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
is the true explicacion of this Parable not according to my priuate sense but according to the sense of the holy Fathers and our Blessed Sauiour himself who voutsafed to explicate this Parable vnto vs wherein as you see the Goodman's seruaÌ„ts marke the growing of the cockle soe must you tell vs what Pastors or Doctors did euer note any such thing in any point of our doctrine But heere Sir Humphrey what is to be thought of you that take vpon you to interprete Scripture at your owne pleasure and for your owne ends euen then where our B. Sauiour himself doth explicate his owne parable and meaning thereof What I say may men thinke by this that you will doe els where soe your chiefe gappe or euasioÌ„ for not assigning the person tyme place when our Doctrine began is stopped and the exception remaineth still in full force to wit that you must assigne the tyme place persons or els we acknowledge noe error 7. But you say it is an vndeniable truth that some things were condemned in the primitiue Church for erroneous and superstitious which now are established for articles of Faith this you proue by a place of S. Aug. saying that he knew many worshippers of tombes and pictures whom the Church condemneth and seeketh to ameÌ„d Which yet you say is now established for an article of Faith But by your leaue Sir this your vndeniable truth is a most deniable vntruth For first S. Augustine's tyme was a good while that is about one hundred yeares after the primitiue church Secondly that which S. Aug. condemneth to wit the superstitions and heathenish worshipp of dead and perhaps wicked men's tombes and pictures vsed by some badd Christians is not approued by the Nicene and Trent Councels but the religious worshipp of Saint's images reliques which S. Aug. himself practized Bell. de reliq lib. 2. cap. 4. as you may see in Bellarmine with whoÌ„ alsoe you may find other good solutions of this place which I suppose you cannot but haue seene and consequently you cannot but know that your vndeniable truth is flatly denied by him and all Catholiques 8. Diuers other things as the Primacy of S. Peter Prayer for the dead Iustification Masses Monasteries Caeremonies Feasts Images You say are otherwise now vsed then at first instituted Which for these fiue last to wit Masses Monasteries c. You proue out of one Ioannes Ferus a fryer a man much in your bookes and the books of all your Ministers but not in any of ours but onely the Romane Index of forbidde books And therefore of noe authority or accouÌ„t with vs. For the rest of these points wee haue nothing but your bare word surmize which is but a bare proofe not worth the answearing 9. After this the knight thinketh to come vpon vs another way saying that our owne authors who haue sought the tymes and beginners of our errours as he is pleased to call them confesse an alteration though they doe not finde when it beganne For restraint of Priests marriage he saith that Marius cannot finde when it came in Yet after he bringeth Polidore Virgill saying that Priests marriage was not altogether forbiddeÌ„ till the tyme of Gregory the 7. And this doctrine our knight is pleased to make all one with that absolute forbiding of marriage which S. Paul reckoneth amoÌ„g the doctrines of Diuels For S. Paule's authority it hath beene answeared more ofteÌ„ then the knight hath fingars and toe's and euery child may see the difference betweene forbidding of Marriage generally to all sorts as a thing euill in it self and vnlawfull and forbidding marriage in one particular state or profession to which noe man is bound but is left free whither he will embrace it with this condition or not And this not because it is a thing euill in it selfe but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercize of Priestly function For Polydore Virgil it is true he saith as the Knight telleth vs and eueâ— as much more besides as any haeretique can say of that matter but it booteth not that worke of his de rerum inuâ—n â—oâ—â—â—â— being a forbidden booke Conc. Nic. can 3. Carthag 2. can 2. V. Bell. lib. 1. de cler cap. 19. and the thing which he saith most euidently false as appeareth by infinite testimonies but particularly by a Canon of that great Nicene Councel 800. yeares before Gregory the 7. his tyme. And the 2. Councel of Carthage which testifieth it as a thing taught by the Apostles and obserued by antiquity The Knight may find more in Bellarmine for proofe of this point Heere I onely aske how he maketh his authours hange together Marius cannot find the beginning Polydore findeth it and yet both for the Knights purpose forsooth But for Marius his authority it is nothing against vs but for vs. For it followeth by S. Augustines rule that because it is practized and taught in the Catholique Church with out being knowne when it beganne that therefore it is an Apostolicall tradition 10. Another errour as he saith is Prayer in an vnknowne tongue wherein it is to bee wondered saith Erasmus as the Knight citeth him how the Church is altered But Erasmus is noe author for vs to answeare he is branded in the Romane Index Neither neede I say more of the matter it self in this place A third error of ours as he pretendeth is Communion in one kinde for which he citeth Val. twice once saying it is not knowne when it first gott footing in the Church another tyme that Communion in one kinde began to be generally receiued but a little before the Councel of Constance Which I see not to what purpose they are if they were right cited as the former is not For Val. hath thus much When that custome beganne in some churches Val. de leg vsu Euch. cap. 16. it appeareth not but that there hath beene some vse of one kinde euer from the beginning I shewed before Soe Valencia What doth this make for the knight nay doth it not make against him why els should hee corrupt and mangle it Doth not Valencia say he made it appeare that this kind of Communion was somewhat vsed from the beginning and that which he saith of the not appearing when it beganne is not of the Church in general but of some particular Churches Besides for a final answeare I say it is noe matter of doctrine but practice the doctrine hauing euer beene and being still the same of the lawfulnes of one or both kinds as the Church shall ordaine though vpon good reasons the practize haue changed according to the diuersity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that euer he can doe he can not refute that argumeÌ„t which wee make against him and his that our doctrine is not to be taxed of errour soe long as they cannot shew when where and by whom it beganne as wee can and doe euery day of
obscurely that posterity may reioyce at the cleare knowledge of that which antiquity did reuerence euen before it came to be soe knowne that in fine he must soe theach which he hath learned that though he deliuer it in a new manner yet hee deliuer not any new matter And then asking a question by way of obiectiō whether Christia religiō doe not receiue any increase or profit hee answeareth yes verily but in such manner as it may bee truely called increase not change For increase importeth an amplification or enlargement of a thing in it self Change importeth a turning of one thing into an other And soe he saith the vnderstanding knowledge and wisedome both of euery man in particular and of the whole Church in general may receiue increase but soe as to persist in same doctrine sense and iudgment which hee declareth by the similitude of a man's body which though it be greater when he comes to be a man then when hee was a chile yet all the parts and limbs are the same soe as though it receiue increase yet noe change the same hee declareth by another similitude of a graine of wheate cast into the ground which though it multiply in the growth yet it multiplieth onely in the same kind of graine Wherevpon he concludeth that the Church being a diligēt and wary keeper of the doctrines committed to her custody doth not adde diminish or any way change doth not cut of what is necessary nor adde any thing superfluous but with all industry soe handle all ancient doctrines as if any haue not receiued their full shape and perfection to polish and perfect them if any be throughly searched and expressed to cōsolidate and strengthen thē if any be cōfirmed and defined to keepe them adding withall that the Church hath neuer endeauoured any thing els by her decrees of Councels but onely that which was simply that is without questioning beleeued before should after bee more diligently beleeued that which before was preached more slackly should after bee preached more earnestly that wich before was more securely reuerenced should after be much more carefuly garnished or adorned and that the Church being excited by the nouelties of haeretiques hath done noe more but consigned to posterity in writing that which before she had receiued from her ancestours by tradition onely and for more cleare vnderstāding thereof many tymes expressed the ancient sense of faith by the propriety of a new appellacion that is by a new word then inuented to expresse the ancient beleife 11. This is the discourse of this Holy Father which I haue sett downe the more fully in reguard it containeth the cleare decision of this whole matter For out of it together with what hath beene hitherto said it may bee gathered first that the Church createth not any new articles of faith but onely that she deliuereth vnto vs those articles of ancient faith which she hath receiued from them by whom she was first plāted and taught that faith Much lesse doth she deliuer vnto vs any new faith For though she should haue new distinct reuelations yet would it not follow that the faith were new soe long as those it followeth that he that denieth the explication doth deny the article and consequently frame vnto himselfe a new beleefe 12. And that the absurdity of Sir Humphrey's argument may yet appeare more manifestly I add that any haeretique that euer was may by the very same maner of argument chalenge antiquity to himselfe and accuse vs of nouelty For he may say such a thing was not de fide before such a Councel ergo it is new and that he beleeues onely that which was beleeued before that Councel ergo he beleeueth the ancient Faith Which argumēt if it be good in Sir Humphrey is good in them and cōsequently he must disallow the decrees of all Councels as nouelties and approue all haeresies for the ancient beleefe Which being soe great and manifest an absurdity he will not sure for shame admitt and consequently must allow of Vincentiu's his authority and the answeare out of him to wit that Councels in defining matters of faith doe not coyne a new faith but declare explicate and define the old Which that Sir Humphrey may the better conceiue I shall heere in a word vrge him with an example of his owne Church thus The Church of England admitteth of diuers books of the new testament for canonical whereof there was doubt for three or fower hundred yeares togeather in the Church of God as the Epistle to the Hebrewes the second Epistle of S. Peter the Ep. of S. Iude the Apocalypse of S. Iohn and some others which were after admitted for Canonical Now I would know of him whether vpon the admittance of them there were any Change of faith in the Church or whether euen those books haue receiued any change in themselues hee cannot say they did and there by he may answeare himself and see plainly that the change which seemeth to be is not in the things to be beleeued but in vs that are to beleeue them because vpon such definition or declaration of the Church we are obliged to beleeue them which it may be we were not before And this may suffice for this matter of new articles of beleife which Sir Humphrey would faine father vpon vs. 13. Another thing which hee much buildeth vpon and whereby he thinketh to preuaile against vs in the authority of some particular Doctors or Schoolemen of the Church differing among themselues in some points not defined by the Church at such tyme as they did dispute thereof though afterwards they were But any man of iudgment will presently see that this is but to delude the simpler sort of people of his owne side whom he thinketh to make beleeue any thing For who doth not know that Catholiques binde themselues onely to defend the Catholique faith which neyther doth nor can depend vpon the iudgment of any one priuate Doctor how learned soeuer for neyther is any thinge counted faith till it bee taught by the authority of the Catholique church or common cōsent of Doctors Vinc. Lerin cap. 4. for soe saith Vincentius Lerinensis expressely that wee are to beleeue without doubt not what one or two Maisters teach but what all with common consent hold write and teach planely frequently and perseuerantly Vinc. Lerin cap. 39. And this as he saith els where Non in omnibus diuinae legis questiunculis sed quidem certe praecipuè in fidei regula Not in all small questiōs of the diuine Law but cheifely in the rule of faith Which Sir Humphrey cannot be ignorant of but onely that he lifteth still to be limping and wilfully dissembling the truth For if he had taken notice of this he would haue had lesse to say though he say not much euen now with all the dissembling he can deuise 14. Neyther will it serue his turne to say that we vrge him and his Ministers out of their
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
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.
againe that S. Ambrose writing a treatise of Sacraments diuided into six bookes maketh mention but of two I would wish you to see what answeare Bellarmine maketh to Chemnitius making the same obiection you shall find there that hee telleth him flatly it is false as it is indeede For S. Ambrose maketh expresse mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation both in that booke de Sacramentis and in the other de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur And withall giueth the reason why S. Ambrose mentioneth noe more but three Sacraments to wit because his intent in that worke is onely to instruct the Catechumens in those things which are to be done at the tyme of Baptisme for to them hee writeth those bookes as the very title of the one and matter of the other sheweth For one is written to the persons that are initiated that is begunne or are entred into Christianity by the mysteries or Sacramēts the other of the Sacraments whereby they were soe initiated which are those three Baptisme Cōfirmation Eucharist which to people that are come to yeares of discretion before they are made Christians were are still to bee administred together Whereby is also discouered your grosse corruption in saying that S. Ambrose proclaimes to the beleeuers of his age Ambr. de Sacram lib. 1. cap. 1. De Sacramentis quae accepistis sermonem adorior Which say you is as much to say as I speake of those Sacramēts which the Church hath taught and declared vnto you For he neither writeth to the beleeuers of his age but onely to some beginners as I say is manifest by the very title of one of the bookes Neither doth he speake of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared but of the Sacramēts which those beginners that he spoke to had newly receiued as these very words which you bring testify wherein there is not the least mention of the Church nor of any generall doctrine of Sacraments but onely of those which as I said they that he spake vnto had receiued Which to be soe may yet more plainely appeare in that Bellarmine bringeth a most expresse authority for the Sacrament of Penance out of this same holy Father Bell. lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24 10. Now for S. Aug. it is noe lesse cleare that he neuer meant in any of those places where he speaketh of two Sacraments to restraine them to two onely for thus hee saith in one Conc. 1. in Psal 103. Respice ad munera ecclesiae munus Sacramentorum in Baptismo in Eucharistia in caeteris sanctis Sacramētis Cast thine eye to the guifts of the Church the guift of the Sacraments in Baptisme in the Eucharist in the rest of the holy Sacramēts By which words it is cleare that in S. Augustines iudgmēt there were more holy Sacraments besides Baptisme Eucharist not onely one or two more for they had beene easily added but more as that general clause of the rest of the Sacraments doth import and not Sacraments in a large sense but Sacraments in that very sense wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments as the word caeteris doth shew Neither doth that place which you cite out of the same Father lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana auaile you where speaking of the Sacramēts of the new Law as you tell vs he saith that they are but few in number easy in performance excellent in signification naming onely the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist Ep. 118. For it is plaine by the words sicuti that he bringeth those two for example onely which doth noe way restraine the number Besides this holy Father repeating the very same saying almost word for word in another place when he had brought those two Sacraments for example as he doth heere he addeth this general clause siquid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur and if there bee any thing els commended in the canonical Scriptures Which sheweth also that he did not meane to restraine his speach to those two onely Neither is his intent in either of those places to number the Sacraments or euen to speake of Sacraments as Sacraments but as they are only Signes cōparing the signes of the new testament with those of the old and preferring them for fewnesse in number and excellency in signification And therefore S. Aug. his word in this place is not Sacramenta Sacraments as you cite him but Signa panca pro multis Signes which therefore is a corruption of yours 11. This may then serue for all such testimonies eyther out of S. Aug. or any other Father Onely that it may not seeme strange why there should be such frequent mention of these two aboue the rest which might giue suspition as if they were the onely Sacramēts I adde this reason thereof to wit because they are the first most common and most necessary Sacraments The first because Baptisme is called the gate of all the Sacraments and by it men enter into the Church and become Christians With which the Eucharist was also wont to be giuen And though Confirmation be next in order after Baptisme yet was it not soe frequently giuen because it is ordinarily administred onely by a Bishop who is not alwaies soe ready at hand whereas the other two are administred by Priests They are the most common because they pertaine to all as also Confirmation doth and therefore in that respect goeth often with them They are most necessary because Baptisme is absolutely necessary or as Diuines say necessary necessitate medij that is a necessary meane without which a man cannot be saued the Eucharist is necessary by another kind of necessity to wit of praecept or command giuen by our B. Sauiour all which considerations together are not soe easily found in any other of the Sacraments Confirmation also was in those tymes necessary by force of an ecclesiastical praecept or at least custome 12. Another of the Fathers which you bring is S. Cyprian reckoning but fiue Sacraments Ser. de ablut ped and among them our Sauiour's washing of his Disciples feete for one Whereto I answeare that he reckoneth but 5. not that he thought there were no more but that it pertained not to his purpose to speake of more in that place his scope being onely to speake of such Sacraments as had relation to our Sauiour's last supper by way of institution blessing of the matter or some connexion at least with some thing which was then done As the Sacraments of Eucharist and Order which were then instituted of Confirmation because the matter thereof that is Chrisme was then blessed of Baptisme and Penance by occasion of our Sauiour's washing of his Disciples feete Which washing in what sense it is called a Sacrament by this author Lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24. be he S. Cyprian or whosoeuer els you may see in Bellarmine there find sufficient answeare He saying that it is called a Sacrament
not in a proper and strict but a large sense onely wherein as I agree with him for soe much as perteyneth to the washing it selfe soe doe I thinke that if a man reade the place attentiuely he shall find that author by that washing to meane the Sacrament of Penance in a strict and proper sense For he giueth vnto it the same power of remitting of sinnes as to Baptisme He saith it was instituted for such sinnes as men should fall into after Baptisme which he saith cannot be iterated which are the proper attributes which we teach to belong to the Sacrament of Penance Whereof that author making a long discourse I cite only these words following for a signe of his meaning Propter hoc benignissime Domine pedes lauas discipulis quia post Baptismum quem sui reuerentia iterari non patitur aliud lauacrum procurasti quod nunquam debeat intermitti For this most benigne Lord thou dost wash thy disciples seete because after Baptisme which may not bee iterated for reuerence thereof thou hat procured another lauer which must neuer bee intermitted By which it seemeth plaine he doth not meane that that washing was a proper Sacrament it selfe but that it did signify another thing which was to take away sinnes after Baptisme which was to bee a sacrament because it was to bee instituted by our Sauiour it was to bee a lauer and to haue like force as Baptisme all which sheweth it to bee a true Sacrement 13. Besids S. Cyprian you will needs bring S. Isidore with in compasse of the curse for say you he accounted of 3. Sacraments to wit Baptisme Chrisme and the body and bloud of Christ citing his 6. booke of Etymologies chap. 18. wherein Sir Humphrey according to your vsual custome you doe notably abuse this holy Father For in that place he doth not soe much as intend to speake of any Sacrament at all but his onely intent is to treat of the names of certaine feasts as the title of the chapter sheweth which is this De festiuitatibus eorum nominibus Of Feasts and their names among which hee putted Coena Dominica Our Lord's supper Which saith hee is so called because vpon that day our Sauiour did make the Pasch with his Disciples which is celebrated euen to this day as hath beene deliuered the holy Chrysme is made therein These are S. Isidor's very words neither hath hee one word more in all the chapter of any Sacrament Where then is there any mention of Baptisme nay where is there any mention of our Sauiour's institution or celebration of the B. Sacrament but onely that S. Isidore saith that the celebration of the Pasch is obserued to this day Which because it cannot be vnderstood of the Paschal Lambe giueth vs cause to thinke that by our Sauiour's celebration of the Paschal he vnderstandeth the institution of the B. Sacramēt which is now daily cōmemorated in the Sacrifice of the Masse The chiefe or most cleare mention heere is of Confirmation by the name of Chrisme as it is ordinarily signified by anciēt authors But all this that is said is not said by way of deliuering any doctrine cōcerning Sacramēts but as they haue relation to such a feast Is not this thē a notorious abuse of S. Isidor's authority But because you shall see plainely that if he accidentally or for some speciall reason make mention of those 3. Sacraments as it is like he may doe as other Fathers Isid de offi Eccles lib. 2. cap. 16. cap. 23. cap. 19. are also wont that therefore he doth not meane to limit the whole number of Sacraments to three I will putt you downe one place where hee mentioneth two more of which there may be most doubt to wit Pennance and Matrimony For Penance he maketh it a Sacrament and compareth it with Baptisme in these words Sicut in Baptismo omnes iniquitates remitti ita poenitentiae compunctione fructuosa vniuersa fateamur deleri peccata vt hoc tegat fructuosa confessio quod temerarius appetitus aut ignorantiae notatur contraxisse neglectus Lett vs confesse that as in Baptisme all iniquities are forgiuen soe all sinnes are blotted out by the fruitfull compunction of Pennance that fruitfull confession may couer what temerarious desire or ignorant neglect hath contracted Where you see how to compunction and confession ioyned together in this Sacrement he giueth the like power of blotting out sinnes as to Baptisme And for Matrimony he saith the three goods or perfections thereof are fides proles Sacramentum Fidelity ofspring Sacrament Where beside the fidelity or mutual obligatiō which hath euer belonged to Marriage before our Sauiour's tyme and still belongeth among Infidels though the obligation be not soe perfect among them he putteth downe that special perfection of a Sacrament though for this word Sacrament perhapps you may wrangle but it is but wrangling as I shal by and by shew by occasiō of S. Austines like vse of the same word But by this that hath bene said of the Fathers it is plaine that noe words can bee sufficient to declare your exorbitant bad dealing in citing the Fathers in this place drawing them with in compasse of the Councel's curse they being soe farr from it For it doth not commaund that whensoeuer a man nameth one Sacrament he shall name all or that he shall say they are seauen in number nor more nor lesse or that he shal say they were instituted by Christ But that noe man shall say against this as indeede not one doth For not one of all those you name saith that there be not Seauen or that there bee more then Seauen which is the thing that you dare Soe boldly say contrary to the most sacred authority of soe great a Councel as that of Trent then which greater is not to bee found or imagined vpon earth And this might serue for the Fathers 14. But before I haue done with them in this point I must in a word take notice of one friuolous thing whereof you make a great matter and whereby you thinke to auoid all that can bee said out of the Fathers for the proofe of 7. Sacraments which is that they vse the word Sacrament in a general signification for any sacred signe or for a mystery such like Wherein you are very copious to noe purpose For we deny it not but onely we deny that which you would build therevpon to wit that therefore they doe not at any tyme vse the word Sacrament in the strict and proper sense when they speake of our other 5. Sacramēts which you deny This I say we deny as a false fiction of yours your Ministers whereas you confesse the Fathers to vse the word Sacrament strictly and properly when they speake of Baptisme and Eucharist we shew that they vse the same word and in the same sense when they speake of the other Sacraments ioyning them with these two as I shewed before out
it as you translate is farre otherwise to wit that there be but onely two Sacraments in all For first you leaue out the demonstratiue pronoune haec makeing the speach more general as if Bessarion did say there were but two Sacraments whereas he doth not speake any thing that way in these words of the number of SacrameÌ„ts in general but restraineth his speach to these two in particular which rather importeth that there be other Sacraments For if one should say these two men came this way or these two horses belong to mee would not any man gather that there were more men besides those two that came this way and more horses besides those two that I say belong to mee For otherwise it were needlesse to adde this determining or distinguishing pronoune these vnlesse there were other things of the same kind from which they are to bee distinguished SecoÌ„dly the word Sola you place in a certaine odd and craftie manner to make the sentence sound as if there were two Sacraments and no more For you put it before the word Sacraments whereof it followeth that the negation included in the word Sola falles vpon the word Sacraments as if there were but two Sacraments or two and noe more whereas it is to fall vpon the words expressè tradita expresly deliuered that is to say that these two Sacraments and none other are expresly deliuered which is another thing Neither will it serue your turne to say you place it in English as it is placed in the Latine for the placing of words iust soe in English as they are in Latine may many tymes alter many tymes also make noe sense at all and in translation the sense is chiefly to be reguarded Thirdly you putt in the pronoune relatiue which of your selfe and change the participle tradita in to the verbe traduntur whereby of one proposition you make two in this manner we reade of two only Sacraments that is of two and noe more which two are expresly deliuered in the Ghospell Whereas Bessarion maketh but one proposition in which one alsoe his intention is not soe much to affirme these two SacrameÌ„ts to be expresly deliuered as you make it as to deny the other Sacraments to be expresly deliuered as shall farther appeare by his owne words Here then in this little senteÌ„ce of not past a line in length you coÌ„mitt 4. faults besides one which I passe ouer as not soe much altering the sense One in leauing out haec Another in putting in quae a third in changing the word tradita into traduntur thereby making 2. propositions of one A fourth in soe placing sola in the English as quite to alter the sense thereby making affirmatiues of negatiues and negatiues of affirmatiues The least of which in as much as it alteres the sense cannot be excused from corruption especially seeing it is by you expresly intended for you say that Bessarion coÌ„cludeth with the Protestants and for proofe you bring his words thus translated which sheweth that you intended his authority should sound soe as if there were but two Sacraments as you teach whereby you would leade your Reader into an errour Which yet you doe in such a maÌ„ner that I cannot say but that a wary carefull Reader may picke out or at least guesse at Bessarion's true meaning But that is your cuÌ„ning to haue a double sense the one to deceiue the simple and another to excuse your selfe against the obiectioÌ„s of the learned But you should remember Sir Hum. there is a Woe in store for such cunning men Eccles 2 14. Vae duplici corde labijs scelestis et manibus malefacientibus peccatori terraÌ„ ingredienti duabus vijs Woe to the double of hart and wicked lipps hand ill doing to a Sinner going on the earth two wayes In which last word of going two wayes is touched this your cunning in this place Though if you examine your conscience well you may find your self guilty of all the particulars of this sentence 18. But now to Bessarion I answeare that in saying that the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist are the onely Sacraments expresly deliuered in scripture he comes not neere the curse of the Councel For that canon doth not command vs to beleeue that these two or more or lesse are deliuered plainely or not plainely in Scripture it leaueth that to the disputation of Diuines onely it will haue vs beleeue there bee 7. Sacraments that they were instituted by Christ that they are all properly Sacraments against which Bessarion hath not a word but rather much for it For writing that Oration in defence of the Romane Church to shew that the consecration in the Eucharist is performed by words he proueth it by the example of other SacrameÌ„ts thus Bessar de verb. conse Hunc modum Apostoli a Saluatore vt crâ—dendum est ab Apostolis Sanct Patres postea sumentes in singulis ecclesiae Sacramentis quemadmoduÌ„ materiam propriaÌ„ sine qua nullo modo fieret quod proponitur ita etiam propriam formam statuerunt Quod manifestum est si quis ad Chrismatis SacramentuÌ„ mentem conuerterit This manner the Apostles receiuing from our Sauiour as it is to bee beleeued and our holy Fathers from them as in each Sacrament they haue appointed a proper matter without which that cannot be done which is purposed soe also a certaine forme Which is manifest if a man turne his mind to the Sacrament of Chrisme By which words it is manifest that besides the two Sacraments which you speake of he acknowledgeth not onely the Sacrament of Confirmation in expresse tearmes but the other Sacraments of the Church which you cannot but know to be the same 7. which now wee hold But what neede any man more argument for Bessarion's beleife in this point then the Councel of Florence wherein he was a great man and wherein was deliuered that Decree of Eugenius the 4. to the Armenians wherein the Seauen Sacraments are precisely and distinctly taught with the vniforme consent both of the Latine and Greeke Church soe as impiety it self cannot find what to obiect against it 19. Thus then hauing deliuered Bessarion also froÌ„ your Worship 's imaginary curse I come to the Schoolemen among whom you are not ashamed to promise your Reader that he shall find as little vnity as amoÌ„g the Fathers which as you say in an euill seÌ„se as though there were not vnity amoÌ„g the Fathers soe doe I yeild to you in a good sense to wit that as there is vnity among the Fathers in this point noe lesse then in others of our faith soe also the Schoole Diuines their childreÌ„ succeeding them haue maintained this point noe lesse then others with the same vnity and consent as I shall shew by answearing your fond cauills Though some Schoolemen out of the common ignorance and infirmity of mankind in some poiÌ„ts not throughly discussed nor defined by the Church did
se in scholae disceptationem incidisse Nec oportere CatholicuÌ„ ad eoruÌ„ argumenta respondere Sin vero argumententur matrimonium cum sacris caeremonijs cum sacra materia cum sacra forma a sacro Ministro administratum quemad modum in ecclesia Romana semper vsque ab Apostolis administratum est si hoc inquam argumententur Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter animose defendat secure contra pugnet Whither our opinion that is his owne be true or false I stand not If the Lutherans will dispute of this kind of Marriages let theÌ„ know they fall vpon a schoole disputation and that a Catholique is not to answeare to their arguments But if they argue that Marriage administred with sacred caeremonies sacred matter sacred forme by a sacred Minister as it hath euer beene administred in the Romane church euen from the Apostles tyme if I say they argue that this is not a SacrameÌ„t of the Church then lett a Catholique answeare confidently let him defend stoutly let him gaine say securely Soe hee 26. Now Sir knight with what face could you alleadge Canus against Matrimony and that for a coÌ„clusion as you say though I say noe for you haue reserued yet a farr lowder lye to conclude with all Which is concerning Vazquez whom heere you honour with an epithet calling him Our learned Iesuit You say then he knew well that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church and then you say he makes a profession to his Disciples that hauing read considered S. Aug he found that when he called it a Sacrament he spake not of a Sacrament in a proper sense that therefore he doth not alleadge S. Aug. his authority against the Haeretiques in this controuersy this you say heere whereto I will putt your marginall note which you haue pag. 145. which hath relation to this place it is this Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacrament properly Now to seuer the true from the false Vazquez indeede saith that S. Aug. speaking of Matrimony doth vse the word Sacrament but in a large sense This is true but it is but Vazquez his priuate and singular opinion not in a point of faith nor any thing neere it but onely of the meaning of one Father in the vse of a word which if it be taken in such a sense is a good proofe for a point of Doctrine if not it is noe proofe against it but there may be other proofes in the same Fathers and other Fathers may hane that very word in in the proper sense But euen this opinion of Vazquez concerning this word of S. Aug. is contradicted by all other Catholique Diuines Bell lib. 1. de Matr. cap. â—â— and Bellar. particularly by diuers good reasons sheweth S. Aug. to vse this word properly when he speaketh of Matrimony This is all that is true in your saying of Vazquez 27. Now I come to the false first asking you a question if Vazquez say Matrimony is noe Sacrament as your marginal note which I spake of before saith I would know what controuersy that is that Vazquez saith hee hath with Haeretiques and for proofe whereof he doth not bring S. Aug his authority of the word Sacrament because in his iudgment it is not effectual what thinke you Sir Humphrey is it not of Matrimony and what controuersy is it but whither Matrimony be properly a Sacrament or noe Which Haeretiques deny and Vazquez affirmes els he can haue noe controuersy with them about it See Sir Humphrey how you looke about you for in this very place and words which you bring to shew Vazquez for you he shewes himselfe against you besides Sir Humphrey looke againe in Vazquez to 4. in 3. p. and soe whether he haue not one whole disputation expresly for the proofe of Matrimony calling it a Sacrament truely and properly prouing it by the definition of the Church and by the authority of other Fathers though he forbeare to vse the authority of S. Augustine for the reason a fore said reprouing Durand's error for saying that it was not a SacrameÌ„t vniuocally with the rest Nay his expresse conclusion concerning the same is this Vazque de Matr. disp 2. cap. 3. Matrimonium est Sacramentum non solum latiori significatione pront est signum coniunctionis Christi ecclesiae fed presse propriè prout est signum gratiae sanctificantis suscipientes sicut reliqua sex Matrimony is a Sacrament not onely in a larger signification as it is a signe of the coniunction of Christ and the Church but precisely properly as it is a signe of grace sanctifying the receiuers as the other six And because you tell vs that he knew well that neyther ancient nor moderne Diuines did conclude it for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church I will add his other words in the same chapter which are these De Sacramento in hac significatione semper hucusque loquuti sumtis Scholastici loquuti sunt c. quam veritatem Graeci semper crediderunt nunc etiam credunt And of a Sacrament in this signification allwayes hitherto we haue spoken and other Diuines haue spoken which truth the Graecians haue euer beleeued still beleeue So as not himself onely but other Diuines also euen the Greeks or Greeke Church not onely doe beleeue and speake but haue beleeued and spoken of Matrimony's being a Sacrament in the proper and strict sense Which considered what intolerable impudency is it in you to tell vs that Vazque should say that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament it were not to be beleeued of any man but that we see it And with this I was thinking to end this § Thereby to leaue a good rellish in the Reader 's mind of your honest and faithfull dealing The rest being nothing but such foolish stuffe as you are wont to talke without rime or reason but onely that there occurred a place of Bellarmine which you abuse soe strangely as that I could not passe it ouer without noting It is thus 26. You say touching your two Sacraments they are knowne and certaine because they were primarily ordained by Christ touching the other fiue they had not that immediat institution from Christ Wherevpon say you the learned Card. noting Bellarmine in the margent is forced to confesse The sacred things which the Sacraments of the new Law signify are threefold the grace of iustification the passion of Christ and aeternall life Touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most euident concerning the other fiue it is not soe certaine Soe say you where in a few lines you haue soe much falshood soe patched vp together that a man knoweth not well what to begin with But to begin you say your two Sacraments are knowne and certaine you meane knowne and certaine that
seuerall places you offend in another kind For whereas the Councel saith that though Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrament in both kinds and soe giue it to his Apostles you leaue out that of the last supper and that of the Apostles both which were putt downe there for very good reasons and to our purpose That determining of the tyme of the last supper leaueth it free for vs to thinke that Christ might at some other tyme after his resurrection communicate some of his Disciples in one kind as some Fathers thinke he did his two Disciples at Emmaus or at least thereby did foreshew the lawfulnes of Communion in one kind as Suarez sheweth out of S. Aug. and others Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 71 sect 1. That word of the Apostles is likewise put downe to shew that that particular fact of Christ and command did pertaine onely to the Apostles who were then ordained Priests and in them to such as should succeede them in that office whereas you by leauing out that word would faine haue it seeme as if that of both kinds did pertaine to all Thus much then for the Councel of Trent 7. Now lett vs heare what you say against this Communion in one kind First obseruing your strange folly in saying that one that shall heare two Councels one accursing another condemning for Haeretiques such as shall deny the lawfulnes of one kind would gladly know the reasons whereas you your self note in the margent a treatise of Gersons against the haeresy of the Lay communion in both kinds acknowledging that he shewes the causes For if he shew cause why doe you call for 〈◊〉 as if there were none giuen if he doe not why doe you say he doth But to lett that passe with the rest of your non sequiturs You bring the two places of scripture before cited Drinke yee all of this and doe this in remembrance of mee Which places you may see answeared in Bellarmine with all the enforcement and vrging that Luther Caluin Kemnitius Melancthon Bell. de Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. Brentius and all the rable of them can bring The answeare in a word is this that the former words were spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests as appeareth more plainely by S. Marke who sheweth all which our Sauiour meant of Mar. 14.23 when he said Drink yee all of this For saith S. Marke and they did drinke all thereof The later words import onely the distribution in one kind being spoken as appeareth by S. Luke immediatly after the consecration of the bread Luc. 22 19. before the consecration of the Chalice And though they should haue beene spoken after both How will you proue to which action of our Sauiours for he did more then one at that tyme that pronowne Hoc had relation or which it did demonstrate The sense therefore and explication thereof is to be taken from the Fathers and Church who vnderstand noe such precept in those words as is the giuing of both kinds 8. Another argument of yours is the practise of the Primitiue Church for which you bring ten or eleuen authors which needed nâ—t For we would haue granted you that without all that labour but what proueâ—â— out that that all must doe soe now You must first proue it a practize grounded vpon some diuine praecept indispensable or els it followeth not but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practize in the vse and administration of the Sacraments as it was to change the Sabboth into the Sunday though the obseruing of the Sabboth were a diuine praecept Nay you must proue that it was general soe as none did or might doe otherwise but that you caÌ„not doe For Bellarmine euen in the place heere cited by you teacheth that euen then all did not receiue in both kinds and heere by the way I note two things One is that whereas Bell. in the place heere cited saith he proued before that all did not receiue in both kinds that of the prouing you leaue out putteing a little line which might giue a man some notice of something wanting which yet is a litle better dealing then commonly you vse though not soe good as you promised vs at first Another that whereas Bell. bringeth six maine reasons deduced out of scriptures partly out of the figures of the old testament and partly out of the doctrine and examples of our Sauiour and his Apostles in the new and in one of those reasons which is deduced out of the practize of the Primitiue Church he bringeth six seueral rites or practices which our aduersaryes cannot deny euidently conuincing the frequent vse of one kind you in your 7. Sect. heere before bring but one coniectural place which I there promised to answeare as if Bellarmine had noe more nor noe better proofs euen which coniecture you neither doe nor can impugne For it is grounded vpon two places of scripture thus Bellarmine saith it is a probable coniecture that the Nazarites among the first Christians in Hierusalem did communicate in one kind Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. He proueth it thus one scripture saith of these first Christians in Hierusalem that they were all perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles and breaking of bread which is the receiuing of the Eucharist as all agree Among these there were many Nazarites as it is most probable for there were many continually among the Iewes Which being soe there was another scripture that did forbid a Nazarite to drinke wine or euen eate a grape raisin or soe much as the stone it was not like then that they did receiue in both kinds For either they must make the former scripture false if they did not communicate at all or they must breake the command of the later by communicating in both kinds This Bellarmine doth not say is a conuincing proofe for such he hath a great many others but onely probable and such noe man can deny it to bee Why then should you stand geering at it without once saying what is false or improbable 9. Touching the rest of your authors which you bring for proofe that it was the common practise of the Primitiue church for the Layty to communicate in both kinds I allow of their authority they affirming onely that it was the practise not any command But for as much as you bring one authority to proue the more conueniency of Communion in both kinds quite contrary to the author's meaning I meane heere to haue a saying vnto you for it this author is Ruardus Tapperus whom you cite thus It were more conuenient the communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone for this were more agreeable to the institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and the Fathers of the Primitiue church Râ—ar Tapp 〈◊〉 15. the Latine being thus habito respectu ad Sacramentum eiusque perfectionem magis
those that were sprung of the Gentils and receiued benefits of our Sauiour while he liued heere on earth did thus seing we also haue seene the pictures of Peter and Paul Apostles and of our Sauiour himselfe expressed in variety of colours and kept and that as it is like because our ancestours maiores nostri which you Sir Humphrey translate the men of old you know best why your selfe would come as neere as might be to the fashion of their owne people or kindred who were wont to honour such as had done them any benefitt or helpe in that manner by way of parenthesis I note the Latine word of heathenish custome as you Sir Humphrey translate it is Gentilis consuetudinis For which you are best looke in your dictionary of Thomas Thomasius whether among all the Englishes of Gentilis which are there sett downe you can find heathenish Which I dare say you cannot The Greeke word in Eusebius his text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the same that Gentilis in Latine to wit belonging to a Countrey people nation Stocke or family though Scapula doe add in his Lexicon that by ecclesiastical Writers it is vsed to signifie heathenish or auerse from Christian religion but it is cleare that in this place the sense requireth the plaine and natiue signification which I haue expressed in the translation though you bee pleased to draw it violently to the worse sense But to goe on with Eusebius he saith following on the same discourse that the Bishops of Hierusalem had successiuely kept and highly esteemed the Chayre of S. Iames the Apostle and first Bishop of Hierusalem Whereby saith hee they plainely declare how the ancient Fathers euen to our tymes haue giuen and doe still giue dew veneration to holy men for their true piety towards God Thus Eusebius wherein for my fidelity in citing and translating I referr my self to the iudgment of what Aristarchus soeuer you your self Sir Humphrey shall choose And if this be true which I say out of Eusebius then doth your creditt lye a bleeding For doth not Eusebius relate this story of the Woman's statua with approbation doth he not relate a continual miracle wrought by God shewing his approbation also thereby doth hee not acknowledge the vse of pictures of our Sauiour and his Apostles as a thing coming from our ancestours doth not he approue that custome of the Gentils in keeping the statues and thereby honouring the memory of their benefactours doth he not acknowledge the ancient fathers were wont to honour rhe memory of holy men by reuerencing those things that belonged vnto them What say you to all this Sir Humphrey Looke now into your owne conscience and see whether it can flatter you soe much as to say you are an honest man Or that you haue dealt truely in this citation of Eusebius 13. Now for the Councel of Eliberis it is a triuial obiection and hath beene answeared an hundred tymes ouer 3. or 4. seuerall wayes First the authority of the Councel is little being an obscure prouincial Councel of 19. Bishops onely without any certainty of the tyme when it was held Neither doth it appeare that it was euer approued to which we oppose one of Constantinople another at Rome vnder Greg. 3. of 3. Bishops a third at Nice general of 350. Bishops whereof you may see more in Duran de rit lib. 1. cap. 5. Secondly it might perhapps seeme conuenient at that tyme to forbid the vse of images in that part of Spaine when the people being but newly conuerted from their heathenish superstition were not throughly weaned from it and did not vnderstand the vse of Images soe it may be they were forbidden for a tyme onely till the people were better instructed Thirdly that Canon forbiddeth not pictures absolutely but onely painting them on the walls whereof there bee two reasons ordinarily giuen but both drawne from the honour and veneration dew to pictures one is because that being a tyme of persecution when the Christians were faine to fly many tymes they could not carry away or hide them being painted on the walls as they did other sacred things but were forced to leaue them to the fury and scorne of the Gentils another least the plaster breaking of in some places they might become deformed and soe contemptible Lastly it seemeth plainely by the Councel that it was out of honour to Images that they did forbid it because they thought not the walls a place conuenient For soe it seemeth to say Least that which is adored should bee painted on the walls In which words it expresly acknowledgeth the adoration of images and because they are to be adored therefore not to be painted on the walls More you may find in others Sir Humphrey which you if you had dealt honestly should haue replied vpon and not stood still repeating your thred bare obiections as if they were new 14. But now for your authority out of the Ciuil Law there be soe many foule fauts committed by you in it that I know not where to begin but begin I must your words of it are these The good Emperours Valens Theodosius made proclamation to all Christians against the images of Christ in this manner Forasmuch as we haue a diligent care in all things to maintayne the religion of the most high God therefore we suffer not man to fashion to graue or paint the image of our Sauiour eitherin colours or in stone or in any other kind of mettal or matter but wheresoeuer any such image shal be found we command it to be taken downe assuring our Subiects that we will most strictly punish all such as shall presume to attempt anie thing contrary to our Decrees and commandments Thus you praeface cite the place Where first you call Valens a good Emperour whereas hee was a man farr from all goodnes for he persecuted good Catholiques in most cruell manner being him selfe a wicked Arrian Haeretique Socr. lib. 4. cap. vl◠Soz. lib. 6. cap. vlt. Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 3. Cod. Theod. lib. 1. tit 8. Nemini licere vpon whom almighty God also did shew his iudments by a disastrous end Secondly this Valens and Theodosius whom you ioyne together in making this Law were not aliue together Valens being killed 23. yeares before Theod. was borne For this was Theod. the younger grand child to Theodosius the elder who came to bee Emperour in Valens his place when he was gone Thirdly the Law it selfe is most fowly corrupted and the meaning wholy peruerted for the Law was made in honor of the Crosse to wit thus We command that it shall not be lawfull for any man to carue or paint the signe of our Sauiour Christ either on the ground or in any stone or marble lying on the ground which to haue beene meant in honour of our Sauiour's Crosse and picture appeareth by a Canon of the Councel called Trullanum in these words Con◠Const in Trull cap. 37.
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
recordandum non ad colendum The ancients had the pictures of Saints painted or carued for history to remember not to bee worshipped this it may be is it you would be at but I answeare that both these and those of yours if there be any such are to be vnderstood in the sense of his whole discourse to wit that there is noe example in the Scriptures or Fathers of such idolatrial adoratiō as he speaketh against there which is true Which to be his meaning I shall by and by demōstrate more plainely Now for the last words to wit that images ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight not to instruct the people I doe not also find them but these Aspiciamus picturam quasi pictura sensu ratione carentem pascatur hac visione oculus Deū vero veneretur animus Let vs behold the picture as a picture wanting sense reason Let the eye be sedd which this sight but let the minde worship God which is very true Catholique doctrine for we teach men to make a difference betweene the wood colour of the picture or the picture in it selfe and the thing which is by it represented but heere is not that which you say out of him that images are not to be vsed to instruct the people but the contrary for in the words heere next before cited he saith they are to be vsed for history which is all one as to say for instruction Wherefore I wonder how it should come into your head to father soe fond and senselesse a thing vpon so wise and learned a man soe cōtrary to the light of nature euen to your owne practize For if pictures may not be vsed for instructiō of the people why do your painters drawe the King Prince Lords in the parliament howse the siege of Rochel Berghen op Zoome Bolduc Breda the like but for instructiō reliques of S. Polycarpe and withall he relateth with applause and commendation how the people of Alexandria hauing destroyed their idols and being conuerted to Christ soe great feruour of Christianity inflamed their harts that euery one painted the signe of the Crosse on their posts doores windowes walls pillards and to cōclude telleth of S. Gregory the great how he reprehended the Bishop of Frioly for beating downe out of his Curch the images of the Apostles Peter and Paul in reguard of the superstition of the vulgar sort adoring them contrary to the rule of faith as also for that he did not rather by his authority correct their error letting the pictures stand for the memory of posterity then by indiscreete zeale beate them downe wherein then is Agobardus different from S. Gregory and other Fathers nothing at all but rather his authority ioyned heere together with S. Gregories in the last place may serue for answear to all the rest of your friuolous obiections which you bring to the paragraph of the abuse and danger of images 20. As for the abuse it is not such as you talke of but suppose it were that is to be taken away as the Councel of Trent in it the whole Catholique Church doth teach the good must not For if euery thing should be presētly takē away because it is ill vsed by mē what would become of this world You must therefore learne an axiome of the Law De reg iur n 6. Vtile per inutile non vitiatur the profitable is not vitiated or spoiled by the vnprofitable Separate that which is vnprofitable from the profitable and keepe the later that is the profitable or good Which I dare boldly say is farr better to counsell thē that which you giue to wit that images should be absolutely forbidden till some conditions sett downe by Bellar. or rather by the Councel of Trent for they are the same be performed which as you thinke though falsely are not performed to wit that images be honoured onely for them whom they represent without placing cōfidence in thē or requesting any thing of them or cōceiuing any diuinity in thē For where shall you find soe simple a soule one among 10000. in the Catholique Church that doth not performe the forenamed conditions or if there should be one such silly old woman must the other 10000. be debarred of all that fruite God his Saints of all that honour that cometh by hauing seeing adoring them in their images as we all doe this Councel I say of myne or not myne but of the holy Catholique Church you shal find to be better by the very testimony of Gabriel whom you bring in reprehending the blockishnesse of some people for not obseruing the foresaid conditions in the worshipping of images in his 49. lect which is the place by you cited though you Sir Humph. falsely cite it lect 14. but that may be your printers fault the title whereof is Of the veneration of the most diuine Sacrament of the Eucharist In which he treateth largely of three kinds of worship Latria Hyperdulia and Dulia as our Diuine doe Which he saith belong properly to a rational nature improperly to irrational eyther in reguard of representation or connexion which may haue with the rational or reasonable nature and then reprehending the foolishnesse of some who neither know themselues nor will with humility learne of others the true nature of adoration concludeth at last thus Nec tamen propter hoc imagines proiiciendae sunt c. Neither for this are images to be throwne away or thrust out of oratories by occasion or pretence of auoyding idolatry or pilgrimages to certaine pictures or certaine places either consecrate or not consecrated to be reproued Soe Gabriel which words you could not but see if you saw the other which you cite for they follow immediately and therefore it had beene more honesty for you to haue forborne the citing of the former if you did not meane to cite the later as it seemeth you did not For that which you conclude with comparing vs to Demetrius in the scripture that made a liuing of making siluer shrines for Diana's temple as if we maintained images to bring money to our purses it is Lindinge Sir Humphrey you know my meaning you and such as you that perhaps haue had your shares in pulling downe of images and siluer shrines this last hundred yeares are more like to be drawne with the loue of gaine to the pulling downe of images then we that loose all for maintaining and setting them vpp for what we and our ancestours haue parted with from our selues and out of our owne purses for the honour of God and his Saints you or men of your religion pull backe from God his Saints to bestow vpon your backs and bellyes and vpon you Ministers their wiues and bratts Werefore you might haue held your peace of that matter And soe now I conclude this § where I hope I haue made it appeare that all your great words against Images are but
riffe raffe stuffe as your Ministers are wont to eeke out their books and sermons without being able to shew any bull of Pope or testimony of good author of any Indulgence soe granted which though you or they could yet were is not to the purpose noe more then your prophane iest out of Guiciardin of playing a game at tables for an Indulgence For what suppose that were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their potts haue made soe bold with almighty God himself as to drinke an health vnto him and were not this a fine argument to proue that there is noe God besids Guiciardin's history translated by Coelius Secundus Curio which I suppose you to cite for it is most like you are noe Italian is forbidden in the Romane Index that Curio being an Haeretique of the first classe But passing from your merriments you tell vs seriously that you will not say it was a strange presumption for a Councel to determine an vncertaine Doctrine vpon the Popes infallibility and opinion of Schoolemen but you venture to say it is a weake and senselesse faith that giueth assent to it without authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers Your meaning is by a fine rhetorical figure to say it is presumption by saying you will not say soe but Sir Humphrey I will goe the plaine way to worke with you and tell you it is intolerable presumption for you suppose you were a man of learning to take vpon you to censure of presumption soe great a Councel as that of Trent wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour whereof was so great that your night owle Haeretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited and promised to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish and for such a fellow as you to make your selfe iudge thereof what intolerable presumption is it it is presumption with you forsooth for a Councel to define a point of faith vpon the perpetual and constant beleife and practize of the Catholique Church vpon the common consent of Doctours being both of them sufficient rules of faith of themselues there being withall sufficient testimony of Scripture in the sense which it hath euer beene vnderstood by Catholique interpreters and yet it is not presumption for you without Doctour without Father without Councel without Scripture without any manner of authority to goe against all this authority 13. Now whereas you say it is a senselesse and weake faith that giues assent to doctrine as necessary to be beleeued which wanteth authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answeare you doe not know what you say it sheweth plainely you haue not read one of those Fathers of whom you soe much bragg who all agree that there be many things which men are bound to beleeue vpon vnwritten tradition whose authorities you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. but for consent of Fathers it is true it is requisite because we haue not the tradition but by consent of Fathers but this consent of Fathers is noe more required to bee by their expresse testimonies in writing then in the Scripture it selfe For where doe you find that the holy Fathers did know beleeue or practize noe more but what they did write or that any one did write in particular all the whole beleife of the Catholique Church the Fathers did in their writings as the Apostles did in theirs that is write of this or that particular matter as the particular occasion of answearing some Haeretique or instructing some Catholique did require and therefore mentioned noe more then was needfull for that end But the consent of Fathers is most of all proued by the practize of the Catholique Church of the present tyme seing that practize being without beginning cannot otherwise haue beene but from those that haue gone before from tyme to tyme and though you make a difference yet certainely it is the same of the consent of Catholique Doctours in the present tyme as it was of holy Fathers in former tymes who were the Doctors of those tymes and as they were Fathers not soe properly in respect of those tymes wherein they liued as of succeeding ages soe the Doctors of these tymes are Fathers in respect of those that shall come after them Neither can the consent of Doctors in the Catholique Church more erre in one tyme then another the auctority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwaies the same noe lesse in one tyme then another Tert. de praescr cap. 28. And Tertullian's rule hauing still place as well in one age as another to wit Quod apud multos vnum inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is the same amongst many is noe error but a tradition The common consent therefore of Doctors and particular Churches is alwaies a sufficient argument of tradition and antiquity and consequently a sufficient ground for a Councel to define a matter of faith against whatsoeuer nouel fancy of any Haeretique that shall take vpon him to controll the same This I doe not say that wee want sufficient proofe of antiquity for any point but to shew that we neede it not soe expresse in ancient authors but that the very practize of the Catholique Church is sufficient to stopp the mouth of any contentious Haeretique noe lesse then in ancient tymes when that proofe of foregoing Writers could haue noe place For soe S. Paul thought he answeared sufficiently for defence of himself and offence of his contentious enemy 1. Cor. 11. when he said Si quis videtur contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei If any man seeme to be contentious we haue noe such custome nor the Church of God And soe much more may we now say of our long continued customes of many hundreds of yeares Wherefore your exception Sir Humphrey against the Councel of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences without such testimony of scripture antiquity as you require is vaine as that is also false which you heere againe repeate that an article of faith cannot be warrantable without authority of scriptures For faith is more anciēt then Scripture for to say nothing of the tymes before Christ faith was taught by Christ himself without writing as also by his Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written and soe it hath beene euer the common consent of all holy and learned men that as noe lesse credit was to be giuen to the Apostolical preaching then Writing soe noe lesse creditt is still to be giuen to their words deliuered vs by tradition then by their writings the credit and sense euen of their writings depending vpon the same tradition among whom the cleane contrary principle is as certaine and vndoubted as this of yours is with you
you see his meaning to be absolutely to condemne idol-worship and approue image-worship Neither doth your noting of the greeke word in the margent in proofe that S. Peter speaketh of idol-worship auaile you For Val. speaketh onely of the Latine word which is more indifferent and in some authors signifieth the same that imago and euen the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be now by the vse of Fathers Councels and Doctours determined to signify an empty or vaine image of a thing which is not according to that of S. Paul idolum nihil est in mundo an idol is nothing in the world Cor. 7.4 yet if a man respect the primitiue signification or etymology it might perhaps be taken more indifferently for it cometh from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth species or forma the seeming shape or beauty of a thing or person but it is true that in the signification of words we must follow the ecclesiastical rule Neither doe I allow Valencia his vse of the word Simulachrum and explication of S. Peter's text or euen his argument drawne from thence though the point of doctrine which he defends be true to wit image-worship But this is to shew you how he might vse the word harmelesly especially declaring himselfe plainely by other words though for you to stād trifling cōtēding about words when you see his meaning is a signe of your want of matter But heere by the way I cannot but note how to vrge the matter more against Valentia you runne your selfe vpon the rockes for you obserue that the word vsed by Saint Peter in that place signifieth idol-worship not image-worship Wherein you seeme plainely to confesse that image-worship and idol-worship and consequently an image and an idol are not all one Whereby as you thinke to aduantage you self in this place against the Iesuit soe you doe not marke that herein you contradict your selfe and the whole currant of your owne Doctors whose chiefe argumēts against images are certaine places of Scriptures against idols which you also bring before For if an image an idol be not all one then are all your arguments nothing worth or if they be then is Valentia's argumēt good choose which you will And therefore if you cast vpp your counts aright you will find you haue lost more then you haue gained by this citation of Valencia 15. A fift point of vncertainty you deliuer in these words Concerning the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist it is most euident saith Bellarmine but cōcerning the rest of the Sacramēts it is not soe certaine And out of Canus you say the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that they doe not resolue whether it giueth grace or noe thus you Sir Humphrey to which I answeare that for the place of Bellarm. you are conuinced before of manifest corruption For whereas Bellarm. saith it is certaine Cap. 9. §. 4. in fine but not soe manifest you leaue out not manifest and change certaine into not certaine besids what is that which Bellarmine saith is not manifest but certaine that these two are Sacraments the rest not noe such matter Sir Knight it is their signification which he speaketh of yet not their signification of grace which they cause but their signifying of the passion of Christ which is the beginning and aeternal life which is the end of the grace giuen by the Sacraments this signification he saith is certaine but not so euident in the rest of the Sacraments For Canus you corrupt him as fowly also For first you ioyne two seueral places together as if they were but one in Canus himself then make him say that the Diuines doe not resolue whether it that is Matrimony giues grace or noe which is most flatly false For as I shewed before he granteth it with all Diuines to be properly a Sacrament his two places seuerally are thus the Diuines speake soe diuersly of the matter forme of Matrimony that it were folly for a man to resolue any thing certaine this is one whereof I spake more before shewed that his meaning is not to say that it is not certaine whither it be a Sacrament or not or whither it haue a matter and forme Cap. 9. §. 4. for that I shewed to be most certaine and by most expresse words of his owne but that noe man can say determinately which is the matter and which the forme Which as Bellarmine saith well is not soe necessary for vs to know but that without it we may and ought to acknowledge a true Sacrament it is enough to know what is requisite for celebrating a true Sacrament and what those things are without which it is not a Sacrament though we doe not know which of those things is the matter which the forme For exāple if a Priest in baptisme vse true water and the right words he doth administer a true Sacramēt though he should not know which is the matter and which the forme nay though he should thinke the words to be the matter and water the forme though the cleane contrary be truth The other place of Canus is that he saith that Matrimony contracted without a Priest is noe Sacrament because in his opinion the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme and of that kind of Matrimony he consequently denieth it to giue grace but of Matrimony absolutely and as it is vsed in the Catholique church he neuer made doubt See before his words 16. The last matter of vncertainty is of our traditions which you say you are vncertaine whereas the Scripture is written to giue vs certainty For this saying you alleadge noe Catholique truely nor falsly and therefore it is not to be counted of being soe manifestly false For whence haue we the certainty of the very Scriptures themselues but by tradition and much more of the sense and meaning of the Scriptures Besids as I haue often said and shewed this your prime principle is not onely false but contrary to expresse Scripture and contrary to the common consent of all Fathers which the Reader may see in whole treatises written heereof Wherefore to come to an end of this your Section of certainty we find nothing in matter of faith vncertaine in the Catholique church nothing certaine on your side but onely that you are alwaies and euery where Sir Humphrey Linde Of the 11. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 11. The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the greater Safety comfort and benefit of the Soule in the Protestant faith then in the Romish CHAPTER XI 1. FROM certainty you come to Safety whereof you needed not haue made soe distinct mention and proofe it following necessarily and manifestly that that faith which is most certaine in it selfe is also most safe for men to follow as also it cannot be Safe without certainty Wherefore as you were not able to proue it certaine in your former
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
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