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
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
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
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
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
of S. Augustine where he hauing spoken of those 2. Sacraments addeth and the rest of the holy Sacraments Where any man of common sense may see he meaneth Sacraments in the same sense neither doe we euer gather any of them to be a Sacrament out of the general word alone vnlesse there be something to limite the signification thereof or that there be something added which sheweth the proper effect of a Sacrament and which cannot be done without it And in this manner Sir Humphrey you shall find plaine and expresse proofes for euery one of these Sacraments out of S. Augustine in Bell. which S. Aug. you cannot deny to be a good vndoubted author Bell. de sacr in genere cap. 24. Wherefore I cannot but dread to thinke of that feareful curse which you draw vpon your selfe in the beginning of this Paragraph Where you are content the anathema shall fall vpon your head if any man aliue shall proue out of any ancient Father or good author within a 1000. yeares after Christ that there be noe more nor noe fewer then 7. Sacraments For though S. Aug. doe not say there be 7. in actu signato as Schollers speake that is saying there be 7. and noe more yet he doth it in actu exercito as by saying this is a Sacrament that is a Sacrament and of one in this place of another in that place as the holy scripture doth of the 9. quires of Angels which all make vp seauen and noe more Which manner of reckoning you are content with and allow for good And indeede cānot disallow for as Bellarmine saith well that is the Fathers manner of writing such things pag. 149. edit 3. Soe long as we shew the word Sacrament to be taken in a strict sense or that some other circumstance doth shew they speake of a Sacrament properly 15. Now because you loue malediction soe well that you may be sure of it I will cite you two places out of S. Aug. for two Sacraments which you most doubt of and one specially wherein there may be most difficulty These two are Confirmation and Matrimony lib. 2. cont liter Petelia cap. 104. Of the former he saith thus Sacramentum Chrismatis in genere visibilium signaculorum sacrosanctum est sicut ipse Baptismus The Sacrament of Chrisme in the kind of visible signes is holy as Baptisme it selfe By which words it is most plaine that Confirmation is a visible signe holy in the same kind as Baptisme And therefore leauing noe place of doubt they neede noe further explication Of Matrimony the same Saint speaketh in one place thus In nostrorum nuptijs plus valet sanctitas Sacramenti quam foecunditas vteri De bon Coniug cap. 18. In our marriages or in the marriages of ours that is of Christians the holynes of the Sacrament is more worth then the fruitfulnes of the wombe And in another thus cap. 24. Bonum nuptiarum per omnes gentes omnes homines in causa generandi est in fide castitatis quod autem ad populum Dei attinet etiam in sanctitate Sacramenti per quam nefas est etiā intercedente repudio alteri nubere The good of marriage among all nations and all men is or consisteth in generation and fidelity of chastity but for as much as pertaineth to the people of God also in the holynesse of the Sacrament whereby it is vtterly vnlawfull euen vpon bill of diuorce to marry to another Which two places doe euidently conuince marriage in Christians to bee a Sacrament not onely because he vseth the word Sacrament which though it be general yet considering the particular circumstances and that the common vse was most to take it for a Sacrament properly might bee some argument but by reason of the sanctity and by reason of the signification and insolubility insoemuch as this Saint maketh the proper difference betweene our marriages and those of others to be by reason of the insolubility of our marriages which this Saint attributeth properly thereunto For the sanctity or holynesse then it is manifest out of S. Augustine against you Sir Humphrey that marriage among Christians is an holy thing and that it hath some perfection in the new Law instituted by Christ which it had not before both which things you deny to belong therevnto and therefore exclude it from the number of the Sacraments but falsely as you see which is enough against you 16. Now this sanctity cannot consist onely in the signification of the coniunction betweene Christ and his Church For it had that from the beginning Genes 2.24 when it was first said erunt duo in carne vna They shall be two in one flesh Which because it is verified by the carnal copulation of man and woman bound together by the band of mutual society may bee found in all marriages though nothing soe perfectly as in Christiā marriage But this sheweth that seing this signification might be in other marriages the sanctity which S. Aug. saith is proper to our marriages cannot consist in that signification onely but there must bee another sanctity and a sanctity which may haue relation to the persons which cannot cōsist wholy in that absolute insolubility which in Christian marriages as Diuines say is an effect of the Sacrament For our Sauiour by his owne words Math. 19.9 sheweth that that was in some sort natural and belonged to marriage euen from the very beginning of the world Wherefore it followeth clearely out of S. Aug. that there is some sanctity belonging to this Sacrament and sanctifying it in as much as pertaineth to this coniunction of man and woman by the bond of Marriage and heere in this saying of S. Aug may be noted those three goods which I spoke before out of S. Isidore and which Catholiques commonly attribute to marriage Proles Fides Sacramentum Whereof the former two may pertaine as S. Augustine saith to other marriages the third onely to Christians And soe all being cleared which you haue out of the Fathers I come to the Schoolemen and other authors 17. And first I begin with Bessarion whom you will needs haue accursed by the Councel of Trent together with the Fathers For saying we reade of two onely Or as you say in another place of onely two Sacraments which were deliuered vs plainely in the Ghospel But I must tell you Sir Humphrey that in the alleadging or translating of these words you are bold to vse your ordinary tricks of legerdemaine as I shall shew Bessarion's words in Latine as you your selfe cite them in the margent are these Haec duo sola Sacramenta in Euangelijs manifestè tradita legimus These two Sacraments alone or onely we reade manifestly in scripture Which is a very true saying for it is nothing more but this that we find these two Sacraments expresly deliuered and that we find none other or none of the rest soe deliuered that is plainely Whereas the meaning of
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
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
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
this very place which you soe often repeate out of S. Paul to himself he answeareth it by expounding the word praeter in the same sense with contra Which standeth very well also with the propriety of the Latine word and for the Greeke it the same both heere Gal. v. 8. and Rom. 16.17 Where there is a like sentence of S. Paul's wishing the Romanes to marke auoyd such as putt scandals and stumbling blocks contrary to the doctrine which they had receiued The word I say is the same 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusatiue case which doth signify as well if not better contra then praeter and in your owne bibles you translate it in that place to the Romanes contrary to the doctrine I see not therefore why you should not vnderstand it alike in both places But to retourne to S. Augustine the thing being soe I may iustly aske of you Sir Humphrey whether you haue not soe often affronted this holy Father as you haue repeated this sentence soe contrary to his meaning in your owne most false and absurd sense to the subuersion of your Readers drawing his words from their true Catholique sense which he hath soe often and soe seriously inculcated vpon seueral occasions to the establishing of your peruerse and haeretical principles soe much by him euer detested But there is a countinge day Sir Humphrey as litle as you thinke of it for this all other matters wherein also this Saint will reckon with you in particular you are like to feele the heauy doome of him and all others whom you haue soe freely affronted in this kind But meane while I trust in the goodnes of God by the prayers of this holy Saint that those well meaning people that shall take the paines for their owne soules good to peruse this answeare wil be able thereby to discouer and proclame to others soe much of your dealing as that any thing you haue said or shall euer say will be able to doe little harme to any but such as shall wilfully runne vpon their owne ruine And soe Sir Humphrey I shall make an end of this § and Section wherein is contained the cheife matter of your whole booke soe as I hope there wil be lesse to doe with that which followeth Chap. 10. Of the 10. Section entituled thus The testimonyes of our aduersaryes touching the infallible certainty of the Protestant faith and the vncertainty of the Romish CHAPTER X. 1. SIr Humphrey hauing in the two former Sections proued the antiquity and Vniuersality of his faith both in general in particular as he would haue vs thinke cometh now to proue the certainty thereof and vncertainty of ours Where a man would expect he should bring some new thing either reason or authority but he doth neither but onely vpon the rotten ground which he supposeth he hath laid very soundly in the precedent Sections he goeth on very confidently with the certainty of his faith and making a short preface how he hath out of our owne authours proued that the faith doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome was not knowne informer ages and that though the Priests especially Iesuits are bound by oath to maintaine the Papacy yet that it can not be denied but that we haue testified against our selues in behalfe of his doctrine and howsoeuer we excuse the matter yet we are diuided among our selues and soe want vnity of faith After this preface I say he maketh a short reuiew of our confessions for him in matter of Iustification transubstantiation priuate Masse Sacraments Communion in one kinde prayer in an vnknowne tongue Worshipping of Images and Indulgences Vpon which he calleth men Angels to witnesse that we haue noe antiquity vniuersality and that consequently we haue resolued the grand question touching their Church before Luther to wit that it was in Christ in the Apostles in the Fathers in the bosome of the ancient Church before Luther's tyme. This is the summe of almost halfe this Sectiō in all which I must appeale gentle Reader to thy indifferent iudgment Whether there be a true word or noe For supposing that thou hast read what is gone before thou wilt easily see that though it were not my taske heere to proue the antiquity of the points of our Faith or vniuersality or any thing els but onely to answeare the fond obiections of Sir Humphrey Yet I haue accidentally and by the way proued the same in most points and by the same authours and places which he bringeth against vs and his fayling in his proofes of our nouelty is sufficient proofe of our antiquity and his owne nouelty 2. What a shameful boast then is it for him to say that most of our points now taught were vnknowne to antiquity For though some might perchance not haue beene soe anciently defined and consequently doubted of by some yet to say they were not commonly beleiued and much more to say they were not knowne cannot come frome any man but such a blinde but bold Bayard as Sir Humphrey Linde For if one man or two doubt of a thing must it therefore be vnknowne when not onely one or two on the other side but two for one or rather ten nay a hundred for one say the contrary Now lett him name that one of his points of faith heere by him disputed wherein not onely since it was defined which is enough for our purpose but euen before that we shall not bring him a great many that held that way which it was defined for euery one of those that held the other way How then could it be vnknowne The next thing in his praeface is of an Oath which our Priests especially Iesuits take to defend the Papacy and doctrine of the Church of Rome But if a man should aske him where he findeth this Oath he would not be able soe readily to tell vs though if he could I see not why any man should be ashamed of it nay why he should not glory of soe heroical an act as is an oath whereby he bindeth himself to the defence of the authority whereon the waight frame of the whole Catholique Church and saluation of all soules from Christ his owne tyme to the very end of the world hath doth and still shall depend But this I onely note for the Knight's ignorance for I beleeue the thing he would be at is the fourth vow of the Iesuits Whereby they specially bind themselues in Obedience to the Sea Apostolique to goe in Mission to any part of the world whether infidel or haeretique which is a little different at least from that which he talketh of an oath to defend the Papacy 3. The third thing in his praeface is want of Vnity wherewith he chargeth vs. Whereof I onely say that as we confesse there may be difference of iudgments before a definition of faith soe lett him shew the diuision after such definition Lett him name that man and we
apostasy and future damnation to each other this poore Frier repented himself and therevppon came backe to his monastery and did penance rather choosing to suffer a little outward austerity then to carry about in the bottome of his soule such an inward assured testimony and beleife of his aeternall damnation as he saw these two did I might say more of the man's fine feates but there be bookes in dutch particularly of them as I heare and soe I say noe more but that in this your learned Buxhorne whom you Sir Humphrey of Licentiate make a Doctor as in all your other learned men that blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian hit the right veyne and discouered the true cause of their apostasy when he told the Vniuersity men it was not any Charks or Hammers that held them backe as I may say also it was not any razing of euidences that made Boxhorne fall from his faith but that there were certaine Lutheran baites where-with many of them were catched which were Aurum gloria delitiae veneres Gold glory delights and Venus of which some are catched with one some with another and soe you see this your learned Professor had soe deepely swallowed the last of the fower baites that it made his stomacke turne at the Catholique faith which exhorted him to contemne some of them as gold glory and forced him to forbeare others as his base and bestial delights and soe forsaking all obedience to humane and diuine lawes at one clapp became a rebell to his Prince an Apostata to religion and enemy to the Catholique faith therefore of such fellowes there is noe other account to bee made but let them goe as the Scripture saith of one of their chiefe Leaders Act. 2.25 Vt abiret in locum suum That hee might goe into his owne place Of the 14. Sect. the title whereof is this Chap. 14. Our aduersaries conuicted of their defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture it selfe CHAPTER XIV 1. TO this section the Knight giueth a beginning by occasion of Boxhornes words in the last section of an idol in the temple Wherevppon he very wittily tells vs that when we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place we must flye to the mountaines of the Scriptures as S. Chrysostome saith but yet he thinks we will not come to triall of scriptures because saith he are we not all eye witnesses that Christ and his Apostles are called in question at the Popes assizes and there arraigned and condemned of obscurity and insufficiency in their ghospel is not the sacred bible saith he ranked inter libros prohibitos in the first place in the catalogue of forbidden books then he bringeth Corn. Agrippa complayning of the Inquisitors that they will not admitt men to proue their opinions by scriptures This is the Knight's discourse which vpon examination will proue as foolish as he thinks it witty I answeare therefore that though Catholiques hold for most certaine that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith nor that out of it alone all controuersies can be decided as for example that in particular which bookes be canonical Scripture which not Yet for most things now a dayes in controuersy many Catholiques haue offered to try the matter by onely scripture some hauing also written books of good volume Anker of Faith to shew the Scripture in the plaine and obuious sense to make positiuely for vs our Doctrine in most points against vs in none Whereof a man may also haue a briefe tast in the defence of the cēsure in the praeface in these points following of Supremacy real presence iustificatiō absolutiō Vowes traditions obseruance of the cōmandements satisfaction prayer for the dead prayer to Saints c. in which respect therefore I may aske you Sir Humphrey how you come to be soe sure that we will not come to the triall of Scriptures for though we ground many points vpon tradition and practize of the Church yet doe not we ground others vpon plaine and expresse authority of Scripture from which you are faine to fly running into this or that corner of I know not what figuratiue or tropical interpretation or euen denying the very bookes of Scripture nay what point is there that we doe not bring better proofes out of Scripture for it which yet we neede not then you can bring against it which yet is absolutely needfull on your part you standing soe vpon Scripture as you doe 2. As for that which you say of the Popes questioning Christ his Apostles at his Assizes for obscurity and insufficiency this is a speach vttered I suppose by you onely in the feruor of an haereticall spiritt wherein therefore a man is not to looke for much truth but yet I may aske wherein I pray you doth the Pope question or condemne Christ of obscurity insufficiēcy what hath Christ left written to be questioned or condemned his Apostles Euangelists indeede haue left some things in writing of which some are hard euen by the iudgmēt of Scripture it selfe 2. Pet. 3.16 for soe saith S. Peter of the Epistles of S. Paul which saith he the vnlearned and inconstant doe abuse as they doe others Scriptures to their owne perdition Aug. Conf. lib. 12. c. 14. and S. Augustine findeth soe much difficulty in the first verse of the whole Scripture which to a man seeming is as easy as any other verse what soeuer that hee is faine to acknowledge the wonderfull profoundnes thereof it is S. Peter and S. Aug. therefore that call to their assizes if you will needs haue it soe and there arraigne and condemne S. Paul Moyses of obscurity not the Pope soe for insufficiēcy if any body condemne it it is S. Iohn in saying that 2. Thess 2.14 all things are not written S. Paul in willing the Thessaloniās to hold the traditiōs which they had learned whither by speach or letter by word of mouth or writing they are the Apostles Doctors of the Church that acknowledge that hardnes of Scripture or what soeuer it is which your Worship is pleased to call insufficiency What impertinent flaunting is this then in you Sir Humphrey to tell vs the Pope questioneth Christ and his Apostles To talke thus of Assizes and arraigning as if you would haue vs know you are the Sonne of a Grand-Iuror whom it is pitty you did not succeede in the place since you haue the termes soe ready in your mouth 3. But to lett that passe I likewise answeare you for our ranking the bible in the first place of prohibited bookes as you say we doe that it is false and false againe For it is not in the catalogue of such bookes onely in the rules which concerne the index there is mention how the free vse of vulgar translations is not to bee permitted Reg. 4. but for the Latine vulgar translation there is noe manner
put vnder the elbowes of all ages It is a great danger to speak in the Church lest perchance by peruerse interpretation of the ghospel of Christ there be made the ghospel of man or which is worse the Ghospel of the Diuel Thus farre Saint Hieromes words which mee thinks without more adoe may easily answeare your whole argument for in them this holy Father sayth as much or more as all those Epithets which you bring out of our seueral authours put togeather and withall sheweth in what sense they are to be taken Soe as if you will say any more of this matter you must vndertake the quarrel against Saint Hierome You may doe well also to note the very first words Marcion Basilides caeterae haereticorum pestes among whom you haue your part 6. Now for the 4. last epithets which you bring out of Lessius though they seeme not such strange termes as some of the rest yet they are farr worse and more derogatory from the holy Scripture if they be there as you say I haue therefore more particularly examined him whither he say soe or noe Less Consul Quae sit fides c. rat 11. and whereas the words being all put downe by you heere as it were seuerall epithets a man would haue thought they had beene all soe together in the authour himselfe I say first that there be neither any such words lying togeather nor any such a part nor any one word of those that I can find in that whole place or reason which I may call a chapter for it is in manner of a chapter much lesse any of them vttered of the holy Scripture though the whole Chapter or discourse in that place be onely of the Scripture and to proue that it alone and of it selfe can not be a rule of faith Which he proueth by many reasons one is because by it we can not iudge of the Scripture it selfe and soe the very rule shall remaine vncertaine which ought to be most certaine And in this place he hath the word incerta which though it signify the same with some of the words heere alleadged yet is it not the same word But yet heere Lessius is farre from saying that the Scripture is vncertaine in it self that is that the doctrine thereof is doubtfull but onely that our rule wil be vncertaine to vs or rather we vncertaine of the rule because we cannot know the Scripture by it self For example that this booke is true scripture not suppositions or feigned or that this is the true meaning and sense thereof And this kind of vncertainty is noe derogation to the Scripture Lessius his second reason is that that cannot be a certaine rule which may be accommodated or fitted to contrary doctrines as he saith Scripture is by seuerall Haeretiques for establishment of quite different opinions His 3. reason is this that cannot be a iudge that cannot clearely determine on which side sentence is giuen but leaueth it soe that the partyes may still contend one affirming the sentence to bee for him another for him And soe he saith is the scripture laying aside the exposition of the Church and Fathers Whereto he there bringeth also an example of two men who going to law would admitt noe other iudge but the Law booke one bringing one Law cleerely for him as he thinketh the other another Law as cleerely for him in his iudgment of which suite there could neuer be an end soe Fourthly he sheweth by experience that this rule of Scripture is not sufficient for ending of Controuersies because the Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists are alltogether by the eares yet euery one alleadging Scripture for himselfe Lastly he saith that the Scripture it self in noe place sendeth priuate men to seach the Scriptures in doubtfull matters but to the Church and Pastours praesiding therein 7. This is the whole substance of Lessius his discourse in that place wherein I would gladly heare what word there is derogating from the dignity of holy Scripture or any way condemning it of imperfection doubtfulnes ambiguity and perplexity some of these things might bee truely said and in a good sense as the doubtfulnes or ambiguity in the same sense that I spoke of the vncertainty not in it selfe but to vs-ward But for the imperfectiō because that is a great matter with you I absolutely deny it for neither doth any Catholique say either that or any thing els from whence it may be gathered For it is not all one to say that it alone is noe sufficient rule and to say it is imperfect for though you imagine that the all sufficiency or contayning of all things expresly is a necessary point of perfection you are deceiued for then would it follow that the ghospel of S. Mathew S. Marke and other particular books should be imperfect and specially that of S. Iohn wherein he saith expresly that all things are not written neither if all the Scripture did containe all things in that manner as you would haue it and soe were perfect in your sense yet would it not euen then be a sufficient rule of faith of it selfe alone for it would still bee a booke or vriting the very nature whereof doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of fayth or iudge of controuersies for a Iugde must be able to speake to heare answeare c. whereas the nature of a booke or writing is as it were to leaue it selfe to be read and expounded by men for in case two men should expound it differently the nature thereof doth not require that it should say whether of the two expoundeth it right The perfection therefore of it doth rather cōsist in the truth fulnesse of wisedome profoundnes maiesty grauity efficacy authority and certainty then in contayning all things expresly as you require soe long as it hath those perfections cōtaining withall the principal matters pertayning to faith and teaching vs a certaine and infallible way whereby we may come to the knowledge of the rest which is the Church it cannot be said to be vnperfect or to wāt any perfection dew therevnto And this may be answeare sufficient to the rest of this Section which is nothing but a litle more of such wise stuffe for you tell vs we decline Scriptures as vnperfect the fathers as counterfect the Protestants as haeretiques our owne authors as erronious Of which there is not one true word but this that we decline Protestants as haeretiques for soe we doe indeede but for the rest it is most false For what Catholique did euer decline the authority of our Schoole Diuines or ancient fathers much lesse call the one erronious or the other counterfect Some one may haue strayed a little from the common opinion of the rest in some one particular point or perhaps haue beene corrupted by haeretiques and soe we may decline that particular author in that particular point but call him erroneous or counterfect we doe not nay we giue you leaue
are wont also to say a man were better not heare Masse at all then not to heare it deuoutly or a man is better not to doe such or such a thing then not to doe it well or willingly and the like though indeede in our iudgment we thinke it better the thing be done though with some imperfection then not at all But this we say to signify the desire we haue to see it well done or that we doe not receiue that content by the slender or sleight manner of doing it And this is the very truth of S. Chrysost saying Bell. de Miss lib. 2. cap. 10 as Bell. maketh it to appeare plainely both by an example out of scripture and by other argument's out of S. Chrysost himselfe which you may looke better vpon againe and consider well with your selfe whether you haue dealt well with Bell. in alleadging his bare words soe as if he had giuen noe reason for his saying Besids I doe not find that S. Chrysost speake the very words which you alleadge soe crudely and harshly as you make him For he doth not say plainely that it is better not to be present at the Sacrifice then not to communicate but to shew the indignity of it bringeth a similitude of a man that should inuite a freind to a feast and that freind coming should onely sitt there and not eate a bitt of meate Chrys hom 3. in ep ad Ephes he asketh whether in soe doing he doe not putt an affront vpon his freind that inuited him and were it not better saith he that he had not appeared at all wherein he saith most truely Which for all that being but a similitude doth not hold soe rigourously in euerie particular Lastly I see not what colour there is in this place to disproue that which you call priuate Masse For if Saint Chrysostome had said it had beene better for the Priest not to say Masse then not to haue some to communicate with him it had beene something but to say of the people that it was better for them not to be there then not to communicate I doe not see by what consequence it can be drawne against the Priests saying Masse without communicants especially seeing it is euident V. Durant de rit lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5. that this Saint did say Masse euery day and many of his people did not cōmunicate past twice or thrice and many also not past once in a twelue moneth 10. The 9. ancient authour is Prudentius whose words you cite not but onely say thus if we cite Prudentius Bellarmine answeares I say noe more of him but that he playeth the Poet but what I pray you Sir is the reason you forbeare to cite Prudentius his words or sense any man may easily guesse there is something in the wind something that you thinke better concealed then discouered but I shall for once supply your want heerein First putting you in mind that in the beginning of this section you told vs you would shew how we elude or reiect the testimonies of the Fathers or to vse your owne words the records and real proofes in Fathers and other learned authours touching the chiefe points in controuersy betwixt vs. Now let vs see whither that for which Prudentius is obiected in Bellarmine be such or not The question in Bellarmine is whether the damned soules in hell feele any benefitt by the suffrages of the liuing or noe For the affirmatiue he bringeth some sayings of Fathers which may seeme to insinuate as much and among others two verses out of Prudentius thus Sunt spiritibus saepe nocentibus Paenarum celebres sub styge feriae The English whereof is that the wicked spirits haue often tymes holydayes that is some ease of their paines to which Bell. maketh noe other answeare indeede but that hee played after the manner of Poets now I aske you whither this be a chiefe point of controuersy betwixt you and vs it should seeme you take it soe because you seeme in all this Section as if you alleadged onely such as make for you in your controuersyes against vs and your very words which you vse heere thus if we cite Prudentius c. import as if you did cite Prudentius for your selfe in that matter whereto Bellarmine answeareth yet it is plaine on the other side that there is not any difference betwixt you and vs in that matter For I neuer heard that any haeretique of this tyme said any such thing as that the damned find any release or ease of their paines by the prayers of the lyuing What say you then Sir Humphrey doe not you alleadge Prudentius to very good purpose doth not this shew a strange contentious spirit in you that care not what you say whether it be to the purpose or not soe it may seeme somewhat against vs though indeede it be not But now for Bellarmines answeare it is true and good and it is well knowne that Poet's words are not allwaies to be soe strictly interpreted nor truth to be altogether soe exacted at their hands as at other men's the restraint which they are faine to vse in the number of their verse giuing them a little more liberty in the matter 11. The 10. Tertullian Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 6. whose words you doe not alsoe cite but onely say that if you obiect him Bellarmine answeares his authority is of noe great account when hee contradicteth other Fathers and when it appeareth he was noe man of the Church His words I say you doe not cite but yet in saying if wee obiect him and indeede in naming him you seeme as if you had some controuersy with vs in that point for which he is cited which is of the Virginity of our B. Lady in our Sauiour's birth that is whether she were a Virgin in the birth alsoe or not But though the haeretiques of this age generally speake very meanely and contemptibly of this most sacred Virgin yet I doe not find that your Protestants are soe earnest against her Virginity as to make the contrary a point of your beleife much lesse a chiefe point as you make all that you bring ancient authors for in this place But for the matter it is this Bellarmine speaking of an authority of S. Ambrose his which might seeme at first sight to make against the same then saith that Origen and Tertull. haue something like also and soe answearing altogether he sheweth of Origen S. Ambrose that they are not against vs by expounding those places which seeme against it by other plaine places out of them For Tertullian he saith his words are obscure nor much to be reguarded when he contradicteth other Fathers and when it appeares he was noe man of the Church Which last words you translate falsely and withall leaue out an authority of special moment the words falsly translated are these Cùm constet since it appeareth Whereas you say when it appeareth Which is a different
sense for aske any schoole-boy whether cùm with the subiunctiue and indicatiue moode be all one the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine alleadgeth thus Seing saith he it is euident as Saint Hiero. speaketh that hee was noe man of the Church these being Saint Hierom's very words heere then you see againe that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reiect Tertullian nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him but almost all the Fathers Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many Vinc. Lerin cap. 24. Hilar. in comment in Math. cap. 5. and Saint Hilarius saith there that Tertullian's later errours did detract a great deale of authority from his approued writings Soe then it is noe wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers And soe you may say that S. Hierome Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reiect and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine 12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you say that if you cite him Canus makes answeare Hierome is noe rule of faith Can. de locis lib. 2. cap. 11. but you tell vs not where or vpon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome noe more then you doe the three former Fathers though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of which is the Canon of Scripture you haue Saint Hierome a little more fore you in shew then in any thing els or more then you haue any other of the Fathers yet I dare say you wil be loath to stand to his iudgment euen in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament according to the Canon of the Iewes which you also follow if a man should vrge you with S. Hieromes authority euen in this point I beleeue you would say the same or more then Canus doth to wit that he is noe rule of faith for S. Hierosme alloweth the booke of Iudith to be canonical Scripture Proef. in Iudith though it bee not in the Iewes canon which yet you reiect and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle à plaerisque reijcitur it is reiected by most Descript eccles Verb. Petrus Apost wherein yet you doe not follow him this is for the matter Now for the words you doe not cite Canus right for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is noe rule of faith though that be true as I shall shew presently but thus hauing alleadged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus For neither is it true saith Canus that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in determining the canonical books Which is most true S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church but the Church is his rule Hier. praef in Iudith as appeareth in that he reckoneth Iudith among the Canonical books vpon the authority of the Church Neither is it all one to say S. Hierome is noe rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture which not and to say he is noe rule of faith Besides if Canus had said S. Hierome is noe rule of faith he had said most true and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome and speaking euen of his writings thus Aug. ep 19 Solis eis scripturarū libris c. I haue learned to giue that feare and honour to those onely bookes of scripture which are now called canonical as to beleeue most firmely that noe author or writer of them hath erred any thing in writing but others I reade soe that though they excell neuer soe much in any holinesse learning I doe not therefore thinke it true because they thought soe but because they haue beene able to perswade either by those canonical authors or by probable reason that they say true and there he goeth on specifying euen S. Hierome himselfe and saying vnto him that he presumeth he would not haue him soe wholy approue of his writings as to thinke there is no error at all in them The like he hath in another place shewing plainely that any priuate Doctor may erre Lib. 2. de Bap. cont Donat. cap. 3 and consequently can be noe rule of faith Yet for all that the authority of any such is very great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others or is not by them gaine said For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradition and beleife of the Church which is a sufficient rule Is this then to reiect and elude the Fathers to say that one is noe rule of faith if it be then doth S. Aug. reiect and elude them it is plaine therefore you doe but cauill for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth 13. After S. Hierome you come to Iustin Irenaeus Epiphanius and Oecumenius whom say you if you cite Bellarmine answeares I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from errour Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6 Heere againe as else where you forbeare to tell vs the matter for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them For this would haue discouered your falshood and vanity The matter then is concerning the damned spirits whether they suffer anie punishment for the present tyme before the day of iudgment or not these fathers thinke not the common consent of all other fathers and of the whole Catholique Church is against them in it How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error but I pray you Sir Humphrey bethinke your selfe well and tell vs againe whether this be any point controuerted betweene you and vs I know it is a thing which you might better maintaine then most or perhaps any one point of your faith hauing these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein but yet I doe not find by your 39. articles or any other sufficient authority that you hold that error much lesse as a chiefe point of your faith Wherefore it is false that you say when you cite these Fathers For you doe not cite them neither is their errour in a matter of controuersy betweene vs I note heere also in a word that whereas Bellarmine saith onely he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of Iustin Irenaeus c. from errour you make him say the opinion of these men as if he did speake but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong For though he doe not in all things and alwaies approue the opinion of euery particular man yet doth he allwaies speake with great reuerence of the holy Fathers as all Catholiques doe 14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Salmeron the Iesuit makes answeare weake is the place which is