth in what sense they are to be taken Soe as if you will say any more of this matter you must vndertake the quarrel against Saint Hierome You may doe well also to note the very first words Marcion Basilides caeterae haereticorum pestes among whom you haue your part 6. Now for the 4. last epithets which you bring out of Lessius though they seeme not such strange termes as some of the rest yet they are farr worse and more derogatory from the holy Scripture if they be there as you say I haue therefore more particularly examined him whither he say soe or noe Less Consul Quae sit fides c. rat 11. and whereas the words being all put downe by you heere as it were seuerall epithets a man would haue thought they had beene all soe together in the authour himselfe I say first that there be neither any such words lying togeather nor any such a part nor any one word of those that I can find in that whole place or reason which I may call a chapter for it is in manner of a chapter much lesse any of them vttered of the holy Scripture though the whole Chapter or discourse in that place be onely of the Scripture and to proue that it alone and of it selfe can not be a rule of faith Which he proueth by many reasons one is because by it we can not iudge of the Scripture it selfe and soe the very rule shall remaine vncertaine which ought to be most certaine And in this place he hath the word incerta which though it signify the same with some of the words heere alleadged yet is it not the same word But yet heere Lessius is farre from saying that the Scripture is vncertaine in it self that is that the doctrine thereof is doubtfull but onely that our rule wil be vncertaine to vs or rather we vncertaine of the rule because we cannot know the Scripture by it self For example that this booke is true scripture not suppositions or feigned or that this is the true meaning and sense thereof And this kind of vncertainty is noe derogation to the Scripture Lessius his second reason is that that cannot be a certaine rule which may be accommodated or fitted to contrary doctrines as he saith Scripture is by seuerall Haeretiques for establishment of quite different opinions His 3. reason is this that cannot be a iudge that cannot clearely determine on which side sentence is giuen but leaueth it soe that the partyes may still contend one affirming the sentence to bee for him another for him And soe he saith is the scripture laying aside the exposition of the Church and Fathers Whereto he there bringeth also an example of two men who going to law would admitt noe other iudge but the Law booke one bringing one Law cleerely for him as he thinketh the other another Law as cleerely for him in his iudgment of which suite there could neuer be an end soe Fourthly he sheweth by experience that this rule of Scripture is not sufficient for ending of Controuersies because the Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists are alltogether by the eares yet euery one alleadging Scripture for himselfe Lastly he saith that the Scripture it self in noe place sendeth priuate men to seach the Scriptures in doubtfull matters but to the Church and Pastours praesiding therein 7. This is the whole substance of Lessius his discourse in that place wherein I would gladly heare what word there is derogating from the dignity of holy Scripture or any way condemning it of imperfection doubtfulnes ambiguity and perplexity some of these things might bee truely said and in a good sense as the doubtfulnes or ambiguity in the same sense that I spoke of the vncertainty not in it selfe but to vs-ward But for the imperfectiō because that is a great matter with you I absolutely deny it for neither doth any Catholique say either that or any thing els from whence it may be gathered For it is not all one to say that it alone is noe sufficient rule and to say it is imperfect for though you imagine that the all sufficiency or contayning of all things expresly is a necessary point of perfection you are deceiued for then would it follow that the ghospel of S. Mathew S. Marke and other particular books should be imperfect and specially that of S. Iohn wherein he saith expresly that all things are not written neither if all the Scripture did containe all things in that manner as you would haue it and soe were perfect in your sense yet would it not euen then be a sufficient rule of faith of it selfe alone for it would still bee a booke or vriting the very nature whereof doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of fayth or iudge of controuersies for a Iugde must be able to speake to heare answeare c. whereas the nature of a booke or writing is as it were to leaue it selfe to be read and expounded by men for in case two men should expound it differently the nature thereof doth not require that it should say whether of the two expoundeth it right The perfection therefore of it doth rather cōsist in the truth fulnesse of wisedome profoundnes maiesty grauity efficacy authority and certainty then in contayning all things expresly as you require soe long as it hath those perfections cōtaining withall the principal matters pertayning to faith and teaching vs a certaine and infallible way whereby we may come to the knowledge of the rest which is the Church it cannot be said to be vnperfect or to wāt any perfection dew therevnto And this may be answeare sufficient to the rest of this Section which is nothing but a litle more of such wise stuffe for you tell vs we decline Scriptures as vnperfect the fathers as counterfect the Protestants as haeretiques our owne authors as erronious Of which there is not one true word but this that we decline Protestants as haeretiques for soe we doe indeede but for the rest it is most false For what Catholique did euer decline the authority of our Schoole Diuines or ancient fathers much lesse call the one erronious or the other counterfect Some one may haue strayed a little from the common opinion of the rest in some one particular point or perhaps haue beene corrupted by haeretiques and soe we may decline that particular author in that particular point but call him erroneous or counterfect we doe not nay we giue you leaue
to name that Father or Catholique Doctor to whose iudgment we will not stand for trial of the controuersies betweene you and vs and if hee be for you in one I will vndertake he shal be against you in 5. or 10. others for that one With what face then can you say we decline them but because I imagine you reflect most in this saying vpon this worthy worke of your owne I leaue it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader whether I haue soe declined one author either moderne or ancient or whether I haue not shewed euery one which you haue brought to be quite against you Now for the Scripture because you say wee decline it as vnperfect I challeÌ„ge you to name the man that saith it is vnperfect for that reason declineth it You fathered indeede that terme vpon Lessius but I shewed it to be most false for that he hath not the word at all in that chapter much lesse doth he say it of Scripture and lesse againe doth he decline the trial thereof in reguard of the imperfection but onely in reguard that it being a written word noe haeretique can be conuinced by it as I shewed also euen now out of Tertullian who saith it is but lost labour to dispute with an haeretique out of scripture But because I see your drift in the often repetition of the word imperfect is onely to beget in men's minds an hard conceit of vs De prâ—â— cap. â— as if we made small account of scripture I would know of you who they be that haue preserued the Scripture with such care for soe many ages who they bee that haue translated commentend and expounded them who they be that haue made soe many decrees in particular and general Councels for the preseruation authority reuerence and dew vse of them who they bee that haue filled libraries with learned works not onely expounding the particular passages but frequently and largely declaring their necessity dignity vtility and other perfections Veu B. 2 â—p Sr. â—p Let any man by these effects iudge who reuerenceth them most Catholiques or Protestants Let him compare the labours of the one with the labours of the other and then he shall soone find the truth of this matter 8. But because you still talke of our declining of Scripture besids that it is false as I said before for we are content to admitt any kind of triall with you to take that alsoe out of your mouth I answeare you farther that in this we coÌ„descend more vnto your infirmity being willing to try all wayes to gaine you then we neede or you can of right challenge For we acknowledge that saying of Tertullian's most true Whereby hee as it were stoppeth this gapp against you Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus non admittendos eos ad vllam de scripturis disputationem sihae sunt vires eorum anne eas habere possint dispici debet cui competat possessio Scripturarum ne is admittatur ad eas cui nullo modo competit We stopp vp this entrance chiefly that they that is haeretiques are not to be admitted to the disputation of Scriptures if in these their force consist we must see whether they may haue them to whom the possession belongeth lest he be admitted therevnto to whom it in noe wise belongeth as also that other place wherein conformably to the question which heere he maketh this being an important point hee defineth de praesc cap. 15. 37. Non esse admittendos haereticos ad incundam de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere That haeretiques are not to be admitted to the challenge of Scriptures whom without Scriptures we proue not to pertaine to Scriptures that is not to haue any thing to doe with them For saith he if they be haeretiques they cannot be Christians and not being Christians they can haue noe right to Christian writings Wherefore Sir Humphrey while you stand bragging of Scriptures and chalenging vs we may say vnto you as the same Tertullian saith consequently in the same place Qui estis quaÌ„do vnde venistis quid in meo agitis non mei quo denique Marcion iure siluam meam caedis c. Who are you when and whence haue you come what doe you in my ground you that are not mine by what right ô Marcion dost thou fell my wood by what leaue ô Valentine dost thou turne my fountaines by what authority ô Apelles dost thou remoue my bounds It is my possession what doe you others heere sowing and feeding at your pleasure It is my possession I possesse it of old I possesse it first I haue the Originals from the owners whose the thing was I am the heyre of the Apostles as they haue bequeathed vnto mee by will as they haue committed to my custody as they haue adiured mee soe I hold For you truely they haue euer dis-inherited you and cast you of as strangers and enemyes This is Tertullian's discourse and wordes wherein it is but changing the names Marcion Valentine and Apelles into Luther Caluin Beza or if you will into Sir Hum. Linde and it will fitt as well as if it were made for you or spoken in answeare of what you say heere that if you bring Scripture we decline it for heereby you may see how much you are mistaken We doe not decline it but we decline you from it telling you it is none of yours you haue nothing to doe with it the Scriptures were committed to the Church by the Apostles to be kept they are the Churches euidences therefore noe man out of the Church as you are hath to doe with them as Tertullian telleth you heere ep dedic n. 6. and as I told you in my dedicatory epistle out of another place of his that we must first seeke out where that faith is to which the Scriptures belong where the men to whom Christian discipline was deliuered You must first shew your selues to be these men to haue this faith before we can admitt you to the Scriptures You must first shew your selues owners of the land before you can claime the writings and euidences which belong vnto it and which make good the title Therefore Sir Humphrey I cannot lesse admire your impudency in this which you say of Scriptures then in any thing els which in all this Lindy treatise you haue said though indeede as you goe drawing towards an end you shew you self still more like your self in this kind as shall appeare by the following Sections Chap. 15. Of the 15. Sect. the title being this Our chiefest aduersary Cardinal Bellarmine testifieth the truth of our doctrine in the principal points of controuersy betwixt vs. CHAPTER XV. 1. IN this Section your drift is to proue the truth of your doctrine out of Bellar. who you say is inforced to confesse the antiquity and Safety of your doctrine and plainely to acknowledge the
Vncertainety and nouelty of his owne For which end you produce 8. seueral places six whereof I haue answeared before and there also shewed that some are nothing in the world to the purpose others most grosly falsified The 1. place to wit that noe maÌ„ can be certaine of his faith because he cannot bee certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament because that dependeth vpon the Ministers intention is answeared and proued most foolish chap. 10. n. 7.8 c. the secoÌ„d place which is of transubstantiation as if Bellarmine confessed it probable that it could not bee proued out of scripture is answeared in Cap. 9. § 2. n. 22. concerning which I onely note that in this place you haue a new corruption For whereas Bellar. saith onely that yt may be doubted whether there be any place of Scripture soe plaine as without the declaration of the Church to enforce transubstantiation because some learned meÌ„ as Scotus did doubt thereof though Bell. saith to him the Scripture seemeth soe plaine as to enforce it heere you make him say it may be doubted whether the Scripture will beare it which is cleane another thing for to enforce a sense beare a sense are two Seueral things neither did Scotus or any Diuine els euer make question but that the scripture would beare that sense but whither that were soe cleare and obuious a sense as of it selfe to enforce the beleife of transubstaÌ„tiation The 3. Bell. lib. 2. de Miss cap. 9. 10. place which is of Masse without coÌ„municants I passed ouer before as impertinent to the purpose and soe I might doe heere but for the Reader 's fuller satisfaction I answeare Bellarmine saith that Masse is ordained both to offer sacrifice to God and to nourish the people with spiritual food in which respect as it is not vnlawful to offer it to God though there be none to communicate but very lawfull good and holy soe is it more perfect and as I may say in a certaine sort more lawfull where be some to communicate For then it hath both the ends for which it was ordained Now what doth this make for you Sir Knight or against vs as also that which followeth heere to wit that there is not any expresse mention among the ancienâ—s where none did coÌ„municate but the Priest alone but onely coniectures For noe more is there any expresse mention to the contrary that noe Priest might nor euer did say Masse without communicants which vnlesse you can shew in Bellarmine you say nothing against vs neither if you could shew it should you therefore say any thing for your owne sacrificelesse communion which hath noe affinity with our Masse the essence whereof consisteth in being a Sacrifice and communion in being a participation of the same Sacrifice Your Protestant communion being but a bitt of vnblessed bread and noe participation of Sacrifice for you absolutely deny all manner of visible Sacrifice in the Church Now for Bellarmines coniectures it is true he giueth them noe other name but of coniectures but they are such as may with great probability perswade any indifferent man to conclude that many times and I may say much more frequently the Priest said Masse without communicants then with them And the lest of them is such that if you had but halfe such an one for any point you hold you would vaunt it and triumph as if you had an vnanswearable demonstration But be it soe or bee it not of some of the peoples communicating whensoeuer the Priest said Masse what maketh it to our purpose which is whether it be lawful to say Masse without communicants or not they did not will you say in the primitiue Church I aske what then may not we now the people did communicate euery day then must euery body communicate now therefore euery day all gaue their goods away and liued in common must euery body doe soe now I beleiue Sir Knight you will not like that soe well If the peoples deuotion grow soe cold as not to participate sacramentally of the sacrifice must the Priests grow soe cold also as not euen to offer Sacrifice for his owne and the peoples sinnes This is noe good councel Sir Humphrey almighty God reprehendeth it by his Prophet Isay 24.2 that the Priest were growne like the people Sicut populus sic Sacerdos We could be glad Sir if you could helpe to mend the people but not marre the Priest which you would doe enkindle their deuotion not destroy their faith nor take away the holy Sacrifice of the Masse which affordeth many benefits euen to not communicants though not soe much as to them that doe communicate sacramentally But what doe I in this discourse heere it is enough to shew that Bellarmine doth not patronize you nor weaken vs. The two places following touching prayer in a knowne tongue and Communion vnder both kinds in the primitiue Church are also answeared before are onely of the same kind of argument with this the 6. place which is as if Bell. taught your two SacrameÌ„ts is answeared in two places vpon seueral occasions Chap. 9. §. 4 fine and ch 10. fine and in both is shewed your notorious corruption both of words sense 2. Now for your two last testimonies which you brought not before I shall heere examine One you tell vs is touching faith and good works of which say you it is Bellarmines confession Bell lib. 3. de â—ustif cap. 6. that the Protestants doe not deny but that faith repentance are requisite that is a liuely faith and earnest repentance and that without them noe man can be iustified To this I answeare first that you propound the matter very imperfectly and ignorantly in saying thus touching faith and good works it is Bellarmines confession c. not telling vs the particular controuersy for which you bring this saying of Bellarmines there being more controuersies then one betweene you and vs as whither any thing be needful to iustification beside faith or what faith it is that iustifieth and how and whither good works bee necessary or noe and how they concurre for there be all these things and more in question betweene you and vs. And a man would haue thought by your general title of faith and Workes it had beene in proofe of some of these that you had brought Bellarm. But it is for noe such matter Bellarmine in the place cited handling a cleane differeÌ„t question to wit whether a man can be certaine of his owne grace and iustice that is whether he be in the grace and fauour of almighty God or not and for proofe that a man cannot be certaine thereof he bringeth diuers places of Scripture which imply a condition on our part in our iustification as if we turne to God if we seeke him in our whole hart if we doe penance if we beleeue if we doe his will c. God will turne to vs forgiue our sinnes and the like Which condition saith
the doctrine of iustification and doctrine of merits as they are deliuered in the Councel of Trent euery Catholique is bound to giue his life as occasion is offered For adoration of images whereas he asketh whether any of these 33. were canonized for it it is an idle question for men are canonized not for matters of beleife onely but for practize of Faith Hope Charity and all vertues together which belong to an holy and Christian life in general and to their owne particular State and vocation and though there be noe special mention of any of those 33. their adoration of images yet defined which before was not and which then men were not soe certaine of nor soe bound to beleiue as after soe consequently men might be lesse bound to suffer death for it then then afterwards and yet be of the same faith with those that came after Soe long as they acknowledged the same Church and liued in the vnity thereof acknowledged the same power and authority to determine matters of faith as it is certaine those ancient Martyrs did as appeareth both by their owne writings yet extant and their deeds recorded by other men in good authentical history These holy Martyrs therefore are truely ours which if this Knight will disproue he must shew which of them did teach otherwise that is against that vhich we now beleiue Which till he can doe we shall still be in possession of our Martyrs and of their faith our faith testifying that wee are their Children and their bloud giuing testimony to the truth of our faith Of the 17. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 17. Our aduersaries coÌ„mon obiection drawne from the charitable opinion of Protestants touching the saluation of professed Romanists liuing and dying in their Church answeared CHAPTER XVII 1. THis section is nothing but a little of the Knight's owne natural language and therefore will soone be answeared He beginneth with a saying of Costerus that a man dying a Lutheran cannot be saued Wherevpon he falleth in to a great rage against the Roman Church and telleth vs there is a Woman a Church a Citty which reigneth ouer the Kings of the earth and hath multitudes of nations at her Command but he thanks God his Church is not such an one Neither doe Protestans as he saith account Vniuersality of nations and people to be a marke of their Church and from thence he falleth to reckon vpp diuers particular points of his Churches doctrine as disclayming of merits Communion in both Kindes reading of Scriptures and bringing a place of Scriptures for each of these he asketh very rhetorically after euery one whether they be accursed for holding them and on the other side asketh whether we can be blessed that forbid marriage meates that haue prayer in an vnknowne tongue adore images adore Saints adore the elements of bread and wine wee that add traditions to the Scriptures and detract from God's commandments and Christ's institution in the Sacrament Which discourse of his being soe foolish as it is a man may thinke it folly for mee to stand answearing particularly therefore I answeare briefly and in general first that though it take vpp half his section yet it is wholy from his purpose which he pretends by the title of his chapter which is to answeare our obiection Secondly I answeare that for those things which he obiecteth vnto vs they are all answeared before and proued some false for the things wherewith he chargeth vs all absurd if we consider the proofs of Scripture which he bringeth for example he telleth vs we forbid marriage and meats both which are most grosly false For how many Catholiques be there in England men and women married and what meate is there that Catholiques are forbidden to eate in dew tyme and season is it all one to forbid marriage to some men to wit such as haue voluntarily promised the contrary and some meates at some tymes all one I say as to forbid marriage and meates neither marriage nor meats being forbidden in these cases as ill in themselues in which sense onely Saint Paul termeth it the doctrine of Diuels but for higher ends But to make him yet a little more capable of this answeare I will vrge him with one ordinary instance which is this I presume his Father had some apprentice bound not to marry during his apprenticeship I would then know of him whither his father in that case did forbid marriage and teach the doctrine of Diuels 2. Against prayer in an vnknowne tongue he saith it is written with men of other tongues and other lipps will I speake vnto this people and soe they shall not heare mee and in the margent saith it was a curse at the building of Babel for them that vnderstand not what was spoken But by this alleadging of Scripture a man may see what a good thing it is to haue it in the vulgar tongue for euery man to read and abuse it at his pleasure when such a right learned man as this Knight doth soe strangely apply it He would make men beleiue Esay the Prophet spoke against Latine in this place but the man is quite wide of his marke but it is enough for him that there is mention of a strange tongue there for as for the sense he careth not or rather his reading reacheth not to the meaning of the place which is but this that whereas the people laughed at the Prophets that came to them with commands from God repeating their words scoffingly manda remanda Isa 28.11 expecta reexpecta c. God sendeth them word by the Prophet that because they would not heare those words nor follow the good counsel which he gaue he would speake another word vnto them that they should fall be catched crushed and carried into captiuity and there heare a language which they did not vnderstand this is the plaine and literal sense of the Prophet S. Paul indeede vseth it in another sense to perswade the Corinthians that prophecy is to be preferred before tongues because as he saith the guift of tongues is a signe for infidels that is to speake to infidels for their conuersion but prophecy that is exhortation or interpretation is for the faithful or those that beleiue already Wherein I would know according to either explication what any man can find against prayer in the Latine tongue and for the tower of Babel the Knight surely speaketh by contraries For whereas at Babel men fell from vnity of language to speake euery man a seueral language Soe as noe one man vnderstood one another by that meanes they were all dispersed into seueral nations the Catholique Church doth quite contrary drawing seueral nations to vnity of language making all to speake one and the sâ—me tongue Whereas haeretiques in seueral places by vse of other languages vnderstand not one the other and therein most perfectly resemble the Babel-builders as well in the very diuersity of tongues as in the diuersity of
will giue him leaue to take him for his owne to encrease his Church and make vpp his number of learned men for noe man but an haeretique can dispute against what is once defined Catholique Doctors may indeede differ in opinion soe long as a thing is vndefined For soe long it is not faith but when it is once defined they must be silent and concurre all in one because then it is matter of faith Which agreement and concurrence of opinion in such a case sheweth there was still before a kind of radical vnion that is a praeparation of mind or promptnes to submitt to Authority of the Church when it should shew it self Wherefore whatsoeuer hee or any man els shall say of our differences are but arguments for the vnity and certainty of our beleife 4. Now for his reuiew of all his 8. points it is but a reuiew indeede wherein he taketh all that he said before for true as if he had carried all smooth before him which prouing quite contrary all this reuiew and discourse builded thereon falleth to the ground Neither will I stand examining them all heere againe but remitt the Reader to what is said particularly of each one in his owne place Onely heere I will reflect vpon his conclusion which is a witnessing of men and Angels that we haue noe antiquity and Vniuersality for proofe of our articles For his protestations and witnessings there are many examples gone before which shew how foolish false and hypocritical they are of this therefore I say noe more but that it may goe with the rest But I aske him how he proueth we haue noe antiquity For his first point he laboureth to proue against our Iustification by words out of a Ritual in S. Anselmes dayes some fiue hundred yeares since that the sicke party was to putt all his trust in Christ's merits Which thing I shewed to be nothing against vs. Wherein then hath he derogated from the antiquity and Vniuersality of our Doctrine and though that proofe had beene good that is to say against what we teach of iustification what could the bare authority of soe late a worke haue preiudiced our antiquity which we maintaine 1000. yeares before that tyme Or what could that doctrine taught in such an obscure booke of I know not whose writing nor of what authority and but in a corner of the world praeiudice the Vniuersality of our doctrine taught in all tymes in all countryes by Fathers and Doctors in their seueral tymes and in general Councels or doth it shew his doctrine to be ancient because it was taught 500. since or Vniuersal because it was taught in England noe such matter In his second point of transubstantiation he bringeth one man saying the words of consecration doe not of themselues without the explication of the Church proue the realnes of Christ's praesence in the Sacrament another man saying they doe not proue transubstantiation or that it was defined but in the Councel of Lateran about 500. yeares agoe to which We answeare againe that those one or two say nothing against vs in the points of controuersy with haeretiques and euen in that which they teach contrary to the common consent of Diuines though in matters not defined we say they are reproued not by one or two but by all the whole current of Catholique Diuines what is this then against the antiquity of our Doctrine or doth it proue his Doctrine to be ancient or vniuersall nay doth it proue it any Doctrine at all For what can any man tell by this what he beleeues much lesse whither it be true or noe which he beleeueth may not another man that denieth the Protestant-Lord's-Supper proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his doctrine or rather his denyal of doctrine as the Knight doth his and by the same argument Because a man denieth one point of ours doth he presently allow all his may not he find a third way of his owne different from both and if the Reader please to marke it all the knights proofe of antiquity is the denial or doubt made by some one of our Writers though that one of ours be much more against him in other things as a man may see both in Caietane Scotus and the rest as I said before His discourse then in this is as deuoyd of reason as his Doctrine is of antiquity 5. In his â— point he bringeth a great many authorityes to proue that anciently the people did communicate euery day with the Priest which we grant and aske againe what this derogateth from the antiquity of our Doctrine or how it proueth that a Priest is bound to forbeare saying Masse if there be noe body to communicate or that it is ill and vnlawfull for him to say Masse in that case or how it proueth the antiquity or vniuersality of his doctrine that denieth all Masse nay doe not we moreouer ex abundanti proue that the custome of the peoples daily Communion did cease euen in the Primitiue Church and yet that some Priests did say Masse daily Doe not wee then proue our antiquity not onely by disproofe of his erroneous nouelty but euen by positiue proofes drawne from antiquity Concerning the number of Sacraments he saith some teach there be 3. some 4. some 5. some 6 that some say of this Sacrament it was not instituted by Christ others of that some say this Sacrament is not proued out of this place of Scripture another not out of the other Now suppose all this were true as I haue disproued him almost in euery word he saieth and shewed his folly Doth this proue the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine is not the number of 5. or 6. as farre from his number of two as from ours of 7. and the number of 3. or 4. as incompatible with his number of two as with ours of seauen What madnes is it then in a man to thinke by this disprouing of our number to thinke his owne to be soe presently proued as if a man could not deny 7. but hee must affirme onely two For as for his proofe out of some Fathers naming of two he confesseth others name three others 5. some more some lesse which he bringeth to disproue our seauen but how doth it stand with his two Soe of his Communion in one Kind he saith out of many of our authors it was anciently vsed in both and we grant it but we say it was also vsed in One many tymes and might haue beene more and may also be now in One or both as it shall seeme good to the Church according to diuers circumstances in whose power is the administration of the Sacraments How doth the affirming of the former part or denying of the later proue the antiquity of his doctrine which is that it is not lawful to administer in one kind For publique Prayer he saith out of some of our authors it was vsed in a knowne tongue in the Primitiue Church We grant it and say
it is soe still For as Hebrew Greeke and Latine were then the most knowne tōgues in which onely the Scriptures were written and publiquely read soe the same languages are still vsed partly because they are sacred and partly because they are most knowne What then maketh that against our Latine Masse or rather is it not a proofe of our antiquity and disproofe of his nouelty Against image-worship he talketh of the 2. Cōmaundement and the hate of the Iewes against Images Hee bringeth the testimonyes of some Haeretiques against them and the saying of some one Diuine of the manner of worshipp and the reprehēsion of others against the abuses committed in the adoration of them out of all which setting the testimonyes of Haeretiques a part I aske what he would conclude Or how he disproueth our Worship which we allow or how the reprehension of abuses in some of the simpler sort of Catholiques suppose there be some such abuses proueth the lawfulnes of his Image breaking or the truth and antiquity of his doctrine though his Doctrine in this point be but onely the denial of ours Now we proue ouer and aboue out of ancient Fathers and Councels the antiquity of our Worshipping of Saints and their pictures Lastly of Indulgences he saith out of some of our Diuines that there is noe expresse testimony of Scripture and Fathers for the antiquity of them To which wee answeare that as this notwithstanding these very men doe not deny the antiquity of Indulgences for want of such proofe soe others also proue the ancient vse of them euen out of other most ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church Howsoeuer the controuersy amongst those Diuines is not of the Indulgences themselues or doctrine but onely of the Vse of them or suppose it were soe that one or two Diuines did thinke amisse of them doth that proue the antiquity of his Doctrine may not those very Diuines be against him in other things What ancient author of authority hath he brought to proue his Doctrine not Durand nor any man els whosoeuer is by him pretended to thinke hardest of them though he had Durand wholy for him how could his bare authority or saying make the denying doctrine ancient being but 400. yeares agoe or vniuersal being but one man and contradicted by others 6. And thus hauing made a reuiew opposite to his I would faine see what any man can find should moue Men much lesse Angels to witnesse the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine nay doth not his manner of proofe rather shew the sleightnes and nouelty thereof together with the strange vanity of a brauing Knight that braggeth his Church before Luther was in Christ in the Apostles in the Fathers in the bosome of the ancient Church praetending right to the Fathers Apostles and CHRIST without shewing any shaddow of Succession that being the onely thing which he was to haue done heere and indeede the onely proper proofe for a man that will professe right to such ancestors And this was indeede the proofe which Tertullian did exact at the hands of some Haeretiques who claymed antiquity and would needs haue their Doctrine passe for Apostolique because they were in the Apostles tymes Tert. de praescr cap. 32. Edant ergo saith he origines ecclesiarum suarum euoluant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per Successiones ab initio decurrentem vt primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis c. Let them shew the beginnings of their Churches let them vnroull or lay open the order or Catalogues of their Bishops soe running by Successions from the beginning that that first Bishop had for author or Praedessor some one of the Apostles or Apostolical men who yet haue perseuered with the Apostles For in this manner the Apostolique Churches draw downe their pedigrees as the Church of Smyrna recounteth Polycarpe placed by Iohn the Roman church Clement ordained by Peter soe other Churches shew whom they haue had placed Bishops by the Apostles as it were branches of the Apostolical seede Let the Haeretiques faigne any such thing Soe he Doe you heare Tertullian Sir Humphrey bragg then if you thinke good still we giue you leaue that your Church was anciently in Christ in the Apostles Fathers and bosome of the ancient Church without shewing any such Succession of Bishops drawne downe from the Apostles 7. Now then that you haue spoken soe well of the certainty of your owne beleife let vs heare what you say of the vncertainty of ours wherewith you begin thus That for farther proofe of your cause you will giue another summons to the prime men euen of our grand inquest who without partiality will testify on your behalfe that your Church is built vpon a more stable and sure foundation then the now Romane Church and that your doctrine is more fruiteful and profitable and euery way more safe and comfortable for the beleife of euery Christian and saluation of the beleeuer Which you proue laying way for a ground what Bellarmine saith that noe man can be certaine by the certainty of faith that he doth receiue a true Sacrament because that depends vpon the intention of the Minister whereof noe man can be certaine By which one tenet you say we ouerthrow all certainty of true faith Which you exemplify in Baptisme wherein if there want the intention of the Baptizer the Baptized is still an heathen and in state of damnation Soe of Order if the intention of the Ordainer faile it is noe Sacrament and consequenty if this intention were wanting in the ordination of Popes all succeeding Ordinations would be void soe also Of Matrimony if the intention of the Minister want it is but Fornication c. Thus you rowle on Sir Humphrey in your discourse but you must giue vs leaue to haue a word or two with you before you goe farther You giue another summōs to the prime men of our grand inquest wherein notwithstanding I doe not find that you obserue any order or number of your Iurours as is wont to be obserued in a Iury Wherevpon I began to thinke that you vsed this phrase of summons and grand inquest for the euer honoured memory of your deare deceased Father who was one of the most famous grand iury men of Middlesex in his tyme from whom it seemeth you haue learned onely the name of a grand inquest but not the right order of impanelling your iury nor euen the right number of your Iurours The foreman of your iury though you call him not soe is Bellarmine whom you make to giue vp his verdict against the certainty of our faith because he saith noe man can be certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament Which you say ouerthroweth all certainty of faith But I pray you good Sir Humphrey say truely are you in earnest or in iest me thinkes by the matter you should meane onely in iest it is soe idle but though this were your best excuse yet because you may take that ill