obscurely that posterity may reioyce at the cleare knowledge of that which antiquity did reuerence euen before it came to be soe knowne that in fine he must soe theach which he hath learned that though he deliuer it in a new manner yet hee deliuer not any new matter And then asking a question by way of obiectiō whether Christia religiō doe not receiue any increase or profit hee answeareth yes verily but in such manner as it may bee truely called increase not change For increase importeth an amplification or enlargement of a thing in it self Change importeth a turning of one thing into an other And soe he saith the vnderstanding knowledge and wisedome both of euery man in particular and of the whole Church in general may receiue increase but soe as to persist in same doctrine sense and iudgment which hee declareth by the similitude of a man's body which though it be greater when he comes to be a man then when hee was a chile yet all the parts and limbs are the same soe as though it receiue increase yet noe change the same hee declareth by another similitude of a graine of wheate cast into the ground which though it multiply in the growth yet it multiplieth onely in the same kind of graine Wherevpon he concludeth that the Church being a diligēt and wary keeper of the doctrines committed to her custody doth not adde diminish or any way change doth not cut of what is necessary nor adde any thing superfluous but with all industry soe handle all ancient doctrines as if any haue not receiued their full shape and perfection to polish and perfect them if any be throughly searched and expressed to cōsolidate and strengthen thē if any be cōfirmed and defined to keepe them adding withall that the Church hath neuer endeauoured any thing els by her decrees of Councels but onely that which was simply that is without questioning beleeued before should after bee more diligently beleeued that which before was preached more slackly should after bee preached more earnestly that wich before was more securely reuerenced should after be much more carefuly garnished or adorned and that the Church being excited by the nouelties of haeretiques hath done noe more but consigned to posterity in writing that which before she had receiued from her ancestours by tradition onely and for more cleare vnderstāding thereof many tymes expressed the ancient sense of faith by the propriety of a new appellacion that is by a new word then inuented to expresse the ancient beleife 11. This is the discourse of this Holy Father which I haue sett downe the more fully in reguard it containeth the cleare decision of this whole matter For out of it together with what hath beene hitherto said it may bee gathered first that the Church createth not any new articles of faith but onely that she deliuereth vnto vs those articles of ancient faith which she hath receiued from them by whom she was first plāted and taught that faith Much lesse doth she deliuer vnto vs any new faith For though she should haue new distinct reuelations yet would it not follow that the faith were new soe long as those it followeth that he that denieth the explication doth deny the article and consequently frame vnto himselfe a new beleefe 12. And that the absurdity of Sir Humphrey's argument may yet appeare more manifestly I add that any haeretique that euer was may by the very same maner of argument chalenge antiquity to himselfe and accuse vs of nouelty For he may say such a thing was not de fide before such a Councel ergo it is new and that he beleeues onely that which was beleeued before that Councel ergo he beleeueth the ancient Faith Which argumēt if it be good in Sir Humphrey is good in them and cōsequently he must disallow the decrees of all Councels as nouelties and approue all haeresies for the ancient beleefe Which being soe great and manifest an absurdity he will not sure for shame admitt and consequently must allow of Vincentiu's his authority and the answeare out of him to wit that Councels in defining matters of faith doe not coyne a new faith but declare explicate and define the old Which that Sir Humphrey may the better conceiue I shall heere in a word vrge him with an example of his owne Church thus The Church of England admitteth of diuers books of the new testament for canonical whereof there was doubt for three or fower hundred yeares togeather in the Church of God as the Epistle to the Hebrewes the second Epistle of S. Peter the Ep. of S. Iude the Apocalypse of S. Iohn and some others which were after admitted for Canonical Now I would know of him whether vpon the admittance of them there were any Change of faith in the Church or whether euen those books haue receiued any change in themselues hee cannot say they did and there by he may answeare himself and see plainly that the change which seemeth to be is not in the things to be beleeued but in vs that are to beleeue them because vpon such definition or declaration of the Church we are obliged to beleeue them which it may be we were not before And this may suffice for this matter of new articles of beleife which Sir Humphrey would faine father vpon vs. 13. Another thing which hee much buildeth vpon and whereby he thinketh to preuaile against vs in the authority of some particular Doctors or Schoolemen of the Church differing among themselues in some points not defined by the Church at such tyme as they did dispute thereof though afterwards they were But any man of iudgment will presently see that this is but to delude the simpler sort of people of his owne side whom he thinketh to make beleeue any thing For who doth not know that Catholiques binde themselues onely to defend the Catholique faith which neyther doth nor can depend vpon the iudgment of any one priuate Doctor how learned soeuer for neyther is any thinge counted faith till it bee taught by the authority of the Catholique church or common cōsent of Doctors Vinc. Lerin cap. 4. for soe saith Vincentius Lerinensis expressely that wee are to beleeue without doubt not what one or two Maisters teach but what all with common consent hold write and teach planely frequently and perseuerantly Vinc. Lerin cap. 39. And this as he saith els where Non in omnibus diuinae legis questiunculis sed quidem certe praecipuè in fidei regula Not in all small questiōs of the diuine Law but cheifely in the rule of faith Which Sir Humphrey cannot be ignorant of but onely that he lifteth still to be limping and wilfully dissembling the truth For if he had taken notice of this he would haue had lesse to say though he say not much euen now with all the dissembling he can deuise 14. Neyther will it serue his turne to say that we vrge him and his Ministers out of their
is in the Bishop's power to grant leaue if vpon conference with the Parish-Priest or Confessor of the party that desireth leaue hee find him to bee such an one as may not incurre danger of faith but be like to increase in vertue and deuotion by reading thereof Which with any reasonable man may bee counted sufficient liberty As for the Fathers it is most grossely false which the Knight after the ordinary ministerial tune stands canting that wee blot out and raze them at our pleasure For though for soemuch as concerneth the late Catholique authors of this last age for this our index of which is all the difficulty beginneth but from the yeare 1515. whatsoeuer needeth correction is to be mended or blotted out yet for others going before that tyme it is expressely said that nothing may bee changed vnlesse some manifest error through the fraud of haeretiques or carelesnesse of the Printer be crept in but that if any thing worth nothing occurre the new editions of the same author by some notes in the margent or at the later end the author's mind may be explained De correct lib. §. 3. 4. or the hard place by comparing other passages of the same author be made more cleare Now is heer any thing that derogateth from the dignity and authority of antiquity What is it then that these men would haue what is it they can carpe at nothing but that they themselues are stunge in that heereby they are kept either from publishing their owne wicked works or corrupting the Fathers at their pleasure and to wipe away this blemish from themselues they would lay it vpon vs. And by this that is heere said of this matter may be answeared noe little part of Sir Humphrey's booke whereof one whole chapter is of this matter beside other bitter inuectiues vpon other occasions to fill his paper though there also I shall haue occasion to say somewhat more heereof 19. The last thing which heere I meane to speake of is a certaine distinction of explicite and implicite faith wich the Knight and his Ministers cry out against and are pleased sometymes to make themselues merry withall as if they would laugh it out but it is too well and solidly grounded to be blowne away with the breath of any such Ministerial Knight as he is I will therefore only declare it in a word that the Reader may see whether the distinction or the Knight bee more worthy to be laughed at The words explicite and implicite are drawne from the Latine and they signifie as much as foulded and vnfoulded or wrapped vpp and layd open And explicite faith signifyeth a beleefe directly and expresly beleeuing a particular point of faith in it self not as it is inuolued or wrapped vpp in an other implicite faith is the beleefe of any point of faith not in it self but in some other general principle wherein it lyeth inuolued or as it were wrapped vpp as Catholiques beleeue in many thingh as the Church beleeueth though they doe not know what the Church holdeth particularly in this or that point Now all Catholiques being bound to the beleefe of the Catholique faith wholy and entirely vnder paine of damnation as saith Saint Athanasius in his Crede and all not being able to know what is taught in euery particular there must be some meanes whereby to beleiue all and this by an implicite faith including in it self a promptnes or readines of the vnderstanding and Will to obey and rely vpon the authority of the holy Church wherein noe Catholique that beleeueth any one point can haue much difficulty seeing the reason why he beleeueth that one point is the authority of God declared vnto vs by the mouth of the neuer erring Church 20. Neither is this implicite faith for the ignorant alone as the Knight saith but it is for all both learned and vnlearned for there is noe man soe learned but may be ignorant of some one point or other or at least in matters not yet defined he must haue that indifferency and readines of Will and iudgment to beleeue as the Church shall teach True it is the vnlearned know lesse of particular points though all be bound to the expresse or explicite knowledge of some articles as of the Apostles Creede of the Commaundements of God and the Church Sacrifice of the Masse of some Sacrements and euery one of soe much as perteyneth both to the common obligation of Christian Dewty and of his owne particular state and vocation For the rest it is not necessary for any one in particular to know all but it sufficeth that he haue a minde soe praepared that when he shall vnderstand more to be needfull he be ready to embrace it Which a man would thinke were but reason And for this disposition and praeparation of minde wherein the essence of implicite faith consisteth it is alike both in the learned and vnlearned The want whereof in Protestants is the very reason why they haue noe true faith at all euen in the beleefe of those mysteries which they beleeue for by this it plainely appeareth that euen in those things which they beleeue they haue noe reguard to any authority by which they are propounded vnto them but onely because they thinke good themselues and although they should beleeue all things which Catholiques beleeue but not for the reason which they beleeue but because they please themselues yet were not this faith and soe it is much better to beleeue a few things expresly with a resolution to beleeue whatsoeuer els shal be propounded by the Catholique Church then to beleeue a great many more with out this minde For that former is diuine faith this later onely humane selfe opinion and iudgment 21. Neither is there any cause why this Knight should soe cry out against implicite faith obtruded as he saith vpon the ignorant for it is not obtruded vpon any man but rather we desire with Saint Paul that all may bee replenished which the Knowledge of God and heauenly things but euery body knoweth that all men are not of capacity and vnderstanding alike And for such as are not able to attaine higher wee say it is sufficient for them to know somme few things and for the rest to beleeue as others in the Catholique Church beleeue Doth not S. Paul speake Wisedome among the perfect that is teach them the greater and higher mysteries of faith and yet to others hee giues onely milke 1. Cor. 2. that is the more easy Mysteries of faith not meate for saith he You were not yet able Were it not pretty if euery simple man should onely beleeue soe much as his owne vnderstanding reacheth vnto and for that which it cannot reach to deny it were not this a notable point of pride and yet this is that which the Knight would haue euery man to doe and derideth vs Catholiques because we will not haue Men soe to doe but with humility to beleeue what they doe not vnderstand
the doctrine of iustification and doctrine of merits as they are deliuered in the Councel of Trent euery Catholique is bound to giue his life as occasion is offered For adoration of images whereas he asketh whether any of these 33. were canonized for it it is an idle question for men are canonized not for matters of beleife onely but for practize of Faith Hope Charity and all vertues together which belong to an holy and Christian life in general and to their owne particular State and vocation and though there be noe special mention of any of those 33. their adoration of images yet defined which before was not and which then men were not soe certaine of nor soe bound to beleiue as after soe consequently men might be lesse bound to suffer death for it then then afterwards and yet be of the same faith with those that came after Soe long as they acknowledged the same Church and liued in the vnity thereof acknowledged the same power and authority to determine matters of faith as it is certaine those ancient Martyrs did as appeareth both by their owne writings yet extant and their deeds recorded by other men in good authentical history These holy Martyrs therefore are truely ours which if this Knight will disproue he must shew which of them did teach otherwise that is against that vhich we now beleiue Which till he can doe we shall still be in possession of our Martyrs and of their faith our faith testifying that wee are their Children and their bloud giuing testimony to the truth of our faith Of the 17. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 17. Our aduersaries coÌ„mon obiection drawne from the charitable opinion of Protestants touching the saluation of professed Romanists liuing and dying in their Church answeared CHAPTER XVII 1. THis section is nothing but a little of the Knight's owne natural language and therefore will soone be answeared He beginneth with a saying of Costerus that a man dying a Lutheran cannot be saued Wherevpon he falleth in to a great rage against the Roman Church and telleth vs there is a Woman a Church a Citty which reigneth ouer the Kings of the earth and hath multitudes of nations at her Command but he thanks God his Church is not such an one Neither doe Protestans as he saith account Vniuersality of nations and people to be a marke of their Church and from thence he falleth to reckon vpp diuers particular points of his Churches doctrine as disclayming of merits Communion in both Kindes reading of Scriptures and bringing a place of Scriptures for each of these he asketh very rhetorically after euery one whether they be accursed for holding them and on the other side asketh whether we can be blessed that forbid marriage meates that haue prayer in an vnknowne tongue adore images adore Saints adore the elements of bread and wine wee that add traditions to the Scriptures and detract from God's commandments and Christ's institution in the Sacrament Which discourse of his being soe foolish as it is a man may thinke it folly for mee to stand answearing particularly therefore I answeare briefly and in general first that though it take vpp half his section yet it is wholy from his purpose which he pretends by the title of his chapter which is to answeare our obiection Secondly I answeare that for those things which he obiecteth vnto vs they are all answeared before and proued some false for the things wherewith he chargeth vs all absurd if we consider the proofs of Scripture which he bringeth for example he telleth vs we forbid marriage and meats both which are most grosly false For how many Catholiques be there in England men and women married and what meate is there that Catholiques are forbidden to eate in dew tyme and season is it all one to forbid marriage to some men to wit such as haue voluntarily promised the contrary and some meates at some tymes all one I say as to forbid marriage and meates neither marriage nor meats being forbidden in these cases as ill in themselues in which sense onely Saint Paul termeth it the doctrine of Diuels but for higher ends But to make him yet a little more capable of this answeare I will vrge him with one ordinary instance which is this I presume his Father had some apprentice bound not to marry during his apprenticeship I would then know of him whither his father in that case did forbid marriage and teach the doctrine of Diuels 2. Against prayer in an vnknowne tongue he saith it is written with men of other tongues and other lipps will I speake vnto this people and soe they shall not heare mee and in the margent saith it was a curse at the building of Babel for them that vnderstand not what was spoken But by this alleadging of Scripture a man may see what a good thing it is to haue it in the vulgar tongue for euery man to read and abuse it at his pleasure when such a right learned man as this Knight doth soe strangely apply it He would make men beleiue Esay the Prophet spoke against Latine in this place but the man is quite wide of his marke but it is enough for him that there is mention of a strange tongue there for as for the sense he careth not or rather his reading reacheth not to the meaning of the place which is but this that whereas the people laughed at the Prophets that came to them with commands from God repeating their words scoffingly manda remanda Isa 28.11 expecta reexpecta c. God sendeth them word by the Prophet that because they would not heare those words nor follow the good counsel which he gaue he would speake another word vnto them that they should fall be catched crushed and carried into captiuity and there heare a language which they did not vnderstand this is the plaine and literal sense of the Prophet S. Paul indeede vseth it in another sense to perswade the Corinthians that prophecy is to be preferred before tongues because as he saith the guift of tongues is a signe for infidels that is to speake to infidels for their conuersion but prophecy that is exhortation or interpretation is for the faithful or those that beleiue already Wherein I would know according to either explication what any man can find against prayer in the Latine tongue and for the tower of Babel the Knight surely speaketh by contraries For whereas at Babel men fell from vnity of language to speake euery man a seueral language Soe as noe one man vnderstood one another by that meanes they were all dispersed into seueral nations the Catholique Church doth quite contrary drawing seueral nations to vnity of language making all to speake one and the sâ—me tongue Whereas haeretiques in seueral places by vse of other languages vnderstand not one the other and therein most perfectly resemble the Babel-builders as well in the very diuersity of tongues as in the diuersity of
by your example in his false beleife I shall not much reguard it or any thing els which you shall say in that kind for your deeds giue mee assurance of deepe malice and peruersnes soe grounded in your hart as that they hinder you from beholding the light of truth for which cause I cannot but reckon you in the number of them of whom S. Paul lamentingly saith 2. Cor. 4.3 Quod si opertum est euangelium nostrum in ijs qui pereunt est opertum in quibus Deus huius saeculi excoecauit mentes infidelium vt non fulgeat illis illuminatio euangelij If our Ghospel be couered or hidd in them that perish it is hidd in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of the vnfaithfull that the light of the Ghospel may not shine vnto them For otherwise how were it possible that in such great aboundance of Catholique authors now in this age prouing the verity of the Catholique faith some by way of controuersy some by way of history others by way of chronology others by way of authority others by way of schoole diuinity you should come to aske for one in euery age what is Gualterus his whole chronology but to proue twelue verityes now adayes most controuerted by the testimonyes of Fathers and Doctours in euery age Doth not Genebrard in his chronology at the end of euery 100. yeares note the antiquity of the Catholique beleife in most of all these points citinge the places where the Fathers and Doctours their testimonyes and proofes are to bee found 14. But you say they were not taught de fide as points of Faith what is that to say that they were neuer defined all in any general Councel I grant you that but what then must they not therefore belong to Faith how many points be there that were neuer soe defined will it not serue your turne that they were commonly beleeued without contradiction of any as all these were or if some one Doctour should bee singular in his opinion yet soe as to be ready to submit his iudgment to the definition of the church what would this hinder nay would it not much helpe to proue the continual Visibility supereminent authority of the Church which is the question now betweene vs but of this more afterwards Now for our Doctours whom you will confesse to be mistaken in witnessing the antiquity of your doctrine I wil say nothing heere but in dew place wil shew how notoriously you falsifye some impertinently alleadge others and eyther very maliciously or very ignorantly bring condemned knowne Haeretiques against vs for authors of our owne 15. In which reguard I cannot but admire to heare you soe hypocritically to conclude your Epistle saying that though by the prouocation of a Iesuit you haue putt your sickle into another man's haruest yet you witnesse a true confession before God and Man that you haue neither wilfully not wittingly falsified any one author eyther in citation or translation in this treatise What execrable periury this is I shall after demonstrate Prius vos ostendens fabricatores mendacij First shewing you to be framers of lyes as I may say to you Sir Humphrey with soe much more reason then Iob did to his freinds by how much they did vrge him not with any false doctrines but onely mis-applied truths Whereas you offend in all kind of falshood For euen where you happ to cite a place truely for soe much as pertaineth to the words you doe it soe cleane kam from the authors meaning and discourse that euery man may see how euidently false and consequently how iniurious both to God and Man that profession of yours is wherein you call them to witnesse your truth honesty in the citing of authors 16. And therefore whereas you seeme to attribute the slipps if there be any to your owne weakenesse which you are content ingenuously to confesse if they be shewed you moderately plainely and faithfully I must deale freely with you Sir Humphrey and tell you that indeede I take your weaknesse or ignorance to be noe whit lesse if not more then you seeme to acknowledge both by what I find in this treatise by what I heare from some that know you well and verily thinke you scarse skill euen of ordinary Latin much lesse of such other Learning as is needfull for writing books of this nature Wherevpon they conclude this booke to be none of yours but some Ministers who hath borrowed your name and title to countenance his worke withall and that you being somewhat greedy of glory were content to lend it not considering that by soe doing that is by fathering such a booke you are to vndergoe all the reprehension and shame which shall ensew vpon the discouery of the author's ignorance and weaknesse whosoeuer he be But because this is but a probable coniecture I will not build vpon it but taking you for author seeing it beareth your name I shall discouere not onely your great weaknes and ignorance which you acknowledge but greater obstinacy and malice soe as thereby it may plainely appeare that your faults are not soe much to be termed slipps of ignorance or weaknes as slowes of malice of purpose to plunge your Reader and make him sticke fast in some myre of mis-beleife and infidelity with your selfe 17. Which obstinacy and malice to be the true cause of all your errours whatsoeuer you may pretend to the contrary doth yet farther appeare in that hauing receiued a foile or two and together with them good admonitiōs A plea for the reall praesence by I. O. A defence of the appendix by L.D. you neither take notice of the one in your writings nor shew the fruit of the other in your manners And therefore for the answeare which hath beene hitherto differred because noe man of learning could thinke it worth his paines to make you any and should still haue beene differred were it not more for other men's sakes then your owne you are to expect it as you desire faithfull and plaine and though it must of necessity bee a little round sometymes yet I hope to any indifferent man it will also seeme moderate that is much within the compasse of your deserts 18. Now lastly whereas you craue a fauourable acceptance of these your beginnings promising vs some farther fruits of your labours if you remember your self well these are not your first fruits for you translated and published heeretofore with a preface of your owne a certaine treatise of one Iohn Bertram an ancient obscure author whereby you haue giuen to the world sufficient triall as well of your talent in translating as of your ignorance and corruption whereof you were most plainely conuinced in a particular treatise of that matter called A PLEA FOR THE REALL PRESENCE BY I. O. Whereto you neuer hauing replyed one word for clearing your self of soe foule a tax it is wonder you could thinke of publishing any farther fruits of your
soe long as they haue sufficient ground to beleeue it which neuer wanteth in the Catholique Church and out of it is euer wanting By this any man may see whether this distinction of explicite and implicite faith doe not stand with very great reason and consequently whether the Knight who laugheth thereat doe not shew himself most worthy of laughter 22. Especially if wee adde withall that it is not soe much this implicite faith that hee speaketh against as diuine faith in generall for that he counteth implicite faith when a man is bound by a blind kind of Obedience as he calleth it to submitt his iudgment to the Catholique Church which is the true property of diuine faith and that is it which he countes simplicity and calleth it implicite faith to beleiue that whereof we vnderstand not the reason but heerein he destroyeth the very nature of faith expressely contradicting S. Paul's definition thereof which is this Hebr 11.1 Faith is the substance of things to bee hoped for an argument of things not appearing and S. Aug plainely saith that is faith to beleeue that which thou dost not see and S. Greg. addeth Greg. ho. 36. in Euang. that faith hath noe meritt where humane reason giueth experiēce Soe as for a man to speake against this kind of implicite is plaine infidelity and therefore I shall say noe more of it but onely supposing it as a most certaine and commonly receiued principle of the Fathers and point of absolutely necessary Christian humility for a man soe to submitt his iudgment in what hee vnderstandeth not I shall conclude with a word of Vincent Lerinensis wishing such men as haue suffered themselues out of praesumption to bee carried away with some nouell opinions out of the Catholique Church to returne therevnto by this humility of implicite faith in these words Dediscant bene quod didicerunt non bene cap. 25. ex toto ecclesiae dogmate quod intellectu capi potest capiant quod non potest credant Let them vnlearne well that which they haue learnt not well and out of the whole doctrine of the Church Lett them cōceiue what can bee conceiued what cannot let them beleeue Which authority alone is sufficient to warrant our distinction of explicite and implicite faith against all Sir Humphrey's scornefull laughter Chap. 2. And soe hauing noted thus much in this place by occasion of his praeambles I come now to the examination of his sections Whether the Church of Rome bee with out cause bitter against the reformed Churches as the knight affirmeth CHAPTER II. 1. THe Knight's first section is to proue that the Church of Rome is without cause bitter against the reformed Churches That she is bitter he proueth because wee stile him and his not onely by the common name of Haeretiques but also by other special reproachfull epithites pertayning to the seuerall Sects of Zuinglius Luther Caluin c. Secondly because we accurse and excommunicate them and will not let them liue with vs whereas wee admitt Iewes and Infidels That all this is without cause he proueth first by an authority of Theodoret which speakes of a contention betweene two factions in the Church of Antioch and the reason to allay it because saith Theodoret both parts make one and the same confession of their faith for both maintaine the Creede of the Nicene Councel Secondly by the authority of Bellarmine whom hee maketh to say that the Apostles neuer propounded as common articles of faith other things then the articles of the Apostles Creede the ten commandements and some few of the Sacraments because these things are simply necessary and profitable for all men the rest are such as a man may bee saued without them Thirdly he maketh it an vndeniable truth that the reformed Church and the Romane are two Sisters and that the Romane Church fayling and becoming an Harlott it was well done of his Church to seperate her self least she might bee partaker of her plagues And soe goeth on inueighing bitterly against the Romane Church to the very end of the Section whereof this is the whole substance which I haue brought into this methode the better to answeare it 2. That wee Catholiques stile the Knight and his Reformers by the common name of Haeretiques wee deny not that some particular Catholique authors stile some of them that is the Zuinglians Lutherans and others by other reproachfull names wee also deny not But why this Knight should complaine as if he were iniured in all the seuerall names that are giuen to the seuerall sects of Haeretiques I see not vnlesse it soe bee that hee be of all their seuerall religions which yet I see not how hee can bee they being soe many and soe contrary among themselues But be he of one or other or more and lett him but goe into Germany and professe himself a Caluinist or a Zuinglian hee shall finde soe good entertaynment and such gentle termes at the Lutheran's hands as I dare boldly say he will neuer complaine more of the bitternes of Catholiques against him and his Brethren For the word Haeretique which is the worst of all other as contayning all in it self he cannot but know that it hath euer gone with such as haue held new particular doctrines different from the common doctrine of the Catholique Church and therefore the word according to the etymology is noe word of contumely but a word signifying the nature of the thing and it is onely growne by custome to bee contumelious because the thing it self to wit haeresie is the most detestable thing in the world If then the thing ot crime of haeresie pertaine to à man and that hee be notoriously guilty thereof I see not what great bitternes it is to giue him the name of Haeretique If I would I could vrge his bitternes much more in the same kind and in this very section as for example where hee calleth the Catholique Church an harlott the whore of Babylon the Pope Anti-Christ Catholiques Idolaters and a great deale more But I lett all that passe making onely this answeare that wee doe nothing in this matter of names which seemeth to him soe great a point of bitternes but what we can warrant by very good authority and example euen of scripture Act. 13.11 2. Cor. 11.15 S. Paul called that enemy of faith Elymas the Magician Sonne of the Diuell Enemy of all iustice and false Apostles in general that is Haeretiques he calleth the Ministers of Sathan In an other place Philip. 3.2 1. Io. 2.18 Ep. Iud. he calleth Haeretiques by the name of Doggs S. Iohn calleth them Antichrists S. Iude is most vehemēt against them giuing them many bitter epithetes and comparing them to Cain to Balaam to Core Our Sauiour himself said of one of his Disciples that hee was a Diuell Ioan. 6. which hee meant of Iudas who is ordinarily and worthily ranked among Haeretiques Which considered Sir Humphrey you should neuer
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
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
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
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
haue stood complayning of the word but freed your selfe of the matter and all had beene well 3. For that other point of bitternes that wee accurse and excommunicate you and spare Iewes and Infidells accusing vs therein of great cruelty and bitternes You should haue remembred S. Paul's authority and example Doth not he excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian and deliuer him to the Diuel and yet spare Iewes and Infidels He doth and giues the reason why he spareth them to wit because he hath noe authority ouer them Quid mihi de ijs qui foris sunt iudicare 1. Cor. 5.12 what haue I to doe to iudge those that are without that is out of my iurisdiction but because you Sir Humphrey shall not likewise say that by priuiledge of your haeresie you likewise exempt your selfe 1. Timoth. I. 20. you may remember how S. Paul in an other place deliuereth Alexander and Hymecraeus Haeretiques to Satan Which yet you cannott call bitternesse but iust seuerity vnlesse you will also take vpon you to condemne S. Paul of cruelty and bitternes which I presume you will not If then you and your fellow Ministers bee Haeretiques as they were why should you deny to vndergoe the same Doome Cleare your self of the haeresie but complaine not of the curse and excommunication it is and hath euer beene the iust censure of the Church against Haeretiques Schismatiques and all enormous and contumacious sinners wee must not alter Lawes for you Sir HuÌ„phrey though you alter faith at your pleasure 4. Now then lett vs see whether there bee cause for the seuerity which the Catholique Church doth vse by calling our Reformers Haeretiques and denouncing them subiect to Anathema Sir Humphrey's first reason to the coÌ„trary is out of Theodoret's history but that maketh nothing for him but rather quite contrary and withall giueth a tast in the very beginning how truely aÌ„d conformably to their minds he alleadgeth authors Theodoret speaketh of a schisme diuision or dissension which long troubled the Church of Antioch about their Bishop some taking one to bee their lawfull Bishop and communicating onely with him and such as held with him Others in like sort with the other Which contention dured not onely during one Bishop's life but more each side choosing a new one in place of their Bishop deceased his words are these speaking of some Bishops who gathering together said that the Churches were to be brought to concord Nam constabat c. For it was plaine Lib. 3. cap. 4 that they were not onely impugned by the fauourers of contrary doctrine but also that they were pulled insunder by mutual dissention among themselues For at Antioch the body of the Church which followed sound Doctrine was diuided into two parts for all who standing for the excellent man Eustathius had separated themselues did perpetually make their meeting a part and they which stood for that admirable man Meletius separated from the Arian faction did celebrate the holy Mysteries in Palaea Soe the place was called and yet was the confession of faith of both one and other the same For both companies did defend the doctrine of faith caught in tâ—e Councel of Nice the contention being onely of an other matter and out of the loue which they did beare to their Bishops neither could the death of the one take away the discord These and Theodorets owne words which are inough to shew the case to be cleane different there the contention was not for matter of faith or doctrine heere it is there the Catholiques of both sides though at variance among themselues for other matters yet in reguard of faith they would haue nothing to doe with Arrians Soe it is now with vs Catholiques though there may be contentions for other matters as for Superiority extent of iurisdiction priuiledges exemptions or the like yet all ioyntly detest all haereticall doctrine There indeede both sides embraced the Nicene Creede which was the onely point in controuersy at that tyme which now our Reformers professe to beleeue but they differ in the profession of faith of the Councel of Trent whereof the reason is the same now as it was then of the Creede of Nice For that was against the haeresies of those tymes and this against the haeresies of these If then the knight find Catholiques disagreeing among themselues about other matters yet agreeing in the profession of faith of the Councel of Trent he may alleadge this authority of Theodoret to allay the coÌ„tention But for the matter betweene him and vs it is wholly impertinent and out of season and a wrong to Theodoret himself to haue his authority alleadged for perswading of concord with Haeretiques without their renouncing of their haeresies 5. But a man may well haue patience to see this author's meaning abused when hee shall see both Bellarmines meaning abused and his words corrupted as I shall now shew His words out of himselfe are these Lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. It is to bee noted first that in the Christian Doctrine as well of faith as manners there bee some things simply necessary to Saluation for all men as the knowledge of the articles of the Apostles Creede the ten Commandments and some Sacraments Other things are not soe necessary as that without the explicite knowledge beleefe and profession of them a man may not bee saued soe hee haue a ready will to receiue and beleeue theÌ„ when they shal bee laufully propounded vnto him by the Church Thus Bellarmine in one place and in another a little after againe hee saith Note secondly that the Apostles did preach to all those things which were necessary for all but of other things not all to all but some to all and some onely to Praelats Bishops and Priests Soe Bellarmine By which any man may see how falsely and cunningly the knighs hath dealt in citing this authority For I would know of him where Bellarmine saith that the Apostles neuer propounded as common articles of faith other things then the articles of the Apostles Creede the ten commandments and some few Sacraments to begin first with the last word where doth Bellarmine say some few Sacraments he saith some Sacraments indeede but few he saith not Which though it bee not much yet I cannot thinke but Sir Humphrey had a meaning in it to make Bellarmine symbolize with him in his paucity of Sacraments Secondly where doth Bellarmine say that the Apostles propounded the ten commandments and some Sacraments as articles of faith where finde you that Sir Humphrey Doe not you make more articles of faith now then euer any man did before The ten commandments are indeede to bee beleeued but yet are they not soe much matter of beleefe as practize not soe much pertayning to faith as to charity towards God and our Neighbour and this Bellarmine saw very well when he said that in the Christia doctrine as wll of faith as maners somethings were necessary to saluatioÌ„ for
all men As the articles of the Apostle's Creede and the ten cōmandements and some Sacraments For the Creede belongeth to faith the commandements and Sacraments to manners For Bellarmine speaketh heere not onely what is necessary for all men to beleeue but what is necessary for all men to doe for obtayning of saluation according to that commission of our Sauiour to his Apostles Goe teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue whatsoeuer I haue commanded you 6. I doe not say that wee are not to beleeue these things also for we cannot practise them vnlesse we know them and some we cannot know otherwise then by faith The commādements indeede are principles of reason drawne euen from the very light of nature though taught by diuine authority but the Sacraments are taught onely by faith yet soe as they are ordayned principally for practise noe lesse then the Commaundements and therefore not articles of faith but sufficiently contayned in the article of the Catholique Church for without Sacraments there can bee noe Church Thirdly where doth Bellarmine say that the Apostles neuer propounded for common articles of faith other then the things mentioned I doe not finde it but rather the contrary For besides these things which he saith were simply necessary for all and without which men of discretion were not to bee admitted to Baptisme he saith that For those other things which were not simply necessary that is without the expresse knowledge whereof they that is men of yeares might be admitted to Baptisme and saued the Apostles did preach many other things some of them to all to wit those things which were profitable for all and some againe onely to some as to Praelats Bishop's and Priests And heere alsoe Sir Humphrey yow cunningly ioyne these two things in one things simply necessary and profitable as if both were meant onely of one kind of things whereas the Cardinal doth distinguish the one from the other Which though it bee but a lesse matter yet it sheweth your corrupt minde that can relate nothing sincerely Fourthly whereas Bellarmine saith that these things by you named are simply necessary he saith with all that there bee other things not soe necessary as that without the explicite knowledge and profession of them a man may not bee saued soe hee haue a ready will to receiue and beleeue them when they shal be lawfully propounded vnto him by the Church You were pleased to leaue out the word explicite in the former part of the sentence and with it alsoe to leaue out the whole later part Bellarmine requiring an explicite faith of same things and an implicite faith of other that is a readines of will to receiue beleeue thē whē they shal be propoūded by the Church which kind of faith though you like not as being the thing that maketh a Catholique yet you should haue let it stād among Bellarmines words you haue the liberty to confute him if you can but not to put in or out what you list 7. Besides these foure corruptions of Bellarmine by putting in some words of your owne ād leauing out some of his I might tax you with corrupting his meaning for your owne purpose For by saying that the explicite beleefe of these things is necessary for all he doth not meane as you would haue him that it was free for any man to choose whether hee will beleiue any thing els of those which the Apostles preached for that were most false Neither is it his meaning though he say those things be necessary that therefore they alone are sufficient for all men and that noe man is bound to know or beleeue explicitely also any thing more For without question those things which the Apostles taught to Praelats Bishops ād Priests were to be beleeued by thē explicitely Wherefore the beleife of the Apostles Creede the ten comandments and some few Sacraments is not sufficiēt for your Ministers who pretend to be Bishops and Priests but they are bound to know and beleeue more How then will you make the beleife of those necessary things sufficient to make cōcord and vnity in faith seing some men are bound to beleeue more euē explicitely and all men bound to beleeue whatsoeuer the Catholique Church shall propound implicitely and consequently not to deny any thing els soe propounded For not onely the deniall of those but of whatsoeuer els preached by the Apostles or Church is enough to make a mā an Haeretiq Thus therefore you haue egregiously abused both Bellarmines words and meaning and consequently not proued your intent that because you retaine the Apostles Creede which you call the general cognizance of our faith therefore there is noe cause to ranke you with Haeretiques For this Cognizance was not sufficient for an Arrian with out the explication thereof in the Nicene Creede as may bee gathered out of Theodoret before cited and soe may I now say it is not sufficient to distinguish a Catholique from a Lutheran Caluinist Protestant or other Haeretique of these tymes without the explication of the Trent profession of Faith For this is now the touchstone to try who beleeueth the Apostles Creede in deede and who in words onely And this your self must confesse who terme some Sects Haeretiques and vs Catholiques Idolaters nowithstanding we and they professe the Apostles Creede which you call the cognizance of our faith 8. Now to that which you say that the Romane Church and yours are Sisters and that the Romane playing the harlott yours went out of her I answeare that this is soe farre from clearing you from the note of haeresy that it doth rather make you more guilty thereof Your Church indeede cometh out of ours as all haeretical sects haue euer come out of the Catholique Church For soe saith S. Iohn of Haeretiques ex nobis prodierunt sed non erant ex nobis nam si fuissent ex nobis permansissent vtique nobiscum sed vt manifesti sint quoniam non sunt omnes ex nobis 1. Io. 2.19 They went out of vs but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would verily haue staid with vs but that they may bee manifest that they are not all of vs And among other marks of Haeretiques S. Iude alsoe reckoneth this Ep. Iud. 19. Hi sunt qui segregant semetipsos these are they that separate themselues S. Paul saith to the Ephesians that out of themselues some should rise speaking peruerse things Actor 20. that they might draw Disciples after them S. Aug. explicateth that place of the Psalme 30 Qui videbant me foras fugerunt a me Aug. in Ps 30. They that saw mee fled forth from mee to bee meant of Haeretiques because when they saw what the Church was they went Forth and made haeresies and schismes against it and euery where vrgeth this and nothing more then this against the
first made her visible which is that we desire And soe Sir you haue spunne a faire threed You would faine make your Church visible before Luther and you make it inuisible you looke well about you meane while Now that which you say next of taking away the 3. Creeds which you professe two Sacraments 4. Councels and 22. booke of Scripture without which our Church would bee a poore senselesse carcasse is most foolish for who doth speake of taking them away who doth say they are yours you will not say your selfe but you had them from vs What then doe you talke of taking them away and whereas you are bold to say that wee now stile them chaffe and new haeresies it is to shamelesse an vntruth for any man to tell but your selfe and therefore deserueth noe other answeare but that it is SIR HVMPHREY LIND'S you vnderstand my meaning Sir 21. One little thing more there is in this Section which is that whereas some of ours haue termed your religion negatiue in reguard it consisteth most in denyall of such things as we teach as they may well call it you would retort that terme vpon vs because wee deny many things which you affirme But this is not a matter of any moment For they who call your religion negatiue doe not meane that you doe not teach any positiue erroneous point but that most of your doctrine I meane that which is properly yours not taken from vs is negatiue and euen those affirmatiue propositions which you teach if you teach any are but contradictions of other things which we teach are not or may not be done In which respect they may be also called negatiue But for ours it is nothing soe for it consisteth of positiue points deliuered not by way of opposition or denyal for it was before all haeresy though it is true that it hath many negatiue propositioÌ„s and praecepts Besides out of euery positiue point a man may inferre the contrary negatiue Which yet maketh not that a negatiue as you doe in some of those propositions which you alleadge for example you make this a negatiue point that we deny the substaÌ„ce of bread to remaine after coÌ„secration whereas that is onely a negatiue inferred out of this positiue that the substance of the bread and wine is chaÌ„ged into the body and bloud of our Blessed Sauiour which is our doctrine euer was before any haeresy arose but an haeresy arising to the contrary as that the substance of bread remaineth after consecration the Church out of that positiue point deduceth this negatiue that the substance of breade doth not remaine for destruction of that haeresy But of this there is enough and of this whole SectioÌ„ wherein the Gentle Reader may see whether you Sir knight doe not deserue the name and punishment of an Haeretique by your owne Doome not hauing proued either the antiquity or vniuersality or certainty or safety of your Protestant faith out of any author of ours or euen of your owne or any shew of reasoÌ„ or said any thing to the purpose though you haue taken more liberty to abuse those three authors which you alleadge vtter such grosse falsityes then I doe not say honesty but eueÌ„ shame would giue a man leaue but which is most to bee wondered you haue laboured to proue the visibility of your Church by such similitudes as proue the contrary Which is not any praise of goodnes for you intended it not but an argument of the necessity whereto you were driuen by the badnes of your cause and a dispraise of your iudgment in that you see not what you say Of the 9. Section The title whereof is this The testimonyes of our Aduersaries touching the Protestant and the Romane faith in the particular CHAPTER IX 1. OVR Knight hauing promised to proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his faith and nouelty of ours in generall by the testimony of our owne authors Church and performed it brauely forsooth as hath beene shewed in the former chapter he professeth now in this ninth Section Chap. 9. to proue the same in like sort out of our authors in diuers particular points as iustification by faith onely the Sacrament of the Supper and Doctrine of transubstantiation Priuate Masse c. treating euery one heere ex professo and seuerally in distinct paragraphes whose methode I shall also follow in answearing of him §. 1. Of Iustification by faith onely examined 1. This point of his Protestant iustification by faith onely the Knight proueth as hee saith out of a booke published in Anselmes tyme which is called Ordo baptizandi visitandi c. Of which he citeth two or three seueral editions to fill vpp the margents with quotations and to authorize the booke more he telleth vs that Cassander saith it is obuious euery where in libraries Out of this booke he citeth a whole page and a halfe which I list not heere stand writeing out but onely I will take the worst word in it all that is which may seeme to make most against vs and for the Knight which is this the Priest is appointed to aske the sicke man whether he beleeue to come to glory not by his owne merits but by the merits of Christ's passion and that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his Passion to which the sicke man was to answeare I beleeue Wherevpon the Priest gaue him councell to putt his confidence in noe other thing This is the vtmost he can say out of this booke and what is all this to the purpose For first the knight doth not shew vs any authority for this booke or that S. Anselme had any thing to doe with it nor telleth vs of any ancient edition before the yeare 1556. but onely a mention thereof by Cassâ—â—der a classical author indeede and of the first classe in the index librorum prohibitorum in an appendix alsoe to a forbidden booke falsely called Io. Roffensis de fiducia misericordia Dei then which hee could haue said nothing more to disgrace it 2. Besides he telleth vs that the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition willeth those words of comfort as he calleth them spoken by the Priest to be blotted out which were answeare enough seing the knight is to bring vs authority which we may not except against as I told him in the first Chapter And this very alleadging of the Index expurgatorius is a manifest proofe that it is sett out and corrupted by Haeretiques in fauour of their owne doctrine De corrâ—ct lib. §. 3. 4 For otherwise the Inquisitors can not meddle with it or any other author sett out before the yeare 1515. to change or blott out any thing therein but onely where a manifest error is crept in by fraude of Haeretiques or carelesnes of the Printer Thirdly and principally I answeare that there is nothing in this that doth not stand very well being
translate them But because your intent in this place is to proue out of this Doctor that the consecration is performed not by the words of Christ but by his blessing for els I see not what you should ayme at I will bring you a place out of himselfe expressely to the contrary which is this Tolle verba Christi non fiunt Sacramenta Christi Odo Cam. exp in can Miss dist 3. Vis fieri corpus sanguinem appone Christi sermonem Take away the words of Christ and take away the Sacraments of Christ Wilt thou haue the Body and bloud of Christ made put thereto the word of Christ In which words he sheweth that all the Sacraments of Christ are performed by words soe as without words they are not Sacraments as the Catholique Church teacheth And in particular that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the worde of Christ is that whereby the bread and wine is changed in to his body Of which change and matter he speaketh most plainely a little before in this manner In specie panis vini manducamus bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis sanguinis subijsdem qualitatibus mutata substantia vt sub figura sapore prioris substantiae facta sit vera substantia Christi corporis sanguinis In shew of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of the body and bloud vnder the same qualities the substance being changed that vnder the shape and tast of the former substance the true substance of Christ's body and bloud bee made Which words are no lesse euident for proofe of the reality of Christ's presence and change of the bread and wine into his Body and Bloud or transubstantiation then the other are for proofe that the change is made by force of the words Which declare what his meaning is in those words which you alleadge for the blessing as if that did cause this change For he as many other Fathers and Doctours call the very forme of consecration a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for soe holy an end and because they produce soe noble an effect or because they are ioyned alwayes with that benediction and thanks-giuing vsed both by your B. Sauiour in the institution of this holy Sacrament and now by the Priests in the Catholique Church in the consecration of the same You haue then Sir Humphrey gotten as little by Odo as by any of the rest 20. But after all these authors you putt one in the rere who must make amends for all that the rest haue failed you in and that is one Christophorus de Capite fontium Arch Bishop of Caesarea in his booke de correctione theologiae Who indeede speaketh plainely for you in behalf of the blessing against the words of consecration if you cite him truely as a man might well make doubt if the author were otherwise allowable but because he is not I doe not soe much as looke in him but remitt you to the Romane Index where you shall find his booke by you heere cited forbidden which may be answeare enough for you and euen the arrogancy of the title sheweth it to deserue noe better a place for it is entituled de necessaria correctione Theologiae scholasticae As if he alone were wiser then all others Schoolemen putt together Besides in the words cited out of him by you in this place there is a grosse historical error which euery man may perceiue at the very first sight to let passe his theologicall errours and it is in this that he saith that in that opinion of his both the Councel of Trent and all writers did agree till the late tymes of Caietan as if Caietan were since the tyme of the Councel of Trent Whereas indeed he died aboue a Dozen yeares before the first beginning thereof And withall you doe not marke how in citing this place you are against your self For whereas you make Cardinal Caietan and this Archbishop of Caesarea your two champions against the words of consecration as if they did both agree in the same heere this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him but onely Caietane Whom then shall we beleeue you Sir knight or your author 21. Now though you thought to conclude with this Christopherus a capite fontium as being a sure card yet cannot I omitt though after him to answeare heere a certaine authority which you bring before somewhat out of season out of Salmeron telling vs that he speaking in the person of the Graecians deliuereth their opinion in this manner For as much as the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine neither gaue he simply bread it followeth that when he gaue it the transmutation was already made and these words this is my body did demonstrate what was contained in the bread not what was made by them Whereto I answeare first that you mistake your termes when you call this an Opinion which is an errour of the Graecians Secondly I might answeare that this is not Salmeron's authority whom you seeme to cite but doe not indeed you citing onely for authour a french Huguenot called Daniel Chamier who also citeth those words out of Salmeron but without any the least mention of the place where they may be found Soe as Salmeron's works making 7. or 8. good volumes to looke for such a place as this without any light or direction is almost as good as to looke for a needle in a bottle of hay Yet I did looke in that part of his workes which treateth of the B. Sacrament where I thought it most likely to find this place but found it not Which notwihstanding I will not say but it may bee there for it is true that there haue beene some Latine authors that haue held that our Sauiour himselfe did consecrate not by those words but either by other words V. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 1. seq or by the power of his owne will without any outward signe or by some outward signe other then words or by these very words twice spoken Into some of which Doctrines it is like some Graecians might fall being soe prone to erre as they haue beene these later ages V. Aund though in other authors I doe not find this errour of theirs of the benediction before the words but rather the contrary Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 3. that these words this is my body wherewith Christ did consecrate are not now sufficient to consecrate without certaine prayers coming after in the Canon of the Masse appointed by the Church But of this it maketh not much matter and it may be some of them soe thinke and therefore I answeare thirdly for Salmeron this is noe opinion by him allowed as you would seeme by your manner of citing him to insinuate but by him condemned of errour as your freind Chamier saith expresly citing to that purpose Salmeron's owne words also euen there where
therefore correct him with one of your scorneful taunts and say he vnderstood it not whereas Maldonate speaketh onely of S. Aug. his exposition of that place of Scripture which hee doth not also condēne though he bring another more agreeable as he thinketh to the true meaning of our Sauiour in that place which truely a man may doe without any such arrogancy and scoffing as you are pleased out of your ingenuity and gentlemanly breeding to fasten vpon Maldonate 28. And soe hauing cleared the matter of S. Aug. I come now to Theodoret who indeede hath a place in shew a little hard to such as want will to vnderstand him as it seemeth you doe Sir knight For it hath beene often clearely and seuerall wayes answeared by many and euen by Valencia Val. de Transub lib. 2. cap. 7. of one of whose answeares you thinke to make your aduantage but it will proue to your disaduantage For he hauing brought two or three seuerall and substātial answeares at last concludeth somewhat roundly with the Haeretiques in this māner That if noe other āsweare will serue the turne but that they will still stād wrangling it is no meruaile that one or two he meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius who both speake in the same māner might erre in this point before it was discussed Which last answeare you onely take hold of as if that were the onely answeare not taking notice of any of the rest which as in the one side it sheweth your badd dealing soe doth it on the other shew the goodnes of his solutions to be such as you could not tell what to reply against them b. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 27. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 46. sect 4. fine Bellarmine Suarez and others answeare it in like manner diuers wayes to whom therefore I remitt you onely for the Reader 's sake not to leaue him in suspence I shall heere make one plaine and briefe answeare and as I cōceiue out of the very words which you heere obiect against vs Dialog 2. which are these Neque enim signa mystica post Sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura manent enim in propria substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur For neither doe the mystical signes depart from their owne nature after the sanctificatiō for they remaine in their proper substance figure and forme they may be seene and touched as before but they are vnderstood to be that which they are made and they are beleeued and adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee These are the words of Theodoret which Sir Humphrey you partly cite by halfes and partly corrupt by mis-translation For thus you cite him onely The consecrated elements remaine in their proper substance and shape and figure leauing out all the later part of beleeuing and adoring and all words which might signify any change as there bee many As first in that he saith the mysticall signes doe not change their nature by Sanctification which why should he deny vnlesse the Sanctification did worke some change or why should he make such a special matter of that that the mystical signes that is accidents as I shall by and by shew should not change their nature vnlesse the substance whereto they did belong did change it owne nature For it were a ridiculous thing for any man to make a wonder of that that the colour figure and tast of bread should remaine the substance it self of the bread remayning but this being changed for them to remaine is a wonder which may beseeme a wise man to speake of Secondly whereas he sayth these mystical signes may be seene and touched as before you leaue that out because it plainely shewes there is some change for a thing cannot bee otherwise then it was before without some change Now the change he saith is not in the accidents themselues or in their owne nature for that remaines therefore it must necessarily be in that their subiect as Philosophers speake or substance in which they did inhere or rest is changed Thirdly Theodoret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by sanctification and which is vnderstood and adored What is this that is made heere not the accidents for they remaine the same not the substance of the bread for that was before Neither is that said to bee vnderstood or beleeued but seene and felt much lesse is it or can it bee said to bee adored All this then you leaue out Sir Humphrey we neede not aske you why for euery man seeth the reason Thus much of your mangling of this authority 29. Now to come to your mis-translation Whereas you translate Signa mystica consecrated elements I would be glad to know in what Dictionary you find Signa to signify elements and mystica to signify consecrated For though the holy Fathers many tymes vse the word mystical when they speake of the Blessed Sacrament as being a Mystery and which indeed cannot be soe without consecration yet mystical and consecrated are two seueral things and they haue seueral relations or respects and consequently seueral Significations For consecrated hath relation to the words and action of the Priest whereby it is sanctified and changed mystical hath relation to the secrecy or hiddennesse of it as farr surpassing the knowledge or comprehension of man or as being another thing then it seemeth outwardly to bee But for the word Signa I see not what colour any man can haue to translate it elements being two such different things without any connexion For elements pertaine to the very substance of a thing they being the prime principles of which any thing is made and consisteth Signum or a Signe properly pertaineth to the accidents of a thing which are the proper obiects of our senses and which doe notify or signify vnto vs the substance of the thing bringing it soe to our knowledge and euery thing is called a Signe soe farr as it is apt to cause in vs this knowledge Wherefore this is a notable cunning tricke of yours Sir Knight by changing Signes into elements to make all that Theodoret saith of the accidents of bread to bee vnderstood of the elements or substance of the bread as if that did remaine whereas he onely saith that the accidents remaine in their owne substance that is their owne entity nature or being which to them is not accidental and therefore may be termed their substance For it is plaine that accidents haue a certaine being of their owne different from that of their subiect wherein they inhere or rest And this is that nature or substance which Theodoret saith doth remaine For as for the change of the substāce of bread besides that there is enough in this very place to conuince it I could bring diuers other plaine places out of him as
General Councel as being the Parliament of Christ his Church to which he hath promised his speciall assistance But this is by the way 3. Now out of this authority which you graÌ„t to those ancient Councels I goe a little farther with you and aske what you can say more against the present Church and present Councel of Trent then against the Church of that tyme Councels of those tymes whatsoeuer you can say of the Church now that it may erre may as wel be said of the Church of that tyme. For our Sauiour's promise for the perpetuity infallibility thereof is as much for one tyme as another for our tyme now as for those then What you say now of the Councel of Trent that it is disclaymed by a great part of the ChristiaÌ„ world may be said much more of the Councel of Nice which was gaine said both by more other maÌ„ner of men then the Councel of Trent the same may bee also said of some of the rest soe forth of any thing els that you can obiect Wherefore to conclude if it were not atheisme to say then that by questioning the authority of the Nicene Decrees the authority of the whole Christian faith might bee questioned I see not why it should bee Atheisme to say the same of the Councel of Trent But you thinke it is Atheisme to deny the Scriptures alone to be sufficient For that is the sense of your inference But it is farre otherwise For all Catholiques say they are not soe and yet they beleeue that there is a God and honour and worshipp him as their God But this of the alone sufficiency of Scriptures is a seuerall matter of it selfe Onely for your place of S. Paul it is plaine you peruert it For he speaketh not of the written word but of the doctrine of Christ by him preached as is manifest by his owne very words there Which are these Act. 20.20 Vos scitis quomodo nihil subtraxerim vtilium quominus annunciarem vobis docerem vos publice per domos testificans c. You know how I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable but that I preached it vnto you and taught you openly and from howse to howse testifying to Iewes and Gentils penance towards God and faith in our Lord IESVS CHRIST For neyther had S. Paul then writteÌ„ his Epistle to the Ephesians to whom he there spoke For he wrote it out of prison from Rome and euen the second tyme of his imprisonment which was many yeares after this speach Whereas at the tyme of this speach he was but going to HierusaleÌ„ where being takeÌ„ after some tyme of imprisonmeÌ„t hee was sent to Rome And you might as wel haue aleadged those words of our Sauiour to his Disciples All that I haue heard froÌ„ my Father I haue made knowne to you Io. 15.15 As these of S. Paul and yet is well knowne our Sauiour did not deliuer any one word in writing to his Apostles Neither doth Bellarmines saying helpe you any thing for though those things which are necessary for all in generall to know which are but few be written there bee yet many more not written which are necessary to bee knowne by some in the Church though not by all Now for the curse which you are content shall light ypon you if wee shew the number of Seauen Sacraments to haue beene the beleife of the Church for a thousand yeares after Christ bee not too forward to draw malediction vpon your self it will come fast enough to your cost It is an heauier thing then you are aware of to haue the curse of a Mother and such a Mother as the Church which doth not curse without cause nor out of passion For as the Scripture saith Maledictio Matris eradicat fundamenta Eccle. 3.11 The malediction of a Mother doth roote out the foundatioÌ„s 4. Hauing thus praefaced against the authority of the Councel of Trent you come neerer to the matter giuing vs a new definition of a Sacrament to wit that it is a seale witnessing to our consciences that God's promises are true For as you say God by his word declareth his mercie and sealeth and assureth it by his Sacraments and in the word we heare his promises in the Sacraments we see them Out of which you inferre Baptisme and the Lord's Supper to bee proper Sacraments because in them the element is ioyned to the word and they take their ordinance from Christ are visible signes of an inuisible sauing grace In which words is contained another farre different definition of a Sacrament hauing noe manner of connexion or dependence vpon the former Out of which againe you inferre that the other 5. beside Baptisme and the Eucharist are noe Sacrements not CoÌ„firmation because it was not instituted by Christ not Pennance Order because they haue noe outward element not Matrimony because it was before Christ's tyme and is common to Turks and infidells neither doe you see forsoothe how it can be a holy thing and yet forbidden as it is to Priests And from this you tell vs that if the curse of the Councel take place then Woe to all the ancient Fathers of whom you name these following Ambrose Austin Chrysostome Bede Isidore Alexander of Hales Cyprian Durand and Bessarion This is your discourse 5. To which I answeare That for your formet definition it is a senselesse one without ground in any father Lib. 1. de Sâ—tâ—r in gen cap. 14. 16. or other author but onely Kemnitius and Caluin and which is largely refuted and proued most absurd by Bellarmine to whom I remit you For how can the Sacraments be seales or giue vs aâ—â—urance of his words when all the assurance wee haue of the Sacraments is his word this is idem per idem Besides what promises are these that are sealed or if they bee seales what neede we more seales or Sacraments then one or if there may bee more why not seauen as well as two Againe how doe we see the promises of God in the Sacraments when a man hath receiued the Sacrament of Baptisme what other assurance hath hee that his sinnes are forgiuen or that he is the Child of God and heyre of his kingdome then the word of God promising that vertue to the Sacrament or how can any man see by the SacrameÌ„t that he is soe these are but foolish fancies bredd in haeretical braines and soe to be contemned For your other definition it is not much better being Melancthons Vbi supra related and refuted by Bellarm. which therefore I leaue and answeare onely that which you say that two Sacraments haue the word and element and ordinance of Christ The other 5. not For Confirmation and Extreame Vnction you cannot deny the element and word to wit oile and the forme but you deny the ordinance of Christ For proofe of which and other particulars it wil be too long to stand vpon it
swarue froÌ„ the coÌ„mon beleife of the rest but still with dew submission to the Church 20. I begin then with Halensis of whom you say two things one that hee saith there are onely 4. which are in any sort properly to be called Sacraments of the new Law that the other three supposed SacrameÌ„ts had their beginning before The other thing which you say out of him is that the Sacrament of Confirmation as it is a SacrameÌ„t was not ordained by Christ or his Apostles but by the Councel of Melda This last place is cited in a different letter as the author's owne words the former not which to any man may be a sufficieÌ„t argumeÌ„t that it is but a false charge of your owne Sir Knight For where there is a word for you you putt it downe or where there is but any little shaddow that eyther by corrupting or mistranslating you can draw it towards your purpose therefore any man for this very reason may take this to bee your owne and then noe doubt but it is as true as touch For my part I haue looked in Hales in the place heere by you cited but can find noe such thing but rather the contrary for he speaking of the 7. Sacraments as other Diuines did without the least shew of doubt and putting that question whither Christ did institute them all his resolution is this Omnia profectò authoritatiue sed non omnia dispensatiue vz. institutioneÌ„ a Christo habuerunt Hal. §. 4 q 5. m 2 art 1. deinde ar 2. All indeede had their institution from Christ authentatiuely but not dispensatiuely Which is as much to say as that he did not institute them all by himselfe but that hee gaue the authority whereby some were instituted Which is cleane an other matter theÌ„ to say they are not SacrameÌ„ts it is one thing to enquire whither a thing be a Sacrament another who immediatly made it a Sacrament though you make noe differeÌ„ce For that matter whither Hales said well or noe in saying that Christ did not dispensatiuely or by himselfe institute all I shall speake now in his second place by you obiected which is of Confirmation But before I leaue this though in the place by you cited I find but as I tell you yet in another not farr of where this Dr. putteth the question precisely directly of the number of the SacrameÌ„ts I find him giue this resolution Nec plura nec pauciora quaÌ„ septeÌ„ numero Sacramenta Euangelica sunt There be neyther more nor fewer in number then seauen Euangelical Sacraments Hal. par 4. q. 5. mem 7. ar 2. Which is noe lesse cleare and plaine then true and Catholique a resolution How then can you say Sir Humphrey that Hales makes account but of fower but this is like the rest But now come to the other place of Confirmation 21. Well now to Confirmation it is true I confesse Hales is of opinion as I said before that our Sauiour did not appoint the matter forme of Confirmation but gaue the grace or effect thereof in a higher manner which he thought like wise of the Apostles that the forme matter which we now vse was appointed by the Church in the Councel of Melda which as it was an opinioÌ„ of his somewhat different from the common of his tyme soe he propounded it whith doubt and with that humility which befitteth a good Catholique to doe For thus he saith Sine praeiudicio dicendum quod Dominus neque hoc Sacramentum vt est Sacramentum instituit neque dispensauit neque Apostoli c. institutum fuit in Conc. Meldenti Hal p. 4. q. 9. m. 1. quantum ad formam verborum materiam elementarem cui etiam Spiritus sanctus contulit virtutem sanctificandi Without praeiudice I say that neyther our Lord nor his Apostles did institute or dispence this Sacrament it was instituted after in the Councel of Melda for as much as concerneth the forme of words and elementary matter whereto the Holy Ghost also gaue the force of Sanctifying This Hales saith without praeiudice that is with leaue not stifly not arrogaÌ„tly not maintayningly Sir Humphrey let vs heare but such a word from your mouth and you shall see the matter will soone be ended In this one word consisteth the difference betweene a Catholique and an Haeretique but Sir marke the matter well and you shall find Hales more against you then for you For he confesseth Confirmation a Sacrament which is against you though he thought it not instituted by Christ because he thought a Sacrament might be instituted onely by authority from Christ and it is plaine he would sooner haue denied this later then the former For he holdeth this later but doubtfully whereas he holdeth the former resolutely and without doubt Which is the thing in question properly betweene you vs. 22. The next Diuine is Hugo de S. Vict. whom you make a Cardinal out of your ignorance for because there is one Hugo a Cardinall you thinke all Hugo's are soe But it is not for any good reason either of loue to Hugo or honour to the dignity but hate of religion against which you thinke if you can bring the name of a Cardinal you may quite ouerthrow it But you are as much deceiued in this and in Hugo's doctrine as you are in his Cardinalship You say then of him that he excludeth Penance from the number of the Sacraments and admitteth holy water For both which Sir Humphrey a man may hold vpp his fingar to you and wagg it you know what I meane But your author for this your saying is Perkins in his Problemes whom you cite in the margent and he it seemes citeth Hugo whereby you may perhaps excuse your selfe but that excuse will little auaile you for euery man seeth how easy a matter it had beene for you hauing such aboundance and freedome of bookes to looke in the author himselfe but onely that you were willing either to be deceiued or to deceiue Well I haue looked for you and found Hugo to say thus Hug. Vict. in Speâ—ul de myst eccl cap. 12. Septem sunt principalia ecclesiae Sacramenta quorum qumque generalia dicuntur quia omnibus conueniunt nimirum Baptismus Confirmatio Eucharistia Paenitentia Extrema vnctio duo vero specialia nimirum Matrimonium Ordo There be Seauen principal Sacraments of the Church whereof fiue are called general because they belong to all to wit Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extreame vnction and two special to wit Matrimony and Order And because you may lesse doubt of Penance whereof for thus abusing your author and Reader you deserue noe small part he hath a particular chapter cap. 23. vbi sup wherein he calleth it as we doe with S. Hierome the second boord after shipwracke Because if any man saith Hugo endanger his clensing which he hath receiued by Baptisme he may rise and scape by Penance How
prouince or country 9. And heere it is to be noted further for answeare of your authorityes in this point Sir Humphrey that whereas some of our authors are of opinion that S. Paul in that 14. Chap. of the 1. to Corinth where he speaketh of prayers in a knowne tongue is to be vnderstood of the publique prayers of the Church that explication is contradicted by most of our other authours and there be many reasons out of the very text and circumstances against it as namely that the men which are heere reprehended for their ostentation of languages are the People not the Priests as appeareth by the whole epistle as I noted heere before § 3. n. 5. vpon another occasion as also because this pertaineth to women also who it seemeth did vse to speake among the rest which S. Paul therefore reprehendeth as an abuse and forbiddeth Thirdly S. Paul speaketh of the infidells coming in and being present at those their meetings and conferences Which therefore could not bee of the Church office and Sacrifice of the Masse to which Infidells were not admitted Wherefore it cannot be of the publique prayers of the Church which belonged onely to Priests to make publiquely for others in the Church But though it were soe and that some doe put themselues to more straits then they neede in interpreting S. Paul of publique prayers yet doth it not auaile you Sir Humphrey For euen those men giue a reason of difference why now it needeth not to wit because now as S. Thomas of Aquine saith People are sufficiently acquainted with the ecclesiastical rites and men know very well what is done by being present and seing though they doe not vnderstand the particular epistles and Ghospels which are seueral according to the Sundayes and holy dayes but the rest of the Masse being the same continually they vnderstād it sufficiently for exercise of their deuotion though not to satisfy the vaine curiosity of such people as you breed vp in the pride of an heretical spirit to beleeue nothing but what they see and contemning whatsoeuer they doe not see or vnderstand our people know sufficiently what the Priest meaneth by turning to them saying Dominus Vobiscum Oremus Orate Fratres and the like I say sufficiently to lift vpp their minds to Almyghty God to ioyne in their harts minds with the Priests in that prayer which he maketh publique for them as well as any learned Clarke that vnderstandeth the English of the words Soe as our authours by you cited helpe you not a whit in this matter 10. But now because you say this prayer in the vulgar tongue was vsed by the praecept of the Apostles and practise of the ancient Fathers I would know of you where this precept is expressed either in scripture or out of scripture in any author of credit I doe not find soe much as any shaddow of a praecept in scripture S. Paul in that epistle to the Corinthians which your men for the most part stand vpon doth not condemne that Prayer in an vnknowne tongue as you doe for he both saith it is good though he preferre the guift of Prophecy before it and also he alloweth the vse of it but wishing withall that some other should interpret it as you see the Councel of Trent wisheth Pastours and Curats to doe of the Masse and mysteries therein contained Where then is the precept commanding a knowne tongue or forbidding an vnknowne tongue and this I say supposing for disputations sake two things which are neither of them soe to wit that S. Paul there speaketh of publique prayer of the Church-office and that the Latine Greeke or Hebrew tongues are rightly called vnknowne tongues or any way comprehended vnder that appellation in S. Paul 11. Now for the practice of the Fathers which you speake of but name none I would gladly know Sir Humphrey what Father you haue whose authority or example you can bring for your selfe in this matter name him if you can We shew you Fathers and learned men of many seuerall nations and of different tymes vsing the Scriptures onely in some one of these 3. holy languages For example Italians Spaniards French German English Polish Africans and others vsing the Latine and diuers ancient Fathers of seueral countries as S. Cyprian S. August in Afrik S. Ambrose in Italy S. Prosper in France Others in other countries citing the very words which we to this day vse in our Masse Duran de ritib. lib 2. cap 31. Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. 16. as Sursum corda Habemus ad Dominum and the like whereof you may see more in our authors And yet being soe destitute of all proofe for your selfe and soe ignorant of ours which we haue in aboundance you can talke soe cōfidently of the praecept of Apostles and practize of Fathers But you will say you bring Lyra Belethus Gretzerus c. to proue what you say Whereto I answeare noe such matter for first they speake not a word of any praecept Secondly some witnesse only the practise of that tyme yet withall giuing the reason why it neede not be soe now others speake nothing that way for example Io. Belethus euen as you cite him saith onely that in the Primitiue Church noe man was to speake in tongues vnlesse some body were to interprete from whence he saith is growne our custome when the Ghospell is read to expound it which is quite against you for he acknowledgeth speaking of languages which you deny and expounding which according to you will not be needfull Others againe speake but doubtfully as S. Thomas of Aquine Dicendum forte saith hee It is to bee said that it may be that in the Primitiue Church Benedictions were vsed in the vulgar language whom yet you make to speake absolutely and certainely Thirdly though some say the prayers of the Church were vsed in a language vnderstood by the people yet noe man saith that that language was any of the ordinary vulgar languages or indeede other then Hebrew Greek or Latine Wherefore all the authors you can bring though you should bring ten for one in this manner will nothing auaile you 12. Now for your citation and translation of such authours as you bring I could find many faults but I passe them ouer onely Bellarmine I cannot lett passe because you abuse him somewhat more grosly for you bring an obiection of his out of one place and an answeare out of another there being noe connexion or correspondence betweene the answeare and obiection as you make it thus It may be obiected say you out of him that in the tyme of the Apostles all the people in diuine seruice did answeare one Amen And this custome continued long in the East and West Churches as appeare c. Which is true but nothing to the present purpose for men may answeare Amen to the publique prayers of the Church without their being in a vulgar language Neither is it the thing
We command that all the figures of the crosse that are made vpon pauements be taken away or defaced to the end that the triumphant Signe of our Victory be not vnworthily defiled by mens feete And the very title of the Imperial Law is this Nemini licere signum Saluatoris Christi humi vel in Silice vel in marmore aut insculpere aut pingere That it is not lawful for any man to paint the signe of or Sauiour vpon the groūd in flint or marble Now your leauing out the two words humi in solo vpon the ground is it not a manifest corruption both of the words and meaning of the Law but which is more this was a corruption of which Plessy Mourney was conuinced by the Bishop of Eureux in that publique assembly of France And he labouring to excuse himselfe as perhapps you will doe said that he did not looke in the law it selfe but had it out of one Petrus Crinitus whom you also cite heere for author which was shame enough for him and will bee for you also professing soe much Schollership as euen to write bookes and yet not to be able to take such an authority out of the original but borrow it of another or take it vpon trust in a matter of such moment but withall it was vrged against him that Crinitus had beene noted by diuers learned men to be but a bold and rash Gramarian of later tymes Soe as Plessys was foiled on all sides not knowing which way to turne himselfe And Suthcliffe after him againe vndertaking the defence of the same cause was worse foiled yet after all this Sir Hum. you are not ashamed to take vp this notorious corruption againe vent it to the world as if it had neuer beene excepted against but were soe authentical and good soe free from exception as nothing could bee more May not you then beare away the bell from all lying and corrupting fellowes that haue euer gone before you where is your great promise of sincerity nay where is your shame but I say noe more this is enough I suppose Now by this any man may see whither I haue not discharged my selfe of my promise and whither I may not henceforward when I take you tripping tell you you Lind it 15. Hauing then thus notoriously discouered your falshood Sir Humphrey I hope it will not be hard to persuade the Reader the same in other places heereafter which I must passe ouer more briefly for it wil be to long to stand vpon all there being not that place in the whole booke that is not either falsely or impertinently alleadged But to goe on with you you say you forbeare to cite the particular Fathers that opposed and condemned the worship of images in the Primitiue Church onely you will make it appeare by the confession of our learned Romanists that we want Visibility of the ancient Church You forbeare to cite the particular Fathers Sir Humphrey I cannot blame you there is good cause why to wit because you cannot for if you could it had beene as easy a matter to haue cited one Father or two as 8. or 10. obscure and vnknowne authours filling two whole leaues with their authorityes partly false and partly impertinent as I shall shew but what Romanists are these trow you whose confessions you bring you haue 10. authours whereof there bee onely two free from exception V. Bell. de scrip verb. Hincmarus Rhemansis to wit Agobardus and Peresius who are not against vs. Hincmarus is a Catholique indeede but that place by you cited is noted of manifest errour not in matter of Doctrine but in matter of fact which he relateth of the Councel of Francfort falsely being mistaken as our authours shew and as I shall after declare more See Exam of Fox his Calender Nicolaus Clemangis and Polydor Virgil his worke by you cited marked in the Romane Index though I shall shew you to abuse Polydore egregiously besids Clemangis himself is a Wickleffian haeretique Cassāder Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Wicelius euery man knoweth what goodly and learned Romanists they are and of what account The last of your Romanists is Chemnitius in his Examen of the Councel of Trent as good a Romanist as your selfe who telleth vs it is not to be found that any of the Patriarches and Prophets for Fathers did adore images but that the scriptures cry out to worship one God him onely to adore and glorify and that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did forbid the adoration of Images as he saith appeares by Epiphanius and Augustine who reckon the Worshippers of images among the Symonians and the Carpocratian Haeretiques Wherein you are also pleased to shew vs a tricke of your witt for in the text you put these words the Councel of Francfort in the beginning as you doe your other authours as if the text following against Images were the very words of the Councel but in the margent you putt Chemnitius which is wicked dealing to make the lesse careful Reader fall into error by taking the Haeretiques words for the words of the Councel whereas the Councel hath not one word of that that is there sett downe nor indeede at all of images all that we haue is by relation of some histories whereof 3. or 4. haue erred in the relation of a matter of fact concerning the same Councels condemning the 2. Councel of Nice as is most manifest not onely by contrary authorityes of greater weight but by the very contradiction which out of ignorance they shew in their owne narration for they say that the false Councel of Constantinople vnder Constantine and Irene was condemned at Francfort Which is manifestly false there hauing neuer beene any such Councel at Constantinople in their two tymes Binius in annot ad Conc. Francfor 794. but because this requireth a longer dispute I turne you Sir Humphrey to Binius Bell and others with them Onely heere I tell you that whereas you bring Hincmarus his authority and the Councel of Francfords out of Chemnitius Bellarmine sheweth by testimony of the same Hincmarus the Magdeburgian's Lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 14. and other your awne authors that that very Councel did say Anathema to all such as deface images is not this then abhominable falsehood in your freind Chemnitius to cite nay forge it against images in you follow him in it 16. Polydore Virgil shal be next out of whom you say Poly. Vir. de rerum inuentor lib. 6. cap. 13. The worshipping of images not onely those who knew not our religion but as S. Hierome witnesseth almost all the anciēt Fathers condemned for feare of idolatry This place was brought by Dr. White in his reply to Mr. Fisher's 9. points and soe answeared againe in the Reioynder to his reply as if you Sir Humphrey had had any reguard to Dr. Whites credit you would neuer haue giuen occasion to renew the memory thereof againe The
not in respect of the Pope Wherefore you in going to indulgence for the dead seeme to allow them for the liuing or rather shew you cannot say against them Now for applying indulgences to the dead though the manner of application be different and that we doe not find examples altogether soe ancient as of the former yet the things is in some sort the same supposing you grant the power of applying Indulgences to the liuing as you cannot deny your owne ground being laid thus therefore I shew the matter to be the same supposing another point alsoe of faith which is not heere to be disputed of to wit the communion of Saints or communication which is betweene the Saints liuing and dead either raigning in heauen or suffering in satisfaction of their sinnes in Purgatory This I say supposed the punishment which was dew heere by the poenitential canons may be taken away as you confesse which being not taken away by indulgence nor suffered heere according to the Canons must be suffered there why may it not then be taken away by applying indulgences to them there as well as by works which other men may doe for them heere on earth Which according to the Catholique faith are auaileable for them there in Purgatory Which communion or communication among themselues being grounded in the society and vnity which they haue with Christ why may not the same Vnity and society be sufficient for them to partake of the merits and satisfactions of Christ and his Saints who haue gone before and left that treasure of their merits as well as by the merits and sufferings of men liuing heere vpon earth there is noe difference then nor reason why you should grant that ancient manner of indulgence and denye ours now a dayes or why you should grant indulgences for the liuing and not for the dead soe long as they pertaine to the communion of Saints and haue neede thereof 8. Now for that which you adde heere to make our Indulgences applied to the soules in Purgatory ridiculous by saying we grant them for many thousand of yeares after death thereto citing an old Sarum booke of the howers of our Lady it is false and idle False both because your authority which you cite doth not mention Purgatory but onely saith that whosoeuer shall say these these prayers shall gaine soe many thousand yeares of pardon Which is noe more for the dead then for the liuing but onely that you doe not vnderstand the matter either of the one or other or rather they are for the liuing onely For Indulgences are not to be applyed to the dead vnlesse that be expressed in the grant which is not soe expressed in this grant of yours It is also false because the very thing which you say and would proue by your authority is false to wit that we giue Pardons for thousand of yeares in Purgatory after death For we doe not soe neyther doe we vnderstand those Pardons wherein are mentioned such numbers of yeares soe as if men were without those Pardons to remaine soe long in Purgatory But we vnderstand those yeares according to the poenitential canons by which many yeares penance were dew for one sinne And many men's sinnes being both very grieuous and a man may say without number according to the account of the ancient poenitential canons they may soone amount to thousands of yeares which though a man cannot liue to performe heere in this world nor euen in Purgatory for the length of tyme yet he may in Purgatory in few yeares space nay few moneths or few weekes space suffer soe much punishment as is answearable to all that penance of many thousands of yeares which a man should haue performed heere if he could haue liued soe long in which case a man may haue a pardon of soe many thousand yeares as well as a plenary both coming to one What strangenesse then or impossibility is therein this discourse if you did vnderstand it that you should thinke onely by a scorneful laugh to disgrace or disproue it It is also idle for you to vrge any thing that you find in any old booke as if that were presently of vncontrollable authority being nothing soe For we defend nothing but what hath sufficient approbation or allowance of the Catholique Church which many such old books as you cite want you should therefore haue added that withal if you had meant to proue any thing thereby 9. Now after this you tell vs that long before Luther's dayes by relation of Thomas Aquinas whom yet you cite not but onely out of Valencia some whereof opinion that ecclesiastical Indulgence of it selfe could remitt noe punishment neither in the Court of God nor of the Church but that they were a pious kind of fraud to draw men to doe good works but this opinion you say the Iesuit condemneth for erroneous and why I pray you Sir could you not as well say that S. Thomas did condemne the same not onely for erroneous but impious also but onely because you would make your Reader thinke it was condemned onely by the Iesuit and not by S. Thomas or rather that hee did as it were winke at it but how farre S. Thomas was from that and how free on the other side any man may see by this that putting the question in the 1. ar of his â—5 q. of the Suppl whither indulgences auaile any thing he maketh answeare that all grant that they auaile something because it were impious saith he to say that the Church did doe any thing in vayne and in the 2. art asking how much they auaile he saith that some say they auaile to euery one but according to their faith and deuotion he himsef saith it is very perilous to say that they doe not auaile soe much as they sound that is to soe much effect or pardon as they are giuen for Wherefore the antiquity of this opinion nothing auaileth you but rather doth you harme it being then condemned for an errour as likewise it auaileth you not that you bring halfe a dozen of our authours witnessing that there is noe expresse proofe of Scripture nor of some ancient Fathers as S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose c. for Indulgences For we grant there is not soe expresse mention of them as of many other points because there was not soe much vse of them though out of some Fathers also much more ancient then S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose c. we proue the vse of them to wit out of S. Cyprian and Tertullian as you may see in Bell. the one aboue 100. Lib. 1. de indulg cap. 3. the other aboue 200. before any of these Fathers and besides them the authority of certaine Councels as that of Nice Ancyra and Laodicea though if we had not either of these Fathers nor any els nor of these Councels yet would not that follow which you ground therevpon to wit that we want antiquity and consent of Fathers For it is a
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
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
of Gabr. and Pet. Lomb. the one saying it is not certaine but it may seeme probable that God reuealeth vnto Saints all those sutes which men present vnto them The other that it is not incredible that the Soules of Saints heare the prayers of their suppliants Well be it soe Sir Hum. let it be vncertain as you say it is whether the Saints heare our prayers or not yet it followes not for all that that our doctrine of inuocation of Saints is vncertaine For as Bellar. well noteth it might be good and profitable to inuoke the Saints though they themselues should not heare vs but onely almighty God for them what are you the better then But besids it is not vncertaine whether the Saints heare vs or noe that is it is not vncertaine whether they know our prayers or not For though there be question of the manner how they know them yet there is noe question but that they doe know them Neither is Gabriel's authority or Peter Lombard's by you alleadged any thing to the contrary For they onely make doubt of the manner without any doubt of the thing it selfe as is most manifest by their very discourse and words in those very places where you tooke out your for thus saith Gabriel Non inuocantur Sancti tanquā datores bonorum pro quibus oramus sed tanquam intercessores apud Deum bonorum omnium largitorem The Saints are inuocated not as the giuers of good things for which we pray but as intercessours to God the giuer of all good Where you see he speaketh not doubtfully but certainely of inuocation and soe goeth on with his discourse prouing that notwithstanding that almighty God be of himselfe most propitious and merciful yet that doth not hinder but that the Saints may pray for vs and after that falleth to discourse of the manner how the Saints heare our prayers The like I may say of Peter Lombard Who though he say onely in those words which you bring that it is not incredible that the Saints heare our prayers yet for their hearing or seing our prayers in the word of God as the Angels doe he maketh noe doubt Sicut enim Angelisit a etiam Sanctis qui Deo assistunt petitiones nostrae innotescunt in verbo Dei quod contemplantur saith he For as our prayers become knowne to the Angels in the word of God which they behold so also to the Saints who stand before God Soe as heere is something more Sir Humphrey with your good leaue then probability and vncertainty in the iudgment of these Doctors though you be pleased to conclude out of them that there is nothing but probability and vncertainty though if there were but probability onely it were more then you haue for any point of your faith as it is yours 10. For Caietan's authority concerning the miracles whereon the canonization of Saints is grounded it is true as he saith the authority of them is but humane as relying vpon the testimony of man But what then ergo we are vncertaine whether the canonized Saint bee in heauen or noe this is your conclusion and it is like one of yours indeede But I answeare that it followeth not for the certainty of canonizatiō depēdeth vpon a more certaine ground to wit the authority of the Sea Apostolique and continuall assistance and direction of the Holy Ghost the Spirit of truth to whom it belongeth not to suffer Christ's Vicar vsing humane diligence and proceeding prudently in a matter of that moment to erre and the proofe of miracles is onely vsed that he may proceede prudently vpon good ground in that sense Miracles are said to ground the canonization of Saints not that the certainty of the one doth wholy depend on the certainty of the other Soe as Caietan helpeth you not a iot to proue the vncertainty of our canonization of Saints noe more then doth S. Aug. and Sulpitius in those authorityes which you bring out of them For they speake not a word of any canonized Saint And as for the place of S. Aug. Bellarm. answeareth that perhaps it is not his which word perhaps you take hold of as if you would make your Reader thinke it is but a slender answeare or rather a grant of the authority whereas it is farr otherwise For Bell. vseth that word out of modesty because as he saith he could neuer find it in any worke of S. Aug. Which notwithstanding he will not say peremptorily it is not there but if you will needs haue it S. Augustin's Sir Humfrey tell vs where out of your great reading then you shall find 3. or 4. seueral answeares ready in Bellarmine without any peraduentures and indeede any man of ordinary witt will presently see the place doth not vrge a whit For who doth doubt but many dead men are mightily honoured by some men heere vpon earth whose soules are buried full low in hell another answeare of Bellarmines is that if there be any such place in S. Aug. it may be very well vnderstood of the Martyrs of the Donatists who were honoured by those haeretiques for Martyrs whose soules were tormented in Hell as the same B. Saint saith of them elsewhere Aug. ep 68 Viuebant vt latrones honorabantur vt Martyres They liued as theeues and were honoured as Martyrs But what is this to our canonized Saints is heere any the least shaddow thereof For that story of Sulpitius it is true that there was one worshipped by the people for a Martyr indeede but hee was farre from any canonization of the Church For as the Story sayth S. Martin seeing the people worship a dead man not knowing what he was nor hauing any certainety from those that went before of him he misliked their deuotion and prayed to God that he might know what Man that was soe by the appointement of God the man appeared and confessed himselfe to haue beene an high way theife that was put to death by the hand of iustice for his wickednesse This is the story and this we alleadge as a reason among others why the iudgment of the Church is necessary in the canonization of Saints that people may not be deceiued in worshipping wicked mē for Saints giuing the honor dew to almighty God's freinds to his enemyes It is therefore good sport to soe a right learned knight as you are forsooth by a new strayne of witt to bring it to proue the vncertainty of our canonization wherein you must argue thus Some people in S. Martin's tyme did erre in worshipping a dead theife for a Saint without any sufficient reason or approbation of the Church ergo Catholiques may erre in worshipping of Saints canonized and authorized by the Church vpon great and euident proofes of their holy liues and deathes and vpon many and manifest miracles Is not this a trimme argument to be printed and reprinted 11. In the next place you come with the vncertainety of Purgatory whereof you say S. Aug.
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
all the world beleiues besids himselfe Out of which you would haue your Reader gather that in that Father's iudgement Miracles haue ceased and that whatsoeuer Catholiques speake now of Miracles it but feigned is not this your meaning Sir Humphrey sure it is for what els it should bee I cannot imagine Now to this I answeare that it is farr from Saint Augustines meaning as shall appeare For he in this place reasoneth with the Pagan who did not beleiue the Miracles wrought by the first preachers of our faith because he saw not the like in his tyme to which Saint Augustine answeares that they were not soe needful then as in the beginning but yet proueth that there were such wrought then For how els saith hee came the world to beleiue and now the world beleiuing there needeth noe miracle to make a man beleiue the conuersion of the world being argument enough and that therefore he were to bee wondered at that would stand vpon Miracles for his beleife and this is for vs. For soe say we a man that should stand vpon miracles to become a Catholique the whole world of this age and for soe many foregoing ages beleiuing and professing that faith were to be wondered at himselfe and we say againe that he is as much to be wondered at that shal beleiue a new haereticall religion not knowne before to the world and contrary to the common beleife thereof such as Luther's or Caluin's is without Miracles For all true religion must haue some testimony of Miracles from God in the beginning till men beleeue but men beleiuing they are not soe necessary Soe as thus much as you haue sett downe of Saint Augustine his discourse is not against vs but rather against your selfe But now seeing you will needs speake against Miracles and that out of Saint Augustine Let vs see what els there is in this place against or for Miracles And to beginne with the very title of that chapter out of the very beginning whereof you take your place it is this Aug. de ciuit lib. 22. cap. 8. De miraculis quae vt mundus in Christum crederet facta sunt fieri mundo credente non desinunt Of the miracles which were wrought that the world might beleiue in Christ and doe not cease to bee wrought now that the world doth beleiue Looke you Sir Humphrey is not heere comfort for you to beginne withall Miracles wrought not onely in the beginning but afterwards in S. Aug. his tyme well in the chapter it selfe whereas he said that he that would not beleeue without Miracles would bee a wonder himselfe he expoundeth his meaning not to be soe as if Miracles were ceased as our Haeretiques and you for one Sir Humphrey say Nam saith he etiam nunc fiunt miracula in eius nomine c. For euen now Miracles are wrought in his name either by the Sacraments or by prayers or memories of Martyrs And then he spendeth that whole and long Chapter in recounting of such Miracles as happened then in his tyme and euen in his owne sight or hard by and soe also in another place whereas he had made himself an obiection why such Miracles as our Sauiour wrought were not then wrought and answeared because they would not moue vnlesse they were strange Retract lib. 1. cap. 14. nor would be strange if they were ordinary he expoundeth himself thus Haec dixi quia non tanta nec omnia modo non quia nulla fiunt etiam modo This I sayd because not soe great nor all now not because none are wrought euen now By which it is most cleare that you haue not S. Aug. with you against Miracles but as plaine as may bee against you Soe as I doe not see what you can say for your selfe but by laying the blame vpon the Spirit I spoke of before who ought you a shame and therefore put you vpon writing such matter as cannot be otherwise maintained then by such meanes as you are heere faine to vse Of the 16. Sect. entituled Our Aduersaries obiection drawne from the testimonies of pretended Martyrs of their religion answeared CHAPTER XVI 1. THE blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian in his tenth reason bringing all sorts of witnesses for proofe of the Catholique faith beginneth with Martyrs those particularly who being Pastors of the Romane Church suffered Martyrdome successiuely one after the other to the number of 33. these saith Campian were ours and nameth some of them as Telesphorus Victor Sixtus Cornelius with the particular points which they held conformably with vs against Protestants Chap. 16. as the fast of Lent the Sacrifice of the Masse power of the Pope and the like this our Knight taketh hold of confessing Martyrdome to carry some shew of honor in our Church but denying them to be ours because they neither suffered for our faith nor professed it while they liued which he proueth by asking whether euer any Martyr died vpon confidence of his owne merits and whether any Romanist dare dye in iustification of his owne righteousnes and whether any of those 33. died and were canonized for adoration giuen to Images and many more such wise demands to whom I answeare that those Martyrs suffered death not for the points now in controuersy with Haeretiques but for the profession of Christianity at the hands of the enemyes of Christ but that not onely such as dye for Christ himself by the hand of the Pagans are Martyrs but such as dye for his Church at the hands of Haeretiques or for any one particular point euen the lest of them that are defined by the Councel of Trent for which euery Catholique is bound rather to dye then deny any of them Now that these Martyrs are ours notwithstanding they died not for any of these points it is plaine because they professed the same Catholique faith which we doe which we also proue by the faith of their Successor Vrbanus 8. who as he holdeth their seate soe also their faith 〈◊〉 1. Concil for Peter's chaire and faith goe together as the very haeretique Pelagius confesseth to Lozimus Pope saying to him qui Petri fidem sedem tenes not to stand heere vpon the most effectual and infallible prayer of our Sauiour himself oraui pro te Petre vt non deficiat fides tua Which proofe must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell vs what Pope began to vary from his Praedecessors 2. Now for the particular points it is plaine euen by those which F. Campian citeth that they were ours but much more by their owne decretal epistles which are all soe full of those things that the Haeretiques haue noe other shift but to deny the authority of the same Epistles therefore they are idle demāds which the Knight maketh whether any haue died vpon cōfidence of his owne merits or whether any Catholique dare dye for iustification of his righteousnes For these are noe matters of faith but of praesumption but for
may looke in Poss bibl select lib. 8. cap. 32. Nor doe I see what that meaneth that you say of men that liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church where they dwell For if it be soe that they may make shew of one thing outwardly and meane an other inwardly as I see not what you cā meane els then I say it is the most damnable dangerous dissimulation of all other the most sure way not to be saued in any religion For neither the outward profession of a religion without the inward beleife nor inward beleife with an outward contrary profession can saue a man What then is it you would say a man may see you are in straights faine you would not goe absolutely against that which many Protestants say that a Catholique may be saued in his religion yet that will not stand neither with your owne iudgement as it seemeth nor bitter speeches which you haue spoken of the Catholique church as calling it Babylon the Seate of Anti-christ and such like nor drift of your booke which is wholy to draw men away from the Catholique faith and therefore you would faine find some ignorant people who should be Catholiques and noe Catholiques liue Catholiques and dye Protestants in outward shew Catholiques in inward beleife Protestants Which are two great and grosse absurdities and withall doe not serue the turne For in neither of these two cases is that proposition verified that a man dying a Papist may be saued for he doth not dye a Papist Neither can that ignorance which you speake of alleadging the place of saint Paul saue men noe more then it could doe him who doubtlesse should neuer haue found such mercy as to be saued had he not first found the mercy to be drawne out of that his ignorance wherein he was This I doe not say that it is absolutely impossible to find one soe inuincibly ignorant as may not be saued without a distinct and particular profession of the Catholique Faith and abrenunciation of the Protestant but I say it is a metaphysical and morally impossible case For how shall a man receiue pardon of his sinnes be enabled to walke the way of God's commandments while he liueth or be armed against the combats of the Deuil at his death without receiuing the Sacraments of the Church which is a sufficient profession of faith wholy distinguishing him from the Protestant or any other sect Therefore the Knight's chiefe answeare to the argument is a plaine denial that a Papist can be saued especially in England or in any Protestant State where there is a course taken to bring him to the knowledge of the contrary though yet he doe not pronounce damnation on our persons as he saith we doe on his But wherein doe we pronounce damnation vpon their persons more then he on ours he and others of his opinion say our doctrine is damnable and consequently that noe man can be saued by it we say the same of his doctrine and that noe man can be saued by it for this or that particular man we doe not take vpon vs to giue any absolute iudgment but that we leaue to God 6. But now for that which he saith of vs that we cannot be saued and that it is farre from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points of controuersy betweene Catholiques and Protestant to be of an inferiour alloy soe as a man may hold either way without peril of saluation I will appeale onely to his owne men and to such as I presume he will not deny to be good men at lest chiefe men of his owne Church For the points therefore in controuersy as frewill prayer for the dead honouring of reliques reall presence transubstantiation communion in one or both kinds worshipping of images the Popes primacy his being Vicar of Christ and head of the Church auricular Confession and the like they are all acknowledged some by one some by another not to be material points soe as a man may without perill beleiue either way and one maine point to wit the real praesence is said by some to be but as it were the grudging of a little ague The seueral authours are Perkins Cartwright Whitgift Fulke Penry Some Sparke Reynolds Bunny Whitaker Iohn Frith in Fox in his acts and other English writers beside Melancthon Luther and other Latine writers whose names may be seene in the Protestants apology where their very words are sett downe Protest apolog tr 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. and places of their works exactly cited which therefore for breuityes sake I omitt heere to doe and shall onely content my self with citing some for the other point which the Knight denieth to wit that we may be saued First noting by the way that heere is a full iury of good men and true in the iudgment of any Protestant who giue vpp their verdict against our good Knight Sir Humphrey as honest a Middlessex Iuror as his father was and as great a freind of Iuryes as he is confessing the points in controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy to keepe his owne word of art And which is specially to be noted whereas a mayne reason why our Knight is loth to yeild the points in controuersy to bee matters of indifferency is because the fresh bleeding wounds of the Martyrs of his Church witnesse the daunger of our religion among these authours there is one Iohn Frith a famous Foxian martyr who acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth noe man of necessity to saluation or damnation whether he beleiue it or not and the like the same man also saith of prayer for the dead which Mr. Iohn Fox relating and not disapprouing he is to be presumed to approue and so both the Martyr Frith and Fox the martyr-maker whose authority me thinks should be more worth then an hundred of his Martyrs are against our Knight and notwithstanding all their bleeding wounds and sufferings will giue him leaue to thinke his points of controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy and many of them not onely soe but euen absolutely condemne his very beleife and doctrine as a man may see fully proued in the examen of Iohn Fox his Calender to which I remit him contenting my self with one onely Martyr whom I presume our Knight will acknowledge for a great one to wit V. Protest apolog tr 2. cap sect 5. Iohn Husse this man Luther saith did not depart one fingars breadth frō the Papacy Iohn Fox saith he held Masse transubstantiation vowes freewill praedestination informed faith iustification merit of good works images of Saints And indeed of the haeresies now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants he held onely one to wit Communion in both kinds in all the rest he held with vs this Martyr then must needs sooner allow vs to be saued then Protestants but heere is enough of this idle matter 7. Now therefore to the other point whether we liuing
and dying in our present Romane faith may be saued or not Wherein though the Knight be verily persuaded we cānot alleadging Whitaker's authority for the same and saying that the best learned of his Church haue beene farr from granting saluation to any Papist being withall soe zealous and earnest in this beleife as he wisheth it farr from the thoughts of good men to thinke soe yet by his Worship's leaue it is the iudgment of many great men of his Church nothing inferiours in that which he taketh for learning and goodnes to Mr. Whitaker or any man els of his opinion for example Mr. D. Barrow saith he dareth not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder writers doe aknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God If the Church of God then certainely Sir Humphrey a man may be saued therein Mr. Hooker saith the Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the howse of God a lymme of the Visible Church of Christ you in the beginning of your booke bring this Hooker's authority acknowledging vs to be of the family of IESVS CHRIST in as much as we beleiue the articles of the Apostles Creede which are the maine parts of the Christian faith wherein we still persist as he confesseth beleeuing then the maine points and being of the family of IESVS CHRIST there can be question in his iudgmēt but we may be saued Mr. Bunny saith we are noe seueral Church from them nor they from vs and that neither can one of vs iustly account the other to be none of the Church of God We may then as well bee saued as you and we are as much of the Church as you D. Some saith the Papists are not altogether aliens from God's couenant for in the iudgment of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministery a true Christ c. and saith he if you thinke that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you thinke absurdly and dissent from the iudgment of the learned Protestants Loe you Sir Humphrey doe not you thinke absurdly and dissent from the learned Protestants in denying vs saluation Doct. Couel saith thus We affirme them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the church of Christ and that those that liue and dye in that Church may notwithstanding bee saued 8. I could bring others to the same purpose as D. Field and Dr. Morton saying that we are to be accounted the Church of God whose words may be seene in the Protestants apology tract 1. Sect. 6. Sub. 1. 2. 3. but these may serue the turne I hope fully to disproue your assertion Sir Knight for heere be 7. authors alleadged whom your Church of England hath euer held for good and learned men From whose thoughts it was not soe farre as you would haue it to thinke we might be saued but rather soe deepely grounded that they auerre it constantly and say also that it is the iudgment of all learned Protestants and that it is absurd to thinke otherwise Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey what a Linder you shew your self vpon one Witakers authority to determine a matter soe peremptorily against the iudgment of soe many great Doctors of your owne side and to say that it is the iudgment of the best learned Protestants and that it is farre from the thoughts of goodmen to thinke otherwise what may a man thinke by this you doe with our Catholique authors and fathers whom you neither haue soe much to doe with nor vnderstand soe well nor care soe much for as you doe for these Sage men forsooth of your owne the pillars of your Church and writing in your owne Mother tongue whereof it is to be presumed you can skill a little more then of Latine But now for the maine matter or argument which you intended to answeare how is it answeared You see soe many learned Protestāts thinke we may be saued liuing and dying in our faith without your limitation of inuincible ignorance and meerely in reguard we are a true Church the family of Christ the howse of God holding the foundation of faith and that the points of controuersy are not of such necessary consequence whose number and authority though perhaps it be not sufficient to reforme your iudgment yet to vs it is sufficient to ground this argument that since Protestant Doctors make noe doubt but we may be saued in our faith and noe Doctor of ours saith soe of your faith it is out of doubt the Safer way to embrace ours the force of which argument you goe not about to auoide otherwise then by denying that to be the opinion of learned Protestants which being proued to be so manifestly the argument still hath his force and the more because you cannot answeare it And soe I come to your last Section Chap. 18. Of the 18. Section the title being this Prouing according to the title of the booke by the confession of all sides that the Protestant religion is safer because in all positiue points of our doctrine the Romanists themselues agree with vs but in their additions they stand single by themselues CHAPTER XVIII THE substance of this section is contained in the title and in nothing but to turne the Catholiques argument mentioned in the former section the other way for the Protestant side but yet soe ill fauouredly that it may be turned backe againe with much more disaduantage of the Protestant cause For by it a man may proue any haeresy that euer was nay Iudaisme and Turcisme to bee a Safer way then the Catholique faith or euen the Knight's Protestant faith He beginneth then with putting the case we may be saued and then laying for a ground that it is Safer to persist in that Church where both sides agree then where one part standeth single in opinion adding withall that if he make not good the title of his booke to wit that he is in the Safer way hee will reconcile himself to the Romane Church creepe vpon all fower to his Holinesse for a pardon And then falleth to proue it in this manner that because Both agree saith hee in the beleife of heauen and hell and that we stand single in the beleife of Purgatory and Limbus puerorum we are not therefore in soe Safe a way soe of the merits and Satisfactions of Christ all agree that men are to be saued by them but wee stand single in the addition of the Saints merits and our owne satisfaction and soe forward of the number of Sacraments images prayer to Saints the like Which is the whole discourse of this Section 2. Whereto I answeare first that that his ground of Safety which he thinks he taketh from Catholiques is folish impertinent and without sense as se setteth it downe For thus he saith it is the Safer way to persist in that Church where both sides agree then where one part
the longe haire of a man's vpper lippe hange in the chalice and to come out with a great quantity of the sacred blood hanging and dropping from it likewise be there not many men and woemen in london after whome Sir Humphrey himselfe might perhaps be vnwilling to drinke not onely for nicenesse but for feare also of something els which besids lothsomnesse may bring daunger of health and why then for a great many such reasons concurring may not the church decree the ordinary vse of one kinde onely in such case as Christ leaueth it in her power for this authority therefore of Gerson's I see not that the Knight hath any whit mended but rather made his matters worse V. sup cap. 9. § 7. n. 14. The third place is pag. 204. in his § of images where citing an authority of the ciuill law he saith that the good Emperours Valens and Theodosius made proclamation c. in the answeare of which place beside other errors I taxed him for calling Valens a good Emperour now in this 4. edition he leaueth out the word good whether by chance or vpon better consideration I know not howsoeuer I thought fitt to note it as a thing wherein the edition differeth The fourth and last place is pag. 319. in his 17. section where explicating what manner of Papist it is that many be saued he saith out of Hooker it must not be a Pope with the necke of an Emperour vnder his feete nor a Cardinal riding his horse to the bridle in the blood of saints but a Pope a Cardinal sorrowful poenitent disrobed stript not onely of vsurped power but also reclaimed and recalled from his error whose proselytes must abiure all their heresies wherwith they haue any way peruerted the truth c. All this and somewhat more of the same kind is added which I doe not recite to answear for I haue done that fully before besids that any man may see the absurdity of it for he may as well say any Iew Turke or heretique may be saued to wit by abiuring his errors and being sory for his sinnes and soe we say Sir Humphrey Linde himselfe may be saued in this manner I doe not therefore note this to answeare but onely as I said before to shew the difference of the editions and how with the number of them the measure of the Knight's malice encreaseth and soe much for that matter Now the third thing whereof I am to take notice heere is another wise piece of worke of Sir Humphrey's called VIA DEVIA which I also neuer saw till this answeare was vnderprint which now hauing seene I finde it to be in a manner the same with his VIA TVTA and indeede soe like as I see not why he should call the one VIA TVTA or DEVIA rather then the other and therefore I presume there wil be noe farther answeare expected thereunto besides that whosoeuer shall attentiuely peruse this answeare to his VIA TVTA will soone see that there will neuer neede more answeare to any thing that he saith And soe I end once more with him FINIS Faults escaped in the Epistle dedicatory pag. 7. lin 24. of the Gentlemen cor of the Gentleman pag. 14. lin 7. her for cor her say for pag. 20. lin 12. these cor those pag. 22. lin 14. those cor these pag. 34 lin 9. some myre cor the same myre Faults escaped in the booke it selfe pag. 2. lin 12. there cor these pag. 5. lin 5. against Sergius cor against Eutiches the difference of his two wills against Sergius pag. 6. lin 1. whensoeuer cor which whensoeuer pag. 6 lin 15. words cor worde pag. 11. lin 3. out of dele out pag. 11. lin 11. Doctour cor Doctours pag. 11. lin 32. theach which cor teach that which pag. 13 lin 3. that cor that that pag. 15. lin 17. before cor before pag. 17. lin 17. in cor is pag. 17. lin 19. points cor point pag. 17. lin 21. they were cor it were pag. 2â—◠〈◊〉 23. that that cor that pag. 24. lin 7. nothinge cor notinge pag. 24. lin 7. occurre the cor occurre in the pag. 29 lin 12. implicite cor implicite faith pag. 35 lin 25. and cor are pag. 37. lin 12 knighs cor knight pag. 39. lin 30 sume cor some pag. 42. lin 18. went For the cor went for the p. 45. lin 1. thinge which cor thinge to doe which pag. 45. lin 15. wiolated cor violated pag. 48. lin 26. osten cor often pag. 49. lin 13. thimketh cor thinketh pag. 50. lin 9. Coquus cor Coquaeus pag. 54 lin 16. would all cor would haue all pag. 55. lin 1. not cor noe pag. 55. lin 13. contradiction cor contradictions pag. 58. lin 17. about cor a bout pag. 61. lin 10. Iou cor you p. 61 lin 21. it cor them pag. 69. lin 17. Prophest cor Prophet pag. 69 lin 22. shewed cor sheweth pag. 84. lin 8. great cor great churches pag. 84. lin 9. Marke heere c. vnto those words of the Apostles cor making it a marginall note pag. 85. lin 15. ardelis cor ardelio pag. 87. lin 1 considereth cor considered pag. 87. lin 31. the 666 cor the yeare 666. pag. 91. lin 11. hee hath dele hee pag. 91. lin 19. Heliesaitae cor Helcesaitae pag. 92. lin 19. the flesh cor other flesh pag. 96. lin 8 to wit cor videlicet pag. 102. lin 11. Church his Tenets cor Churches tenets pag. 106. lin 8. to adore cor to adore him pag. 109 lin 20. saith the cor saith he pag. 112. lin 19. your cor yours pag. 114. lin 11. 13. ingenious cor ingenuous pag. 114 lin 27 to cor to to pag. 115 lin 13 14 excused cor excuses pag. 116 lin 6 which cor with pag 116 lin 26. 22. books For cannonical cor 22 books for canonical pag. 119 lin 4 eight cor eighth pag. 122 lin 29 those bee cor there be pag. 134. lin 21. you cor then pag. 136 lin 2. translated cor translateth pag. 142 l. 30 not cor note pag. 145 lin 12 we not cor wee doe not pag. 152. lin 22 whereas cor for wheras pag. 156 lin 16 to wit cor videlicet p. 158 lin 27. your cor our p. 159 lin 18 others cor other p. 159 lin 27. aboud cor about p. 167. lin 12 vribarne cor as vribarne pag. 167 lin 24 acient cor ancient p. 172 lin 3 in cor on p. 176 lin 17 speaketh cor speaketh p. 185 lin 26 see cor soe p. 188 lin 3 bring cor bringeth p. 188 lin 24 priest cor priests p. 189 lin 12 sir cor sir p. 189. l. 12 is allowed dele is p. 189 l. 20 id cor it p 193. lin 4 as of cor as if p. 194 lin 9. imitation cor inuitation p. 197 lin 30 nor cor not p. 198 lin 29. 3. or 4. thousand cor 3 or 4 hundred or 3. or 4. thousand p. 205 lin 3 is cor