doctrine and person to bee drawne from Idolaters Haeretiques and Capharnaits Of the first of these three Theodoret saith that those haeretiques made two Christs one below another aboue of whom they say that he had dwelt in many before and at last came downe hither or as others declare it that at last he came and rested in IESVS the Sonne of MARY An haeretical fable indeede which noe man can tell what to make of but wherein is it like to our transubstantiacion these haeretiques make two Christs wee acknowledge but one and the same both in heauen and in the consecrated host Marcus as Irenaeus saith by the helpe of the Diuell through art magique changed the colour of the wine in the cup or chalice which the knights is pleased of himself to call sacramentall into seueral colours The Catholique Priest doth the cleane contrary for the colour and other accidents remayning he changeth the substance of the wine into the Bloud of Christ by the Omnipotent power of almighty God For the Capharnaits they thought they should eate Christ's body peece meale and after the manner of the flesh whereon they feede we receiue Christ whole and entire not in the forme and shape of flesh but of breade and in a spiritual though real manner What likenesse then in all these doctrines with ours to a man in his right witts 7. A third point is of the Supremacy of the Pope which he fetcheth from Phocas Emperour who he saith first gaue it to the Bishop of Constantinople 600. yeares after Christ But to giue vs more antiquity he saith the Gētils were our first founders and benefactors For which he alleadgeth the saying of our Sauiour The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship ouer thē Luc 22.25 and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactors Heere he saith we are deriued from bloudsuckers and Gentils vsurping power ouer kings in things spiritual and temporal whereas his doctrine he saith is from Christ Whosoeuer wil be great among you let him be your Minister and whosoeuer wil be chiefe among you let him be your seruant This is his discourse To which I answeare that the knight is egregiously mistaken in saying that Phocas gaue that authority to the Bishop of Constantinople though if hee should haue giuen it or rather attempted to giue that which he could not giue to the Bishop of Constantinople what is that to vs Doe we deriue our Succession from Constantinople was there not a Bishop of Rome and was hee not acknowledged for heade of the Church some hundreds of yeares before euer there was a Bishop of Constantinople or a Constantinople or euen a Constantine himself What then doth he tell vs of the Bishop of Constantinople or Phocas or any such rather the cleane contrary for all true history telleth vs that whereas Iohn that ambitious Bishop of Constantinople vt habetur in ep Pelag. to 1. Conc. would haue had that title of Vniuersall Bishop whereby hee might seeme to aequall the Bishop of Rome though in words he protested neuer to doe any thing against the See Apostolique wherein he had beene supported by Mauritius the Emperour and vpon whom therefore and all his V. Cedr Lonar alias ap Coqu cont progr 22. pag. 327. almighty God shewed the seuerity of his iudgments when Phocas came to bee Emperour though otherwise a naughty cruel mā he made a constitution declaring that the Church of Rome Plat. in Bonif. 3. which is head of all Churches should bee soe called and held by all forbidding the Bishop of Constantinople the vse of that title which he tooke vpon him of himself Out of which commonly the Protestants obiect that the Bishop of Rome hath receiued his authority from Phocas which is a most absurd and foolish conceipt For the Bishop of Rome's authority is farre greater then can be giuen by any earthly man and which being giuen by our B. Sauiour himself heere vpon earth the Bishops of Rome had possessed and exercized continually for the space of more then 600. yeares before Phocas his tyme. How then could it come from him But this sheweth the knight's ignorance and absurdity which is our busines in this place first in saying that Phocas made such a Decree in behalf of the Bishop of Constantinople which sheweth his ignorance for that Decree was made by Phocas in fauour of Bonifacius Bishop of Rome against the Bishop of Constantinople Secondly in alleadging that for a reason or ground of the Bishops of Rome's authority which is commonly alleadged euen by Protestants against it who by exalting the Bishop of Constantinople would willingly depresse the Bishop of Rome 8. As for the knigt's other argument or his place of Scripture of the kings of the Gentils I see not what it is that hee would say to the purpose Our Sauiour indeede telleth his Disciples hee will not haue them imitate the domineering manner of gouernment of those Kings but contrarywise that hee that is cheife among them shal bee as a Seruant to the rest Which Councel is hath euer beene most obserued by the Bishops of that holy See of Rome who therefore haue vsed to stile themselues SERVVS SERVORVM DEI. THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD but will this knight therefore haue it that by reason of this humility there must not bee any Superiority that because he must carry himself like a seruant therefore hee must not feede the Lambes and sheepe of Christ If he meane this as I see not what els he should meane I say noe more but that it is a conceipt worthy of him But besides what a fine line of Succession is heere Doth the Pope succeede either Phocas or any other king or kings of the Gentils to what purpose then are they named 9. But to goe yet on with his toyes hee deduceth our worship of Images from the Basilidians and Carpocratians who saith hee did worship images and professed that they had the image of Christ made by Pilate for which hee citeth S. Irenaeus in the margent His owne doctrine he deriueth from the second of the ten commandements according to his owne translation Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image Heere againe the Knight giueth yet more ample testimony of his notorious naughty dealing For why when he said that these Haeretiques had the picture of Christ made as they said by Pilate why I say could not hee haue gone on with S. Irenaeus who speaking of that and other pictures both painted and carued which they had saith Has coronant Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophoram to wit cum imagine Pythâgorae Platonis Aristotelus reliquorum reliquam obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt They crowne them and propose them with the images of the Philosophers of the world to wit Pythagoras Plato Aristotle and the rest and vse such other obseruation towards them as the
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
acknowledgeth inhaerent iustification which Caluin denieth though in this he erre that he thinketh that inhaerent iustifying forme to bee imperfect and insufficient of it selfe to make men the adoptiue Children of God without the imputatiue iustice of Christ Which alsoe is not soe much Caluinisme as Lutheranisme But bee it what it will Bellarmine excuseth Pighius in another respect to wit because he did not obstinately defend the errour as Caluin or Luther doth which is the maine difference For it is not the errour but the obstinacy that maketh an Haeretique And soe you see Sir Knight you haue not one true word in all this section But lett vs now see your next Chap. 5. The Knight's 5. Section Wherein hee vndertaketh to shew how worldly policy and profitt hindereth the reformation of such things as are vnexcusable in themselues CHAPTER V. 1. OF this Section there is not much to bee said For there is nothing in it but a little of the knights owne rauing For he telleth vs that now he seeth Trentals Masses Diriges Requiem prayers for the dead Indulgences Purgatory c. made articles of faith he despayreth of reformation To which I neede make noe other answeare but that it is a good signe that hee findes at last the strength of the Church soe built vpon a Rocke as noe tempests or winds can shake it but rather that by stormes and tempests it groweth stronger the practize of the Catholique Church being strengthned against all Haeretiques by the greatest authority on earth to wit a general Councel confirmed by the See Apostolique Againe he despaires when he seeth Maldonats saying as he telleth vs practized by the Church of Rome against his Church and Doctrine to wit hee that is Maldonate interpreting a place of S. Iohn alloweth S. Augustin's explication as most probable though hee rather approue another of his owne because it more crosseth the sense of the Caluinists This is it that driueth him in to dispaire Alas poore Sir Humphrey is all your brauery come to this what your hart faile you soe in the beginning But it is noe wonder such a cause may well make you despaire And by your despaire you shew your Doctrine to be false for true doctrine looseth nothing by being impugned but rather gaineth as experience sheweth in the Catholique faith of which is verified the saying of the Prophest Psal 11.7 Eloquia Domini Eloquia casta argentū igne examinatum probatum terrae purgatū septuplum Words of our Lord be chast Words siluer examined by fire tried of the earth purged Seuen fold Fire tries but consumes not gold but drosse it shewed to be drosse by consuming it For Maldonat hee approueth and commendeth S. Augustin's explicacion but addeth another of his owne not contrary nor disagreeing though different from it He preferreth it because it is more against an Haeretique soe it is like S. Aug. himself would also haue done if he had beene aliue in these tymes For it is well knowne how in expounding of Scriptures he still had reguard to the confutation of these haeresies which then raigned and in one place hee aduiseth Tract 2. in ep 1. Io. that those passages of Scripture be most carefully obserued and remembred which make most against Haeretiques 2. After this the Knight hath a great deale of foolish stuffe which needes noe answeare being but a bare recitall of things as for example our wresting the Scriptures his agreement of doctrine with the Fathers nothing to the purpose in this place and then he crieth out against our altering the Commandements which is before answeared Communion in both kinds prayer to Saints and in an vnknowne tongue Which shal bee afterwards answeared Onely in this place I note in a word this wise question of his What reason saith hee can bee alleadged why an ignorant man should pray without vnderstanding To which I answeare with a contrary demaund to wit How an ignorant man that is one that wanteth knowledge or vnderstanding shall pray with vnderstanding and soe I leaue him Of the 6. Section the title whereof is this Chap. 6. The common pretence of our aduersaries refusing Reformation because we cannot assigne the praecise tyme when errors came in refuted CHAPTER VI. 1. HEere the Knight is vpp againe with his reformacion and complayneth that we will not admitt thereof nor acknowledge our doctrine erronious vnlesse he can assigne the tyme and person when and by whom the errour came in Which he seemeth to acknowledge he cannot doe for he neuer goeth about it but onely laboureth to disproue our exception against him by saying that a man that is sicke of a consumption ought not to refuse the helpe of the Physician vpon pretence that he can not tell the tyme and occasion when his body began first to be distempered and out of S. Aug. he saith that when a man is fallen into a pitt and calleth to a passenger for helpe Ep. 19. the passenger must not refuse to helpe him out vpon pretence that he seeth not how he should come to fall in Hee proueth it also as he thinketh out of scripture because in the parable of the cockle it is said that the enemy sowed it when men were a sleepe out of which he inferreth that they could not see or know him Therefore he saith that this defection of the Romane Church is a secret Apostasy Matth. 13. and therein he maketh the difference betweene haeresy and Apostasy that haeresy is preached openly soe as the tyme and person may bee named but not soe this our secret apostacy haeresy worketh in the day apostasy in the night And then he reckoneth vpp some points as worshipping of images Prayer for the dead the primacy of S. Peter and some others which he saith were not soe meant a◠first as they are now practtized and beleeued in the Romane Church This is his iolly discourse framed in his owne braine panne and surely grounded as you shall finde vpon examination thereof which now I come vnto 2. Hee compareth the creeping in of errour to the growing of a sicknes in a man's body and presuming that because he sayth it we must therefore take those things which hee would haue vs for errour he would presently haue vs also fall to correct them without standing to examine farther noe more then a Physician should that cometh to a sicke man But his comparison faileth exceedingly For though there bee some little likenes betweene the creeping in of errours and growing of a Disease in a man's body because both begin little and stelingly and increase by degrees Yet to our purpose none at all For the question is not whether we should fall to cure the disease without examining the cause though by your good leaue Sir Knight good Physicians vse to enquire of the causes effects and other circumstāces of the sicknes which they come to cure but whether this that you say is a disease or sicknes be soe or noe
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
Popes one succeeding the other in place and office exercizing the same authority and iurisdiction in the sight of the whole world Now out of this personal Succession we Catholiques draw a most firme argument of Succession in faith and beleife as hee calleth it as the holy Fathers haue euer done against Heretiques of their tymes Which soe long as it standeth good it is in vaine for Sir Humphrey and such men to cry out that wee haue noe Succession in doctrine Lett them shew when where in what Popes tyme and by whom it was interrupted or broken of or els they say nothing And soe leauing him to find that out I passe to another Section Chap. 8. Of the 8. Section entituled thus The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall CHAPTER VIII 1. THe title of this Sectiō promiseth much and the beginning of the Section it self much more For in it he saith that if the Church of Rome doe not plainely confesse the antiquity of his Church his Tenets and the nouelty of her owne if she doe not proclaime the Vniuersality of the Protestant faith and confesse it both more certaine and safe hee will neither refuse the name nor punishment dew to haeresy Which how bold and vnlikely an aduenture it is I presume there is noe man of iudgment be hee neuer soe much freind euen to Sir Humphrey himself that doth not at the very first sight perceiue how shamelesse and impudent it is I doubt not but vpon a little examination I halbee able euidently to declare and consequently how truely both the name and punishment of haeresy is dew vnto him euen by his owne doome Wherein I shall craue thine attention Good Reader that perceiuing how well and truelly hee performeth this promise soe great and vpon soe hard conditions Voluntarily vndertaken in case of not performance thou maist frame a right iudgment of the whole booke by this one chapter And as thou findest him to deale heere soe to thinke of his dealing els where But not to say more I come to the triall of the matter 2. Hee pretendeth then to bring the testimonies of our authors or to speake in his owne phrase the confession of the Church of Rome touching the Antiquity and Vniuersality Certainety and Safety of his faith which whosoeuer heareth would hee not expect the man should bring some definition of a Councel approued or some Decree of the See Apostolique for that onely is the confession of the Church of Rome would not a man expect he should bring some few authors two or three at least acknowledging all these points or some one author for each point or some one author at lest for some one of them surely he would And yet doth the Knight nothing of all this he bringeth not one author I say not one for the Vniuersality or ātiquity c. of his Church Though if he should haue one two three or ten men it would not be sufficient for him vnlesse he haue the authority of the Catholique Church or Church of Rome For that is it which he promiseth But lett vs heare what he saith 3. In all this Section he bringeth onely three Catholique authors Adrian Costerus and Harding for the three seueral points of Transustantiation Communion in one kind and priuate Masse as he calleth it in this manner Hee saying of himself that when Protestants accuse vs of adoring the elements of bread and wine we excuse it by saying we adore it vpon condition and for that end bringeth these words of Adrian Adoro te si tu es Christus I adore thee if thou bee Christ Soe of Communion in one kind when they accuse vs of taking away the cupp from the Layity we excuse it and thereto hee bringeth Costerus saying that Communion vnder one kind was not taken vpp by the commandement of the Byshops but it crept in the Byshops winking thereat Thirdly when they accuse vs for our priuate Masses contrary to Christ's institution we excuse it and for that end he bringeth these words of Doctor Harding It is through their owne fault and negligence whereof the godly and faithfull people since the tyme of the primitiue Church haue much complained These three be all the authors he hath and this all he saith out of them in which any man may see whether there bee a word or shadow of a word for the antiquity or Vniuersality of the Protestant faith in generall as the title of his Section goeth 4. I say nothing heere of the man's notable cunning and falshood in pretending making his Reader beleeue as if we did excuse our selues in those things whereof they accuse vs whereby wee might seeme to acknowledge some fault whereas there is noe such matter in the world nor one word spoken by any man by way of excuse as shall appeare For noe Catholique but scorneth an excuse in matter of his beleife though for life some may haue some what which may neede excuse though in that case we teach an humble confession to bee the best excuse 5. But to come now to the matter lett vs heare what it is these authors say Adrian as he telleth vs excuseth our adoration of the elements of bread and wine because we adore it vpon condition if the consecrated bread bee Christ the Latine words of Adrian in the margēt are these Adoro te si tu es Christus Which words indeade Adrian hath but they are very different from Sir Humphrey's English as any man may of himself see and spoken by Adrian vpon a very different occasion as I shall now shew Hee then disputing whether a Iudge may without sinne wish he might lawfully giue iudgment against iustice and bringing arguments pro and con as Diuines doe for the affirmatiue he bringeth this That the deformity of the sinne is taken away and cleared by the cōdition which is added which hee farther proueth by two arguments the one that the Councel of Constance doth excuse ignorant people adoring an vnconsecrated host because this condition is tacitely implied if the consecration be rightly made the other that all Doctors agree that a man may auoide perplexity betweene idolatry and disobediēce when the Deuill soe transfiguring himselfe as to seeme Christ commandeth one to adore if vpon condition he adore thus I adore thee if thou be Christ This is what Adrian hath Wherein first any man may see he speaketh nothing of his owne opinion but of others and that by way of dispute only Secondly the condition which is tacitly implied in the adoration of an vnconsecrated host according to the Councel of Constance is not that which Sir Humphrey putteth to wit if the consecrated bread bee Christ but this other if it bee righty consecrated which is cleane another matter for his condition euer supposing a right consecration maketh doubt whither Christ be there or not which is most false the other condition maketh noe doubt of that but
Ghospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of the Church then the bare words of scripture and proueth it by this that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and vse of the Church noe man can be able to proue that any Priest now in these tymes doth consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Masse that is Masse in these tymes Not saith hee that this matter is now doubtfull but that the certainty thereof is had not soe much out of the words of the Ghospel as of the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of soe long tyme which they haue left to posterity For saith hee againe though Christ of bread made his body and of wine his bloud it doth not follow by force of any woord there sett downe that wee as often as wee shal attempt any such thing shall doe it which vnlesse it bee soe said we cannot hee certaine thereof These are his very words where you see how together he deliuereth two points of Catholique doctrine the one of the real presence the other of tradition for vnderstanding of the Scriptures Neither doth he say that the reall presence in our Masse now a dayes is not proued out of Scripture but not out of it alone without the interpretatioÌ„ of the Fathers which wee acknowledge generally necessary in the exposition of Scriptures neither doe you therefore rightly argue the real presence is not proued soe much out of the bare words of Scripture as out of the interpretation of Fathers and Tradition of the Church ergo not out of scripture This I say is an idle argument For the Father's interpretation Tradition of the Church Doth but deliuer vs the sense of the Scripture 17. What then haue you heere out of Bishop Fisher to proue any of your 4. points not one word For if his words did proue any thing they should proue against the real presence not against transubstantiation which is your coÌ„trouersy And for those other words which you bring out of this same holy Bishop and Martyr for a conclusion thus non potest igitur per vllam Scripturam probari it cannot bee proued by any scripture they discouer your dishonesty most of all For by breaking of the sentence there you would make your Reader beleeue they had relation to the words next before by you cited as if the Bishop did say that it could not bee proued by any scripture that Christ is really present in our Masse whereas there is a whole leafe betweene these two places but the onely bare recital of the Bishops words shall serue for a coÌ„futation which are these Non potest igitur per vllam ScripturaÌ„ probari quod aut Laicus aut Sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguineÌ„ atque Christus ipse confecit quum necâ—stud in scripturis contineatur It cannot therefore bee proued by any Scripture that either Lay man or Priest as often as hee shall goe about that busynes shall in like manner of bread and wine make the body and bloud of Christ as Christ himselfe did seeing that neither that is contained in Scriptures By which it is plaine that his drift is onely to proue that there is noe expresse words in scripture whereby it is promised that either Priest or Lay man shall haue power to coÌ„secrate that though Christ did himself coÌ„secrate coÌ„manded his Apostles soe to doe in remeÌ„brance of him that yet he did not adde any expresse promise that the same effect should alwaies follow wheÌ„soeuer any man should offer to consecrate Which is not against vs. For we gather that power to pertaine to the Apostles Successors in Priesthood out of the words Concil Trid. Sess 22. q. 1. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem not barely but as they haue beene euer vnderstood by the Church which is so farre from being against vs that wee might rather vrge it against you vpon the same occasion that Bishop Fisher doth to wit for proofe of the necessity of traditions and authority of the Church for vnderstanding of scriptures And soe by this it is manifest how much you haue abused this holy Bishop's meaning as you doe other two Bishops that follow 18. The one is Gul. Durandus Bishop of Maunde out of whom it seemeth you would proue the words This is my body not to bee of the essence of this Sacrament For what els you would haue with him I see not but specially because hauing cited him thus in English Christ blessed the bread by his heauenly benediction and by vertue of that word the bread was turned vnto the substance of Christ's body Then you putt these words in Latine tunc confecit cum benedixit them he made it when hee blessed it Whereby you seeme to put the force of this testimony in those words as if by them you would proue out of Durandus that Christ did not consecrate by the words this is my body but by that blessing But Durand himself shall disproue you Sir Knight For thus he saith Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua conuertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM He blessed it by the heauenly blessing and power of the word by which the bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ Durand rat cap. 41. n. 14. to wit THIS IS MY BODY Hoc est corpus meum Which last words I would gladly know Sir Humphrey why you cut of but I neede not aske for any man may see it was because you would not haue that powerful benediction whereof this authors speaketh to consist in those sacred words but Durand both in this very senteÌ„ce and often in the same place attributeth most plainely that power to those very words not to any other blessing as may appeare in that he saith that wee doe blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis By that power which Christ hath giuen to the words 19. Odo Caemeracensis is the other Bishop that followeth whom for the same purpose you cite and as much to the purpose his words are these as you bring them Christ blessed the bread and then made that his body which was first bread and soe by blessing it became flesh for otherwise hee would not haue said after he had blessed it this is my body vnlesse by blessing it he had made it his body Which words you putt in the margent in Latine imperfectly and translate euen them corruptly Benedixit suum corpus You translate Christ blessed bread qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro which in true English is thus That which was bread before by blessing is made flesh You translate otherwise as may appeare by your words though I see not to what end you should soe
you and they are 10. As for that which you say out of Mr. Fisher that though there bee noe expresse practice or praecept of worshipping the image of Christ yet there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawfull it is as well and truely said by him as that is falsely foolishly impertinently which you say therevpon that from the law of God and grace we are come to the law of nature and to declare an article of faith by the light thereof Mr. Fisher saith the light of nature sheweth it to be lawfull which is true you say he declareth it an article of faith from the light of nature which is false there is great difference betweene those two to be lawful and to be an article of faith the light of nature may reach to shew a thing to be lawfull but not to make an article of faith for that must be grounded vpon the supernatural light of diuine reuelation which is farr aboue the natural light of humane reason though by your fauour Sir Knight as scornefully as you speake of the light of nature it haue somewhat more to doe also in matters of faith then you are aware of For out of one premisse reuealed and another euident by the light of nature there may be drawne a conclusion of faith or at least such as may sufficiently ground a definition of a Councel and practize of the Church and likewise the light of nature hath place also in all the mysteries of our faith in some shewing the reasons or congruences in all shewing that there is noe falshood or impossibility And the light of nature is the guift and law alsoe of God Why then should you speake soe contemptibly of it but onely that you want it in great part and consequently know not the worth thereof 11. But it is strange heere to see how though you cannot find in your hart to allow the light of nature alleadged for adoration of images you can alleadge it against them but euen as wisely as you deny it for them You say Varro an heathen Philosopher by the instinct of nature professed the contrary by saying the Gods are better serued without images The Latine is castius Dij obseruantur sine simulachris Aug. 4. de Ciuit. ca. 31. Which saying you tell vs S. Aug. comendeth and soe he doth indeede but vnderstandeth him farr otherwise then you doe For he doth take Simulachrum not for an image as you doe falsely but for an idol as it is indeede and soe commendeth Varro for coming neerer to the knowledge of the true God and going farther from idolatry in that he neither acknowledgeth any Deity in those material idols nor that multiplicity of Gods but rather alloweth the opinion of them that held that God was the soule of the world which though it were also an errour in him yet S. Augustine saith it cometh neerer to truth in that it teacheth but one God and him not a material or corporal but a spiritual and invisible substance for proof whereof Varro alleadgeth that for aboue an hundred yeares the Romanes had worshipped their Gods without those material idols which whosoeuer brought in saith hee did take a way the feare and added or increased the error he meaneth that they that brought in those idols tooke away all feare of the Gods because men seeing those idols proposed for Gods contemned them and this is that which he saith castiùs dij obseruantur sine simulachris The Gods are more chastly or purely obserued or feared without those idols Now what is this against vs. doe not we say the same thing much more amply and more fully I see not then why you should bring it vnlesse it were to vsher in a thing which you haue out of Eusebius to giue the reason as you say why these Fathers condemned the worshippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters in these words Because saith Eusebius the men of old of an heathenish custome were wont after that manner to honour such as they counted Sauiours Wherevppon you say that after images had gott footing among Christians the Bishops and Emperours by Councels and commands tooke special care to preuent both the making and worshipping them and thereto you bring a Canon of the Councel of Eliberis that noe pictures should be in Churches least that which was worshipped should bee painted on the walls And an authority out of the Ciuill law of a Decree made against adoration of images which I shall cite when I come to answeare it This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Wherein you haue giuen soe sufficient testimony of notorious bad dealing especially in the 2. places of Eusebius and of the Ciuill law that if there were nothing els falsified or corrupted in your whole booke this were enough vtterly to deface all memory of you from among honest men 12. The matter is this hauing brought onely S. Aug commending Varro his saying against Idolls you say in the plural number these Fathers as if you had brought some great number of Fathers and withall you say these Fathers condemned the worhippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters what words haue you brought out of any father one or other to this purpose from the very beginning of this § either condemning the woship of images in vs Christians or calling vs Haeretiques or idolaters for it how then can you haue the face to say it soe boldly but we must not aske you reason for any thing you say but take it as you say it Well you tell vs Eusebius giueth the reason why the Fathers condemned vs for Haeretiques and idolaters which importeth that Eusebius concurreth with those Fathers in iudgment whose fact he giues a reason for But what if Eusebius doe not condemne it can you desire to be counted an honest man I presume you cannot Well let vs then see whether he doe soe or not Making mention of the Citty of Caesarea Philippi by occasion thereof he relateth a story of the Woman which was cured by touching the hemme of our Sauiours garment Eus. hist lib. 7. cap. 14. and how coming home after her cure to Caesarea Philippi where she liued she made her selfe a brazen statua sett vpon a high stone before her owne doore as if she were kneeling vpon her knees and holding vp her hands like one praying and looking towards another statua of a man standing straight vpp with long garments downe to the foote stretching out his hād to the Woman which statua the people said was the Statua of IESVS Vpon the very basis or foote of this statua they said there grew a certaine strange and vnvsual kinde of herbe which as soone as it grew vpp soe high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment it had vertue to cure diseases of euery kind Which statua Eusebius saith continued to his tyme and that he saw it himselfe Neither is it to be wondered saith hee going on with his discourse that
those that were sprung of the Gentils and receiued benefits of our Sauiour while he liued heere on earth did thus seing we also haue seene the pictures of Peter and Paul Apostles and of our Sauiour himselfe expressed in variety of colours and kept and that as it is like because our ancestours maiores nostri which you Sir Humphrey translate the men of old you know best why your selfe would come as neere as might be to the fashion of their owne people or kindred who were wont to honour such as had done them any benefitt or helpe in that manner by way of parenthesis I note the Latine word of heathenish custome as you Sir Humphrey translate it is Gentilis consuetudinis For which you are best looke in your dictionary of Thomas Thomasius whether among all the Englishes of Gentilis which are there sett downe you can find heathenish Which I dare say you cannot The Greeke word in Eusebius his text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the same that Gentilis in Latine to wit belonging to a Countrey people nation Stocke or family though Scapula doe add in his Lexicon that by ecclesiastical Writers it is vsed to signifie heathenish or auerse from Christian religion but it is cleare that in this place the sense requireth the plaine and natiue signification which I haue expressed in the translation though you bee pleased to draw it violently to the worse sense But to goe on with Eusebius he saith following on the same discourse that the Bishops of Hierusalem had successiuely kept and highly esteemed the Chayre of S. Iames the Apostle and first Bishop of Hierusalem Whereby saith hee they plainely declare how the ancient Fathers euen to our tymes haue giuen and doe still giue dew veneration to holy men for their true piety towards God Thus Eusebius wherein for my fidelity in citing and translating I referr my self to the iudgment of what Aristarchus soeuer you your self Sir Humphrey shall choose And if this be true which I say out of Eusebius then doth your creditt lye a bleeding For doth not Eusebius relate this story of the Woman's statua with approbation doth he not relate a continual miracle wrought by God shewing his approbation also thereby doth hee not acknowledge the vse of pictures of our Sauiour and his Apostles as a thing coming from our ancestours doth not he approue that custome of the Gentils in keeping the statues and thereby honouring the memory of their benefactours doth he not acknowledge the ancient fathers were wont to honour rhe memory of holy men by reuerencing those things that belonged vnto them What say you to all this Sir Humphrey Looke now into your owne conscience and see whether it can flatter you soe much as to say you are an honest man Or that you haue dealt truely in this citation of Eusebius 13. Now for the Councel of Eliberis it is a triuial obiection and hath beene answeared an hundred tymes ouer 3. or 4. seuerall wayes First the authority of the Councel is little being an obscure prouincial Councel of 19. Bishops onely without any certainty of the tyme when it was held Neither doth it appeare that it was euer approued to which we oppose one of Constantinople another at Rome vnder Greg. 3. of 3. Bishops a third at Nice general of 350. Bishops whereof you may see more in Duran de rit lib. 1. cap. 5. Secondly it might perhapps seeme conuenient at that tyme to forbid the vse of images in that part of Spaine when the people being but newly conuerted from their heathenish superstition were not throughly weaned from it and did not vnderstand the vse of Images soe it may be they were forbidden for a tyme onely till the people were better instructed Thirdly that Canon forbiddeth not pictures absolutely but onely painting them on the walls whereof there bee two reasons ordinarily giuen but both drawne from the honour and veneration dew to pictures one is because that being a tyme of persecution when the Christians were faine to fly many tymes they could not carry away or hide them being painted on the walls as they did other sacred things but were forced to leaue them to the fury and scorne of the Gentils another least the plaster breaking of in some places they might become deformed and soe contemptible Lastly it seemeth plainely by the Councel that it was out of honour to Images that they did forbid it because they thought not the walls a place conuenient For soe it seemeth to say Least that which is adored should bee painted on the walls In which words it expresly acknowledgeth the adoration of images and because they are to be adored therefore not to be painted on the walls More you may find in others Sir Humphrey which you if you had dealt honestly should haue replied vpon and not stood still repeating your thred bare obiections as if they were new 14. But now for your authority out of the Ciuil Law there be soe many foule fauts committed by you in it that I know not where to begin but begin I must your words of it are these The good Emperours Valens Theodosius made proclamation to all Christians against the images of Christ in this manner Forasmuch as we haue a diligent care in all things to maintayne the religion of the most high God therefore we suffer not man to fashion to graue or paint the image of our Sauiour eitherin colours or in stone or in any other kind of mettal or matter but wheresoeuer any such image shal be found we command it to be taken downe assuring our Subiects that we will most strictly punish all such as shall presume to attempt anie thing contrary to our Decrees and commandments Thus you praeface cite the place Where first you call Valens a good Emperour whereas hee was a man farr from all goodnes for he persecuted good Catholiques in most cruell manner being him selfe a wicked Arrian Haeretique Socr. lib. 4. cap. vl◠Soz. lib. 6. cap. vlt. Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 3. Cod. Theod. lib. 1. tit 8. Nemini licere vpon whom almighty God also did shew his iudments by a disastrous end Secondly this Valens and Theodosius whom you ioyne together in making this Law were not aliue together Valens being killed 23. yeares before Theod. was borne For this was Theod. the younger grand child to Theodosius the elder who came to bee Emperour in Valens his place when he was gone Thirdly the Law it selfe is most fowly corrupted and the meaning wholy peruerted for the Law was made in honor of the Crosse to wit thus We command that it shall not be lawfull for any man to carue or paint the signe of our Sauiour Christ either on the ground or in any stone or marble lying on the ground which to haue beene meant in honour of our Sauiour's Crosse and picture appeareth by a Canon of the Councel called Trullanum in these words Con◠Const in Trull cap. 37.
recordandum non ad colendum The ancients had the pictures of Saints painted or carued for history to remember not to bee worshipped this it may be is it you would be at but I answeare that both these and those of yours if there be any such are to be vnderstood in the sense of his whole discourse to wit that there is noe example in the Scriptures or Fathers of such idolatrial adoratiō as he speaketh against there which is true Which to be his meaning I shall by and by demōstrate more plainely Now for the last words to wit that images ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight not to instruct the people I doe not also find them but these Aspiciamus picturam quasi pictura sensu ratione carentem pascatur hac visione oculus Deū vero veneretur animus Let vs behold the picture as a picture wanting sense reason Let the eye be sedd which this sight but let the minde worship God which is very true Catholique doctrine for we teach men to make a difference betweene the wood colour of the picture or the picture in it selfe and the thing which is by it represented but heere is not that which you say out of him that images are not to be vsed to instruct the people but the contrary for in the words heere next before cited he saith they are to be vsed for history which is all one as to say for instruction Wherefore I wonder how it should come into your head to father soe fond and senselesse a thing vpon so wise and learned a man soe cōtrary to the light of nature euen to your owne practize For if pictures may not be vsed for instructiō of the people why do your painters drawe the King Prince Lords in the parliament howse the siege of Rochel Berghen op Zoome Bolduc Breda the like but for instructiō reliques of S. Polycarpe and withall he relateth with applause and commendation how the people of Alexandria hauing destroyed their idols and being conuerted to Christ soe great feruour of Christianity inflamed their harts that euery one painted the signe of the Crosse on their posts doores windowes walls pillards and to cōclude telleth of S. Gregory the great how he reprehended the Bishop of Frioly for beating downe out of his Curch the images of the Apostles Peter and Paul in reguard of the superstition of the vulgar sort adoring them contrary to the rule of faith as also for that he did not rather by his authority correct their error letting the pictures stand for the memory of posterity then by indiscreete zeale beate them downe wherein then is Agobardus different from S. Gregory and other Fathers nothing at all but rather his authority ioyned heere together with S. Gregories in the last place may serue for answear to all the rest of your friuolous obiections which you bring to the paragraph of the abuse and danger of images 20. As for the abuse it is not such as you talke of but suppose it were that is to be taken away as the Councel of Trent in it the whole Catholique Church doth teach the good must not For if euery thing should be presētly takē away because it is ill vsed by mē what would become of this world You must therefore learne an axiome of the Law De reg iur n 6. Vtile per inutile non vitiatur the profitable is not vitiated or spoiled by the vnprofitable Separate that which is vnprofitable from the profitable and keepe the later that is the profitable or good Which I dare boldly say is farr better to counsell thē that which you giue to wit that images should be absolutely forbidden till some conditions sett downe by Bellar. or rather by the Councel of Trent for they are the same be performed which as you thinke though falsely are not performed to wit that images be honoured onely for them whom they represent without placing cōfidence in thē or requesting any thing of them or cōceiuing any diuinity in thē For where shall you find soe simple a soule one among 10000. in the Catholique Church that doth not performe the forenamed conditions or if there should be one such silly old woman must the other 10000. be debarred of all that fruite God his Saints of all that honour that cometh by hauing seeing adoring them in their images as we all doe this Councel I say of myne or not myne but of the holy Catholique Church you shal find to be better by the very testimony of Gabriel whom you bring in reprehending the blockishnesse of some people for not obseruing the foresaid conditions in the worshipping of images in his 49. lect which is the place by you cited though you Sir Humph. falsely cite it lect 14. but that may be your printers fault the title whereof is Of the veneration of the most diuine Sacrament of the Eucharist In which he treateth largely of three kinds of worship Latria Hyperdulia and Dulia as our Diuine doe Which he saith belong properly to a rational nature improperly to irrational eyther in reguard of representation or connexion which may haue with the rational or reasonable nature and then reprehending the foolishnesse of some who neither know themselues nor will with humility learne of others the true nature of adoration concludeth at last thus Nec tamen propter hoc imagines proiiciendae sunt c. Neither for this are images to be throwne away or thrust out of oratories by occasion or pretence of auoyding idolatry or pilgrimages to certaine pictures or certaine places either consecrate or not consecrated to be reproued Soe Gabriel which words you could not but see if you saw the other which you cite for they follow immediately and therefore it had beene more honesty for you to haue forborne the citing of the former if you did not meane to cite the later as it seemeth you did not For that which you conclude with comparing vs to Demetrius in the scripture that made a liuing of making siluer shrines for Diana's temple as if we maintained images to bring money to our purses it is Lindinge Sir Humphrey you know my meaning you and such as you that perhaps haue had your shares in pulling downe of images and siluer shrines this last hundred yeares are more like to be drawne with the loue of gaine to the pulling downe of images then we that loose all for maintaining and setting them vpp for what we and our ancestours haue parted with from our selues and out of our owne purses for the honour of God and his Saints you or men of your religion pull backe from God his Saints to bestow vpon your backs and bellyes and vpon you Ministers their wiues and bratts Werefore you might haue held your peace of that matter And soe now I conclude this § where I hope I haue made it appeare that all your great words against Images are but