Essay of your poore endeauours to make the world see it is noe difficult matter for a meane Lay man to proue the ancient Visibility of the Protestant profession prouoked thereto by a Iesuit's challenge to shew out of good authors that the Protestant's church was visible in all ages before Luther and this you vndertake to doe not onely out of the most orthodox fathers but alsoe out of the Romish Bishops Doctours Cardinals c. This essay of your labours Sir Humphrey is poore indeede not to stand complementinge with you as I shall after shew and for your proofes out of Fathers and other writers in the Romane Church wee shall there also see what ones they are that is either nothing to the purpose or out of Authors branded with the marks of heresy or at least temerity and singularity For the challenge it selfe wherein consisteth the state of the question I say heere that you doe not sett it downe soe truely and fully as you should For you were to shew the Visibility of your Church by naming some who in all ages did professe the Protestant faith as it is now taught and professed in England entirely beleiuing all that is heere beleiued and beleeuinge nothing els that is contrary vnto it Which you might haue done if it could be done out of some good histories without standing vpon proofes of the particular points of doctrine out of this or that author for that was not to the present purpose 5. Neither were it sufficient as you say in your next paragraphe seeing it is confessed on all sides that the faith of Christ in the first age had visible Professours therefore to proue that the Faith of the Church of England is that which was deliuered to the Saints by Christ and his Apostles without farther recitall of succeeding witnesses this I say were not sufficient For the chalenge then which you were now to answeare and controuersy which you were to handle was not soe much of the truth of this or that particular point or of the doctrine euen in generall but of the Church it self which was to deliuer the doctrine and by which we were to come to the knowledge of the truth who the men were that were trusted to keepe the depositū which S. Paul gaue Timothy charge of where the Church was which the same S. Paul calleth the howse of God the pillar and firmament of truth Which was the seede of Christ whereof I say prophecieth and promiseth in the person of God the Father to his Sonne that hee would neuer take away the words of truth from their mouth Hoc foedus meum cum eis dicit Dominus Spiritus meus Isai 59.21 qui est in te verba mea quae posui in ore tuo non recedent de ore tuo de ore seminis tui de ore Seminis Seminis tui dicit Dominus amodo vsque in sempiternum This is my couenant with them saith our Lord. My spiritt that is in thee and my words that I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seede and out of the mouth of thy Seed's seede saith our Lord from this present and for euer Who they bee to whom our blessed Sauiour himself in person and with his owne mouth promised that he would send the Spirit of truth to remayne with them for euer and that himself would be with them to the consummation of the world Soe as this controuersy being of the Church it self which was to be found out by the visibility and succession thereof not soe much by the doctrine it could be no way sufficient to proue that the doctrine of the Protestant church was taught anciently though that can neuer bee proued For as I say the question is not of the doctrine but of the persons Wherein the Iesuit tooke the right way like a wise man and a good scholar to find out the Doctrine which is a thing more spirituall and lesse subiect to the sense by that which is corporall and more subiect to the view of all sorts of men For this is the way that all Scholars in the teaching of all Sciences take to wit to beginne with that which is knowne and euident and by it to come to the knowledge of that which is hidden according to Aristotel's Doctrine 6. And this hath euer beene the way which the holy fathers haue taken eyther in prouing the Catholique faith or disprouinge of heresies Soe Tertullian (a) praescrip cap. 32. lib. 3. car adu Marcio soe Irenaeus (b) lib. 3. cap. 1.2.3 lib. 4. cap. 43.45.46 soe Cyprian (c) ep 52. 76. Optatus (d) lib. 2. aduer Parm. and most of all that great Doctour S. Augustine (e) psal 2. part Don. ep 165. de vtil credend cap. 7. in seuerall places and particularly in his booke de vtilitate credenai where writinge to his freind Honoratus whom he laboureth to draw from the Manichaean heresy and putting case that he did doubt what religion to follow he saith without doubt he were to beginne his enquiry from the Catholique Church Proculdubio ab Ecclesia Catholica sumendum exordium For saith hee whereas there be among Christians many heresies all which desire to seeme Catholiques and call others Haeretiques there is one Church as all graunt if you reguard the whole world refertior multitudine vt autem qui nouerunt affirmant etiam veritate sincerior caeteris omnibus sed de veritate alia quaestio est More full of people and as they that know her for truth more sincere then any other but of the truth it is another question Soe as heere Saint Augustine maketh the first question of the Church it self Which he maketh to bee the first thing that a man that doubteth and seeketh to saue his soule must enquire after leauing the truth of the doctrine to be disputed in the second place praescr cap. 19. The like also hath Tertullian giuing withall a good reason thereof for making this prescription or exception against Haeretiques that we are not to admitt them soe farre as to dispute with them of Scriptures he sayth it is first to be disputed Quibus competat fides ipsa c. to whom faith it selfe belongeth to the which the Scriptures pertaine From whom and by whom and when and to whom that discipline was deliuered whereby men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shal be the truth of scriptures and expositions and all Christian traditions soe Tertullian In whose iudgement it is plaine that we are first to seeke the persons that professe the faith that is the Church because there certainely is the truth to be found Which is the course wee Catholiques take and perswade other men to take following the stepps of our Forefathers to wit to seeke out the Visible Church whereas Haeretiques
such as meant to bee counted Catholiques Wherein I would farther know of him what other difference there is but onely that the Creede of Nice was made for declaration of the Catholique faith in the point of the Diuinity of our Sauiour and this of the Councel of Trent for declaration of all these points controuerted by the Haeretiques of these tymes And yet in one thing more they agree that is that as the Arrians of those tymes cried out against that Creede as being new and hauing words not found in Scripture for example Consubstantiation Soe our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of Faith for the same reasons of nouelty and words not found in scripture as for example Transubstantiation 3. But to come neerer vnto them They allow of the Nicene Creede they will not then I suppose say the Faith therein taught eyther now is or then was new though it were then first declared by authority of any Councel Which if they doe not as indeede they cannot then say I in like sort the profession of Faith sett downe by the Councel of Trent and Pope Pius 4. is noe new Faith but the old Faith of late particularly declared and defined against the haeresies of these tymes I could also in proofe of the same vrge Sir Humphrey with the 39. articles appointed by the authority of the Church of England to bee vniformely taught by all Ministers and which they are to sweare vnto Which articles though they be indeede new coyned as the foundation of a new Church Yet Sir Humphrey being his Mother's Champion will not I suppose yeild her or her doctrine to be new as yet on the other side he cannot deny but those articles receiued some kind of force whereby Protestants were more bound to beleiue and teach them then before From whence I might euidently inferre that a new definition or declaration doth not make the Doctrine new but that ancient doctrine may be newly defined according as new springing heresies shall giue occasion 4. Which being soe it is plaine that all his insulting speeches against the Councel of Trent and Catholique church are but verie smoke and may bee as easily blowne backe vpon Himselfe and his church and that by them hee doth but furnish vs with weapons against himself therein also bewraying his ignorance For whose better instruction if hee be not too wise to learne hee is to know two things in this matter First that we Catholiques doe not call all points of faith howsoeuer taught declared or defined articles as hee seemeth to thinke and the ground of this his errour may bee in that those great maine points of his Churches doctrine called the 39. articles are called by that name of articles But wee call that onely an article V S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 1. ar according to S. Thomas which containeth some speciall reason of difficulty in it self whereby it requireth a particular and distinct reuelacion because it cannot bee inferred or deduced out of any other reuealed truth as for example the point of our Sauiour's resurrection is cleane a different point from that point of his death and passion and this againe from that other of his Natiuity and soe of the rest because each of them requireth a distinct and seuerall reuelacion from the other For Christ might haue beene borne and yet not dye vpon the crosse and hee might haue died and yet not risen the third day from death to life but those other truthes defined by the Church as the vnity of Christ's person against Nestorius the distinction of his two natures against Sergius Pirrhus c. are not to bee called articles because they are sufficiently contained in others and deduced out of them Other Diuines giue other definitions of an article of faith which may also well stand with this of S. Thomas which I follow as the more common but all agree in this that though euery article bee a proposition of Faith yet euerie proposition is not an article of Faith 5. And heerevpon we teach that for articles of faith the Church can make none as she cannot write a canonical booke of scripture but that belongeth onely to the Prophets and Apostles or rather hath beene fully and perfectly performed by them to whom those articles were immediately reuealed by God whereof they deliuered part by writing and part by word of mouth to their posterity the Church Soe as now there neede not any new and particular reuelacions but out of those already made to the Apostles and Prophets which are all laid vpp in the treasury of the Church as a pawne or depositum as S. Paul calleth it other truths are drawne the holy Church and true spouse of Christ euer keeping this pretious treasure with continuall care and vigilancie and dispensing the same faithfully to her Children as neede requireth Whensoeuer any haeretique or other enemy endeauoureth to corrupt or peruert she calling her Pastors and Doctors together to examine the matter being infallibly assisted by that Spirit of truth which our Sauiour promised to bee allwayes with his disciples that is with his Church she declareth what is true and what false as agreeing or disagreeing with or from that doctrine which she hath receiued from her fathers that is Prophets and Apostles vpon whom as vpon a spiritual foundation she is strongly built according to that of S. Paul superedificaii supra fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum Ephes 2 20. Built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The very words Fundamentum foundation also shewing that her doctrine is not of her owne inuention or framing but grounded on them from whom she receiued it and that she hath not any which she receiueth not from them For as in a howse or building there is not the least stone or peece of timber which resteth not vppon the foundation Soe in the doctrine of the Catholique Church there is not the least point which is not grounded or contained in that which was deliuered by the Prophets and Apostles Commonit aduer haer cap. 27. Which truth Vincentius Lerinensis in like sort deduceth out of the word Depositum vsed by S. Paul to Timothee Quid est depositum saith hee id est quod tibi creditum est non quod a te inuentum quod accepisti non quod excogitasti rem non ingenij sed doctrinae non vsurpationis priuatae sed publica traditionis rem ad te perductam non a te prolatam in qua non auctor debes esse sed custos non institutor sed Sectator non ducens sed sequens What is a depositum it is that which thou art trusted with not that which is found by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast sought out a thing not of wit that is not of thine owne inuenting but of learning that is which is learnt not of priuate vsurpation but publique tradition a thing brought to thee not brought forth by thee wherein
thou art not to be the author but the keeper not the institutor but a scholler not leadinge but followinge Soe as by Timothee the whole Church being vnderstood as the same author saith or especially the whole body of Pastors it followeth that the Church createth not anie new articles of faith but teacheth onely that which she hath learned of the Prophets and Apostles 6. From which followeth that other thing which I meāt to tell the Knight for his learning which also I touched before in a word to wit that when points of doctrine before in controuersy and vndefined come to bee defined by the Church the doctrine is not therefore new because it is de fide or matter of faith now which it was not before as he most falsely and fondly supposeth for an vndoubted truth and vpon this his owne idle fancy buildeth many goodly arguments like soe many castles in the ayre For out of this hee thinketh it to follow that we vary in our doctrine that because forsooth there be many things now de fide which were not before and whereof Doctors did dispute which seing we may not now doubt of therefore the faith is in his iudgment altered But this sheweth nothing but the poorenes of his iudgmēt For by this he might proue that the sunne as it riseth higher and higher and by spreading his beames giueth light in some places att noone where it did not in the morning that therefore it is changed in it selfe then which what can be more absurd 7. And that it is the same of the Church and the Sunne Cant. 6.9 appeareth by that place of the Canticles Quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens pulchra vt Luna electa vt sol terribilis vt castrorum acies ordinata Who is she that goeth forward as the morning rising faire as the moone chosen as the Sunne terrible as an ordered army of tents Which words noe man euer doubted to be literally vnderstood of the Church Euen then as the Sunne may goe spreading his beames more and more with out increase or change of it owne light in it selfe soe may the Church goe more and more spreading the beames of her diuine faith with out increase or alteratiō of the faith in it self And as the Sunne beame may shine in a valley or roome of a house where it did not shine before soe may the Church spread the light of her faith shewing such or such a point to be a diuine truth which before was not soe knowne to bee or which though it were a diuine truth in it self yet it was not soe to vs. 8. For more declaracion whereof I may yet bring another more scholerly example which is of the principles of seuerall sciēces which are to bee the premisses in demonstratiue arguments of those sciences in which principles or premises are contained diuers truthes which may be drawne out of them by many seuerall conclusions one following of another these conclusions were truthes in themselues before though they did not soe appeare vnto mee till I saw the connexiō they had with the premisses and how they were contained in them And by the many seuerall conclusions which are soe drawne the truth of those principles and premisses doth more shew it self but not receiue any increase or chāge in it self thereby Euen soe we say in the prime principles of our Faith reuealed immediately to the Prophets and Apostles and by them deliuered vnto the Church are contained all truths which any way belonge to our Faith ād whereby the Church hath in succeeding ages destroyed seuerall haeresies as they haue risen without creating or coyning new faith or altering the old but out of the old grounds and premisses drawing those conclusions which destroy new haeresies and shew them to be cōtrary to the ancient faith And in that manner the Church hath growen and increased in knowledge by degrees and shall still goe growing and increasing to the end of the world Greg. moral lib. 9. cap 6. as sheweth S. Greg. his discourse vpon those worde of Iob. Qui facit Arcturum Oriana Hyadas c. Where he saith thus Vrgente mundi fine superna scientia proficit largius cum tēpore excrescit As the world draweth to an end the heauenly knowledge profiteth and with tyme increaseth Wherein also she resembleth our B. Sauiour her cheife Lord and heauenly Spouse who though in grace and knowlegde he neuer receiued the least increase from the first instant of his Conception Luc 2.52 yet the Scripture saith after proficiebat sapientia aetate gratia apud Deum homines To wit because he shewed it more in his words and actions 9. This is farther confirmed by the manner and practize which our Catholique Doctors and Fathers euer obserue in and out of Councells in prouing or defining points of faith to wit by hauing recourse to the authority of scripture and tradition beleife and practize of the Church in the searching whereof the holy Church ioyneth humane industry with God's holy grace and assistāce For when any question or doubt of faith ariseth particular Doctors seuerally dispute and write thereof then if farther neede require it the holy Church gathereth together her Pastors and Doctors in a Councel to examine and discusse the matter more fully as in that first Councel of the Apostles Act. 15.6 whereof the Scripture saith Conueneruntque Apostoli seniores videre de verbo hoc The Apostles ad Ancients assembled to consider of this word The Pastors coming soe together and hauing the presence of our Sauiour according to his promise and his holy Spirit out of the Prophetical and Apostolical Scriptures and Traditiōs ioyning therewith the authorityes and interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors out of praecedent tymes she doth infallibly resolue and determine the matter not as new but as ancient orthodox and deriued from her Forefathers making that which was euer in it self a diuine truth soe to appeare vnto vs that now we may not make farther question thereof 10. Vinc. Lerin cap. 27.28.29 seq And this being the common doctrine deliuered by our Catholique Doctour I thinke it not amisse somewhat farther to confirme and authorize the same by an excellent discourse of that holy and ancient Father Vincentius Lerinensis not reciting his very words because it would bee too long but onely the substance which is this Hauing proued by the word Depositum out of S. Paul that a Pastour Priest Preacher or Doctour there meant by Timothee must onely deliuer the doctrine which is deposited with him or in his hands not found out by him which he hath receiued not inuented whereof hee is not to bee author or beginner but the Keeper or Guardian hee saith that if such a man haue abilityes for it hee may like another Beseleel adorne sett out and grace the pretious iewels of diuine faith by expounding more clearely that which before was beleiued more
is the true explicacion of this Parable not according to my priuate sense but according to the sense of the holy Fathers and our Blessed Sauiour himself who voutsafed to explicate this Parable vnto vs wherein as you see the Goodman's seruaÌ„ts marke the growing of the cockle soe must you tell vs what Pastors or Doctors did euer note any such thing in any point of our doctrine But heere Sir Humphrey what is to be thought of you that take vpon you to interprete Scripture at your owne pleasure and for your owne ends euen then where our B. Sauiour himself doth explicate his owne parable and meaning thereof What I say may men thinke by this that you will doe els where soe your chiefe gappe or euasioÌ„ for not assigning the person tyme place when our Doctrine began is stopped and the exception remaineth still in full force to wit that you must assigne the tyme place persons or els we acknowledge noe error 7. But you say it is an vndeniable truth that some things were condemned in the primitiue Church for erroneous and superstitious which now are established for articles of Faith this you proue by a place of S. Aug. saying that he knew many worshippers of tombes and pictures whom the Church condemneth and seeketh to ameÌ„d Which yet you say is now established for an article of Faith But by your leaue Sir this your vndeniable truth is a most deniable vntruth For first S. Augustine's tyme was a good while that is about one hundred yeares after the primitiue church Secondly that which S. Aug. condemneth to wit the superstitions and heathenish worshipp of dead and perhaps wicked men's tombes and pictures vsed by some badd Christians is not approued by the Nicene and Trent Councels but the religious worshipp of Saint's images reliques which S. Aug. himself practized Bell. de reliq lib. 2. cap. 4. as you may see in Bellarmine with whoÌ„ alsoe you may find other good solutions of this place which I suppose you cannot but haue seene and consequently you cannot but know that your vndeniable truth is flatly denied by him and all Catholiques 8. Diuers other things as the Primacy of S. Peter Prayer for the dead Iustification Masses Monasteries Caeremonies Feasts Images You say are otherwise now vsed then at first instituted Which for these fiue last to wit Masses Monasteries c. You proue out of one Ioannes Ferus a fryer a man much in your bookes and the books of all your Ministers but not in any of ours but onely the Romane Index of forbidde books And therefore of noe authority or accouÌ„t with vs. For the rest of these points wee haue nothing but your bare word surmize which is but a bare proofe not worth the answearing 9. After this the knight thinketh to come vpon vs another way saying that our owne authors who haue sought the tymes and beginners of our errours as he is pleased to call them confesse an alteration though they doe not finde when it beganne For restraint of Priests marriage he saith that Marius cannot finde when it came in Yet after he bringeth Polidore Virgill saying that Priests marriage was not altogether forbiddeÌ„ till the tyme of Gregory the 7. And this doctrine our knight is pleased to make all one with that absolute forbiding of marriage which S. Paul reckoneth amoÌ„g the doctrines of Diuels For S. Paule's authority it hath beene answeared more ofteÌ„ then the knight hath fingars and toe's and euery child may see the difference betweene forbidding of Marriage generally to all sorts as a thing euill in it self and vnlawfull and forbidding marriage in one particular state or profession to which noe man is bound but is left free whither he will embrace it with this condition or not And this not because it is a thing euill in it selfe but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercize of Priestly function For Polydore Virgil it is true he saith as the Knight telleth vs and eueâ— as much more besides as any haeretique can say of that matter but it booteth not that worke of his de rerum inuâ—n â—oâ—â—â—â— being a forbidden booke Conc. Nic. can 3. Carthag 2. can 2. V. Bell. lib. 1. de cler cap. 19. and the thing which he saith most euidently false as appeareth by infinite testimonies but particularly by a Canon of that great Nicene Councel 800. yeares before Gregory the 7. his tyme. And the 2. Councel of Carthage which testifieth it as a thing taught by the Apostles and obserued by antiquity The Knight may find more in Bellarmine for proofe of this point Heere I onely aske how he maketh his authours hange together Marius cannot find the beginning Polydore findeth it and yet both for the Knights purpose forsooth But for Marius his authority it is nothing against vs but for vs. For it followeth by S. Augustines rule that because it is practized and taught in the Catholique Church with out being knowne when it beganne that therefore it is an Apostolicall tradition 10. Another errour as he saith is Prayer in an vnknowne tongue wherein it is to bee wondered saith Erasmus as the Knight citeth him how the Church is altered But Erasmus is noe author for vs to answeare he is branded in the Romane Index Neither neede I say more of the matter it self in this place A third error of ours as he pretendeth is Communion in one kinde for which he citeth Val. twice once saying it is not knowne when it first gott footing in the Church another tyme that Communion in one kinde began to be generally receiued but a little before the Councel of Constance Which I see not to what purpose they are if they were right cited as the former is not For Val. hath thus much When that custome beganne in some churches Val. de leg vsu Euch. cap. 16. it appeareth not but that there hath beene some vse of one kinde euer from the beginning I shewed before Soe Valencia What doth this make for the knight nay doth it not make against him why els should hee corrupt and mangle it Doth not Valencia say he made it appeare that this kind of Communion was somewhat vsed from the beginning and that which he saith of the not appearing when it beganne is not of the Church in general but of some particular Churches Besides for a final answeare I say it is noe matter of doctrine but practice the doctrine hauing euer beene and being still the same of the lawfulnes of one or both kinds as the Church shall ordaine though vpon good reasons the practize haue changed according to the diuersity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that euer he can doe he can not refute that argumeÌ„t which wee make against him and his that our doctrine is not to be taxed of errour soe long as they cannot shew when where and by whom it beganne as wee can and doe euery day of
them and their doctrine 11. But because it is ordinary with these men to charge vs with this same secret apostacy and defection though they cannot tell when nor how it hath come I shall heere put this Knight in mind of two conuincing arguments to the cōtrary brought by the Catholique Diuine that answeared that part of my Lo Answ to Cooks reports ep dedicat n. 22. c. Cooke's reports before cited by this knight to conuince the folly and vanity of a certaine similitude of a wedge of gold that was dissolued and mingled with other mettals brasse tinne c brought by Sir Edward to proue the dissolution of the Romane Church by errors and innouatiōs iust as this knight talketh One of the arguments is theological the other moral The first that if the Church of Rome was the true mother Church which both my Lord Cooke our Knight and all the rest of them confesse then were all the predictions promises of the Prophets for the greatnes eminency honour certainty and flourishing perpetuity of the said Church fulfilled in her and Christ's peculiar promises in like manner that hee would bee to the worlds end with her that hell gates should neuer preuaile against her c. Were also performed in her for soe many hundred yeares as they confesse her to haue continued in her purity Whereof ensueth that either God is not able to performe his promise or els it cannot be conceiued without impiety that this florishing kingdome and Queene of the world should bee soe dissolued and mingled with brasse tinne copper should bee soe corrupted with errors and innouations as to fall away by Apostacy this is the theological argumēt which may bee read there more at large 12. The moral is that Christ hauing purchased his Church at soe deare a rate as was the shedding of his bloud and hauing sett ouer it soe many Pastors and Doctors to keepe continuall watch how is it possible that it should fall away and decay without any one of all these watchmens once opening his mouth to resist or testify this chaunge To any wise man this may truely seeme as it is a thing wholy impossible Of this also hee may see a large excellent discourse in the same place 13. But not to detaine my selfe longer in it I will heere onely represent a consideration of Tertullian's supposing that this soe impossible a thing should happen Goe too saith hee be it soe let all haue erred praescr cap. 28. let the Apostle bee deceiued in his testimony which he gaue of the faith of some Churches bee it soe that the holy Ghost hath not regarded any Church soe as to leade it into truth though sent by Christ for this end and desired of the Father to be the teacher of truth be it soe that the Steward of God the Vicar of Christ hath neglected his charge suffering the Churches to vnderstand otherwise to beleeue otherwise then hee that is Christ preached by his Apostles What is it likely that soe many and soe great should erre all in one beleefe among many seuerall euēts there is not one issue Marke heere one Steward of God's houshold one Vicar of Christ to whose office it belongeth to see that particular churches doe not teach nor beleeue otherwise then they were taught by the preaching of the Apostles The error of doctrine of the Churches must haue beene seuerall but that which is found one and the same among or with many is not error but a thing deliuered therefore may any man dare to say that they who deliuered it did erre Hitherto are Tertullian's very words In which besids that euery sentence is a weighty argument of moral impossibility of the Churches erring which yet for disputacion sake he letteth passe for possible he hath that strong concluding impossibility that soe many seueral Churches in euery country soe many seueral men should all agree in the same error out of which Vnity he gathereth it to be a truth noe error Therefore lett this Knight and all his babling Ministers if they doe not meane to bee counted wholy out of their wits for euermore hold their peaces without accusing the Catholique Church which containeth in it self soe many Churches soe many kingdomes Chap. 7. soe many millions of people all agreeing in the same faith of error and apostacy Of the 7. Section the title whereof is thus The pedigree of the Romish faith drawne downe from the ancient Haeretiques and the Protestant faith deriued from Christ and his Apostles CHAPTER VII 1. IN this Section Sir Humphrey you vndertake a great taske which if you performe according as you promise eris mihi magnus Apollo If you doe not then a man may say to you with out offence magnus es ardelis You vndertake to deriue vs by Succession in person and doctrine from ancient Heretiques and your self from the Apostles Which how truely you haue performed I am in this chapter to examine You beginne with Latine Seruice and Prayer in a strange tongue which you say out of one Wolphius a Lutheran Heretique came into the Church by Pope Vitalian about the yeare 666. whereof you make a mystery noting thus in the margent numerus bestiae Apoc. 13. The number of the beast From him you skippe to the Heretiques Osseni who taught as you say out of Epiphanius that there was noe neede to make a prayer in a knowne tongue From them you goe yet higher to the Apostle's tyme wherein you say out of S. Ambrose that there were certaine Iewes among the Grecians as namely the Corinthians who did celebrate the diuine Seruice and the Sacrament sometymes in the Syriake and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue which the common people vnderstood not And you say that against that the Apostle S. Paul wrote that 14. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians from whom therefore you say your Protestant doctrine is deriued as ours is from haeretiques 2. For answeare of this and what els you are to say of your Succession it is to bee noted that it is one thing to proue a thing to haue beene anciently taught another to haue beene successiuely taught For this later besids antiquity which it includeth it importeth Continuance and perpetuity without interruption Soe that though it should bee true which you say out of Wolphius Epiphanius and S. Ambrose yet were not that enough For there bee some hundreds of yeares betweene Pope Vitalian and the Osseni and more from S. Paul's tyme to this of ours from which notwitstanding you draw your doctrine without any body betweene now for the space of 1500. yeares Besids when we speake of Succession in person in these matters it is vnderstood principally of persons in authority one succeding the other in place and office For we see in kingdomes and cōmonwealthes the Succession is to bee considereth most in reguard of the Gouerners and rulers and in the Church the reason is more special because the Rulers thereof are Doctours
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
non obstante which you would ioyne with Christ's institution in both kinds as if the Councel did forbid it in both kinds notwithstanding that Christ did soe institute is not soe ioyned by the Councel but otherwise thus though Christ did institute this venerable Sacrament after supper Conc. Const sess 13. and administer the same to his Disciples vnder both kinds of bread and wine yet this notwithstanding the authority of the holy canons approued custome of the Church hath obserued and doth obserue that this Sacrament is not to be consecrated after supper nor to bee receiued by the faithfull but fasting Vnlesse in case of infirmity or other necessity allowed by the law or Church These being the very words of the Councel By which it is plaine that the Councel speaketh not in this place of the institution of this Sacrament in one or both kinds but onely of the tyme of the institution thereof or manner to wit after supper or not fasting and of the administration thereof to his Disciples in both kinds at the same tyme. Soe as I see not how you can be excused from a notable and wilful corruption in citing the words of the Councel often and vpoÌ„ seuerall occasions thus Though Christ did institute in both kinds the Councel hauing noe such word and it being likewise noted by Bellarmine for a flat corruption in Luther V Bell de Euch lib. 4. cap. 26. Illyricus and Cheâ—nitius Though if the Councel had said soe it had said truely but nothing to your purpose For it is one thing to say that Christ did institute the Blessed Sacrament vnder both kinds and another to say that he did institute and coÌ„maÌ„d all should receiue vnder both kinds For this later is a command against which noe man may doe The former is onely the Example of Christ which euery man is not alwaies bound to follow And which euen you your selues doe not follow in the tyme and manner of your receiuing 4. Now for vs you must know this was noe new thing begunne by that Councel in which respect you might temper your choller against it but it being growne the general practice which from the beginning also was somewhat practized and certaine Haeretiques arising and condemning the practize beleife of the whole Church this Councel condemned them and commanded the former custome to bee still retained This is the truth of the matter against which I doe not see that you say a word but onely chafe and say this Councel was approued for soe much as pertaineth to the Doctrine againct Haeretiques but not for that that pertayneth to the power of a Councel ouer a Pope Which is all against your selfe and sheweth you are in a vehement passion and know not what you say But since you are soe out with this Councel which yet maketh as well for you as for vs in the point of receiuing fasting and not after supper as Christ did noe wonder if you be wholy out with the Councel of Trent which therefore you cite in a strange manner to disgrace it 5. The sentence as you cite it is this Although our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds yet if any shall say the holy Catholique church was not induced for iust causes to communicate the Lay people and the non-Conficient Priest vnder one kind to wit of bread onely and shall say they erred in soe doeing let him be accursed Which sentence is peeced out of two seueral places of the Councel the former part coÌ„tained in these words Althouhg our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds yet is taken out of the 3. chap. of the 21. Sess the later part or rest is the 2. canon of the same Sess which canon as it is set downe in the Councel hath neither a Yet in it nor an Althought and the Yet in the said 3. chapter inferreth another thing thus Though Christ did institute and deliuer the Bl. Sacrament to his Apostles in both kinds in the last Supper Yet is Christ contained whole and entire vnder one kind and a true Sacrament receiued Which is another matter then that which is coÌ„manded in the Canon For in this is onely taught that Christ is wholy and entirely contained vnder one kind in the Canon there is a curse denounced against such as shall coÌ„demne the practize of communicating vnder one kind as waÌ„ting iust cause or being erroneous Where besides the difference in the matter there is great difference in the manner The one being a plaine definition of a speculatiue truth the other being a command pertayning to practize or a declaration of the Lawfulnes of the Churches practize condemning whosoeuer shall say against it Soe as heere you peece two seuerall matters out of the Councel together without any connexion iust as you are wont to doe in your owne arguments and discourses But in this a man may see your ill dealing for you would faine make it seeme as if the Councel did decree something in opposition to Christ and accurse all such as should doe as he did But this deuice of yours is as silly as it is malicious For it is plaine to any man that shall but looke in the Councel that there is noe such matter intended or said but all the contrary for the Councel saith but this in the one place That though Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds and soe giue it in his last supper to his Disciples that yet he is whole vnder each kind Wherein I would faine see what opposition the subtility of your wit can find what reason can you giue why it may not stand with Christ's institution in both kinds that he be whole vnder both and if whole why not also a true Sacrament This is a point worthy of such a witt as your to worke vpon Soe as in this the Councel decreeth nothing against Christ Noe nor in the other part neither it being onely a defence of the Catholique Churches practice against Haeretiques without reference to Christ's institution or command which is neither for nor against that practice 6. Soe as when I consider how in this place you first mention Christ's institution and then bring the Canon of the Councel as it were contrary vnto it I cannot but wonder what it is you meane or what absurdity it is that you would make the Councel guilty of thereby For though the Councel should say thus as it doth not Though Christ did institute in both kinds yet it is lawfull to receiue in one what absurdity were there in this soe long as Christ doth not command vs to receiue in both as he did institute which you will neuer be able to proue For Christ may institute a thing without commanding it For example he did institute Marriage yet commanded not euery man to marry soe he might doe also in his maÌ„ner of institution and our manner of receiuing this Sacrament But besides this your abusing the Councel by patching vpp one senteÌ„ce out of
practize to be more for aedification of the people Nay doth it not in the Canon expresly condemne it saying anathema to whosoeuer shall condemne the practize of the Romane Church in reading some part of the Canon softly or to whosoeuer shall say that the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue 4. Now for the place of Scripture which you bring to wit that wee must shew forth the Lord's death till his Coming which you say is not intended to the walls as we doe it sheweth sufficiently how well you vnderstand Scripture and consequently how well the common people betweene whom and your self you I dare say thinke there is a great deale of difference would vnderstand them when you being euen a writer soe little vnderstand them For that place of announcing our Lord's death is not vnderstood by words as you vnderstand it but by deeds as it is most plaine by the circumstances wherein they were spoken to wit by consecrating and changing the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord as we doe daily in the Masse in memory of our Sauiours passion For soe S. Paul hauing spoken of the institution and manner to be obserued in the consecration expresly saith as often as you shall doe this you shall announce the death of our Lord. The doing therefore is the announcing not the Saving Besides these words at least in the māner of speaking doe not import any cōmand For you shall find the word annuntiabitis is the indicatiue moode and future tēse if you looke well into your Accidence Sir Humphrey And withall it is somewhat conditional to wit that as often as we shall doe that we shall announce the death of our Lord. Besides Sir Humphrey I neuer heard before that it was all one to speake Latine and to speake to the walls if a man should speake a word of Latine to you were that to speake to a wall You see then you doe not marke what you say 5. But now you haue spoken soe well of your selfe lett vs heare what you can say out of other men And first for Haymo whom you cite for your purpose asking this vnanswearable question as you call it If a man that knoweth onely his Mother's tongue stand by or make a Sermon or giue a Blessing how shall hee say Amen since he doth not know what thou saist Soe you To which I answeare it is true Haymo hath a question to this purpose but not soe much to yours if you marke him well nor soe vnanswearable if you take him altogeather with what he saith before and after your question For soe you shall find he doth not require that all that are by shall vnderstand but that he that supplieth the place of the Idiot or lay man in answearing for the people shall vnderstand for before that Question of yours he maketh this other first quis supplebit vel quis adimplebit locum illius qui te audit non intelligit verba tua who shall supply or who shall fulfill the place of him that heareth thee and doth not vnderstand thy words Which sheweth that he doth not speake of the idiot or ordinary bystander but of one that is to supply his place or make answeare for him which appeareth yet more by that which followeth immediatly after your question thus Si non aderit alius pro illo sciens quid tu dicas qui respondeat Amen 1. Verum est quod tu dixisti vel fiat ita If there shal be none other for him that is in place of the ignorant man who knowing what thou saiest may answeare Amen That is to say it is true which thou hast said or bee it soe done Which plainely sheweth that in Haymo his iudgment it is sufficient if there be one vnderstander to answeare for the rest or for him that doth not vnderstād Nay he doth not seeme to require soe much as that this answearer shall vnderstand all soe perfectly but onely soe farre as to be able to answeare Amen for this is the inconuenience which he maketh to follow therevpon if the answearer doe not vnderstand the language that he doth not know where the prayer endeth for him to answeare Nescit quippe saith he vbi sermonis clausula firmatur For he knoweth not where the cōclusion of the speach is ended For which truely there doth not neede any such great vnderstanding of Latine Soe that though Haymo thinke that the Apostle speaketh in that place of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest as some few other Doctors doe though not soe rightly nor soe conformably to the true intent and drift of the Apostle yet he requireth noe more but that there be one to answeare Amen which surely may be more easily had then for want thereof to be faine to change the whole office of the Church in to English And soe Haymo his vnanswearable question is without any such great adoe answeared Now for S. Paules meaning though your obiection require it not and that it require also a longer disputation yet not to leaue the Reader wholy vnsatisfied thereof I say in a word that S. Paul his meaning in that place where he asketh how he that vnderstandeth not the prayer shall say Amen is not of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest which noe man can doubt of either for the truth or goodnes and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them but of priuate prayers or prayers made by priuate and Lay men ex tempore and on the suddaine not in Latine Greeke or any ordinary knowne tongue but in an extraordinary vnknowne tōgue such as men spake by the guift of tongues which guift was giuen in those beginnings not onely to the Apostles and Preachers but euen to Lay people and to many among the Corinthians which they it seemes grew prowd of and vsed for ostentation For correcting of which abuse the Apostle writeth heere vnto them preferring Prophecy that is exhortation before tongues and giuing many reasons therefore among which this is one that others that heare that prayer in a strange Language are not the better nor can say Amen to it And this to be the Apostles drift the circumstances of the text and persons to whom he writeth plainely shew 6. After Haymo cometh Iustinian the Emperour who say you made a constitution that Bishops and Priests should celebrate the Lord's supper and prayers in Baptisme not in secret but with a Lowd and cleare voyce to this Bellarmine maketh two answeares Bell. lib. 2 〈◊〉 Miss cap. 12 one that Iustinian being a meere secular man had nothing to doe to make Lawes in such matters as it is most true and you cannot but know he is ordinarily taxed for too much taking vpon him in that kind The other that euen that Law doth command nothing more but onely that Bishops and Priests shall pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne
most stronge argument of antiquity that it is the practise of the Catholique Church tyme out of mind and of consent that noe man is found to haue spoken against it but onely knowne Haeretiques such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 1 therefore you are still out of your bias when you thinke to proue the nouelty of our doctrine by our want of testimony of antiquity For though we haue such testimony for superaboundant proofe yet it is enough that such a thing is thaught and practized in Catholique Church without any memory when it beganne for that is S. Augustines rule continually to proue a thing not onely ancient but euen Apostolical 10. But now to come to your authours in particular you bring Durand in the first place saying that there can be little said of certainty concerning Indulgences ap Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 2. Whereto I answeare that it is true Durand doth not speake soe constantly and resolutely of the threasure of the Church in as much as it consisteth of the satisfaction of Saints whereon Indulgences are partly grounded but he is farr from any haeretical and pertinacious denial thereof much lesse of Indulgences for supposing them as a thing most certaine he disputeth Theological questions of them as other Diuines of his tyme did and making this the first question Dur. in 4. dist 20. q. 3. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae whether Indulgences auaile any thing after the manner of Schooles he putteth two arguments against them in the first place and then cometh with his argument Sed contra agreeing for the most part with his conclusion and agreeing expresly in this place he saith thus In contrarium est generalis consuetudo doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de poena peccatori debita On the contrary is the general custome and doctrine of the Church which would containe falshood if some thing of the punishment dew to a sinner should not be forgiuen by indulgences and then hauing sett downe his resolution that there cannot be much said of certaine because neither the Scripture maketh mention of them nor some holy Fathers whom he there nameth yet he concludeth that in speaking of Indulgences the common manner is to bee followed and soe goeth on with other questions per quem modum valeant ex qua causa vaeleant quis eas possit concedere in what māner they auaile out of what cause who cā graunt thē c. nay and for the treasure of the Church though by way of theological dispute in one place he make some doubt of it yet in others he speaketh plainely and clearely in these words Dur. 4. dist 20. q. 3. Est in ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spiritual Treasure of the Passion of Christ and the Saints who endured much greater torments then their sinnes deserued and therefore the Church may out of this treasure communicate to one or more what may bee sufficient to satisfy for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as shall please the Church to communicate this treasure more or lesse which are nothing els but the communication of the paine of Christ and the Saints to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherefore indulgences auaile by way of solucion or payment in as much as by Christ and his Saints the paine dew to vs is payd So farr this author most clearely truely Catholiquely though after againe he somewhat doubt of this treasure as I said before in as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of Saincts Now for the very place which you alleadge you committ a fault in making it seeme as if he said the ancient Fathers in general did not make any mention of Indulgences and that he did name S. Ambrose S. Hilar. S. Aug. and S. Hierome onely for examples sake whereas it is farr otherwise For presently after he nameth S. Greg. and saith of him that he did institute indulgences at the Stations in Rome Soe as it is plaine he spoke onely of those 4. not of all the Fathers in general And soe much for Durand 11. As for Alphōsus à Castro another of your authors he denieth not all testimony of Scripture as none of the rest doe but onely plaine expresse testimony and though he also confesse the vse of Indulgences not to haue beene soe much in those ancient tymes as since yet he alloweth of them soe farr as to condemne any man for an Haeretique that shall deny them these are his words Alph. a Castr de haeres lib. 8. verb. Indulgent Verum etsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione S. Scripturae testimonium apertum desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam ecclesiae Catholicae vsus a multis annorum centurijs tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur But though there want open testimony of Scripture for approbation of Indulgences they are not therefore to bee contemned because the vse of the Catholique church for many hundreds of yeares is of soe great authority that whosoeuer contemned the same is worthely esteemed an haeretique And againe in the same place Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum to wit indulgentiarum vsus vt ex Stationibus Romae frequentissimis vtrumque colligi potest Among the Romans this vse of Indulgences is said to be most ancient as may be somewhat gathered by the most frequent Statiōs at Rome Looke you Sir Humphrey what a witnesse you haue brought for your selfe Doe you not see how new he maketh this Doctrine of Indulgences Confessing euen the vse of them to be most ancient and of many hundred yeares standing nay doth he not in the same place acknowledge that S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name did graunt some Indulgences which is aboue a thousand yeares Doe you not heare how much he giueth to the Church acknowledging the practise thereof to bee of soe great authority that whosoeuer denyeth the truth of a thing soe practised is worthily to be counted an Haeretique What thinke you now of your selfe to be called haeretique out of your owne mouth as it were that is out of your author's mouth whom you bring for you For Castro his authority then though it had beene more for you then it is in this matter of Indulgences yet you had beene better haue let it alone then to haue it with such a condition The like a man may say of euery author you bring heere for the same purpose but that it is needlesse to stand soe long vpon examining euery one in particular 12. Now after such good authorityes as you bring against Indulgences you thinke you may with authority prate very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences and bringing money to his owne coffers by them but to that I neede make noe other answeare but that it is such
and yours Ministers 14. See Tert. de praescr cap. 21. Epiph. Chrisost Basil The particular testimonyes you may see in Bellarmine to whom I remitt you onely for S. Aug. I cannot omitt to make more particular mention of him in this place by reason of a certaine sentence which you haue brought in the end of this § as alsoe of euery one of the 6. Damascen alios ap Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. foregoing §§ still coÌ„cluding with this saying of that holy Father Siue de Christo fiue c. Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church or concerning any other thing that pertayneth to our faith I will not say we who are noe way to bee compared to him that said but if an Angel from heauen shall preach vnto you beside what you haue receiued in the legal and euangelical scriptures lett him be anathema And in the end of euery one for the most part adding the particular controuersy of that § as for example in this of Indulgences you say if wee or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you any thing concerning the faith of Indulgences besids that you haue receiued c. and soe in euery of the other particular points Whereby you would perswade your Reader that Saint Aug. would haue nothing beleiued but what can bee proued by expresse words of Scripture Wherein I appeale to your owne conscience as bad as it is whither this be not damnable dishonest dealing both towards S. Aug. and towards your Reader For if you haue read S. Aug. as you pretend how can you be ignorant how many points of faith he doth defend against seueral Haeretiques either onely or chiefly by the tradition and Practise of the Catholique Church De Bap. câ—nt Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7. lib. 5. cap. 23. as single Baptisme against the Donatists Consubstantiality of the sonne Diuinity of the Holy Ghost and euen vnbegottenesse of the Father the first person in Trinity against the Arrians and the Baptisme of Children against Pelagius to say nothing of prayer for the Dead Cont. Maxi. lib. 3. cap. 3. ep 174. de Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. De cura pro mortuis ep 118. Obseruation of the Feasts of Easter Ascension Whitsuntide and the like nay this truth was so grounded with him that he counted it most insoleÌ„t madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practize of the Catholique Church Which is of soe great authority with him as that he saith in one place that when we follow it we follow the truth of the Scriptures these are his words Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus c. Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 33. The truth of the Scripture is held by vs when we doe that which seemeth good to the whole Church which Church the authority of the Scriptures themselues doe commend that because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue whosoeuer is afraid to bee deceiued by the obscurity of this questioÌ„ may haue recourse to the Church the which the holy Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate vnto vs soe he there and that it may farther appeare that to deny this authority and practize of the Church is not onely to deny the authority of Scripture but euen of Christ himselfe I cannot heere omitt to note a place of the same Saint his booke de vnit ecclesiae Where hee treateth this very point very particularly and excellently soe as to take away all doubt of his opinion therein For heere he doth of purpose intend to shew that where plaine proofe of Scripture is wanting we must haue recourse to the Church prouing it thus by occasion of the question of rebaptization and supposing that there is noe proofe of Scripture either way Puto si aliquis sapiens c. I thinke saith hee if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony to wit Aug. de Vnit. eccles cap 22. of his wisedome and that he should be asked in this question we should not doubt to doe what he should say lest we should seeme to gainesay not him soe much as Christ by whose testimony hee was commended Now Christ beareth witnesse of his Church And a little after againe he saith that Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practize of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himself Who by his testimony commendeth the Church By which discourse and comparison any man may see that in S. Augustines iudgment the Churches word is warranted by Christ as much as if he should haue named any one man in particular whose words he would make good and whom consequently we should follow that by refusing or leauing him we should leaue Christ himself Soe as nothing can be more plaine and euident to declare this holy Fathers opinion in this point of the Churches authority in the beleife and practize euen of things not expressed in Scripture And this may sufficiently coÌ„uince you Sir Humphrey of malicious deceipt in alleadging that other place of this holy Father soe contrary to his meaning declared in soe many places and soe plainely 15. But because you may yet make difficulty in this testimony which you alleadge as though it alone should stand against all other that can be alleadged out of him and that noe interpretation of any man els can be able to satisfy you I will alleadge his owne words interpreting the meaning of S. Paul's words which he alleadgeth vseth in this testimony to shew that the word beside doth not import that a man must not beleeue any thing but that which is expressed in Scripture but that a man must not beleeue any thing contrary For thus he saith The Apostle did not say if any man euaÌ„gelize to you more then you haue receiued Aug. to 98. in Io. but beside that which you haue receiued For if he should say that he should praeiudicate that is goe against himselfe who coueted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith But he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was c. These are the Saint's very words in that place By which it is plaine that he taketh the word praeter beside not in that sense as to signify more then is written as you would vnderstaÌ„d it but to signify the same that contra against or coÌ„trary to what is written For otherwise there would be noe sense in his saying or opposition coÌ„sisting of two members with difference of the one from the other Which to be his meaning is yet more plaine by his whole discourse which is to shew what maÌ„ner of knowledge or priuate reuelation is to bee admitted indeede there hee alloweth of such as it not against the rule of the Catholique faith contra regulam Catholicae fidei reprehends only in Haeretiques such kind of knowledge as is also contrary or against the rule of faith and then obiecting
that suppose he doe know thē to be good yet they haue not that goodnes from him or as they are his but as they are from almighty God and by his grace And yet more we teach that he may fall againe and loose all his labour which doth exceedingly diminish confidence of a man's selfe soe as we leaue nothing for a man to trust to of himselfe but that he must giue all to God as S. Paul did in saying 1. Cor. 15.10 non ego sed gratia Dei mecum not I but the grace of God with mee qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur That he that doth glory may glory in God and to shew that we haue nothing of our selues we say againe with the same Saint quid habes quod non accepisti What hast thou which thou hast not receiued Now on the other side examine you your owne doctrine a little better and see whither it doth not teach the contrary vaine cōfidence in most of these points as that a man must assure himself that his sinnes are forgiuen that he must assure himself of his saluation that he cannot fall from grace and the like Which ground supposed how can he worke his saluation with feare trembling as S. Peter teacheth And soe we haue answeared 3. points of Safety which you begin withall out of your owne inuention Now you come to other points of Safety which you proue by authority of other men 5. The first of these and fourth in order is Communion in both kinds which you say is better then in one kinde alone you proue it out of Cassander Vazq Hales and Valencia I answeare that for Cassander you know he is noe author to be alleadged against a Catholique For Vazq it seemeth you are not so well skilled in him as to cite him out of his owne works but out of the frēch Minister Chamier who is another great mā with you But for the matter it is true some few Catholiques as Vazq Hales p. 4. q. 11. m. 2. ar 4. § 3. for Valencia I shall tell you more anone are of opiniō that it is of greater merit and fruit to receiue in both kinds then in one But I aske you why it should be more safe to follow those two then 10. 20. 30. or 40. Other Diuines to the cōtrary For my part I doe not see any reason for it if you waigh the matter by reason or by number and authority of Doctors Secondly neither of these two doth acknowledge any danger in our practice of one kind but allow it for good and lawfull For soe saith Hales quia Christus integrè sumitur sub vtraque specie bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum sicut fere vbique fit a laicis in ecclesia Because Christ is receiued entirely vnder each kind it is very lawful to receiue the body of Christ vnder the kind of bread onely as it is vsed almost euery where by the Layity in the Church And Vazq employeth a whole disputation in the proofe of the same Truth out of Scripture and tradition shewing withall that the Latine Church did with very good reason forbid Communion in both kinds and soluing all the arguments of the Haeretiques against it Soe as he acknowledgeth not your doctrine to be either safe or the same with his but a cleane different haeresy For his is a Schoole opinion not of the safety but of the fruitfulnes of Communion in One or both kinds Yours is an haeresy denying the sufficiency of one kind and vrging both as a matter of necessity for the integrity of the Sacrament and fulfilling of Christ's praecept and denying also the authority of the Church for dispensing therein And though in speculation Vazq rather allow both kinds to be more fruitfull yet all circumstances considered he deemeth Communion in one kind absolutely better for many great reasons pertayning to the reuerence of the Sacrament and common good which doe not onely counteruaile but farre surpasse the want of that fruit which is giuen more by the other kind all necessary grace being giuen by one alone as he teacheth And for Hales besids that he holdeth it very lawfull to communicate in one kind onely which is directly against you I thinke a man that would goe about it might easily puzle you out of him euen for soe much as pertaineth to the perfection of the spiritual fruit p. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar 1. For thus he saith to that which is said that he that receiueth vnder the forme of bread onely receiueth the Sacrament perfectly and entirely I answeare that this Sacramēt is receiued two wayes spiritually and sacramētaly Wherefore I say that quantum ad spiritualē sumptionē perfectè accipit for as much as pertaineth to the spiritual receiuing he receiueth it perfectly but not so for the Sacramētal receiuing Now this perfection of a Sacrament he explicateth before to consist in the representation which saith he is not soe perfect in one kind as both Which we also grant though we say the fruit to be the same in One and both kinds See Sir Humphrey how you can get out of this brake Now for Valencia your third author whom you cite in the margent saying that he affirmeth the same to wit with Hales and Vazq let any man see whether you doe not play him a Lindy-tricke For these are his words in the very same chapter by you cited Val de leg vs. Euchar. cap. 6. Hoc sacramentum tam est per se fructuosum efficax in altera specie quam in vtraque specie This sacrament is of it selfe as fruitfull and effectual in one kind as in both and soe your doctrine in this point is as safe and comfortable as your citation of this author is true 6. The fift of your safe and profitable points is of your communion of Priest and people together the safety you proue not by any thing but your owne bare word For the profitablenes of the Sacrifice indeede you proue it is more when the people communicate with the Priest out of the Councel of Trent Harding and Bellarmine but Sir that is not the controuersy between you and v◠but this whether the Priest may not say Masse vnlesse he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether it be more profitablenes for the Priest that he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether the Sacrifice be lesse perfect in it selfe in that case or not Of this you say not a word as neither doe your authors which you bring for they speake onely of the fruit which would redound to the people which we grant to be greater when they communicate with the Priest then when not But of the forme or matter of controuersy they all determine absolutely against you their whole drift in those places being none other but to disproue you as may easily appeare to any man that will looke in them and I haue partly shewed before
it against the Haeretiques which denied it And a little after againe he goeth on thus to say nothing of this Wisedome which you doe not beleeue to be in the Catholique Church there be many things els which may most iustly hold mee in the bosome thereof There holdeth me the consent of people and nations there holdeth mee authority begunne by miracles nourished by hope encreased by charity strengthned by antiquity There holdeth me the succession of Priests from the very seate of Peter to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his flocke to the present Bishoprique Lastly the very name of Catholique holdeth me And after againe These therefore soe many and soe great most deare chaines of the Christian name doe rightly hold a man beleeuing in the Catholique church though for the slownesse of our vnderstanding or merit of our life truth doe not shew it selfe soe very clearely But with you that is Manichees and I may say Protestants or any other sect whatsoeuer where there is nothing of all these to inuite and hold mee there soundeth onely a promise of truth Thus farre Saint Augustines very words by which any man will perceiue that he made soe much account of the learning of the multitude of people and nations of miracles of antiquity of Succession of the name of Catholique in our Church which you account nothing as by them to hold himself in the bosome of that Church insinuating withall that the want of them in haereticall congregations is sufficient to deterre any man from them how much soeuer they prate of Truth Safety Certainty and I know not what 5. In graunting vs therefore these things and acknowledging the want of them in your selues in the iudgement of Saint Augustine you confesse ours to be the true Church and your owne a false and haereticall conuenticle As likewise you doe in that you make the smalnes of number to bee a note of the true Church Saint Augustine shewing it to be none For whereas the Donatists did bragge thereof hee confuteth them thus De vnit eccl cap. 7. Quid est haeretici quod de paucitate gloriamini si propterea Dominus noster IESVS CHRISTVS traditus est ad mortem vt haereditate multos possideret What is it ô yee Haeretiques that you bragge of the smalnes of your number if Christ were therefore deliuered vp to death that hee might by inhaeritance possesse many And there he goeth on prouing the same farther out of diuers places of Scripture and namely by 9. or 10. most plaine places out of Esay the Prophet and then concludeth againe vbi est inquam quod de paucitate gloriamini Where I say is it that you bragge of your fewnes are not these the many of whom it was said a little before that he should possesse many by heritage but of this the Scriptures are soe full and soe cleare as I may well deny him the name of a Christian that denieth it Wherefore for that place of a little flocke which you bring in shew onely to the contrary Aug. ep 50. ad Bonif. ep 48. ad Vinc. S. Aug. explicateth it not of the Church in general but of the good who are small in number in comparison of the wicked or of Christ's flocke or church at that tyme in the beginning lib. 4. cap. 54 in Luc 12. And S. Bede expoundeth it two wayes one of the smal number of the elect in comparison of the reprobate the other of the Church in general in reguard of the humility wherein Christ will haue it to excell increase to the end of the world how much soeuer it be dilated in number quia videlicet ecclesiam suam quantalibet numerositate iam dilatatam tamen vsque ad finem mundi humilitate vult crescere For that place of S. Paul it patronizeth not your ignorance one iott For it is onely meane of those whom our Sauiour at first made choyce of to preach his faith and make knowne his name vnto the world who indeede were not many in number being but 12. nor great in wisedome according to the flesh not hauing beene brought vp in learning but to meant trades as fishing the like nor mighty nor noble being but poore and obscure for wealth and parentage and this for a speciall reason as S. Ambrose declareth in these words Aduerte caeleste consilium non sapientes aliquos non diuites Lib. 5. comment in Luc. non nobiles sed piscatores publicanos quos dirigeret elegit ne traduxisse prudentia ne redemisse diuitijs ne potentiae nobilitatisue authoritate traxisse aliquos ad suam gratiam videretur vt veritatis ratio non disputationis gratia praeualeret Marke the heauenly Wisedome he did not choose some wise or rich or noble but Fishers and publicans to send lest he might seeme to haue brought any to his grace by wile redeemed them by riches or drawne them by authority of power or nobility that reason of truth and not the grace of disputation might preuaile 6. And soe Christ made choyce of a few simple men to conuert the world that thereby it might appeare that the conuersion thereof was not a worke of any wordly or humane but of diuine power and vertue But if they should not conuert the world that is great multitudes and seuerall nations kingdomes and countries wise powerful and learned men but onely some such small handful as you would haue your little flocke to be some weake vnlearned and poore people as you will haue your Church to consist of it had beene noe wonder at all For we see many Sect-maisters draw great multitudes after them farre greater euery way then your Church of England This place therefore which you bring for defence of the smalnes of your number and want of learning in your Church sheweth it not to be the true Church which for number is to be numberlesse and for extent to be spread ouer the world Psal 18. In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum saith holy Dauid their sound went all ouer the earth Whereas you acknowledge the contrary a marke of your Church the true Church is to consist of many wise mighty and noble personages gathered and drawne to the true Catholique faith by those few vnlearned weake and ignoble people For soe S. Paul after in the same place seemeth to insinuate saying Quae stulia sunt mundi c. The foolish things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the wise and the weake things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the strong and the base things of the world and the contemptible hath God chosen and those things which are not that he might destroy those things which are Soe as you see these few weake and ignorant men were to subdue the learning might and wisedome of the world to Christ and draw it to his Church and this is that which Dauid saith that he
shall send forth the rodd of his power to rule in the middest of his enemyes Psal 109. that is of worldly wisedome and power otherwise it had beene noe wonder besides that though these men were at first weake and vnlearned in worldly learning yet by the holy Ghost they were replenished with all knowledge of heauenly wisedome and indewed with power from heauen Of which their learning S. Hierome hath a large and excellent discourse Hier. ad Paulin. which not to be too long I referre you vnto Now by this is also answeared your other place of S. Mathew of hiding things from the wise and reuealing them to little ones For it is vnderstood of little ones by humility for onely such are apt to receiue heauenly wisedome and such can noe haeretique be that prowdly preferreth his owne iudgment before the iudgment of the whole Catholique church as if God had forsaken his Church and enlightned him alone which is as much to say as that the funne doth not shine to the whole world els but shines in onely at his window but heere is enough of this matter 7. Now for Miracles which you say we make a character of the Church it is true we doe indeede but whereas you call them the working of Satan I answeare it is a saying that can come from none but a child of Satan to attribute the works of God to Satan but our comfort is that our Sauiour foretold vs of it and armed vs against it by his owne words example Si patrem familias Beelzebub vocauerunt Mat. 10.25 quanto magis domesticos eius If they called the Father of the family Beelzebub how much more his family and if the Pharisees attributed our Sauiour's miracles to Beelzebub is it to be thought that Haeretiques who farre surpasse the impiety of the Pharisees will not doe the same of the miraculous works which his Seruants doe in his name that is for his honor and by his power this you doe Sir Humphrey or rather would faine doe making our Miracles to seeme the working of Satan and you would also proue it to be a marke of a false Church and foretold by Christ and his Apostles For proofe whereof you bring something out of S. Paules 2. ep to the Thessal of a stronge delusion and deceiuablenes of vnrightuousnes which God should send 3. Reg. 22. v. 22. because we did not receiue the Loue of truth but remember Sir Humphrey there is one in scripture that started vpp and said ere spiritus mendax in ore omnium Prophetarum I wil be a lying Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets This your discourse sheweth him not to haue beene farr of when you writ this for marke Sir Humphrey how many lyes heere be in a few lynes You say out Sauiour and his Apostles discouered the marks of a false church where I pray you good Sir doth our Sauiour speake of such a false church or where doth he set downe the marks thereof and this among the rest For my part I find it not And as for the Apostles though they speake many tymes of Haeretiques yet doe I not find them to doe them soe much honour as to call them a Church Vnlesse it be in that sense that holy Dauid saith the Church of the malignant or S. Iohn the synagogue of Satan Psal 24. Apoc. 2.9 but yet euen there I doe not find the working of Miracles to bee a token of such a Church From whence then doe you proue it Out of that place of S. Paul which you bring well supposing the proofe to be good that is but one Apostle not Apostles in the plural number But beside Sir Humphrey heere I conuent you before your owne conscience whether it be true that S. Paul speake there of any Church or company of men or whether he doe not speake of one onely man to wit Antichrist you cannot deny but he speaketh of him alone and that most plainely How then doe you make men beleeue he speaketh of a Church was it not that lying Spirit that put this into your head and who are those that the same Apostle saith that God shall send them stronge delusions and that they should beleiue lyes because they receiued not the loue the truth these you say are Catholiques but you may say any though neuer soe absurd and false by the priuiledge of your spirit how els could you say a thing soe euidently false it being most cleare by the Apostles phrase and discourse the persons also to whom he writeth considered that he meaneth that of the same kind of people of whom and to whom our Sauiour spake in a manner the same words Ego venio in nomine Patris mei non accipitis me Io. 5.43 si alius venerit in nomine suo illum accipietis I come in the name of my Father and you doe not receiue mee if another shall come in his owne name you will receiue him These are the Iewes who reiecting Christ shall receiue Anti-Christ neither can it belong any way to Catholiques who though you may say they haue forsaken the faith of Christ yet you cannot deny but they once receiued him whereas both our Sauiour and S. Paul speake of them that would not receiue him It is the Spiritt you wot of that suggested this vnto you as that also which followeth next where you say that the Spirit of God foresaw that our doctrine would consist in forging not onely of Fathers of Councels of Schoolmen but of daily miracles For where doth the Spirit foretel our forging of Fathers Schoolmen Councels c. You charged vs before though falsely of eluding or reiecting counter fayting the Fathers but not a word of forging Schoolmen or Councels till now Whereof if you could haue alleadged any example or shaddow I presume we should haue had it before now I take this therefore to be but an hott fitt of your Spiritt which transporteth you beyond your selfe and surely vnlesse you had some such helpe it were not possible for you soe to ouer Linde it as you doe heere As for that which you bring heere out of Lyra of feigned miracles wrought either by Priests or by their companions for lucre sake it sheweth you would say something if you knew what 1. Cor. 14. be it soe that some naughty Priests or their companions worke Faigned Miracles for lucre sake what then be there noe true Miracles therefore a proper argument like this there is tinn and copper in the world ergo noe siluer or gold some bad men ergo none good a trimme argument Sir Humphrey 8. But to conclude this section you come with a saying of Saint Augustine which will make all sure which is this that as miracles were necessary before the world beleiued to induce it to beleiue soe he that seeketh to be confirmed by wonders now is to be wondered at most of all himselfe in refusing to beleiue what
doctrines 3. For traditions adoration of images Saints c. all is answeared before Soe likewise his Communion in both kind and merit of good works But for that which he saith that he acknowledgeth vniuersality of nations and people not to be a marke of his Church I cannot but wonder at it For what is this but euen in plaine termes to confesse his Church not to be the Church of Christ Isa 2. Isay the Prophet describing the Church vnder the type of a mountaine saith that all nations shall flow vnto it Psal 71. Psal 2. The Prophet Dauid describing the Kingdome of Christ saith that he shall beare sway from sea to sea Dan. 2.3 ◠that God will giue him nations for his inhaeritance and the bounds of the Earth for his possession Apoc. 7 9◠Daniel describeth the Kingdome of Christ like a mountaine growing from a little stone and filling the whole earth S. Iohn seeth a multitude which noe man could reckon of all nations and tribes and people and tongues this being also the thing wherein the Church of Christ is specially distinguished from the Synagogue of the Iewes that that pertained but to one nation this to all the nations of the earth and all the Fathers proclaime nothing more particularly S. Augustine in a whole booke of this argument against the Donatists And a Knight to come and tell vs he doth not account this as a marke of his Church What is this but in plaine termes to acknowledge that his Church is not the Church of Christ Beside I would know what he hath meant all this while by Vniuersality which he hath laboured to proue to belong to his Doctrine the principal thing vnderstood by Vniuersality when we take it for a note of the Church is the Vniuersality of place to wit Mar. 16.15 diuers kingdomes and countries as it is vsed by our Sauiour himself euntes in mundum vniuersum praedicate euangelium omni creaturae and now in denying this marke to belong to his Church doth he not deny it to belong to his doctrine for how can that doctrine be vniuersal that is taught by a few and in a corner of the world and in acknowledging his Church not to be vniuersal doth he not acknowledge it not to be Catholique for is not Catholique and vniuersal all one as all men know in this word then he hath graunted enough to ouerthrow all that euer he hath said or can say of his Church 4. But now to come to the matter which he purposeth in this section which is to answeare our argument that it is safer for a man to take the way of the Catholique Church then the Protestant because euen Protestants agree with Catholiques in this that they may be saued in their religion and Catholiques deny that Protestants can be saued this argument the Knight denieth being sory for his part that a charitable opinion on the Protestants part should giue any Romanist occasion to liue and dye in the bosome of that Church therefore he interpreteth that saying to be meant onely of such as by inuincible ignorance resigne their eysight to their Priests Pastours which men if they hold the articles of Christian beleife without opposition to any ground of religion and liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church such men he saith liuing Papists and dying Protestants in the principal foundation of Faith may find mercy because they did it ignorantly But such Papists he saith as liue in States and Kingdomes where they may come to knowledge of the truth and will not these men dye in their sinnes though yet againe he a little temper the rigour of this doome in saying he will not iudge their persons though he pronounce their doctrine soe damnable as that if he had 10000. soules he would not venture one of them in the Romane Faith and Church For which he taketh God and his holy Angels to witnesse and then concludeth very pathetically thus Farr be it from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points in controuersy betwixt them and vs to be of an inferiour alloy as that a man may resolue this way or that without perill of his saluation And then tells vs the fresh bleeding wounds and sufferings of holy men and Martyrs in his Church doe sufficiently witnesse the great danger in our religion and difference betwixt vs and that we may know that the best learned of his Church were farr from graunting saluation to any Papist liuing and dying in the profession of the now Romane Faith he bringeth a saying of Whitaker who would haue vs take it vpon his word that in heauen there is not one Iesuit nor one Papist to be found this is the Knight's whole discourse in the second part of his section 5. Whereby vpon examination it will appeare hee is as well redd in his owne authors as in our Schoolmen and Fathers And to beginne with him he is sorry the Protestants charitable opiniō should giue any man encouradgment to dye a Papist But by his leaue this opinion doth not proceede from charity but from euidence of truth as all testimony from an enemy doth But whether it be charity or not this Knight will none of this charity and therefore he saith that this is meant onely of some ignorant people whose ignorance may excuse them but yet euen these men though they liue Papists they must dye Protestants in the principall foundation of that Faith This is good stuffe Papists may be saued in their religion but yet they must dye Protestants very right Sir Humphrey where haue you learned this theology that a man may be saued in one religion yet soe as he must dye in another this is a new conceit neuer heard of before that a man may bee saued in a religion but soe as not to dye of it and heere a man might aske at great many pretty questions as what foundation of Faith that is that they must dye in what articles of Apostolique and Christian beleife what grounds these are that may not be opposed all these had beene necessary things to be expressed in such a singular treatise as this of yours which must forsooth beare the name of a SAFE WAY leading men to true Faith And why also a man that holdeth the Apostles Creede and other things common to Catholiques and Protestants not forsaking the Catholique church and indeed not knowing any thing els for heere you speake of a Catholique in a Catholique countrey where it is to be supposed the name of a Protestant or other heretique is vnknowne why I say such a man should be said to dye a Protestant in the principal points of his faith I see not For why doth the Apostles Creede belong more to you then to vs had we it from you or you from vs nay if I would stand vpon it I could shew you not to beleiue a right in any one article thereof Whereof he that listeth to know more