Gentiles doe Doth not this answeare you Sir Humphrey Doe you not heere find a difference betweene that worshipp and ours betweene idolatry and religion betweene their adoring the creature of wood and colour in place of the creator and our adoring the creator represented by the creature betweene their adoration of idolatrous damned Philosophers and our worshipp of the blessed Saints and Seruants of God liuing with him in glory This is too too grosse for such a subtile knight as you are Now for proofe of your doctrine by Succession from the 2. commandement it is ridiculous to call it Succession though you tooke the place of scripture in the true sense as you doe not For how doth your doctrine succeede the commandement a man may proue his doctrine out of scripture but not deriue the Succession thereof out of that proofe For this Commandment it is neither the second but an explication of the first nor is it truely translated for there is not the word Image in that place of scripture 9. A fift point is Communion in one kind which hee saith wee haue from the Manichees and from the Nazarites who it is not like as Bellarmine saith did drinke of the Chalice against their Vow nor yet like that they did wholy abstaine from the Communion Out of which hee gathereth that they did communicate in one kinde onely And heere saith the Knight is their best Succession from Haeretiques and an vncertaine example of the Nazarites Whereas his doctrine he saith is taught by Christ himself Drinke yee all of this This is the Knight's discourse But to answeare him I say that before euer there was Manichee in the world the B. Sacrament was administred sometymes in one kind sometymes in both The Manichees abstained indeede from receiuing the chalice out of one haeretical principle as now our Haeretiques stand to haue it for another like principle against which as in that tyme the Church forbad the vse of one kind soe now it forbiddeth the vse of both kinds and may againe giue way when it shall seeme conuenient for the vse of both kinds the doctrine euer remayning the same as vpon another occasion I said before For that word of our Sauiour Drinke yee all of this from whence the Knight draweth the Succession of his doctrine it was spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests not to the Layity Of which I shall haue occasion to speake againe afterwards 10. But to come to an end of this matter the Knight draweth our inuocation of Saints and Angels from the Angelici our Works of Supererogation from the Cathari our Worship of the B. Virgin from the Collyridians our Forbidding Priests to marry from Tatianus and the Manichees who he saith Forbad it in their Priests Putting downe the Latine words in Sacerdotibus As if those special words were in S. Epiphanius whom hee citeth But this serueth for nothing V. Gual chron but to shew the man's shamelesnesse more and more For the Angelici they were Heretiques swaruing from the rule of the Catholique faith by excesse that is honouring Angels more then their dew or more then creatures as Heretiques of these tyme doe by defect that is not honouring them soe much as is dew nor as creatures specially honoured imployed by God for the good of mankind The Cathari or Puritans as he interpreteth the word himself a man would thinke should belong more to him that is either a Puritane or a Brother or at least a Reformer then to vs Catholiques But the Cathari were Noâ—atians who out of pride and self conceit as if they were more cleane and holy did condemne Catholiques for admitting men to pennance though they sinned neuer soe often soe grieuously whereas they Saints forsooth if a man did for feare deny his faith they would haue nothing to doe with him any more Now what is in this like our works of Supererogation that is works which a man is not bound vnto The Collyridians exceeded the measure of honour dew to our B. Lady for they did offer sacrifice vnto her as the Antidico Marianitae did erre contrarily denying her dew honour whom the Knight did forbeare to name lest he might seeme to name his owne sect Now Catholiques goe in the midle they doe not offer sacrifice vnto her that honour being dew to God alone but they giue her all the honour that can belong to a pure creature Tatianus and the Manichees disallowed all marriage but that they did disallow it specially in Priests I doe not find in Epiphanius as the Knight would make men beleeue by putting the words in Sacerdotibus in Latine and in a distinct letter Though indeede it be lesse allowable in Priests then in other men 11. It being then soe that of these haeresies which heere the Knight reckoneth whereof he would make vs guilty there is not one of them that any way coÌ„cerneth vs but rather as a man might easily proue that he his Church are guilty of almost all of them how vainely and fondly doth hee conclude this Section by saying these and the like errours taught in the church of Rome are either lineally descended from the aforesaid Haeretiques or at least haue neere affinity with them how vaine I say and fond is this saying of his how neere they come any man may iudge by what I haue heere said as also of the linealnes of the discent of our Doctrines from former Haeretiques or of his from the Apostles For whereas the line should be drawne along by a continued Succession from the beginning to the end hee nameth sometymes one onely man or tyme for the whole 1500. yeares sometymes not soe much as one man but onely a bare place of scripture corrupted or misinterpreted Which what Succession it may make let any indifferent man be iudge Wherein it seemeth the very guiltines of his owne conscience doth make him misdoubt a little that he hath not sufficiently performed his promise as may bee gathered out of these words of his If I haue failed in calculating the right natiuity of their ancient doctrine c. but for all that he saith he is sure that wee are vtterly destitute of a right Succession in person and Doctrine from the Apostles and ancient Fathers as hee saith shall appeare by many testimonies of the best learned among vs. But the knight hath soe ill performed his promises past that hee cannot looke any man should giue him credit for those that are to come And for that which hee is sure of that we haue noe Succession in person and doctrine that is soe false and soe apparantly false as that it is not to bee doubted but he that shall auerre it will make noe scruple of any lye how lowd soeuer For doe not our catalogues of Popes sold and printed in London testify the contrary for Succession in person what clearer testimony can there be in the world of personal Succession then to haue two hundred and odd
put vnder the elbowes of all ages It is a great danger to speak in the Church lest perchance by peruerse interpretation of the ghospel of Christ there be made the ghospel of man or which is worse the Ghospel of the Diuel Thus farre Saint Hieromes words which mee thinks without more adoe may easily answeare your whole argument for in them this holy Father sayth as much or more as all those Epithets which you bring out of our seueral authours put togeather and withall sheweth in what sense they are to be taken Soe as if you will say any more of this matter you must vndertake the quarrel against Saint Hierome You may doe well also to note the very first words Marcion Basilides caeterae haereticorum pestes among whom you haue your part 6. Now for the 4. last epithets which you bring out of Lessius though they seeme not such strange termes as some of the rest yet they are farr worse and more derogatory from the holy Scripture if they be there as you say I haue therefore more particularly examined him whither he say soe or noe Less Consul Quae sit fides c. rat 11. and whereas the words being all put downe by you heere as it were seuerall epithets a man would haue thought they had beene all soe together in the authour himselfe I say first that there be neither any such words lying togeather nor any such a part nor any one word of those that I can find in that whole place or reason which I may call a chapter for it is in manner of a chapter much lesse any of them vttered of the holy Scripture though the whole Chapter or discourse in that place be onely of the Scripture and to proue that it alone and of it selfe can not be a rule of faith Which he proueth by many reasons one is because by it we can not iudge of the Scripture it selfe and soe the very rule shall remaine vncertaine which ought to be most certaine And in this place he hath the word incerta which though it signify the same with some of the words heere alleadged yet is it not the same word But yet heere Lessius is farre from saying that the Scripture is vncertaine in it self that is that the doctrine thereof is doubtfull but onely that our rule wil be vncertaine to vs or rather we vncertaine of the rule because we cannot know the Scripture by it self For example that this booke is true scripture not suppositions or feigned or that this is the true meaning and sense thereof And this kind of vncertainty is noe derogation to the Scripture Lessius his second reason is that that cannot be a certaine rule which may be accommodated or fitted to contrary doctrines as he saith Scripture is by seuerall Haeretiques for establishment of quite different opinions His 3. reason is this that cannot be a iudge that cannot clearely determine on which side sentence is giuen but leaueth it soe that the partyes may still contend one affirming the sentence to bee for him another for him And soe he saith is the scripture laying aside the exposition of the Church and Fathers Whereto he there bringeth also an example of two men who going to law would admitt noe other iudge but the Law booke one bringing one Law cleerely for him as he thinketh the other another Law as cleerely for him in his iudgment of which suite there could neuer be an end soe Fourthly he sheweth by experience that this rule of Scripture is not sufficient for ending of Controuersies because the Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists are alltogether by the eares yet euery one alleadging Scripture for himselfe Lastly he saith that the Scripture it self in noe place sendeth priuate men to seach the Scriptures in doubtfull matters but to the Church and Pastours praesiding therein 7. This is the whole substance of Lessius his discourse in that place wherein I would gladly heare what word there is derogating from the dignity of holy Scripture or any way condemning it of imperfection doubtfulnes ambiguity and perplexity some of these things might bee truely said and in a good sense as the doubtfulnes or ambiguity in the same sense that I spoke of the vncertainty not in it selfe but to vs-ward But for the imperfectiō because that is a great matter with you I absolutely deny it for neither doth any Catholique say either that or any thing els from whence it may be gathered For it is not all one to say that it alone is noe sufficient rule and to say it is imperfect for though you imagine that the all sufficiency or contayning of all things expresly is a necessary point of perfection you are deceiued for then would it follow that the ghospel of S. Mathew S. Marke and other particular books should be imperfect and specially that of S. Iohn wherein he saith expresly that all things are not written neither if all the Scripture did containe all things in that manner as you would haue it and soe were perfect in your sense yet would it not euen then be a sufficient rule of faith of it selfe alone for it would still bee a booke or vriting the very nature whereof doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of fayth or iudge of controuersies for a Iugde must be able to speake to heare answeare c. whereas the nature of a booke or writing is as it were to leaue it selfe to be read and expounded by men for in case two men should expound it differently the nature thereof doth not require that it should say whether of the two expoundeth it right The perfection therefore of it doth rather cōsist in the truth fulnesse of wisedome profoundnes maiesty grauity efficacy authority and certainty then in contayning all things expresly as you require soe long as it hath those perfections cōtaining withall the principal matters pertayning to faith and teaching vs a certaine and infallible way whereby we may come to the knowledge of the rest which is the Church it cannot be said to be vnperfect or to wāt any perfection dew therevnto And this may be answeare sufficient to the rest of this Section which is nothing but a litle more of such wise stuffe for you tell vs we decline Scriptures as vnperfect the fathers as counterfect the Protestants as haeretiques our owne authors as erronious Of which there is not one true word but this that we decline Protestants as haeretiques for soe we doe indeede but for the rest it is most false For what Catholique did euer decline the authority of our Schoole Diuines or ancient fathers much lesse call the one erronious or the other counterfect Some one may haue strayed a little from the common opinion of the rest in some one particular point or perhaps haue beene corrupted by haeretiques and soe we may decline that particular author in that particular point but call him erroneous or counterfect we doe not nay we giue you leaue
Essay of your poore endeauours to make the world see it is noe difficult matter for a meane Lay man to proue the ancient Visibility of the Protestant profession prouoked thereto by a Iesuit's challenge to shew out of good authors that the Protestant's church was visible in all ages before Luther and this you vndertake to doe not onely out of the most orthodox fathers but alsoe out of the Romish Bishops Doctours Cardinals c. This essay of your labours Sir Humphrey is poore indeede not to stand complementinge with you as I shall after shew and for your proofes out of Fathers and other writers in the Romane Church wee shall there also see what ones they are that is either nothing to the purpose or out of Authors branded with the marks of heresy or at least temerity and singularity For the challenge it selfe wherein consisteth the state of the question I say heere that you doe not sett it downe soe truely and fully as you should For you were to shew the Visibility of your Church by naming some who in all ages did professe the Protestant faith as it is now taught and professed in England entirely beleiuing all that is heere beleiued and beleeuinge nothing els that is contrary vnto it Which you might haue done if it could be done out of some good histories without standing vpon proofes of the particular points of doctrine out of this or that author for that was not to the present purpose 5. Neither were it sufficient as you say in your next paragraphe seeing it is confessed on all sides that the faith of Christ in the first age had visible Professours therefore to proue that the Faith of the Church of England is that which was deliuered to the Saints by Christ and his Apostles without farther recitall of succeeding witnesses this I say were not sufficient For the chalenge then which you were now to answeare and controuersy which you were to handle was not soe much of the truth of this or that particular point or of the doctrine euen in generall but of the Church it self which was to deliuer the doctrine and by which we were to come to the knowledge of the truth who the men were that were trusted to keepe the depositū which S. Paul gaue Timothy charge of where the Church was which the same S. Paul calleth the howse of God the pillar and firmament of truth Which was the seede of Christ whereof I say prophecieth and promiseth in the person of God the Father to his Sonne that hee would neuer take away the words of truth from their mouth Hoc foedus meum cum eis dicit Dominus Spiritus meus Isai 59.21 qui est in te verba mea quae posui in ore tuo non recedent de ore tuo de ore seminis tui de ore Seminis Seminis tui dicit Dominus amodo vsque in sempiternum This is my couenant with them saith our Lord. My spiritt that is in thee and my words that I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seede and out of the mouth of thy Seed's seede saith our Lord from this present and for euer Who they bee to whom our blessed Sauiour himself in person and with his owne mouth promised that he would send the Spirit of truth to remayne with them for euer and that himself would be with them to the consummation of the world Soe as this controuersy being of the Church it self which was to be found out by the visibility and succession thereof not soe much by the doctrine it could be no way sufficient to proue that the doctrine of the Protestant church was taught anciently though that can neuer bee proued For as I say the question is not of the doctrine but of the persons Wherein the Iesuit tooke the right way like a wise man and a good scholar to find out the Doctrine which is a thing more spirituall and lesse subiect to the sense by that which is corporall and more subiect to the view of all sorts of men For this is the way that all Scholars in the teaching of all Sciences take to wit to beginne with that which is knowne and euident and by it to come to the knowledge of that which is hidden according to Aristotel's Doctrine 6. And this hath euer beene the way which the holy fathers haue taken eyther in prouing the Catholique faith or disprouinge of heresies Soe Tertullian (a) praescrip cap. 32. lib. 3. car adu Marcio soe Irenaeus (b) lib. 3. cap. 1.2.3 lib. 4. cap. 43.45.46 soe Cyprian (c) ep 52. 76. Optatus (d) lib. 2. aduer Parm. and most of all that great Doctour S. Augustine (e) psal 2. part Don. ep 165. de vtil credend cap. 7. in seuerall places and particularly in his booke de vtilitate credenai where writinge to his freind Honoratus whom he laboureth to draw from the Manichaean heresy and putting case that he did doubt what religion to follow he saith without doubt he were to beginne his enquiry from the Catholique Church Proculdubio ab Ecclesia Catholica sumendum exordium For saith hee whereas there be among Christians many heresies all which desire to seeme Catholiques and call others Haeretiques there is one Church as all graunt if you reguard the whole world refertior multitudine vt autem qui nouerunt affirmant etiam veritate sincerior caeteris omnibus sed de veritate alia quaestio est More full of people and as they that know her for truth more sincere then any other but of the truth it is another question Soe as heere Saint Augustine maketh the first question of the Church it self Which he maketh to bee the first thing that a man that doubteth and seeketh to saue his soule must enquire after leauing the truth of the doctrine to be disputed in the second place praescr cap. 19. The like also hath Tertullian giuing withall a good reason thereof for making this prescription or exception against Haeretiques that we are not to admitt them soe farre as to dispute with them of Scriptures he sayth it is first to be disputed Quibus competat fides ipsa c. to whom faith it selfe belongeth to the which the Scriptures pertaine From whom and by whom and when and to whom that discipline was deliuered whereby men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shal be the truth of scriptures and expositions and all Christian traditions soe Tertullian In whose iudgement it is plaine that we are first to seeke the persons that professe the faith that is the Church because there certainely is the truth to be found Which is the course wee Catholiques take and perswade other men to take following the stepps of our Forefathers to wit to seeke out the Visible Church whereas Haeretiques
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
named but by way of forbidding them and by way of commanding Bishops to reforme such things euen as delegats of the see Apostolique where there is neede Which is soe apparent that the Knight is faine to confesse it after in these words Neither did these men seeke reformation in manners onely but in the doctrine it selfe Wherein together with the contradiction of his owne former lye he telleth a new one to wit in saying that we seeke a reformation in the doctrine whereof he nameth some particular points as priuate Masse Latine seruice c. Which is most false for the doctrine is the same still and euer was that though the fruite were greater when the people did communicate with the Priest sacramentally yet the Masse in that case is neither vnlawfull not is to be called priuate both because the people communicate spiritually and also because the Masse is offered by the Priest as the publique Minister of the Church It wisheth indeede that the standers by did communicate not onely spiritually but alsoe sacramentally without euer mentioning the reformed or rather deformed Churches 8. What error then doth the Councel heere acknowledge Againe the knight saith that though the Councel doe not allow the celebrating of Masse in the vulgar tongue yet it commandeth Pastors and others that haue care of soules to explicate and expound to the people some of those things that are reade in the Masse and asketh thus how neere these men doe come to our doctrine who doth not perceiue I answeare that doe not I Sir Humphrey nor I thinke any man els That hath ordinary common sense You condemne all Masse The Councel alloweth it you condemne priuate Masse The Councel approueth that which you call priuate Masse but denieth that it is soe called Priuate as you would haue it The Councel speaketh of Masse the true and proper Sacrifice of the new Law you would make men beleeue it speaketh of your sacrilegious Supper In our Masse and Communion as the Councel teacheth is offered and distributed the true real and substantiall Body and Bloude of CHRIST IESVS and what it saith hereof you most madly would make me beleeue were spoken of your empty and imaginary communion The Councel teacheth that the Masse is not generally to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue you would all publique prayer soe made and therefore condemne the Catholique Church for celebrating in Latine which the Councel alloweth O madnes of a man then to talke thus as if the Councel came neere to him when it saith yea to his nay and nay to his yea 9. But hauing thus substantially proued the Councel to agree with him and finding other places of the same soe euidently against him hee will needs haue the Councel contradict it self and for that end bringeth certaine contradictions as he wisely taketh them to be One is that the Pope in his Bull of profession of faith saith that the vse of Indulgences is most wholesome for the people For which hee might haue cited also the Councel more thou once and that yet the Councel cōfessed the scandal that came by them was very great with out hope of reformacion which is not cōtradiction betweene the Councel and Pope but a flatt corruption of the Knights the Pope speaking of one thing to wit Indulgences in themselues the Councel in this place speaking of the men that had the promulgacion of them and the gathering of the almes For preuenting whose auarice abuses there had bene soe many remedies vsed formerly in other Councels but to none effect that this Councel thought good to take that office wholy out of such mens hands and take another course with it What seeming contradiction is heere Another of his cōtradiction is that the Councel approueth those Masses wherein the people doe not communicate and yet wisheth that the people were soe deuoute as to communicate sacramētally Is not heere a stout cōtradiction as also that the Councel approueth Masse in an vn knowne tōgue and yet will haue the Priests especially vpon Sundayes and Holidayes to declare some of that which is read or some mystery of the holy Masse Doe not these two agree very well I doe not see what the Man meaneth 10. And to conclude this wise section he talketh somewhat of reformacion hindered by some principall men as one Nicolas Scomberg a Dominican Cardinal Citing fowre or fiue most haeretical books namely forbidden in the Romane Index and among them the history of the Councel of Trent not named in the Index because it came out since but written by an Arche-haeretique and noe lesse detested by Catholiques then any of the rest Which I passe ouer as of noe account nor alleadged to any purpose As for reformacion who can say it is hindered but onely by Haeretiques For what els hath the Counce◠of Trent done but reformed all abuses of manners where it is or can be receiued and for errours of faith taught by Haeretiques it hath vtterly condemned them and banished them from the eares of al Catholiques What reformacion then hath it hindered but the haeretical reformacion wherevnto Cardinal Scomberg said well if you and your history of Trent say true that it was noe way to yeild a iott to Haeretiques for it is not indeede for the practize of the Church hath euer beene to the contrary shewing thereby that the way to ouercome haeresy is wholy to resist it and though that thing wich the Haeretiques teach or would haue practized were before indifferent yet for their vrging the same vpon their haeretical grounds it hath beene absolutely forbidden least wee might seeme to haue yeilded to them and soe confirme them or drawe Others to beleeue them or their doctrine who to reprehend and contradict the Catholique Church many tymes make things of indifferency to bee of necessity that they forsooth may seeme the onely Wisemen in the world and the Church of God subiect to errours Which I could proue by many examples if neede were And heerewith I make an end of this chapter wherein I haue disproued the Knight and conuinced him of manifest falshood in both the things by him pretended shewing in the one that the Councel acknowledged not any corruption in matters of faith but onely by Haeretiques and in the other that for corruption of manners which it acknowledged it hath vsed all possible meanes to redresse them Of Sir Humphrey's 4. Section whereof the title is this That many learned Romanist conuicted by the euidence of truth either in part or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death CHAPTER IIII. 1. I Could heere before I goe farther aske what this maketh for the Visibility of the Knight his Church For suppose it were true and that we did yeild him his saying that many haue fallen from the Catholique faith to be Protestants as it is cleare that many haue for otherwise there had neuer beene any Protestants in the world Doth this make his Church visible in former tymes or doth
acknowledgeth inhaerent iustification which Caluin denieth though in this he erre that he thinketh that inhaerent iustifying forme to bee imperfect and insufficient of it selfe to make men the adoptiue Children of God without the imputatiue iustice of Christ Which alsoe is not soe much Caluinisme as Lutheranisme But bee it what it will Bellarmine excuseth Pighius in another respect to wit because he did not obstinately defend the errour as Caluin or Luther doth which is the maine difference For it is not the errour but the obstinacy that maketh an Haeretique And soe you see Sir Knight you haue not one true word in all this section But lett vs now see your next Chap. 5. The Knight's 5. Section Wherein hee vndertaketh to shew how worldly policy and profitt hindereth the reformation of such things as are vnexcusable in themselues CHAPTER V. 1. OF this Section there is not much to bee said For there is nothing in it but a little of the knights owne rauing For he telleth vs that now he seeth Trentals Masses Diriges Requiem prayers for the dead Indulgences Purgatory c. made articles of faith he despayreth of reformation To which I neede make noe other answeare but that it is a good signe that hee findes at last the strength of the Church soe built vpon a Rocke as noe tempests or winds can shake it but rather that by stormes and tempests it groweth stronger the practize of the Catholique Church being strengthned against all Haeretiques by the greatest authority on earth to wit a general Councel confirmed by the See Apostolique Againe he despaires when he seeth Maldonats saying as he telleth vs practized by the Church of Rome against his Church and Doctrine to wit hee that is Maldonate interpreting a place of S. Iohn alloweth S. Augustin's explication as most probable though hee rather approue another of his owne because it more crosseth the sense of the Caluinists This is it that driueth him in to dispaire Alas poore Sir Humphrey is all your brauery come to this what your hart faile you soe in the beginning But it is noe wonder such a cause may well make you despaire And by your despaire you shew your Doctrine to be false for true doctrine looseth nothing by being impugned but rather gaineth as experience sheweth in the Catholique faith of which is verified the saying of the Prophest Psal 11.7 Eloquia Domini Eloquia casta argentū igne examinatum probatum terrae purgatū septuplum Words of our Lord be chast Words siluer examined by fire tried of the earth purged Seuen fold Fire tries but consumes not gold but drosse it shewed to be drosse by consuming it For Maldonat hee approueth and commendeth S. Augustin's explicacion but addeth another of his owne not contrary nor disagreeing though different from it He preferreth it because it is more against an Haeretique soe it is like S. Aug. himself would also haue done if he had beene aliue in these tymes For it is well knowne how in expounding of Scriptures he still had reguard to the confutation of these haeresies which then raigned and in one place hee aduiseth Tract 2. in ep 1. Io. that those passages of Scripture be most carefully obserued and remembred which make most against Haeretiques 2. After this the Knight hath a great deale of foolish stuffe which needes noe answeare being but a bare recitall of things as for example our wresting the Scriptures his agreement of doctrine with the Fathers nothing to the purpose in this place and then he crieth out against our altering the Commandements which is before answeared Communion in both kinds prayer to Saints and in an vnknowne tongue Which shal bee afterwards answeared Onely in this place I note in a word this wise question of his What reason saith hee can bee alleadged why an ignorant man should pray without vnderstanding To which I answeare with a contrary demaund to wit How an ignorant man that is one that wanteth knowledge or vnderstanding shall pray with vnderstanding and soe I leaue him Of the 6. Section the title whereof is this Chap. 6. The common pretence of our aduersaries refusing Reformation because we cannot assigne the praecise tyme when errors came in refuted CHAPTER VI. 1. HEere the Knight is vpp againe with his reformacion and complayneth that we will not admitt thereof nor acknowledge our doctrine erronious vnlesse he can assigne the tyme and person when and by whom the errour came in Which he seemeth to acknowledge he cannot doe for he neuer goeth about it but onely laboureth to disproue our exception against him by saying that a man that is sicke of a consumption ought not to refuse the helpe of the Physician vpon pretence that he can not tell the tyme and occasion when his body began first to be distempered and out of S. Aug. he saith that when a man is fallen into a pitt and calleth to a passenger for helpe Ep. 19. the passenger must not refuse to helpe him out vpon pretence that he seeth not how he should come to fall in Hee proueth it also as he thinketh out of scripture because in the parable of the cockle it is said that the enemy sowed it when men were a sleepe out of which he inferreth that they could not see or know him Therefore he saith that this defection of the Romane Church is a secret Apostasy Matth. 13. and therein he maketh the difference betweene haeresy and Apostasy that haeresy is preached openly soe as the tyme and person may bee named but not soe this our secret apostacy haeresy worketh in the day apostasy in the night And then he reckoneth vpp some points as worshipping of images Prayer for the dead the primacy of S. Peter and some others which he saith were not soe meant a◠first as they are now practtized and beleeued in the Romane Church This is his iolly discourse framed in his owne braine panne and surely grounded as you shall finde vpon examination thereof which now I come vnto 2. Hee compareth the creeping in of errour to the growing of a sicknes in a man's body and presuming that because he sayth it we must therefore take those things which hee would haue vs for errour he would presently haue vs also fall to correct them without standing to examine farther noe more then a Physician should that cometh to a sicke man But his comparison faileth exceedingly For though there bee some little likenes betweene the creeping in of errours and growing of a Disease in a man's body because both begin little and stelingly and increase by degrees Yet to our purpose none at all For the question is not whether we should fall to cure the disease without examining the cause though by your good leaue Sir Knight good Physicians vse to enquire of the causes effects and other circumstāces of the sicknes which they come to cure but whether this that you say is a disease or sicknes be soe or noe
bragge for from the tyme you haue begunne to be against it you are not of it And soe much for that 18. Now for these points of Doctrine by you named wherein you agree with vs and which you hauing no Succession of your owne you cannot haue it by any other meanes but by and from vs which therefore are ours and not yours we doe not question you for your antiquity and vniuersality but for these other points wherein you disagree as when you deny the doctrine declared by the Councel of Trent when you deny our seauen Sacraments deny the truth of one of these two Sacramēts to wit the real presence of our Sauiour's body bloud necessity efficacy of the other to wit Baptisme Deny our canon of scripture our number of Councels our traditions c. For this is your faith properly as you are a distinct company or Church Shew your doctrine in all these points that is your deniall of them to haue beene anciently and vniuersally taught or euen before Luther's tyme and you haue said something which you not doing I cannot but wonder to see you soe silly and senselesse to vse your owne words as to thinke you haue said something to the purpose We aske you the antiquity of your doctrine that is wherein you disagree from vs and you answeare vs with the antiquity of soe much as agreeth with ours which is to answeare vs with the antiquity of our owne You haue beene pleased to shape your selues a religion out of ours and you pleade the antiquity of ours But that will not serue your turne that shape which you giue it is the forme and essence of your religion soe long then as that is new your religion is new Neither can you say the same of our points defined in the Councel of Trent as you seeme to say by asking Where our Church was◠where our Trent doctrine and articles of the Romane Creede were receiued de fide before Luther this you cannot likewise say to vs for the defining made not the Doctrine new but bound men by authority of a Councel to beleeue what they did beleeue plainely by tradition Vinc. Lerin cap. 32. as Vincentius Lerinensis saith that the Church by the decrees of her Councels hath done nothing els but that what she had before receiued by tradition onely she should also by writing consigne to posterity Nec quicquam Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit ecclesia nisi vt quod prius a maioribus sola traditione susceperat hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturae chirographum consignaret Of which see more in the first chapter heere 19. After this you aske againe if your doctrine lay inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church which say you no Romanist can deny if it became hidden as good corne couered with chaffe or as fine gold ouerlayed with a greater quātity of drosse whether it must bee therefore new and vnknowne because the corne was not seuered from the chaffe the gold from the drosse before Luther's tyme and then you bid vs because we call your Doctrine nouelty to remoue the three Creeds the two Sacraments the 22. canonical books the 4. first generall Councels apostolical traditions and see whether our Church wil not proue a poore and senselesse carcasse This is your learned discourse Sir Humphrey to which I answeare asking First what Romanist doth acknowledge your doctrine to haue layen inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church Did euer any man write soe did euer any man say soe vnto you nay what Romanist hath euer forborne vpon occasiō offered to deny and deny it againe you teach not onely those bee two but that there be but two Sacramēts which what Romanist euer acknowledged to haue beene taught in the Romane Church one of your Sacraments is an empty peece of bread and a supp of wine which what Catholique will euer say was Taught in the Romane Church you allow 4. Councels and but 4. you allow 22. books of canonical Scripture and but 22. will any Catholique euer allow this to haue beene Catholique doctrine take away your but and then it may passe but then you take away your religion But heere is one thing that giueth mee much cause of wonder which is that you talke of traditions as distinct from Scripture which is a thing that I did little expect from a man of your profession and I euer tooke you to be soe fallē out with them that you made the denial of them a fundamental point of your Religion and that therefore you would not endure the word traditions euen in holy Scriptures where it might be taken in a good sense but alwaies translated or rather falsifyed it into ordinances though both the Latine and Greeke word did signify traditions most expresly But this your allowing of traditions is not a thing that I reprehend in you though some Puritane Ministers may perhaps not let you passe soe gently with it but that that followeth to wit that you should bee soe vnaduised as to acknowledge your Church or Doctrine which you simply and confusedly take for the same being very different as I haue often said to haue beene inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church and to haue become hidden like good corne couered with chaffe and like gold couered with drosse till Luther's tyme and yet to say that it was visible before that tyme is the corne seene when it is couered with chaffe the gold when it is couered with drosse Answ to Cooks rep ep dedicat nu 20. 20. My Lord Cooke shewed himself somewhat wiser when asking himself the question which we aske you to wit where your Church was before Luther he answeared it made no great matter where it was soe hee were certaine it was confessing thereby that his Church was indeede inuisible but yet in being which because it seemed hard to perswade any man he brought a fine similitude of a wedge of gold dissolued and mixed with brasse tinne and other mettalls which he said did not therefore loose his nature but remained gold though we could not determine in what part of the masse it was contained This was somewhat more like for a man by such a similitude to goe about to proue that a Church might subsist inuisibly for the which neuerthelesse a Catholique Diuine told him his owne very soundly but for you Sir Knight to proue the Visibility of your Church by such a Similitude it were not to be beleeued vnlesse a man did see it in print You labour to proue your Church to haue beene visible before Luther's tymes and yet you confesse her to haue begunne her Visibility by Luther for thus you aske was there noe good corne in the granary of the Church because for many yeares space till Luther's dayes it was not seuered from the chaffe to seuer the corne from the chaffe wherewith it was couered is to make it visible if then Luther did first seuer it he
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
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
apostasy and future damnation to each other this poore Frier repented himself and therevppon came backe to his monastery and did penance rather choosing to suffer a little outward austerity then to carry about in the bottome of his soule such an inward assured testimony and beleife of his aeternall damnation as he saw these two did I might say more of the man's fine feates but there be bookes in dutch particularly of them as I heare and soe I say noe more but that in this your learned Buxhorne whom you Sir Humphrey of Licentiate make a Doctor as in all your other learned men that blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian hit the right veyne and discouered the true cause of their apostasy when he told the Vniuersity men it was not any Charks or Hammers that held them backe as I may say also it was not any razing of euidences that made Boxhorne fall from his faith but that there were certaine Lutheran baites where-with many of them were catched which were Aurum gloria delitiae veneres Gold glory delights and Venus of which some are catched with one some with another and soe you see this your learned Professor had soe deepely swallowed the last of the fower baites that it made his stomacke turne at the Catholique faith which exhorted him to contemne some of them as gold glory and forced him to forbeare others as his base and bestial delights and soe forsaking all obedience to humane and diuine lawes at one clapp became a rebell to his Prince an Apostata to religion and enemy to the Catholique faith therefore of such fellowes there is noe other account to bee made but let them goe as the Scripture saith of one of their chiefe Leaders Act. 2.25 Vt abiret in locum suum That hee might goe into his owne place Of the 14. Sect. the title whereof is this Chap. 14. Our aduersaries conuicted of their defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture it selfe CHAPTER XIV 1. TO this section the Knight giueth a beginning by occasion of Boxhornes words in the last section of an idol in the temple Wherevppon he very wittily tells vs that when we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place we must flye to the mountaines of the Scriptures as S. Chrysostome saith but yet he thinks we will not come to triall of scriptures because saith he are we not all eye witnesses that Christ and his Apostles are called in question at the Popes assizes and there arraigned and condemned of obscurity and insufficiency in their ghospel is not the sacred bible saith he ranked inter libros prohibitos in the first place in the catalogue of forbidden books then he bringeth Corn. Agrippa complayning of the Inquisitors that they will not admitt men to proue their opinions by scriptures This is the Knight's discourse which vpon examination will proue as foolish as he thinks it witty I answeare therefore that though Catholiques hold for most certaine that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith nor that out of it alone all controuersies can be decided as for example that in particular which bookes be canonical Scripture which not Yet for most things now a dayes in controuersy many Catholiques haue offered to try the matter by onely scripture some hauing also written books of good volume Anker of Faith to shew the Scripture in the plaine and obuious sense to make positiuely for vs our Doctrine in most points against vs in none Whereof a man may also haue a briefe tast in the defence of the cēsure in the praeface in these points following of Supremacy real presence iustificatiō absolutiō Vowes traditions obseruance of the cōmandements satisfaction prayer for the dead prayer to Saints c. in which respect therefore I may aske you Sir Humphrey how you come to be soe sure that we will not come to the triall of Scriptures for though we ground many points vpon tradition and practize of the Church yet doe not we ground others vpon plaine and expresse authority of Scripture from which you are faine to fly running into this or that corner of I know not what figuratiue or tropical interpretation or euen denying the very bookes of Scripture nay what point is there that we doe not bring better proofes out of Scripture for it which yet we neede not then you can bring against it which yet is absolutely needfull on your part you standing soe vpon Scripture as you doe 2. As for that which you say of the Popes questioning Christ his Apostles at his Assizes for obscurity and insufficiency this is a speach vttered I suppose by you onely in the feruor of an haereticall spiritt wherein therefore a man is not to looke for much truth but yet I may aske wherein I pray you doth the Pope question or condemne Christ of obscurity insufficiēcy what hath Christ left written to be questioned or condemned his Apostles Euangelists indeede haue left some things in writing of which some are hard euen by the iudgmēt of Scripture it selfe 2. Pet. 3.16 for soe saith S. Peter of the Epistles of S. Paul which saith he the vnlearned and inconstant doe abuse as they doe others Scriptures to their owne perdition Aug. Conf. lib. 12. c. 14. and S. Augustine findeth soe much difficulty in the first verse of the whole Scripture which to a man seeming is as easy as any other verse what soeuer that hee is faine to acknowledge the wonderfull profoundnes thereof it is S. Peter and S. Aug. therefore that call to their assizes if you will needs haue it soe and there arraigne and condemne S. Paul Moyses of obscurity not the Pope soe for insufficiēcy if any body condemne it it is S. Iohn in saying that 2. Thess 2.14 all things are not written S. Paul in willing the Thessaloniās to hold the traditiōs which they had learned whither by speach or letter by word of mouth or writing they are the Apostles Doctors of the Church that acknowledge that hardnes of Scripture or what soeuer it is which your Worship is pleased to call insufficiency What impertinent flaunting is this then in you Sir Humphrey to tell vs the Pope questioneth Christ and his Apostles To talke thus of Assizes and arraigning as if you would haue vs know you are the Sonne of a Grand-Iuror whom it is pitty you did not succeede in the place since you haue the termes soe ready in your mouth 3. But to lett that passe I likewise answeare you for our ranking the bible in the first place of prohibited bookes as you say we doe that it is false and false againe For it is not in the catalogue of such bookes onely in the rules which concerne the index there is mention how the free vse of vulgar translations is not to bee permitted Reg. 4. but for the Latine vulgar translation there is noe manner
that Ap. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 49. Sect. 2. Non est attendendum ad naturam eorum quae videntur sed credendum mutationi quae hîc fit ex gratia Wee must not consider the nature of those things which are seene but beleeue the change which is heere made by grace as also that other place where he noteth it for an haeresy springing vpp among the Grecians of some that did deny the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Christ Eucharistiam oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Saluatoris nostri IESV CHRISTI But not to stand longer vpon it Dialog 3. vt habeatur ap Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 46. sect 1. heere is enough I trow to make it euident that Theodoret in this point agreeth with other Fathers and the whole Catholique Church 30. And soe much for these two fathers S. Aug. and Theodoret which are the onely ancient authors it seemeth you can find of your selfe But because you would make your Reader thinke there bee more for you And that our authors acknowledge soe much I must examine what you say out of Cusanus for that purpose for he is the onely author which you heere bring Thus then you say Their learned Cusanus is not soe reserued in his opinion of the Fathers he speakeht plainely and openly that certaine of the ancient Diuines are found of this mind that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantiated or changed in nature but remaineth still and is clothed with another substance more noble then it selfe Soe Cusanus as you cite him Whereby you would make it seeme as if Cusanus taught the Fathers to bee against transubstantiation and euen as if it were Cusanus his owne opinion For though you doe not say it expresly yet you alleadge him in such manner that any man would thinke it But in this you play your part as you are wont to doe For first where doth Cusanus speake one word of the Fathers he speaketh indeed of some ancient Diuines but of Fathers not a word this then is false which you say that Cusanus is not soe reserued in his opinion of the Fathers seeing he is soe reserued as not once to name them Secondly for that which you say of certaine ancient Diuines it is true Cusanus hath somewhat to that purpose but not iust as you say For these are his words Si quis intelligeret panem non transubstantiari sed superuestiri nobiliori substantia prout quidam veteres Theologi intellexisse reperiuntur qui dicebant non solum panem sed corpus Christi esse in Sacramento c. If any man should vnderstand the bread not to bee transubstantiated but to bee ouerclothed with a more noble substance as some ancient Diuines are found to haue vnderstood who said that not onely bread but the body of Christ is in the Sacrament c. Which last words of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament you leaue out because they make as much or more against your selfe then the former of the remayning of bread against vs. But for the ancient Diuines you needed not haue gon soe farre as Cusanus you might haue their names and errours in our late Schoolemen Suar. disp 49. sect 2 3 4. Thirdly concerning Cusanus his owne opinion there can bee nothing more manifest then his true coÌ„stant beleife of transubstaÌ„tiation Excit lib. 6. edit Basâ—â— 1565. pag. 522. lib. 4. p. 446. in this very place hee saith ita manent accidentia vt prius sed substantia conuersa est The accidents remaine as before but the substance is changed And in another place Huius sacramenti institutio ita facta est per Christum quod panis in corpus Christi vinum in sanguinem conuertitur pro esca spirituali sub speciebus sensibilibus The institution of this Sacrament was soe made by Christ that the bread is changed into the body of Christ and wine into his bloud for spiritual foode vnder the sensible species or accidents And there he goeth on with a large excelleÌ„t discourse expressing all things now in controuersy as transubstantiatioÌ„ I meane the very word Concomitancy the efficacy of the very words Christ's manner of presence whole in the whole host whole in euery part thereof illustrating and prouing all by reasons and examples of natural things and this not briefely or in one place onely but soe largely in soe many places as a man by onely opening the booke without an index may presently find enough to shew his Catholique beleife confute your errors What strange malice and boldnes then is this Sir Humphrey soe to leade your reader into tentation by making him beleeue Cusanus is for you I omitt to note your ignorance in citing Cusanus his booke Exercit that is either Exercitiorum or Exercitationum whereas he hath noe such worke but Excitationum Which by your great ignorance euery where shewed I haue good reason to thinke not to bee the Printers fault but yours But heere is an end with Cusanus in whom you haue noe refuge more then you had in the Fathers 31. Now then hauing done with Scriptures and Fathers you come to the Schoolemen telling vs that Scotus taught that before the Councel of Lateran transubstantiation was not beleeued as a point of faith Which Bellarmine disalloweth in him Suarez saith that the Schoolemen which teach that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not very ancient are to be corrected such as Scotus was Of Durand you say that in like manner hee some of his fellow Schoolemen after him professed openly that the material part or substance of the Sacramental bread was not conuerted but that Bellarmine condemneth this doctrine for heretical yet excusing Durand from being an Haeretique because he was ready to submitt to the iudgment of the Church Then letting passe Wickliffe and the Waldenses you say our owne Proctours Osiensis and Gaufridus tell you that there were others in those dayes who taught that the substance of bread did remaine and this opinion say they as you cite them was not to be reiected Lastly to come to this last age you say Tonstall thinkes it had beene better to leaue euery man to his owne coniecture for the manner of the reall presence whether it bee by transubstantiation or otherwise as it was before the Councell of Lateran And Erasmus saith it was defined but of late by the Church These are all your authors and your whole discourse out of Schoolemen 32. To which I say first for Scotus that I haue sufficiently answeared that of him before in answearing the testimony of Yribarre his Schollar Sup. hoc §. n. 24. where I shewed that he meant not soe much of the substance of the doctrine for hee acknowledgeth the antiquity of the conuersion of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and bloud as either of the
word trāsubstantiatiō or of the proof thereof by determining the sense of scripture And this it may be is it wherin Tonstall also followeth him If they meane otherwise the matter is not great for one single author or two contradicted by others carry noe credit with vs in matter of beleife though to say truely Tonstall was noe Schooleman but a Canonist as Cardinal Pole answeareth him very well by letter vpō another certaine occasiō wherein he did swarue from the rules of true Diuinity as I haue seene by the letters of both in both their owne hands Erasmus is noe author to be answeared nor named as you know I haue often told you 33. For the Waldenses and Wickliffe you doe well to lett them passe But the very naming of them shewes you had a good mind to fill out your number of Schoolemen with thē though for the Waldenses I doe not find that they agree with you much in this point of the Blessed Sacrament For they had Masse but once a yeare that vpon Maundy thursday neither would they vse the words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but 7. Pater nosters with a blessing ouer the bread Whereas you may haue your Communion oftener and you vse the words This is my body Not 7. Paters as they did But what neede I say more of them or the Wickliffists either being knowne condemned Haeretiques 34. Now for Durand hee is a Schoolman indeed and a learned one but yet not wholy free from errour in some points and particularly in this of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ For he is of opinion that the change in this Sacrament is noe other then as the natural changes of other substances one into another Durand 4. dist 11. q. 3. and that it is supernatural onely for the manner because it is done in an instant and without the concurrence of naturall causes And that as in theis naturall changes of the elements one into another or other mixt bodyes the forme onely is changed the material part or subiect as Philosophers speake remayning still the same soe also that heere the forme of bread is changed onely the matter or material part of bread and wine remayning Which yet he thought to bee sufficient to verify not onely the realnes of Christ's presence but also the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ For to that purpose he hath these two expresse conclusions 4. dist 10. q. 1. Dicendum saith he quod verum corpus Christi natum de Virgine passum in cruce est realiter in hoc Sacramento I say that the true body of Christ which was borne of the Virgin and suffered on the crosse is really in this Sacrament The other conclusion is this Dicendum quod substantia panis vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi Dur. 4. dist 11. q. 1. It is to bee sayd that the substance of bread and wine are turned into the substance of Christ's Body Whereby it is plaine he held a true and reall presence by a true and reall conuersion of the bread or substance of the bread into the body of Christ discouering also therein your cunning and deluding corruption whereby you would make it seeme to your Reader that these two bee all one the materiall part of bread and substance of bread for soe in the citation of Durand's sentence you glosse the words materiall part with this parenthesis of your owne or substance whereas the material part of bread and substance of bread are two things For the matter in euery compound is but a part of the substance and the absolute denomination of such a specificall substance doth not belong euen to the forme it self alone though it be the more noble and more essentiall part much lesse to the matter or materiall part For we doe not say the forme of fire or water is fire or water but it is that which giueth the being of fire or water to the materiall part or matter which of it selfe is soe farr from hauing any such denomination as some Philosophers doe scarce giue it any proper being of it owne or euen the common name of ens And all agree that it hath noe quality noe actiue power nor force of it self to doe any thing as being but a meere passiue power 35. Wherefore though the matter of bread should remaine in this conuersion or change yet could not the substance of bread bee said to remaine soe long as the forme is changed noe more then all the bread and meate which you eate may be said to remaine because the material part of all the bread beefe mutton capon pheazant and whatsoeuer els you eate remaineth vnconuerted which as it were a great absurdity in any man to affirme soe is it as great an one in you to affirme that the substance of bread in this Sacrament should not bee conuerted though the material part should remaine for as the onely change of the forme in all natural conuersions is sufficient to verify that this thing is changed into that for example Fire into Water soe might it bee in this For as much as pertaineth to the truth of that manner of speaking Which I onely vrge in Durand's defence not that I allow his doctrine For this was his very reason why he did hold that opinion because he thought it sufficient to verify not onely the reall presence but euen transubstantiation also Which very word he vseth in another place for making answeare to a certaine obiection drawne out of the words of S. Iohn Damascen wherein that Father said that the nature of bread was assumed by Christ As if by that manner of speaking he should seeme to insinuate that the bread remayning the same in nature was Hypostatically vnited to Christ Durand saith thus Durand in 4. dist 10◠q. 1. Sicut in baptismate aqua assumitur vt materia Sacramenti permanens sic panis vinum assumuntur vt materia Sacramenti tranfiens quia materia Sacramenti conuertitur in corpus Christi per consequens dicitur aliquo modo vniri diuinitati non per assumptionem manente natura panis aut vini sed per transubstantiationem in humanitatem priùs assumptam As in baptisme water is assumed as the permanent matter of the Sacrament soe bread and wine are assumed as the transient or passing matter of the Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is turned into the body of Christ And by consequence is said in some sort to be vnited to the Diuinity not by assumption or hypostaticall vnion the nature of the bread or wine remayning but by transubstantiation into the Humanity before assumpted Which words declare his opinion both fully and plainely of the change of the matter of this Sacrament into the body of Christ by Transubstantiation 36. But howsoeuer hee faile in declaring this transubstantiation in that he taketh not the whole substance of the bread to