named but by way of forbidding them and by way of commanding Bishops to reforme such things euen as delegats of the see Apostolique where there is neede Which is soe apparent that the Knight is faine to confesse it after in these words Neither did these men seeke reformation in manners onely but in the doctrine it selfe Wherein together with the contradiction of his owne former lye he telleth a new one to wit in saying that we seeke a reformation in the doctrine whereof he nameth some particular points as priuate Masse Latine seruice c. Which is most false for the doctrine is the same still and euer was that though the fruite were greater when the people did communicate with the Priest sacramentally yet the Masse in that case is neither vnlawfull not is to be called priuate both because the people communicate spiritually and also because the Masse is offered by the Priest as the publique Minister of the Church It wisheth indeede that the standers by did communicate not onely spiritually but alsoe sacramentally without euer mentioning the reformed or rather deformed Churches 8. What error then doth the Councel heere acknowledge Againe the knight saith that though the Councel doe not allow the celebrating of Masse in the vulgar tongue yet it commandeth Pastors and others that haue care of soules to explicate and expound to the people some of those things that are reade in the Masse and asketh thus how neere these men doe come to our doctrine who doth not perceiue I answeare that doe not I Sir Humphrey nor I thinke any man els That hath ordinary common sense You condemne all Masse The Councel alloweth it you condemne priuate Masse The Councel approueth that which you call priuate Masse but denieth that it is soe called Priuate as you would haue it The Councel speaketh of Masse the true and proper Sacrifice of the new Law you would make men beleeue it speaketh of your sacrilegious Supper In our Masse and Communion as the Councel teacheth is offered and distributed the true real and substantiall Body and Bloude of CHRIST IESVS and what it saith hereof you most madly would make me beleeue were spoken of your empty and imaginary communion The Councel teacheth that the Masse is not generally to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue you would all publique prayer soe made and therefore condemne the Catholique Church for celebrating in Latine which the Councel alloweth O madnes of a man then to talke thus as if the Councel came neere to him when it saith yea to his nay and nay to his yea 9. But hauing thus substantially proued the Councel to agree with him and finding other places of the same soe euidently against him hee will needs haue the Councel contradict it self and for that end bringeth certaine contradictions as he wisely taketh them to be One is that the Pope in his Bull of profession of faith saith that the vse of Indulgences is most wholesome for the people For which hee might haue cited also the Councel more thou once and that yet the Councel cōfessed the scandal that came by them was very great with out hope of reformacion which is not cōtradiction betweene the Councel and Pope but a flatt corruption of the Knights the Pope speaking of one thing to wit Indulgences in themselues the Councel in this place speaking of the men that had the promulgacion of them and the gathering of the almes For preuenting whose auarice abuses there had bene soe many remedies vsed formerly in other Councels but to none effect that this Councel thought good to take that office wholy out of such mens hands and take another course with it What seeming contradiction is heere Another of his cōtradiction is that the Councel approueth those Masses wherein the people doe not communicate and yet wisheth that the people were soe deuoute as to communicate sacramētally Is not heere a stout cōtradiction as also that the Councel approueth Masse in an vn knowne tōgue and yet will haue the Priests especially vpon Sundayes and Holidayes to declare some of that which is read or some mystery of the holy Masse Doe not these two agree very well I doe not see what the Man meaneth 10. And to conclude this wise section he talketh somewhat of reformacion hindered by some principall men as one Nicolas Scomberg a Dominican Cardinal Citing fowre or fiue most haeretical books namely forbidden in the Romane Index and among them the history of the Councel of Trent not named in the Index because it came out since but written by an Arche-haeretique and noe lesse detested by Catholiques then any of the rest Which I passe ouer as of noe account nor alleadged to any purpose As for reformacion who can say it is hindered but onely by Haeretiques For what els hath the Counce◠of Trent done but reformed all abuses of manners where it is or can be receiued and for errours of faith taught by Haeretiques it hath vtterly condemned them and banished them from the eares of al Catholiques What reformacion then hath it hindered but the haeretical reformacion wherevnto Cardinal Scomberg said well if you and your history of Trent say true that it was noe way to yeild a iott to Haeretiques for it is not indeede for the practize of the Church hath euer beene to the contrary shewing thereby that the way to ouercome haeresy is wholy to resist it and though that thing wich the Haeretiques teach or would haue practized were before indifferent yet for their vrging the same vpon their haeretical grounds it hath beene absolutely forbidden least wee might seeme to haue yeilded to them and soe confirme them or drawe Others to beleeue them or their doctrine who to reprehend and contradict the Catholique Church many tymes make things of indifferency to bee of necessity that they forsooth may seeme the onely Wisemen in the world and the Church of God subiect to errours Which I could proue by many examples if neede were And heerewith I make an end of this chapter wherein I haue disproued the Knight and conuinced him of manifest falshood in both the things by him pretended shewing in the one that the Councel acknowledged not any corruption in matters of faith but onely by Haeretiques and in the other that for corruption of manners which it acknowledged it hath vsed all possible meanes to redresse them Of Sir Humphrey's 4. Section whereof the title is this That many learned Romanist conuicted by the euidence of truth either in part or in whole haue renounced Popery before their death CHAPTER IIII. 1. I Could heere before I goe farther aske what this maketh for the Visibility of the Knight his Church For suppose it were true and that we did yeild him his saying that many haue fallen from the Catholique faith to be Protestants as it is cleare that many haue for otherwise there had neuer beene any Protestants in the world Doth this make his Church visible in former tymes or doth
is the true explicacion of this Parable not according to my priuate sense but according to the sense of the holy Fathers and our Blessed Sauiour himself who voutsafed to explicate this Parable vnto vs wherein as you see the Goodman's seruaÌ„ts marke the growing of the cockle soe must you tell vs what Pastors or Doctors did euer note any such thing in any point of our doctrine But heere Sir Humphrey what is to be thought of you that take vpon you to interprete Scripture at your owne pleasure and for your owne ends euen then where our B. Sauiour himself doth explicate his owne parable and meaning thereof What I say may men thinke by this that you will doe els where soe your chiefe gappe or euasioÌ„ for not assigning the person tyme place when our Doctrine began is stopped and the exception remaineth still in full force to wit that you must assigne the tyme place persons or els we acknowledge noe error 7. But you say it is an vndeniable truth that some things were condemned in the primitiue Church for erroneous and superstitious which now are established for articles of Faith this you proue by a place of S. Aug. saying that he knew many worshippers of tombes and pictures whom the Church condemneth and seeketh to ameÌ„d Which yet you say is now established for an article of Faith But by your leaue Sir this your vndeniable truth is a most deniable vntruth For first S. Augustine's tyme was a good while that is about one hundred yeares after the primitiue church Secondly that which S. Aug. condemneth to wit the superstitions and heathenish worshipp of dead and perhaps wicked men's tombes and pictures vsed by some badd Christians is not approued by the Nicene and Trent Councels but the religious worshipp of Saint's images reliques which S. Aug. himself practized Bell. de reliq lib. 2. cap. 4. as you may see in Bellarmine with whoÌ„ alsoe you may find other good solutions of this place which I suppose you cannot but haue seene and consequently you cannot but know that your vndeniable truth is flatly denied by him and all Catholiques 8. Diuers other things as the Primacy of S. Peter Prayer for the dead Iustification Masses Monasteries Caeremonies Feasts Images You say are otherwise now vsed then at first instituted Which for these fiue last to wit Masses Monasteries c. You proue out of one Ioannes Ferus a fryer a man much in your bookes and the books of all your Ministers but not in any of ours but onely the Romane Index of forbidde books And therefore of noe authority or accouÌ„t with vs. For the rest of these points wee haue nothing but your bare word surmize which is but a bare proofe not worth the answearing 9. After this the knight thinketh to come vpon vs another way saying that our owne authors who haue sought the tymes and beginners of our errours as he is pleased to call them confesse an alteration though they doe not finde when it beganne For restraint of Priests marriage he saith that Marius cannot finde when it came in Yet after he bringeth Polidore Virgill saying that Priests marriage was not altogether forbiddeÌ„ till the tyme of Gregory the 7. And this doctrine our knight is pleased to make all one with that absolute forbiding of marriage which S. Paul reckoneth amoÌ„g the doctrines of Diuels For S. Paule's authority it hath beene answeared more ofteÌ„ then the knight hath fingars and toe's and euery child may see the difference betweene forbidding of Marriage generally to all sorts as a thing euill in it self and vnlawfull and forbidding marriage in one particular state or profession to which noe man is bound but is left free whither he will embrace it with this condition or not And this not because it is a thing euill in it selfe but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercize of Priestly function For Polydore Virgil it is true he saith as the Knight telleth vs and eueâ— as much more besides as any haeretique can say of that matter but it booteth not that worke of his de rerum inuâ—n â—oâ—â—â—â— being a forbidden booke Conc. Nic. can 3. Carthag 2. can 2. V. Bell. lib. 1. de cler cap. 19. and the thing which he saith most euidently false as appeareth by infinite testimonies but particularly by a Canon of that great Nicene Councel 800. yeares before Gregory the 7. his tyme. And the 2. Councel of Carthage which testifieth it as a thing taught by the Apostles and obserued by antiquity The Knight may find more in Bellarmine for proofe of this point Heere I onely aske how he maketh his authours hange together Marius cannot find the beginning Polydore findeth it and yet both for the Knights purpose forsooth But for Marius his authority it is nothing against vs but for vs. For it followeth by S. Augustines rule that because it is practized and taught in the Catholique Church with out being knowne when it beganne that therefore it is an Apostolicall tradition 10. Another errour as he saith is Prayer in an vnknowne tongue wherein it is to bee wondered saith Erasmus as the Knight citeth him how the Church is altered But Erasmus is noe author for vs to answeare he is branded in the Romane Index Neither neede I say more of the matter it self in this place A third error of ours as he pretendeth is Communion in one kinde for which he citeth Val. twice once saying it is not knowne when it first gott footing in the Church another tyme that Communion in one kinde began to be generally receiued but a little before the Councel of Constance Which I see not to what purpose they are if they were right cited as the former is not For Val. hath thus much When that custome beganne in some churches Val. de leg vsu Euch. cap. 16. it appeareth not but that there hath beene some vse of one kinde euer from the beginning I shewed before Soe Valencia What doth this make for the knight nay doth it not make against him why els should hee corrupt and mangle it Doth not Valencia say he made it appeare that this kind of Communion was somewhat vsed from the beginning and that which he saith of the not appearing when it beganne is not of the Church in general but of some particular Churches Besides for a final answeare I say it is noe matter of doctrine but practice the doctrine hauing euer beene and being still the same of the lawfulnes of one or both kinds as the Church shall ordaine though vpon good reasons the practize haue changed according to the diuersity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that euer he can doe he can not refute that argumeÌ„t which wee make against him and his that our doctrine is not to be taxed of errour soe long as they cannot shew when where and by whom it beganne as wee can and doe euery day of
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
A PAIRE OF SPECTACLES FOR SIR HVMFREY LINDE TO SEE HIS WAY WITHALL OR AN ANSWEARE TO HIS booke called VIA TVTA A safe way wherein the booke is shewed to be a labyrinthe of error and the author a blind guide By I. R. The children of Israel say the way of our Lord is not right What are not my wayes right o house of Israel and not rather your wayes crooked Ezech. 18.29 Catholicae fidei regula velut via est quae te ducat ad patriam The rule of the Catholique faith is as it were the way which may leade thee to thy country Qui praetergreditur regulam fidei non accedit in via sed recedit de via He that goeth beside the rule of faith which is the Catholique Church doth not come in the way but goeth out of the way Aug. tract 98. in Io. PERMISSV SVPERIORVM 1631. THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO SIR HVMPHREY Linde 1. SIR some while since you wrote a booke of the Visibility of your Church calling it via tuta a safe way prouoked therevnto as you say by the challenge of a Iesuit to which now after a long pause you seeme to answeare though it bee not as you also say your profession thereby to vindicate the cause of your Mother the Church of England and maintaine your owne credit And all this you pretend to doe out of our owne authors It is true Sir Humphrey that a Iesuit made you a challenge as many haue done before and doe still to all Protestants to shew where their Church was before Luther and thereby haue putt them to much study and paine to find her out And some finding the taske soe hard haue beene faine to turne about another way and tell vs it is not needfull for the Church to be visible which they proue God's arrow against God's enemyes by Hen Smith Cap. 5. Fulke Apoc. cap. 12. because in the dayes of Elias it perished as they say for he said he was left alone and in the Apocalyps it is said that the Woman shall fly into the desert Which say they is all one as that the Church must be inuisible But you now as it should seeme taking your self to bee somewhat a better man then others that haue gone before you will needs take vpon you to shew where your Church was before Luther Wherein you are soe glorious and confident that you stile your booke a safe way leadinge all Christians to the true ancient and Catholique faith now professed in the Church of England and this you vndertake to performe by the testimonies and confessions euen of your best learned aduersaries 2. Which booke of yours though it hath beene long out and gained you much fame among some of your owne sect yet amonge Catholiques it hath seemed of soe small account as noe man hath all this while thought it worth the answearing thinking it the best way of answeare for such toyes to let them dye as they springe but since you not conceiuing this to bee the true reason of our silence nor hauing reguard to your owne credit which is lesse impaired by silence then writing stand still printing and reprinting this your wise peece of worke I haue thought good to giue it some answeare For though my intention at first were only to satisfye a priuate freind which was somewhat stumbled with it by gathering some few corruptiōs whereby hee might guesse of the rest Yet coming to reade your booke and finding the very choyce hard in such aboundance of corruptions and considering that many conceiued highly thereof the rather because it was not answeared I resolued vpon a little more full answeare which might serue for satisfaction not onely of that one freind but of others also who may haue conceiued the like opinion of this your booke the very title and first page especially mouing mee therevnto in which are contained soe great promises or rather soe great braggs that if Sir Humphrey you make them good wee may well change your name from Sir Humphrey to Sir Hercules for it is more then an Herculian labour which you vndertake therein if you doe not I presume you wil be content to change your surname of Lynde to another word not farre different in sound as beginning with the two first letters the same and more sutable to your deeds though not to vndubbe you howsoeuer the matter fall out there will still be left for you a title of Sir Which title should seeme a little by your phrase of speaking to bee the thing that made you engage your selfe in this quarrell as if by the honour of your Knighthoode you thought your selfe boūd therevnto which if it were Sir Fr. Hastings Sir Edw. Hobby Sir Edw. Cooke you might haue remēbred how ill some such Knight venturers as your self haue sped with their zeale But seing you will not be ware by other men's harmes but be putting your fingar into the fire you must take your chance as they did And for triall of this quarrell you shall giue mee leaue to enter into the lists with you in the examination of the booke it self heere only I shall a little examine what you say in your dedicatory Epistle 3. In which I reflect first vpon the title which is to the religious and well affected Gentry of this Kingdome what should be the cause you should dedicate this your worke to the Gentry particularly the thing yt self pertayning alike to all sortes of men who haue soules to saue vnlesse it were that by hauing specially to doe with Gētlemē you would faine seeme to haue somewhat of the Gentlemen For which I blame you not hauing need thereof for setting your Knighthood a part it may be your gentry may be questioned yf it be true that I haue heard of the honest Grocer your father who dwelt next doore to the George in Kings streete by which your birth as it were by a natural kinde of congruity you may seeme rather ordained to haue to doe with a pestel and a morter then a sworde or pen. This I doe not say Sir Humphrey that a man meanely borne may not by his deserts come into a better ranke for reason authority and example of all sorts teach the contrary but because as nobility of extraction and vertue ioyned together adde and receiue lustre reciprocally one frō the other Soe meanesse of qualities or conditions such as you shew in your writings and as God willing I shall out of them manifestly proue doth more shew it selfe being ioyned with a meane birth and education the one as it were bearing witnes of the other Wherefore mee thinkes Sir you being priuy to your owne wants of this kind should haue forborne to proclayme them to the world by this manner of writing which euery man presently seeth cannot come from an ingenuous disposition such as a Gentleman is presumed to haue 4. But now to come to your Epistle it self you say you haue attempted to send forth this
as appeareth by Saint Augustine in the same booke take the cleane contrary course iust as you doe heere Sir Humphrey 7. This therefore being the thing which you should haue done and you being soe mistaken in it what can be expected at your hands but that by declining the question in steede of vindicatinge your Mother's cause and maintayning your owne credit you betray the one and ouerthrow the other being not able to shew your pedigree and Succession and in steed of making men see it is noe difficult matter to proue your visibility to make them see it is not onely difficult but also impossible For though you pretend facility in words yet in deeds you shew impossibility That then which you say in your brauery that you will meete the aduersary vpon his owne ground and deale with him at his owne weapō euery man seeth how false and vaine a florish it is For your aduersaryes ground that hee appointeth you is to shew your Succession in all ages and his weapon is a catalogue of Bishops and Pastours succeeding one another Euangelists and Doctours the former to gouerne the later to instruct such as S. Paul mentioneth Ephes 4.11 And he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Euangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministery vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntill wee meete all into the vnity of Faith Bring such a Succession of Pastours such a people liuing in this or that Citty or Countrey professing the same faith and beleife which Protestants now doe and you meete your aduersary vpon the same termes for of this kind of weapon he hath offered you many as Genebrard Gualterus Bellarmine Sanders and many others Bring such a catalogue of your owne like one of these and then you discharge your creditt which till then lieth engaged And for this you should not haue needed to take all that paines nor putt your selfe to those straites of prouing out of our owne Bishops Cardinals Doctours c. that your Doctrine hath beene taught in former ages For to be as liberal with you agayne the Iesuit would haue giuen you the freedome to take all manner of Writers whether Catholiques or Haeretiques Pagans Iewes Turkes or what profession els soeuer they were of to see whether out of all together you could patch vpp a Catalogue or bring any the least mention of such a goodly people and commonwealth as wee see suddainely started vpp in the world vpon the reuolt of Luther For we Catholiques haue a publique testimony of the Visibility of our Church from all sorts of men all sects and professions whatsoeuer that being a condition and property whereof the whole world cannot but take notice and consequently all manner of men must necessarily witnesse 8. And therefore Sir Humhrey while you thinke you haue hitt the bird in the eye by prouing though you should proue it as you neuer can out of our Cardinals Bishops and Doctours that your faith was taught in former ages you are cleane mistaken For Visibility and antiquity are two different properties antiquity properly belongeth to the doctrine and beleife of the Church but Visibility properly belongeth to the Church it self as it is a Church to wit a community commonwealth or kingdome consisting of men liuing in a certaine forme of gouernment and professing a certaine outward forme or face of Religion by Sacrifice Sacraments and other rites tending to the worship of God and Sanctification of themselues wherein all that are of that Community doe participate and thereby are distinguished and differenced from all such as are not of the same Community and profession Wherefore you being chalenged to shew such a community and flying from that to proue the antiquity of your Doctrine out of our Fathers and Schoolmen what els doe you doe but confesse your Church to want Visibility and your selfe honesty by endeauouring to deceiue men with a specious title of a safe way intending indeed to leade them from the true safe way of the Catholique Church into such certaine by-ways and corners as our B. Sauiour foretold vs of when hee said that False Prophets should come and tell vs loe here is Christ or there doe not beleeue them And by this you may perceiue how vnfittly you ioyne or rather confound antiquity and Visibility by saying in the very beginninge of this your Epistle the ancient visibility of the Protestant profession and soe in many other places For Visibility must as well be new to follow your manner of speaking as ancient that is it is a thing which hath beene without interruption is and euer must bee to the worlds end in the true Church of God and is noe more tyed to these primitiues or ancient tymes then to these later of ours nor noe more to those tymes of ours then to those that shall come after vs againe Or if it more belong to one tyme then another it rather belongeth more to succeeding tymes For as it is cleare by the Prophecies going before our B. Sauiour's coming and the accomplishment of the same after his coming the Church was to beginne as all things els in this world from a small beginning and after by tyme and continuance receiue a greater encrease and by little and little come to spread ouer the whole world at which tyme it must needs be more visible then in the beginninge Soe that little Stone Dan. 2.36 which the Prophett Daniel speaketh of in figure of the Kingdome of Christ which is his Church grew by little and little to be soe great a mountaine as it filled the whole Earth at which tyme certainely it was more visible then at first when it was but beginning Soe the Church which began at Hierusalem from thence was spread by degrees to other Countries and is to goe on increasing to the vtmost bounds of the Earth to the very end of the World must needes be more visible and apparant as it goeth more dilating it self in space of place and continuance of tyme. 9. But now you come vpon vs with a counter challenge demanding by what authority of scriptures and ancient Fathers we haue imposed new articles of Christian beleife vppon Preists and people for as you say truth denyes antiquity and vniuersality to the principal articles of the new Roman Creede and you say our best learned Romanists professe that most of them were vnknowne to antiquity Wherefore after a digressiō against implicite faith and our altering and changing the ten commandements as you say very wisely you wish that they that vrge a catalogue of such Protestants as haue in all ages professed your 39. articles should produce one anciēt orthodox father in euery age for these 1500. yeares who hath held all our Trent articles de fide and that then you will acknowledge our Professours visible in all ages our Cardinals Bishops Schoolemen mistaken that they are to bee reformed by an
Index expurgatorius you will acknowledge the nouelty of your Church and submitt your selfe with an implicite faith to the Romane Church Soe you for your counterchalleÌ„ge Sir Humphrey had you marked the challenge well you might haue spared it for the Iesuit required you to performe nothing but that which many on the Catholique part haue performed ready to your hand that is that you should bring such a Catalogue of succession for proofe of the Visibility of your Church as we did many of ours as Sanders Bellarmine Gualterus others You aske by what authority we impose new articles of beleife vpon men this question is not to the purpose but I answeare by denying your suppositioÌ„ for we doe not impose new articles vpon men but defend the old against new faÌ„gled fellowes neither is this the proper place for you to require or for vs to bring proofes out of Fathers Scriptures of particular points whereof you cannot but know that many great and learned men in the Catholick Church haue written great volumes which noe haeretique hath euer yet durst venture to answeare how then can you soe brasenly say that our owne best learned confesse that the articles of the Trent-Creede as you call them are vnknowne to antiquity what point is there defined in the Councel of Trent which is not proued by way of authority of scriptures fathers by Iudocus Coccius by way of reason and solution of arguments by Bell. by way of history by Baronius to say nothing of others some may perhaps say that some points there defined were not before defined by any general Councel but to bring any Catholique to say that they are new or that they were not anciently nor commonly beleeued I dare say Sir Humphrey is more then you can proue but suppose any one may say that there is noe proofe extant in any ancient author of this or that point must it therefore follow that it is new noe surely for all things are not written as S. Iohn verifyeth of our Sauiour's owne words and deeds how much lesse then other things which yet are generally taught and practized in the Catholique Church which very practize without farther proofe S. Augustine maketh to be an argument of antiquity Aug cont Don. lib. 4.24 but of this newnesse of faith whereof you soe ignorantly complaine and likewise of implicite faith I shall say more afterwards 10. Now for our leauinge out the second commandement wherewith you tax vs and changing the fourth from sanctify the Sabboth to Sanctify the holydayes it is pitty you are soe hard driuen as when you are called vpon to proue your Succession and Visibility of your Church to fall vpon vs for the commandements a thing of soe different nature and soe triuiall For first it is false that we leaue out that which you call the second commandment Looke in our bibles and see whether you find it not there in all Editions and translations as well English as Latine or any other language whatsoeuer How then doe we leaue it out you will say we leaue it out in our catechismes true but to leaue a thing out of a catechisme is not absolutely to leaue it out as long as it is els where But besids to answeare you another way wee leaue out many other things as that God is a iealous God that hee reuengeth the Sinnes of the Father to the 3. and 4. generation and the like though they goe intermingled with the commandements in the text and this we doe without blame because they eyther pertaine not precisely to the commandement or are sufficiently expressed in the very words of the commandement it self Soe wee say of this that it is either contayned in the first commandement being onely an explication of the same or if it be a distinct precept as some Deuines say then is it ceremoniall onely and consequently abrogated with the whole Law 11. Soe likewise for the other commandement of Sanctifying the Holy-dayes I answeare that in our bibles or text of scripture we keepe the word Sabboth and in most and best catechismes also as for example Canisius Bellarmines large catechisme and others but specially in that of the Councel of Trent sett out by authority of Pius V. Which were answeare enough to shew we make noe such mystery of it since sometymes we say Sabboth sometymes Holydayes as indeede we well may the sense being the same and we may better vse this liberty in catechismes where we stand not soe much to cite the very words of scripture as to declare the meaning of them though in the text it selfe we keepe precisely to the very words Where yet we explicate it in the same sense following therein the example of Scripture it self which vseth those words indifferently as may appeare Leuit. cap. 23. Where other Holydayes beside the Saturday or Sabboth are called Sabbata 3. or 4. tymes in that one chapter and in the beginning thereof those dayes which are called Sabbata are called twice Feriae sanctae Holydayes Soe as you Sir Humfrey in making such a deale of difference betweene Sabboth and Holyday shew your self to be but shallowly read in scripture Besids I may answeare to this as to the former obiection that this coÌ„mandment was partly ceremonial to wit for as much as pertayneth to that particular day of saturday and partly natural to wit soe farre as it obligeth to the obseruing of some daye or tyme holy indeterminately 12. But if we be such great offenders for changing â—â—e word Sabboth in some of our catechiâ—mes into Holyday what are you for changing the very commaÌ„dement while you stand working vpon Saturday and rest vpon Sunday soe changing the Sabboth it self but what stuffe is this for you to trouble your gentry Readers withall in the very beginning of your booke and in your Epistle dedicatory forsooth and not onely to touch vpon it heere but to print the commandements faire in a leafe by themselues with a marginal note of Ledaesma's catechisme of 2. or 3. editions as if you would make your Reader stand at some goodly gaze but by this a man may easily guesse what matter hee is like to find in the booke it selfe I could haue noted a thing of the same kind of yours in this Epistle in the first leafe where you say truth is iustifyed of her Children whereas the text of scripture is Wisedome is iustified c but that I did not count it worth speaking of 13. Touching your great boast that if we can shew one good author in euery age for this 1500. yeares who hath held our Trent articles as you call them de fide you will confesse our Doctours Schoolmen c. to be mistaken and to neede an index expurgatorius and that you will submitt your self to the Romane Church acknowledging the nouelty of your owne church Forasmuch as this your promise seemeth by the manner to be but a proud vaunt to delude the simple reader to make him more confident
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
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
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
not much short of idolatry For Tertull doubteth not to aequal them Nec dubitare quis debet neque ab idolatria distare haereses Tertul. de praeser cap. 40. quum auctoris operis eiusdem sint cuius idolatria Neither ought any man to doubt that heresies doe not differ from idolatry since their author and worke is the same which idolatry Nay in some respects haeresy goeth beyond idolatry as S. Thomas well sheweth and S. Hierome saith absolutely and without limitation 2.2 q. lib. 7. in Esai Nemo tam impius est quem Haereticus impietate non vincat There is noe man soe impious whom an Heretique doth not surpasse in impiety Therefore your comfort is vanity since your profession is impiety And soe much for that matter 16. Now if any man will but lend an eare he shall heare a fine conceit of yours whereby to proue your Faith ancient vniuersall and what not That is by answearing our question where your Church was before Luther in this manner Of the foure Creeds to wit of the Apostles of Nice of Athanasius and Pius 4. You beleeue 3. which were beleeued before Luther of the 7. Sacraments you beleeue 2. which we confesse also to haue beene instituted by Christ of Scriptures you acknowledge 22. books For canonical which we allow which were soe beleeued before Luther's tyme. why rather 7. Councels then 17. or 19. Of the 7. generall Councels 4. are confirmed by Parlament in England not called by Luther The traditions vniuersally receiued and which we confesse to bee Apostolicall are deriued from the Apostles to you as you say not from Luther The prayers in your common prayer booke are the same Say you in substance with our ancient liturgies not broached by Luther the ordination of Ministers is from the Apostles not from Luther If therefore say you the 3. creeds the two principall Sacraments the 22. books of canonicall scripture the fower first generall Councels the Apostolique traditions the ancient Liturgies the ordination of Pastors were anciently vniuersally receiued in all ages in the bosome of the Romane Church euen by the testimonyes of our aduersaries is it not a silly and senselesse question to demand where our Church was before Luther all this is your discourse Sir Knight and most part your very words wherein you seeme to thinke you haue soe satisfied our question that in your iudgment it is silly and senselesse to demaund it any more But it will easily appeare on the contrary side what a silly senselesse thing it was for you to frame such a discourse to your selfe and much more soe to publish it to other men as if any body els had soe little witt as to be pleased therewith For be it soe that these points of doctrine were ancieÌ„tly taught as they are now taught by the Romane Church what followeth that you had a Church before Luther nothing lesse For a Church consisteth not of points of Doctrine or faith onely but much more of men professing such and such Sacraments rites such a faith religioÌ„ If therefore you will shew vs a Church you must shew vs such a company of men which till you can shew the question remaineth vnansweared If you say they were the same men of which the Romane Church did then consist which you seeme to say in that you tell vs your Church was in the bosome of the Romane Church I answeare that is not to the purpose For as now since Luther's tyme you are a distinct company making a Church such as it is by your selues soe you must shew a company of men in like manner distinct in former tymes from ours and your antiquity is onely to begin from such a tyme as you began to bee a distinct company from vs You must not thinke to stand and contend with vs for antiquity and then pretend our antiquity to bee yours But you must shew a distinct Succession of Bishops a distinct common wealth or people professing that Faith onely which you beleeue practizing those rites ceremonies and Sacraments onely which you haue when you haue done this you may better demand what a silly senselesse question it is to aske where your Church was before Luther 17. But because you mention your being in former ages in the bosome of the Romane church not onely heere but els where often in this your treatise as if thereby you would make your Church seeme one and the same with ours or at least to descend from ours Tertull. de praesâ—r cap. 36. and soe to participate of our Visibility and Vniuersality I will alleadge you a saying of Tertullians which doth soe fully answeare the matter that you will take but little comfort in the manner of your descent Thus it is Tertullian hauing alleadged for his eight prescription against Haeretiques the authority of the Apostolique churches which then kept the very authentical letters written To them by the Apostles and especially of the Romane Church which he calleth happy for that to it the Apostles powred forth all their whole doctrine together with their bloud and there putting downe a briefe summe of some speciall points thereof concludeth in theis words Haec est institutio non dico iam quae futuras haereses praenunciabat sed de qua haereses prodierunt Sed non fuerunt ex illa ex quo factae sunt aduersus illum Etiam de oliua nucleo mitis opimae necessariae asper oleaster exoritur Etiam de papauere fici gratissimae suauissimae ventosa vana caprificus exurgit Ita haereses de nostro fructificauerunt non nostrae degeneres veritatis grano mendacio siluestres This is the institution I doe not say now which did foretell Haeresies to come but out of which haeresies haue come But they were not of it from the tyme that they became against it Euen out of the kernel of the mild fatt and necessary or profitable oliue the sower bastard oliue groweth From the seede alsoe of the most pleasant and sweete figtree ariseth the windy and vaine or empty wild figtree And soe haue haeresies fructified out of ours but they not ours degenerating from the graine of truth and becoming wild by vntruth or lying Thus farr Tertullian Acknowledging indeede that haeresies haue their beginning from vs that is that the men that broach them come out of our Church but that they are noe more ours when they beginne once to be against vs. And that the dishonour thereof redoundeth not to vs but to themselues hee declareth by the two similitudes of the oliue and figgetree comparing vs to the true and fruitfull trees and them to the bastard vaine and wild trees issuing out of the former All which if you consider well Sir Humphrey you will find it but a small honour for you to haue come out of the Romane Church though you haue layen neuer soe long in the very bosome thereof as you
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 must doe before your communion Annotat. after the order of administringe the communion neyther will it serue the turne to haue one or two to beare the Minister company but there must bee a competent number for example saith your booke if the Parish consist of 20. persons there must be 3. or 4. at least otherwise the Minister must not communion it And by this rule a man may say proportionably if the parish haue twenty hundred or 20000. there should be 3. or 4. thousand to communicate at once And if a sicke body would receiue he may not receiue alone but hee must haue some body to beare him company and not onely one or two but many or a competent number as your booke saith which therefore is to bee considered according to the number of Parishioners This and much more may bee said of the prettines of your seruice and good fellow communion but heere is enough of such an idle subiect and soe hauing answeared your third Paragraph of priuate Masse as you call it I come to the 4. PARAGRAPH 4. OF THE SEAVEN Sacraments 1. In this 4. paragraph which is of our Seauen Sacraments the Knight hoyseth vpp all the sailes of his eloquence and putteth to all the force of his witt as if both by wind and oare he would goe quite beyond vs in this point of our faith wherein for that cause he doth enlarge himself beyond the ordinary measure of his paragraphs and filleth his margents with citations of Fathers and of Schoolemen laying first for a foundation a wise discourse of his owne Which I will alsoe beginne with without longer prefacing with him He setteth downe first the Canon of the Councel of Trent accursing whosoeuer shall say the Seauen Sacraments of the new Law were not instituted by Christ Sess 7. caâ— 1. de Sacr. in gen or that there bee more or fewer then Seauen or that any of them is not properly and truely a Sacrament Which decree saith Bellarmine ought to suffice though we had noe other For if we take away the authority of the present Church and present Councell the decrees of all other Councels and the whole Christian Faith may be brought into doubt Which canon of the Councell and authority of Bellarmine he cryeth out against and saith it is a foundation of Atheisme for in his iudgment the word of Christ alone is sufficient for all Christians which hee proueth by those words of S. Paul I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsel of God Act. 20. And that wee may know he speaketh of the written Word he bringeth Bellarmines authority saying that those things are written which were by the Apostles preached generally to all And hee is soe confident against this point of the Seuen Sacraments that hee is content the curse shall light vpon him if any learned man shall shew it out of any Father of the Primitiue Church or any knowen author for about a thousand yeares after Christ This is his beginning whereat I will make a stay and answeare not to take too much at once Hee thinketh it then a foundation of Atheisme to say that if wee take away the authority of the present Church and present Councel wee may call in question the whole Christian Faith And why soe good Sir Humphrey What Atheisme is it to say that there is one Faith that that Faith is to bee found onely in the Church that that Church cannot fayle or erre at any time and consequently that that Faith which it teacheth cannot faile or erre and especially that then the Church can least erre when it is gathered together in a General Councel and defineth matters of Faith with approbation of the Supreme Pastor of God's church and that if such a Councel may erre the Church may erre that if the Church may erre the Faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently that there can bee noe certainty is this the way to Atheisme to teach that there must be some certaine meanes to learne true faith and beleife in God and that if there bee none such there can bee noe certainty would a man thinke that it should euer enter into any man's mind to say that the affirming of this infallibility were the way to Atheisme Whereas the denyall thereof is the most direct way that can be imagined vnto Atheisme For take this infallibility away and there is noe rule of faith if noe rule noe faith if noe faith noe right beleife in God which is the height of Atheisme 2. But because you Sir Humphrey are not capable of this Discourse as euident and demonstratiue as it is I will goe about with you another way I would know of you whither if wee should take away the holy Scripture or written word it would not follow in you iudgment that the whole Christian faith might bee called in question I say in your iudgment for whether it would or would not in myne I doe not say any thing heere certainely it would For some rule men must haue and that is your onely rule Now againe doe not you know that S. Gregory the great did often say write that he did hold the fower first Councels in the same honour that he did the 4. Ghospels which was the same as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Ghospels Why may it not then follow that vpon deniall of the authority of those 4. Councels the authority of the ChristiaÌ„ faith may be shaken as well as by deniall of the Ghospell V. Bâ—ll lib. 2. de Concil cap. 3. and this which I say of S. Gregory I may say of many other Fathers in reguard of all or some of those 4. Councels and particularly of that of Nice which whosoeuer should haue denyed was noe lesse to haue bene counted an Haeretique then if he should haue denied the Ghospell 1. Eliz 1. you your selues in your Parliament Lawes giue great authority to those 4. first Councels euen as much if you vnderstand your selues well speake consequently as S. Gregory doth for you are coÌ„teÌ„t to acknowledge for heresy whatsoeuer is condemned for such by any of them Which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith coÌ„sequently of infallible authority you ioyne theÌ„ in the same ranke with the canonical Scriptures You giue also the like authority to other general Councels but with this lymitatioÌ„ that these later must haue expresse scripture whereby to coÌ„demne a thing for heresy but which is most of all to bee noted in the same statute you giue power to the Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Conuocation to adiudge or determine a matter to bee heresy Which is the very same as to giue it power to declare faith or to bee a rule thereof which if it may agree to such an assembly or Court of a temporal Prince and Kingdome I see not why it may not agree to a
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
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
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
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
doe not agree with vs in the profession of the Christian Faith yet I see not why that should be necessary by this your argument and thereby a man may see what a good guide you are and how Safe a way you goe and whether the saying of Salomon be not truely verified of your Safe way Prou. 14.12 Est via quae videtur homini recta nouissima eius deducunt ad mortem There is a Way which seemeth to a man straight and the end of it leadeth to Death and consequently to Hell For what other is the end of Haeresy Iudaisme and Turcisme whereto your rule doth leade all such as wil be ruled thereby THE CONCLVSION HAuing therefore thus demonstrated the period of your Safety to be death and hell which is the lott and portion of all wicked Sectaries as Arrians Eunomians Macedonians Eutychians Monothelites Wickliffians Hussits Anabaptists as also Iewes and Turkes all which in the last section I haue proued by your owne rule to be in as safe a way as you are I may now for a conclusion demand what all this that you haue hitherto said is to the Iesuit's challenge which you heere pretend to answeare he hauing required at your hands that you should shew as I said in the beginning a visible Church and Succession in all ages from the Apostles tyme to this of ours a Succession I say or catalogue of Doctours and Pastours teaching your 39. articles and of people professing the same faith which now you professe this being the thing which was required at your hands I would gladly know where it is that you haue performed it in this your booke in what section or in what number In the first 7. sections you talke of the causelesse bitternesse of the Romane Church against yours of the causes of contention of reformation of corruptions in faith manners of many Catholiques that haue come to dye Protestants of the deriuation of our Doctrine from ancient Haeretiques and yours from Christ and his Apostles all which supposing you say true I would know what it is to the purpose For where be the men heere named in whom the profession of your doctrine hath continued and by whom it hath beene deriued from the tymes of the Apostles to those of Luther and Caluin Likewise in the 8. 9. 10. and 11. sections you stand prouing the Antiquity Vniuersality Certainty Safety of your Faith in generall and in particular as you say with as little order or methode truth or substance as it is little to the purpose though you should haue proued those things neuer soe well and substantially For lett your Doctrine be neuer soe ancient vniuersal certaine and safe if you name not the men that professed it for soe many ages as are from the Apostles to Luther you are but where you were at first For a man may still aske Where your Church was before Luther that is where the men were that professed your Faith For it is not the Faith but the men that we looke after in this place From the 12. section to the end you tell vs of our reiecting and eluding the ancient Father's of correcting and purging other authors of our excepting against Scripture of Bellarmines testification in fauour of your Doctrine in some principal points of our Martyrs of the saluation or damnation of professed Romanists lastly of the Safety of your Faith and beleife All which as I haue before shewed to be most false soe doe I heere say it is nothing to the purpose For where heere is any man named that you can say was yours that is did beleiue and professe the same faith with you nay where is there one such man named in your whole booke before Luther's tyme or euen almost since Vnlesse it be a Chamier a Riuett or a Chemnitius that you can say did any way agree with you it is euident there is not and therefore you your self are forced in the very last page of your booke to confesse as much of a great many of your authors For you say that hauing brought your Reader into a safe way you commend him briefly to CHRIST and his Apostles for his Leaders the ancient Fathers for his Associats and Assistants and the Blessed Spirit for his guide and Conduct but for the other passengers as Cardinals Bishops and Schoolemen which you say accompany you but part of your Way because they are Strangers you will haue him be wary of them Whereby it is plaine you professe not to agree in beleife with any one except Christ his Apostles and ancient Fathers Soe as from their tymes to Luther which was 900. or 1000. yeares The antiquity of Fathers ending by the ordinary account of your Protestants about S. Gregory the great his tyme or before You haue not a man all that tyme that you can say was yours or of the same beleife and Church with you How then can you thinke you haue shewed vs a Safe way when you cannot name vs a man now for the space of neere a 1000. yeares who as may be gathered our of your owne discourse hath walked therein It hath beene vnknowne then all this tyme and therefore for a man to leaue the Knowne way of the Catholique Church wherein it is euident that all sorts of men haue cōtinually in all ages walked to goe into your by-wayes neuer troddē by the foote of any one learned or holy man What were it but to turne out of a common beaten high way leading directly frō one Citty or country to another and to goe into some vast or wild desert where there is noe path or signe of any man that hath euer gone that way noe howse or other thing to giue light direction in which case nothing els is to be expected but that after a great deale of toile and labour a man shall wholy loose himself without euer being able to arriue at his iourneys end Which as it cannot be counted other then a kind of madnes in a Trauailer heere in this world soe can it not also be counted otherwise in a man that professeth to trauell to heauen-ward and therefore it is mentioned in Scripture together with other great crimes for which almighty God professeth to forsake his people bring their land into desolation and aeternall ignominy Quia oblitus est mei populus meus frustra libantes impingentes in vijs suis in semitis saculi vt ambularent per eas in itinere non trito Ier. 18.15 Because my people hath forgotten mee in vaine sacrificing and stumbling in their waies in the pathes of this world that they might walke in them in a way not beaten Wherefore it is in vaine for you Sir Humphrey to talke of Safety Certainty and I know not what els till you can shew vs such a path as the Catholique Church soe troden and beaten by the continual and neuer interrupted Succession of trauellers therein Soe plaine and straight that noe
such as meant to bee counted Catholiques Wherein I would farther know of him what other difference there is but onely that the Creede of Nice was made for declaration of the Catholique faith in the point of the Diuinity of our Sauiour and this of the Councel of Trent for declaration of all these points controuerted by the Haeretiques of these tymes And yet in one thing more they agree that is that as the Arrians of those tymes cried out against that Creede as being new and hauing words not found in Scripture for example Consubstantiation Soe our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of Faith for the same reasons of nouelty and words not found in scripture as for example Transubstantiation 3. But to come neerer vnto them They allow of the Nicene Creede they will not then I suppose say the Faith therein taught eyther now is or then was new though it were then first declared by authority of any Councel Which if they doe not as indeede they cannot then say I in like sort the profession of Faith sett downe by the Councel of Trent and Pope Pius 4. is noe new Faith but the old Faith of late particularly declared and defined against the haeresies of these tymes I could also in proofe of the same vrge Sir Humphrey with the 39. articles appointed by the authority of the Church of England to bee vniformely taught by all Ministers and which they are to sweare vnto Which articles though they be indeede new coyned as the foundation of a new Church Yet Sir Humphrey being his Mother's Champion will not I suppose yeild her or her doctrine to be new as yet on the other side he cannot deny but those articles receiued some kind of force whereby Protestants were more bound to beleiue and teach them then before From whence I might euidently inferre that a new definition or declaration doth not make the Doctrine new but that ancient doctrine may be newly defined according as new springing heresies shall giue occasion 4. Which being soe it is plaine that all his insulting speeches against the Councel of Trent and Catholique church are but verie smoke and may bee as easily blowne backe vpon Himselfe and his church and that by them hee doth but furnish vs with weapons against himself therein also bewraying his ignorance For whose better instruction if hee be not too wise to learne hee is to know two things in this matter First that we Catholiques doe not call all points of faith howsoeuer taught declared or defined articles as hee seemeth to thinke and the ground of this his errour may bee in that those great maine points of his Churches doctrine called the 39. articles are called by that name of articles But wee call that onely an article V S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 1. ar according to S. Thomas which containeth some speciall reason of difficulty in it self whereby it requireth a particular and distinct reuelacion because it cannot bee inferred or deduced out of any other reuealed truth as for example the point of our Sauiour's resurrection is cleane a different point from that point of his death and passion and this againe from that other of his Natiuity and soe of the rest because each of them requireth a distinct and seuerall reuelacion from the other For Christ might haue beene borne and yet not dye vpon the crosse and hee might haue died and yet not risen the third day from death to life but those other truthes defined by the Church as the vnity of Christ's person against Nestorius the distinction of his two natures against Sergius Pirrhus c. are not to bee called articles because they are sufficiently contained in others and deduced out of them Other Diuines giue other definitions of an article of faith which may also well stand with this of S. Thomas which I follow as the more common but all agree in this that though euery article bee a proposition of Faith yet euerie proposition is not an article of Faith 5. And heerevpon we teach that for articles of faith the Church can make none as she cannot write a canonical booke of scripture but that belongeth onely to the Prophets and Apostles or rather hath beene fully and perfectly performed by them to whom those articles were immediately reuealed by God whereof they deliuered part by writing and part by word of mouth to their posterity the Church Soe as now there neede not any new and particular reuelacions but out of those already made to the Apostles and Prophets which are all laid vpp in the treasury of the Church as a pawne or depositum as S. Paul calleth it other truths are drawne the holy Church and true spouse of Christ euer keeping this pretious treasure with continuall care and vigilancie and dispensing the same faithfully to her Children as neede requireth Whensoeuer any haeretique or other enemy endeauoureth to corrupt or peruert she calling her Pastors and Doctors together to examine the matter being infallibly assisted by that Spirit of truth which our Sauiour promised to bee allwayes with his disciples that is with his Church she declareth what is true and what false as agreeing or disagreeing with or from that doctrine which she hath receiued from her fathers that is Prophets and Apostles vpon whom as vpon a spiritual foundation she is strongly built according to that of S. Paul superedificaii supra fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum Ephes 2 20. Built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The very words Fundamentum foundation also shewing that her doctrine is not of her owne inuention or framing but grounded on them from whom she receiued it and that she hath not any which she receiueth not from them For as in a howse or building there is not the least stone or peece of timber which resteth not vppon the foundation Soe in the doctrine of the Catholique Church there is not the least point which is not grounded or contained in that which was deliuered by the Prophets and Apostles Commonit aduer haer cap. 27. Which truth Vincentius Lerinensis in like sort deduceth out of the word Depositum vsed by S. Paul to Timothee Quid est depositum saith hee id est quod tibi creditum est non quod a te inuentum quod accepisti non quod excogitasti rem non ingenij sed doctrinae non vsurpationis priuatae sed publica traditionis rem ad te perductam non a te prolatam in qua non auctor debes esse sed custos non institutor sed Sectator non ducens sed sequens What is a depositum it is that which thou art trusted with not that which is found by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast sought out a thing not of wit that is not of thine owne inuenting but of learning that is which is learnt not of priuate vsurpation but publique tradition a thing brought to thee not brought forth by thee wherein
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
Donatists who iustified themselues as you Sir Knight iustify your Church Much more of this might bee said but this may serue to shew you not to bee in your right witts that bragg of that which you ought most to bee ashamed of and account that to make for you which makes most against you 9. For that which you talke of goeing out of Aegipt and Babylon which you would haue men vnderstand the Catholique Church as if you were commaunded to goe out from her Doe but once shew vs that Aegypt and Babylon which the Sripture speaketh of were euer the true Church and then you may seeme to haue said some what for your Churches departure from the Romane Which impudence it self cannot deny to haue beene once the true Church You are bold indeede to say that Babylon was a true Church wherewith sometymes the faithfull did communicate but that after it was more depraued the faithfull are commanded to goe out of it But I may aske you where you reade this what Father what Doctour what man euer tooke Babylon in scripture to be vsed for the name of the true Church S. Peter in one of his Epistles speaketh of Rome by the name of Babylon out of which a multitude of Fathers and Doctours proue that Saint Peter was at Rome and now you forsooth bring some of them cited by our authors to that purpose to proue that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church Abusing all those Fathers most egregiously among all whom neuer one meant any such matter but onely by Babylon vnderstood the temporal state and gouernment of the Citty of Rome as it was subiect to those Pagan tyrannizing Emperours which persecuted the Church and people of God wherein it did resemble that other ancient and true Babylon which detayned the Iewes then the true Church and people of God in captiuity and oppression Which also S. Peter's owne words doe sufficiently shew distinguishing most plainely Babylon from the true Church For he saith thus 1. Pet. 5.13 Ecclesia quae est in Babylone coëlecta The Church which is in Babylon coelect saluteth you Not that Babylon was a true Church as your words are Sir Humphrey 10. Now whereas you say that when she was depraued the faithfull were willed to goe out of her that is out of her that was once the true Church You are extreamely mistaken For if you meane any true Babylon as that Citty of Chaldaea or that other of Aegypt or Babylon by similitude and likenes as was Rome in tyme of the HeatheÌ„ Emperours and as many Interpreters thinke towards the end of the world in tyme of Antichrist the citty or temporal gouernment thereof shall againe become of which tyme that of the Apocalypse is meant that the faithfull shall fly for auoyding of the cruelty and tyranny of the persecutours which shall then bee more cruel then euer or if by Babylon you meane the whole company of wicked men from the beginning to the end of the world as S. Aug. taketh it throughout his great worke de ciuit Dei and other Fathers and Doctours and many interpreters vnderstand that place of the Apocalypse 18. If I say you meane it any of these wayes as noe man of vnderstanding euer meant or vnderstood it otherwise then was it neuer any true Church and soe the Children and people of God might well bee willed to gett out of it either locally by motion of the body or spiritually by auoyding the maÌ„ners of the people not hauing any thing with them in their wicked wayes But if you meane as you expresse your selfe that by Babylon is vnderstood the true Church and that it may bee depraued that is that the Church of Christ notwithstanding all his promises for the perpetuity thereof as That hee would bee with it to the worlds end That it was built vpoÌ„ a rocke That the Gates of hell should not preuaile against it That he would send the Holy Ghost to bee with it for euer notwithstanding that the Church is his kingdome his inheritance his mysticall body his Spouse that notwithstanding all this I say it should faile it shoull bee depraued it should bee wiolated I know not what to say but to stopp myne eares against that mouth of blasphemy of yours and heerewith end this sectioÌ„ the rest thereof being nothing but the bitter froth of a distempered stomacke and vnworthy of answeare Chap. 3. THE EXAMINATION OF Sir Humphrey's second and third Section CHAPTER III. 1. IN the second Section Sir Humphrey laboureth to proue the contention betwixt the Churches as he calleth them to proceede originally from vs and this by the confessions of our owne The third Section is to proue the corruptions both in faith and manners confessed by some of vs and yet reformacion denied by the Pope Both which are easily answeared First by asking what all this is to his purpose suppose it were true Doth this shew his Church to haue beene alwayes visible or ours to haue beene at any tyme not visible Hee was not to stand vpon matter of contention who was cause or not cause thereof or who would haue mended who not For the errors in faith which hee seemeth to tax â—s with-all in his third section if he can proue them he saith somewhat indeede though yet not soe fully to his purpose For though hee proue vs to haue had some errours it doth not soe presently follow that they of his side haue had none or that therefore their Church hath beene euer visible there is a great deale more required to it then soe And though he should proue some errors to haue beene taught by some particular men or euen in some Country professing the Catholique faith it doth not follow that the Catholique Church hath fayled in faith or ceased to bee visible 2. Secondly I answeare to his second Section which is to proue that the contention proceeded from vs which hee vndertaketh to proue by our owne confession that in all this Section he bringeth but fowre authorities to wit Cassander a Canon of his English Church out of the praeface to Iewels works Camden citing S. Bede Plessy Morney citing Michael Caesenas Of all which onely S. Bede is a Catholique and euen cited by the Protestant Camden and onely for a story which he tels of one Redwalde king of the East Saxons who being first conuerted to Christianity and after seduced by his wife had in the same Church two altars one for Christ's religion another for the Diuels out of which this knight frameth to himself a pretty fancy being desirous heereby to make men beleiue that the like happened in the Romane Church and that some adored God onely others fell to adore Saints and images and the like Which fond conceit what answeare can it deserue For it is but the bare saying of one that doth not vnderstand what he saith For otherwise how could he possibly say such a thing of himself without saying when where or how that happed
And therefore all your labour is lost when by similitudes you labour to proue that we are not to putt you to the proofe of our errours by naming the authors tyme and place for vpon these circumstāces dependeth the knowledge whether it bee a disease or noe which is our questiō Neither is that authority of S. Aug. to your purpose for he speaketh of a man fallen into a pitt of whom it is euident that he is fallen into it And though you would haue it soe that the Romane Church is fallen into an errour as it were into a pitt we say otherwise and of this is the question And this we would haue you proue by assingning the author tyme place of this Change for till you can shew that we say according to S. Aug. rule that whatsoeuer the Catholique Church doth generally beleeue or practize soe as there can bee noe tyme assigned when it began it is to be taken for an Apostolical tradition Such we say are all these things which you are pleased onely because they please you not to call errours And it stands you therefore vpon to proue when they began els they must passe for Apostolical traditions not for errors as you would haue them Tert. praescrip cap. 31. 3. Besides it is Tertullians rule for discerning of heresy from truth to see which goeth before which cometh after that which goeth before is truth that which cometh after is errour Wee say then that in all these things wee goe before because wee haue antiquity they are things that haue beene euer taught and practized we pleade prescription from the beginning and wee say and proue that you come after we assigne you persons tymes places who haue begunne the Chāge it followeth thē that ours is true till you can shew vs tyme person and place when it begāne as we shew yours not to be true by the same rule Neither is it enough for you to say we are in errour you must disproue vs by shewing our prescription not to hold good which you can neuer doe without assigning of persons tymes c. If you should haue a sute against a man in Westminster-hall for land which he pleadeth to haue beene his and his ancestors for soe long tyme as is required by the Law to make prescription and that you should goe about to disproue it without assigning the tyme and manner but onely by your owne bare word would not euery man laugh at you How much more in this case and yet you thinke you haue spoken wonderfull wisely and learnedly all this while 4. Which may yet appeare more by that which followeth of your comparison betwixt heresy and apostacy In which you attribute this later vnto vs but it seemeth heereby you little know what Apostacy is Wherefore to helpe you out Apostacy is a defection or forsaking of the name of Christ and profession of Christianity as all men vnderstand it Whereof sure you cannot taxe vs soe long as we beleeue the Apostles Creede which you call the common cognizance of Christianity and which you confesse vs to beleeue How then can we be Apostata'es In no wise certainely but if we erre we erre as Heretiques if we be Heretiques you confesse you must assigne the person who first taught our heresyes the tyme place where when they were first taught For soe you say in plaine termes that heresy because it worketh openly it may be discerned the tyme and persō knowne though you bee somewhat various in this for you say a little before that whē there was any heresy that did endāger the foundation or openly disturbed the Church supposing heerein that there be some secret heresyes which doe not soe the Fathers gaue warning thereof by letters But your supposition is false and foolish False in that you thinke any heresy not to endaunger the foundation of Faith for the least heresy that can bee imagined ouerthroweth all diuine faith Foolish in that you suppose some heresies to be soe secrett as not to disturbe the Church For if they bee secret how come you to know them and to know they are heresies seing they come to haue the name of heresy onely by condemnation of the Church As for your last point of the Fathers giuing warning by letters it is true indeede and thereto you might also haue added if you had soe pleased that the Fathers did forbeare absolutely to condemne things for haeresies or to censure the authors for haeretiques V. Ep. Cyrill Alex. ad Caelest P P. in Conc. Ephes. p. 1. cap. 14. to 1. Concil ed. Post Binii and consequently to send such letters till they had acquainted the Bishops of Rome and had his iudgment As is clere by S. Cyrill of Alexandria in the case of Nestorius 5. But we haue this at least out of your discourse that seing you can produce noe such letters against any point of those which you condemne vs for that they doe not endanger the foundation of faith If not what needed you make this huge breach from vs vpon pretence of Reformacion in things of noe more moment or at least not of necessity in your iudgment but we are not to require more reason of your doings then your sayings and therefore to come to the parable of scripture wherein the enemy is said to haue ouer sowed his cockle in the night Which parable you are pleased to expound of Apostacy I answeare that this parable is vnderstood noe lesse of haeresy then Apostacy V. Tert. de praesor cap. 31. nay more For all the Fathers and Interpreters expound it of haeresy none that euer I heard of Apostacy Which therefore must bee verified of all those which you acknowledge for open haeresyes 28. 6. And therefore you are much out of the way when you thinke by that that you are not to be forced to name the person place and tyme when where and by whom our Doctrine began because as you say the seede was sowne in the night and the person not knowne For in that parable you are to know that as Christ is the Goodman of the howse who sowed the good seede soe the enemy that soweth his cockle in the night is the Diuel who indeede worketh in the night and inuisibly and he is the one singular and principall enemy of Christ and all Mankind And hee it is that soweth all the seuerall seeds of diuers haeresyes the field wherein he soweth it is the World Then it groweth vpp and appeareth when that seede of erroneous doctrine being sowed in the harts of wicked men and there taking deepe roote breaketh forth at last by their preaching and teaching thereof or this cokle are Filij mali as the Scripture it self saith euill Children then the Seruants of the Goodman who are the Pastours and Doctours of his Church presently beginne to complaine thereof and wonder how it should come c. Soe S. Aug. lib. q. Euāg in Math. cap. 11. to 4. This
them and their doctrine 11. But because it is ordinary with these men to charge vs with this same secret apostacy and defection though they cannot tell when nor how it hath come I shall heere put this Knight in mind of two conuincing arguments to the cōtrary brought by the Catholique Diuine that answeared that part of my Lo Answ to Cooks reports ep dedicat n. 22. c. Cooke's reports before cited by this knight to conuince the folly and vanity of a certaine similitude of a wedge of gold that was dissolued and mingled with other mettals brasse tinne c brought by Sir Edward to proue the dissolution of the Romane Church by errors and innouatiōs iust as this knight talketh One of the arguments is theological the other moral The first that if the Church of Rome was the true mother Church which both my Lord Cooke our Knight and all the rest of them confesse then were all the predictions promises of the Prophets for the greatnes eminency honour certainty and flourishing perpetuity of the said Church fulfilled in her and Christ's peculiar promises in like manner that hee would bee to the worlds end with her that hell gates should neuer preuaile against her c. Were also performed in her for soe many hundred yeares as they confesse her to haue continued in her purity Whereof ensueth that either God is not able to performe his promise or els it cannot be conceiued without impiety that this florishing kingdome and Queene of the world should bee soe dissolued and mingled with brasse tinne copper should bee soe corrupted with errors and innouations as to fall away by Apostacy this is the theological argumēt which may bee read there more at large 12. The moral is that Christ hauing purchased his Church at soe deare a rate as was the shedding of his bloud and hauing sett ouer it soe many Pastors and Doctors to keepe continuall watch how is it possible that it should fall away and decay without any one of all these watchmens once opening his mouth to resist or testify this chaunge To any wise man this may truely seeme as it is a thing wholy impossible Of this also hee may see a large excellent discourse in the same place 13. But not to detaine my selfe longer in it I will heere onely represent a consideration of Tertullian's supposing that this soe impossible a thing should happen Goe too saith hee be it soe let all haue erred praescr cap. 28. let the Apostle bee deceiued in his testimony which he gaue of the faith of some Churches bee it soe that the holy Ghost hath not regarded any Church soe as to leade it into truth though sent by Christ for this end and desired of the Father to be the teacher of truth be it soe that the Steward of God the Vicar of Christ hath neglected his charge suffering the Churches to vnderstand otherwise to beleeue otherwise then hee that is Christ preached by his Apostles What is it likely that soe many and soe great should erre all in one beleefe among many seuerall euēts there is not one issue Marke heere one Steward of God's houshold one Vicar of Christ to whose office it belongeth to see that particular churches doe not teach nor beleeue otherwise then they were taught by the preaching of the Apostles The error of doctrine of the Churches must haue beene seuerall but that which is found one and the same among or with many is not error but a thing deliuered therefore may any man dare to say that they who deliuered it did erre Hitherto are Tertullian's very words In which besids that euery sentence is a weighty argument of moral impossibility of the Churches erring which yet for disputacion sake he letteth passe for possible he hath that strong concluding impossibility that soe many seueral Churches in euery country soe many seueral men should all agree in the same error out of which Vnity he gathereth it to be a truth noe error Therefore lett this Knight and all his babling Ministers if they doe not meane to bee counted wholy out of their wits for euermore hold their peaces without accusing the Catholique Church which containeth in it self soe many Churches soe many kingdomes Chap. 7. soe many millions of people all agreeing in the same faith of error and apostacy Of the 7. Section the title whereof is thus The pedigree of the Romish faith drawne downe from the ancient Haeretiques and the Protestant faith deriued from Christ and his Apostles CHAPTER VII 1. IN this Section Sir Humphrey you vndertake a great taske which if you performe according as you promise eris mihi magnus Apollo If you doe not then a man may say to you with out offence magnus es ardelis You vndertake to deriue vs by Succession in person and doctrine from ancient Heretiques and your self from the Apostles Which how truely you haue performed I am in this chapter to examine You beginne with Latine Seruice and Prayer in a strange tongue which you say out of one Wolphius a Lutheran Heretique came into the Church by Pope Vitalian about the yeare 666. whereof you make a mystery noting thus in the margent numerus bestiae Apoc. 13. The number of the beast From him you skippe to the Heretiques Osseni who taught as you say out of Epiphanius that there was noe neede to make a prayer in a knowne tongue From them you goe yet higher to the Apostle's tyme wherein you say out of S. Ambrose that there were certaine Iewes among the Grecians as namely the Corinthians who did celebrate the diuine Seruice and the Sacrament sometymes in the Syriake and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue which the common people vnderstood not And you say that against that the Apostle S. Paul wrote that 14. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians from whom therefore you say your Protestant doctrine is deriued as ours is from haeretiques 2. For answeare of this and what els you are to say of your Succession it is to bee noted that it is one thing to proue a thing to haue beene anciently taught another to haue beene successiuely taught For this later besids antiquity which it includeth it importeth Continuance and perpetuity without interruption Soe that though it should bee true which you say out of Wolphius Epiphanius and S. Ambrose yet were not that enough For there bee some hundreds of yeares betweene Pope Vitalian and the Osseni and more from S. Paul's tyme to this of ours from which notwitstanding you draw your doctrine without any body betweene now for the space of 1500. yeares Besids when we speake of Succession in person in these matters it is vnderstood principally of persons in authority one succeding the other in place and office For we see in kingdomes and cōmonwealthes the Succession is to bee considereth most in reguard of the Gouerners and rulers and in the Church the reason is more special because the Rulers thereof are Doctours
onely whither this particular host be rightly cōsecrated manifestly supposing that if that be Christ is truely there Thirdly that other condition or words Adoro te si tu es Christus which he would make a man beleeue were spoken by Adrian of the most B. Sacrament are spoken of the Diuell taking vpon him the shape of Christ 6. Now what grosse delusion is this What excuse can you finde for it Sir Humphrey But suppose Adrian had erred in this or in any other particular point either ignorantly as a Catholique may or wilfully as onely Haeretiques doe Doth it follow that he agreeth with you in all other or that hee-counteth your faith ancient vniuersall certaine or safe noe such matter nay how on the contrary he abhorreth detesteth your doctrine as most wicked and damnable is plainely to be seene by a Bull which he writ to Fredericke Duke of Saxony against Luther and his Doctrine disprouing euery point thereof exhorting the said Frederick to forsake it and returne to the true Catholique faith now in the dayes of Adrian Pope and Charles Emperour as the Saxons did at first embrace it in the tyme of the first Pope and Emperour of the same names and then liuing together With a great deale to the same purpose What madnes then is it to alleadge a Catholique Diuine a Pope and such a Pope for the antiquity and Vniuersality of your beleife 7. Now for Costerus you say he excuseth the taking away of the cupp from the Layity But if you would giue a man leaue to bee soe bold with your worshipp I would know what excuse you can find for such a notorious lye If he excuses it he acknowledgeth the thing to neede excuse and consequently to be ill and I pray you where doe you find him doe that noe where verily For he hath one special title of this controuersy wherein he proueth the truth of the Catholique faith in this point by ten seuerall reasons and solueth sixteene obiections as well of former as later Haeretiques against it If this be to excuse I know not what it is to maintaine and make good a thing Enchirid. 8. But now to come to Costerus he by occasion of soluing an obiection saith that the custome of communicating in one kind began from the people for it hauing euer beene free to communicate in one kind or both as Costerus there often repeateth the people for diuers incōmodityes by little and little abstained from the chalice which abstayning of theirs the Bishops for other reasons alsoe by silence approued Whereby you see his meaning is plaine and cleare against you And for his words whereas you relate them thus It was not taken vpp by the commādment of the Bishops but it crept in the Bishops winking thereat They are indeede thus It is to bee diligently noted that the communion of one kind crept in not soe much by the commandment of the Bishops as by the vse and practize of the people yet the Bishops winking thereat Wherein though there be but a little difference yet it sheweth your fidelity according to our Sauiour's saying Luc 16.10 Qui in modico iniquus est in maiori iniquus est He that wicked in a little is wicked in a greater For Costerus doth not say that it did not come in by the commandment of the Bishops but not soe much by that as by the peoples vse and practize 9. Now what is this to your purpose where is Costerus his testimony for the antiquity vniuersality certainty and safety of your Protestant religion is not that whole booke written Onely to maintaine the Catholique Romane faith in the points now adayes in controuersy and to condemne the contrary of vanity folly and error how then can he thinke it salfe But because I will not stand to deduce it by way of argumēt I will onely cite one place directly opposite to the scope of this your section Where he saith that onely the children of the Church Cost enchir cap. 2. n. 3. by which Church he meaneth the Catholique Apostolique Romane Church as he oftē declareth himself merit encrease of grace and aeternal life that they onely are gratefull pleasing to God they onely the children and freinds of God they onely haue communion with the Saints and merits of Saints they onely are adorned with true and Christian vertues they onely haue the promise and certaine expectation of aeternal life Which saith the are great and most true priuiledges for out of the Church nothing of all this is found noe holinesse noe Christian vertue noe worke pleasing to God noe merit noe hope of Saluation Thus he Now good Sir knight is not heere good comfort for you are you in Costerus his iudgment in the more certaine and safe way Doe not you then abuse authors to your owne and other mēs perdition but though you being become a Sect-Maister or at least a great Maister in the Protestant Sect there is little hope that this laying open of your dealing will make you better but rather make you more inraged Yet I trust some well meaning people deluded by you may heereby come to vnderstand themselues better and come to the onely safe way indeede the Catholique Church and leaue you to your Protestant safety 10. But since you are also soe shamelesse heere as to say that we doe not condemne you for receiuing in both kinds looke in the Councel of Trent and see whether you doe not find an heauy curse against any that shall say that all and euery of the faithfull ought by the precept of God Sess 21. can 1. or necessity of saluation to receiue both species or kinds of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes singulos Christi fideles vtramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae Sacramenti sumere debere anathema sit The like hath the Councel alsoe of Constance soe plaine pag. 174. that you your selfe afterwards confesse that the one doth accurse the other accuse all for Haeretiques that deny the lawfulnesse of one kind as you doe If then we not onely write against your Doctrine as against an haeresy as may appeare by all our controuersies and schoole diuines and euen by Gerson's treatise against the haeresy of Lay communion vnder both kinds Which treatise you your self cite elswhere in the margent but also condemne it in two generall Councels how can you haue the face to say wee doe not condemne you Good God what shall a man say to such men as you are 11. But to come to Doctor Harding the third author of ours which you bring to proue the Antiquity Vniuersality Certainty and Safety of your faith let vs heare how you vse him You say when you accuse vs of priuate Masse cōtrary to Christ's institutiō and custome of the primitiue Church we excuse it that it is through their owne default and negligence whereof saith Mr.
bragge for from the tyme you haue begunne to be against it you are not of it And soe much for that 18. Now for these points of Doctrine by you named wherein you agree with vs and which you hauing no Succession of your owne you cannot haue it by any other meanes but by and from vs which therefore are ours and not yours we doe not question you for your antiquity and vniuersality but for these other points wherein you disagree as when you deny the doctrine declared by the Councel of Trent when you deny our seauen Sacraments deny the truth of one of these two Sacramēts to wit the real presence of our Sauiour's body bloud necessity efficacy of the other to wit Baptisme Deny our canon of scripture our number of Councels our traditions c. For this is your faith properly as you are a distinct company or Church Shew your doctrine in all these points that is your deniall of them to haue beene anciently and vniuersally taught or euen before Luther's tyme and you haue said something which you not doing I cannot but wonder to see you soe silly and senselesse to vse your owne words as to thinke you haue said something to the purpose We aske you the antiquity of your doctrine that is wherein you disagree from vs and you answeare vs with the antiquity of soe much as agreeth with ours which is to answeare vs with the antiquity of our owne You haue beene pleased to shape your selues a religion out of ours and you pleade the antiquity of ours But that will not serue your turne that shape which you giue it is the forme and essence of your religion soe long then as that is new your religion is new Neither can you say the same of our points defined in the Councel of Trent as you seeme to say by asking Where our Church was◠where our Trent doctrine and articles of the Romane Creede were receiued de fide before Luther this you cannot likewise say to vs for the defining made not the Doctrine new but bound men by authority of a Councel to beleeue what they did beleeue plainely by tradition Vinc. Lerin cap. 32. as Vincentius Lerinensis saith that the Church by the decrees of her Councels hath done nothing els but that what she had before receiued by tradition onely she should also by writing consigne to posterity Nec quicquam Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit ecclesia nisi vt quod prius a maioribus sola traditione susceperat hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturae chirographum consignaret Of which see more in the first chapter heere 19. After this you aske againe if your doctrine lay inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church which say you no Romanist can deny if it became hidden as good corne couered with chaffe or as fine gold ouerlayed with a greater quātity of drosse whether it must bee therefore new and vnknowne because the corne was not seuered from the chaffe the gold from the drosse before Luther's tyme and then you bid vs because we call your Doctrine nouelty to remoue the three Creeds the two Sacraments the 22. canonical books the 4. first generall Councels apostolical traditions and see whether our Church wil not proue a poore and senselesse carcasse This is your learned discourse Sir Humphrey to which I answeare asking First what Romanist doth acknowledge your doctrine to haue layen inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church Did euer any man write soe did euer any man say soe vnto you nay what Romanist hath euer forborne vpon occasiō offered to deny and deny it againe you teach not onely those bee two but that there be but two Sacramēts which what Romanist euer acknowledged to haue beene taught in the Romane Church one of your Sacraments is an empty peece of bread and a supp of wine which what Catholique will euer say was Taught in the Romane Church you allow 4. Councels and but 4. you allow 22. books of canonical Scripture and but 22. will any Catholique euer allow this to haue beene Catholique doctrine take away your but and then it may passe but then you take away your religion But heere is one thing that giueth mee much cause of wonder which is that you talke of traditions as distinct from Scripture which is a thing that I did little expect from a man of your profession and I euer tooke you to be soe fallē out with them that you made the denial of them a fundamental point of your Religion and that therefore you would not endure the word traditions euen in holy Scriptures where it might be taken in a good sense but alwaies translated or rather falsifyed it into ordinances though both the Latine and Greeke word did signify traditions most expresly But this your allowing of traditions is not a thing that I reprehend in you though some Puritane Ministers may perhaps not let you passe soe gently with it but that that followeth to wit that you should bee soe vnaduised as to acknowledge your Church or Doctrine which you simply and confusedly take for the same being very different as I haue often said to haue beene inuolued in the bosome of the Romane Church and to haue become hidden like good corne couered with chaffe and like gold couered with drosse till Luther's tyme and yet to say that it was visible before that tyme is the corne seene when it is couered with chaffe the gold when it is couered with drosse Answ to Cooks rep ep dedicat nu 20. 20. My Lord Cooke shewed himself somewhat wiser when asking himself the question which we aske you to wit where your Church was before Luther he answeared it made no great matter where it was soe hee were certaine it was confessing thereby that his Church was indeede inuisible but yet in being which because it seemed hard to perswade any man he brought a fine similitude of a wedge of gold dissolued and mixed with brasse tinne and other mettalls which he said did not therefore loose his nature but remained gold though we could not determine in what part of the masse it was contained This was somewhat more like for a man by such a similitude to goe about to proue that a Church might subsist inuisibly for the which neuerthelesse a Catholique Diuine told him his owne very soundly but for you Sir Knight to proue the Visibility of your Church by such a Similitude it were not to be beleeued vnlesse a man did see it in print You labour to proue your Church to haue beene visible before Luther's tymes and yet you confesse her to haue begunne her Visibility by Luther for thus you aske was there noe good corne in the granary of the Church because for many yeares space till Luther's dayes it was not seuered from the chaffe to seuer the corne from the chaffe wherewith it was couered is to make it visible if then Luther did first seuer it he
contrary of Christ's body in the B. Sacrament as by and by shall appeare 8. Fourthly whereas the Latine saith Caro spiritualis spiritual flesh the knight translateth it the spiritual body which I onely note without standing vpon it for it is noe great matter But that which cometh next is the maine corruption of all For whereas Aelfricke saith that this spiritual flesh which is as much to say as our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrament according to the outward shew which it carrieth doth consist of graines of corne hath noe bones nor sinewes noe distinction of limbs noe life or motion of it selfe the knight leaueth out those words Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius according to the shew which it carrieth outwardly which are the very life of all that which followeth to wit that to see to it cōsisteth of corne to see to it hath noe bones and sinewes to see to it hath noe distinction of parts to see to it hath noe soule nor power to exercise any motion of it selfe the knight making his Reader thinke that Aelfricke saith our Sauiour's flesh in the B. Sacrement hath noe bones noe parts noe soule c. which is a notorious falshood Lastly whereas the knight maketh this inference in the same place as if they were Aelfrick's words therefore there is nothing to bee vnderstood bodily but spiritually Aelfrick saith not soe though that might bee said in a good sense but thus he saith For whatsoeuer therein giueth the substance of life is of spiritual power inuisible working and diuine vertue In which there is a great deale of difference betweene Aelfrick's for which giueth a reason for that which goeth before and the knight's therefore which maketh an inference vpon that which was said which a learned man will easily perceiue to make a great deale of difference in the sense nay any man may see the difference betweene a reason and an inference Aelfricke therefore plainely teacheth in these words that that flesh doth liue but with all that that life proceedeth from a spiritual power and inuisible working Which agreeth very well with what he had said before that according to the outward shew that flesh hath neither bones nor sinewes nor limbs nor life nor motion but that all these things are not seene and that the life which it hath proceedeth from a spiritual power and working which is not seene 9. Now lett any man see whither this Knight haue not egregiously abused this ancient author corrupting this little sentence of his by fiue great corruptions besides other more of lesse moment which I haue beene somewhat longer in discouering because it is the man's maine proofe in this place and one of his two records as he calleth them wherewith as it were with two speciall and ancient euidences he presenteth his Reader in the very beginning of this Section § 1. and wherein therefore he hath vsed all the cunning he could deuise to make this author speake his Protestant language and consequently also the Bishops and other learned men of that tyme who approued this Homily if they did approue it as hee saith but in vaine as you may see by this that is said and by one place more which I will bring euen out of this Knight's maister Dr. Vsher which shall plainely shew this Aelfrick's perfect Catholique beleife in this point The words are these Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur panis substantiam vini creaturam conuertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat sic etiam in deserto manna aquam de petra in suam carnem sanguinem conuertere praeualuit c. as therefore a little before he suffered he could change the substance of bread and the creature of wine into his proper body which was to suffer and into his bloud which was extant to be after shed Soe in the desert he was able to change manna and water into his owne flesh and bloud c. Where he sheweth plainely a conuersion of bread and wine into that owne body of Christ and bloud which was a little after to suffer and be shed which is nothing more then that which we call transubstantiation And out of this as a certaine truth he gathereth that Christ had also the power to turne manna and water into his body and bloud as well as bread and wine And soe it is in reguard of the power it is all one but in reguard that Christ was not then in being according to his humane nature the manna could not be changed into his body and water into his bloud Which place as plaine as it is it is a strange and almost incredible thing to see how D. Vsher which I onely note by the way for my quarrel heere is not soe properly against him doth peruert by his interpretation For thus hee putteth the English in the text So he turned through inuisible vertue the bread to his owne body and that wine to his bloud as he before did in the wildernesse before that he was borne to men when he turned that heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to his bloud Wherein there is scarce one word truly translated which I will not stand to shew particularly but not onely the maine corruption that whereas Aelfricke saith that as Christ was able to turne the bread and wine soe he was able to turne the manna and water This man turneth it quite contrary that as hee turned the manna and water soe he turned the bread and wine which is a foule corruption But D. Vsher I heare is sufficiently answeared and his corruptions laid open to the world if the books might be as freely printed and sold as his But therein they haue the aduantage of vs Catholiques that they haue free vse of libraries and prints and publique allowance for the sale All which we want and therefore noe meruaile if books be not answeared as freely as they are written But this is but by the way 10. Now then if thus much may be said out of what D. Vsher picketh out for his owne purpose what may a man thinke might be said if a man saw the author himselfe who though he were printed in London as Sir Humphrey noteth 1623. yet is he not now to be heard of But as I was saying all this sheweth this Aelfricke to haue beene a Catholique and that his doctrine was none other then the Doctrine of the Catholique Church at this day Wherefore Sir Knight Campian's saying which you account a vaine flourish standes good still that you cannot espy soe much as one towne one village one howse for 1500. yeares that sauoured of your Doctrine and should still be true though you might find some one man or two or more that did agree with you in your Berengarian haeresy though alsoe one man doe not make either towne Village or howse For your faith doth not consist of
bee changed into the whole body of Christ he doth not say it confidently and certainely but doubtfully and with dew submission to better iudgment and especially to the Church Saluo meliori iudicio existimari potest c. are his words 4. dist 11. q. 3 Sauing better iudgment it may bee thought c. and in answeare of an argument to the contrary wherein was obiected the common consent of others against him he saith that that notwithstanding yet soe long as their saying is not confirmed by the Church it is lawfull to thinke the contrary In which words he sheweth two things one that his Opinion was contrary to the common current of the Catholique Doctors of his owne tyme. Which is contrary to that which you said that hee and his fellow Schoolemen professed that doctrine openly for you see he acknowledgeth all others to bee against him neither doth he himself professe it soe openly for he speaketh it doubtfully and with submission to better iudgment The other thing is that hee plainely acknowledgeth the authority of the Church to bee such as that it is not lawfull for any man to hold opinion against it But though hee should haue said nothing thereof in this place it is sufficient that in the praeface of his Commentary vpon the Maister of the Sentences hee submitteth all his works to the correction of the holy Romane and Catholique Church to which hee acknowledgeth the interpretation of all doubts of the holy Scripture to belong Which profession without more may serue to excuse and free him from the crime of haeresy either in this or any other point wherein hee may haue chaunced to erre as Bellarmine doth therefore iustly excuse him 37. Now for Gaufridus and Ostiensis our owne Proctors as you call them as you haue the obiection soe you shall haue the answeare alsoe out of Durand Durand in 4. dist 10. q. 1. Thus then hee obiecteth against the praesence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament Ostiensis and Gaufridus note 3. opinions concerning the manner of being of the body of Christ vpon the altar of which one saith that the bread is the body of Christ another saith that the bread doth not remaine but is changed and that the accidents alone doe remaine Which seemeth to be approued by that text of Cap. firmâ—ter The third opinion saith that the substance of bread doth remaine and is together with the body of Christ vpon the altar Behold that they call it an Opinion of the remanency of the substance of bread neither doe they say it is reproued nay rather they referre it to the confession of Berengarius which was approued by the Councel Thus the obiection sett downe and vrged by Durand not cited out of them Now his answeare is this For that which is afterwards said of Gaufrid Ber. and Hostiens Glossers vpon the Chap. firmiter it is to be answeared that though they recount three opinions they approue none for true but onely that of the body of Christ's being vpon the altar by transubstantiation of the bread and wine And if they doe not expresly call any of them erroneous it followeth not therefore that it is not erroneous For they did not know all the passages of holy Scripture from which the fore said opinion doth differ Thus the obiectioÌ„ answeare in the very words as they lye in Durand Out of which first it is cleare these men are onely Canonists noe Schoole Diuines such as you pretend heere to alleadge Though you alsoe insinuate the same somewhat in as much as you call them our Proctors Wherein yet you mistake your termes the word Proctor being not soe fitt for soe great Doctors of the Canons as they were for how thinke you vould your Ciuill or Canon Doctors of the Arches take it at your hands to be called Proctors or your great Lord Sir Edoward Cooke and Doctor as I may say of your common Law to be called an Attourney at Law SecoÌ„dly heereby appeareth also your corruptioÌ„ in saying that they taught that this opinion was not to be reiected for thus you putt it in a different letter This opinion say they was not to bee reiected whereas they say noe such thing But onely Durand enforcing the obiection to the vtmost as Diuines are wont to doe the more fully to answeare taketh hold that they call it an opinion and likewise taketh hold that they doe not say it was reproued or that it ought to be held for an error Thirdly hence it appeareth that both they themselues did not allow of it in that they held onely that middle opinion of traÌ„substantiation for true and that though they did not soe expresly coÌ„demne it of error yet it doth not follow but that it was error for they knew not all the passages of scripture Scripture being not their study Thus then all your Schoolemen are answeared and consequently this whole § of Transubstantiation PARAGRAPH 3. OF PRIVATE MASSE 1. In this third § Sir HuÌ„phrey preteÌ„deth to make good the doctrine and practize of his Church and ouerthrow outs in point of priuate Masse as he calleth it beginning with the curse of the Councel of Trent against such as coÌ„demne it for vnlawfull And then bring an article of Ireland to the coÌ„trary which saith that for the Priest to receiue the Eucharist without a coÌ„petent number of Communicants is against the institution of Christ practize of the primitiue Church For proofe of this his doctrine he bringeth the words of Christ 1. Cor. 11.1 Take yee eate yee And those of S. Paul Be yee followers of mee euen as I am alsoe of Christ As likewise those other When you come together tarry one for another And the cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the CoÌ„munion of the bloud of Christ and heere the knight saith out of Hugo de S. Victo whom hee of his owne free goodnes is pleased to create a Cardinal both heere and els where to make vp the number of his Cardinals Bishops c. that it is called a Communion because the People in the primitiue Church did coÌ„municate together And he saith of himself that it is soe called because the Priest and people communicate together After this he bringeth a Canon of the Councel of Nantes forbidding Priest to say Masse alone For to whoÌ„ saith the Canon doth the Priest say The Lord bee with you to which he addeth 12. or 13. of our authors in proofe that anciently the people did communicate euery day witnessing therein as he saith the antiquity of his Doctrine and intimating the nouelty of ours and he telleth vs also that the Councel of Trent concludeth with a well-wishing to his Doctrine in saying that it wisheth that the people would communicate not only spiritually but also sacramentally adiudging his communion to be more fruitfull This is the summe of this whole § 2. To which I answeare beginning with this last of the Councel of Trent that the Rearder
it as you translate is farre otherwise to wit that there be but onely two Sacraments in all For first you leaue out the demonstratiue pronoune haec makeing the speach more general as if Bessarion did say there were but two Sacraments whereas he doth not speake any thing that way in these words of the number of SacrameÌ„ts in general but restraineth his speach to these two in particular which rather importeth that there be other Sacraments For if one should say these two men came this way or these two horses belong to mee would not any man gather that there were more men besides those two that came this way and more horses besides those two that I say belong to mee For otherwise it were needlesse to adde this determining or distinguishing pronoune these vnlesse there were other things of the same kind from which they are to bee distinguished SecoÌ„dly the word Sola you place in a certaine odd and craftie manner to make the sentence sound as if there were two Sacraments and no more For you put it before the word Sacraments whereof it followeth that the negation included in the word Sola falles vpon the word Sacraments as if there were but two Sacraments or two and noe more whereas it is to fall vpon the words expressè tradita expresly deliuered that is to say that these two Sacraments and none other are expresly deliuered which is another thing Neither will it serue your turne to say you place it in English as it is placed in the Latine for the placing of words iust soe in English as they are in Latine may many tymes alter many tymes also make noe sense at all and in translation the sense is chiefly to be reguarded Thirdly you putt in the pronoune relatiue which of your selfe and change the participle tradita in to the verbe traduntur whereby of one proposition you make two in this manner we reade of two only Sacraments that is of two and noe more which two are expresly deliuered in the Ghospell Whereas Bessarion maketh but one proposition in which one alsoe his intention is not soe much to affirme these two SacrameÌ„ts to be expresly deliuered as you make it as to deny the other Sacraments to be expresly deliuered as shall farther appeare by his owne words Here then in this little senteÌ„ce of not past a line in length you coÌ„mitt 4. faults besides one which I passe ouer as not soe much altering the sense One in leauing out haec Another in putting in quae a third in changing the word tradita into traduntur thereby making 2. propositions of one A fourth in soe placing sola in the English as quite to alter the sense thereby making affirmatiues of negatiues and negatiues of affirmatiues The least of which in as much as it alteres the sense cannot be excused from corruption especially seeing it is by you expresly intended for you say that Bessarion coÌ„cludeth with the Protestants and for proofe you bring his words thus translated which sheweth that you intended his authority should sound soe as if there were but two Sacraments as you teach whereby you would leade your Reader into an errour Which yet you doe in such a maÌ„ner that I cannot say but that a wary carefull Reader may picke out or at least guesse at Bessarion's true meaning But that is your cuÌ„ning to haue a double sense the one to deceiue the simple and another to excuse your selfe against the obiectioÌ„s of the learned But you should remember Sir Hum. there is a Woe in store for such cunning men Eccles 2 14. Vae duplici corde labijs scelestis et manibus malefacientibus peccatori terraÌ„ ingredienti duabus vijs Woe to the double of hart and wicked lipps hand ill doing to a Sinner going on the earth two wayes In which last word of going two wayes is touched this your cunning in this place Though if you examine your conscience well you may find your self guilty of all the particulars of this sentence 18. But now to Bessarion I answeare that in saying that the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist are the onely Sacraments expresly deliuered in scripture he comes not neere the curse of the Councel For that canon doth not command vs to beleeue that these two or more or lesse are deliuered plainely or not plainely in Scripture it leaueth that to the disputation of Diuines onely it will haue vs beleeue there bee 7. Sacraments that they were instituted by Christ that they are all properly Sacraments against which Bessarion hath not a word but rather much for it For writing that Oration in defence of the Romane Church to shew that the consecration in the Eucharist is performed by words he proueth it by the example of other SacrameÌ„ts thus Bessar de verb. conse Hunc modum Apostoli a Saluatore vt crâ—dendum est ab Apostolis Sanct Patres postea sumentes in singulis ecclesiae Sacramentis quemadmoduÌ„ materiam propriaÌ„ sine qua nullo modo fieret quod proponitur ita etiam propriam formam statuerunt Quod manifestum est si quis ad Chrismatis SacramentuÌ„ mentem conuerterit This manner the Apostles receiuing from our Sauiour as it is to bee beleeued and our holy Fathers from them as in each Sacrament they haue appointed a proper matter without which that cannot be done which is purposed soe also a certaine forme Which is manifest if a man turne his mind to the Sacrament of Chrisme By which words it is manifest that besides the two Sacraments which you speake of he acknowledgeth not onely the Sacrament of Confirmation in expresse tearmes but the other Sacraments of the Church which you cannot but know to be the same 7. which now wee hold But what neede any man more argument for Bessarion's beleife in this point then the Councel of Florence wherein he was a great man and wherein was deliuered that Decree of Eugenius the 4. to the Armenians wherein the Seauen Sacraments are precisely and distinctly taught with the vniforme consent both of the Latine and Greeke Church soe as impiety it self cannot find what to obiect against it 19. Thus then hauing deliuered Bessarion also froÌ„ your Worship 's imaginary curse I come to the Schoolemen among whom you are not ashamed to promise your Reader that he shall find as little vnity as amoÌ„g the Fathers which as you say in an euill seÌ„se as though there were not vnity amoÌ„g the Fathers soe doe I yeild to you in a good sense to wit that as there is vnity among the Fathers in this point noe lesse then in others of our faith soe also the Schoole Diuines their childreÌ„ succeeding them haue maintained this point noe lesse then others with the same vnity and consent as I shall shew by answearing your fond cauills Though some Schoolemen out of the common ignorance and infirmity of mankind in some poiÌ„ts not throughly discussed nor defined by the Church did
se in scholae disceptationem incidisse Nec oportere CatholicuÌ„ ad eoruÌ„ argumenta respondere Sin vero argumententur matrimonium cum sacris caeremonijs cum sacra materia cum sacra forma a sacro Ministro administratum quemad modum in ecclesia Romana semper vsque ab Apostolis administratum est si hoc inquam argumententur Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter animose defendat secure contra pugnet Whither our opinion that is his owne be true or false I stand not If the Lutherans will dispute of this kind of Marriages let theÌ„ know they fall vpon a schoole disputation and that a Catholique is not to answeare to their arguments But if they argue that Marriage administred with sacred caeremonies sacred matter sacred forme by a sacred Minister as it hath euer beene administred in the Romane church euen from the Apostles tyme if I say they argue that this is not a SacrameÌ„t of the Church then lett a Catholique answeare confidently let him defend stoutly let him gaine say securely Soe hee 26. Now Sir knight with what face could you alleadge Canus against Matrimony and that for a coÌ„clusion as you say though I say noe for you haue reserued yet a farr lowder lye to conclude with all Which is concerning Vazquez whom heere you honour with an epithet calling him Our learned Iesuit You say then he knew well that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church and then you say he makes a profession to his Disciples that hauing read considered S. Aug he found that when he called it a Sacrament he spake not of a Sacrament in a proper sense that therefore he doth not alleadge S. Aug. his authority against the Haeretiques in this controuersy this you say heere whereto I will putt your marginall note which you haue pag. 145. which hath relation to this place it is this Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacrament properly Now to seuer the true from the false Vazquez indeede saith that S. Aug. speaking of Matrimony doth vse the word Sacrament but in a large sense This is true but it is but Vazquez his priuate and singular opinion not in a point of faith nor any thing neere it but onely of the meaning of one Father in the vse of a word which if it be taken in such a sense is a good proofe for a point of Doctrine if not it is noe proofe against it but there may be other proofes in the same Fathers and other Fathers may hane that very word in in the proper sense But euen this opinion of Vazquez concerning this word of S. Aug. is contradicted by all other Catholique Diuines Bell lib. 1. de Matr. cap. â—â— and Bellar. particularly by diuers good reasons sheweth S. Aug. to vse this word properly when he speaketh of Matrimony This is all that is true in your saying of Vazquez 27. Now I come to the false first asking you a question if Vazquez say Matrimony is noe Sacrament as your marginal note which I spake of before saith I would know what controuersy that is that Vazquez saith hee hath with Haeretiques and for proofe whereof he doth not bring S. Aug his authority of the word Sacrament because in his iudgment it is not effectual what thinke you Sir Humphrey is it not of Matrimony and what controuersy is it but whither Matrimony be properly a Sacrament or noe Which Haeretiques deny and Vazquez affirmes els he can haue noe controuersy with them about it See Sir Humphrey how you looke about you for in this very place and words which you bring to shew Vazquez for you he shewes himselfe against you besides Sir Humphrey looke againe in Vazquez to 4. in 3. p. and soe whether he haue not one whole disputation expresly for the proofe of Matrimony calling it a Sacrament truely and properly prouing it by the definition of the Church and by the authority of other Fathers though he forbeare to vse the authority of S. Augustine for the reason a fore said reprouing Durand's error for saying that it was not a SacrameÌ„t vniuocally with the rest Nay his expresse conclusion concerning the same is this Vazque de Matr. disp 2. cap. 3. Matrimonium est Sacramentum non solum latiori significatione pront est signum coniunctionis Christi ecclesiae fed presse propriè prout est signum gratiae sanctificantis suscipientes sicut reliqua sex Matrimony is a Sacrament not onely in a larger signification as it is a signe of the coniunction of Christ and the Church but precisely properly as it is a signe of grace sanctifying the receiuers as the other six And because you tell vs that he knew well that neyther ancient nor moderne Diuines did conclude it for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church I will add his other words in the same chapter which are these De Sacramento in hac significatione semper hucusque loquuti sumtis Scholastici loquuti sunt c. quam veritatem Graeci semper crediderunt nunc etiam credunt And of a Sacrament in this signification allwayes hitherto we haue spoken and other Diuines haue spoken which truth the Graecians haue euer beleeued still beleeue So as not himself onely but other Diuines also euen the Greeks or Greeke Church not onely doe beleeue and speake but haue beleeued and spoken of Matrimony's being a Sacrament in the proper and strict sense Which considered what intolerable impudency is it in you to tell vs that Vazque should say that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament it were not to be beleeued of any man but that we see it And with this I was thinking to end this § Thereby to leaue a good rellish in the Reader 's mind of your honest and faithfull dealing The rest being nothing but such foolish stuffe as you are wont to talke without rime or reason but onely that there occurred a place of Bellarmine which you abuse soe strangely as that I could not passe it ouer without noting It is thus 26. You say touching your two Sacraments they are knowne and certaine because they were primarily ordained by Christ touching the other fiue they had not that immediat institution from Christ Wherevpon say you the learned Card. noting Bellarmine in the margent is forced to confesse The sacred things which the Sacraments of the new Law signify are threefold the grace of iustification the passion of Christ and aeternall life Touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most euident concerning the other fiue it is not soe certaine Soe say you where in a few lines you haue soe much falshood soe patched vp together that a man knoweth not well what to begin with But to begin you say your two Sacraments are knowne and certaine you meane knowne and certaine that
they are Sacraments because ordayned by Christ primarily the other 5. not And for proofe you bring the Cardinal as if he said the same But in this place the Cardinal speaketh not one word eyther of their being or not being Sacraments or being or not being instituted by Christ as these very words themselues doe shew and any man may see more plainely in Bellarmine himselfe both heere and elsewhere where he handleth those matters teaching the contrary expresly and of purpose What madnes then is it for a man to say the Cardinal is enforced vpon a thing that he dreameth not of to cōfesse cleane another matter Now Bellarmines meaning in that place is onely of the signification of the Sacraments that is what thing they signify because they are sacred signes of something And he saith they signify three things one thing past to wit the passion of Christ another present to wit sanctifying grace which they worke in our soules another thing to come to wit aeternal life which is the effect of grace which three things he saith euery Sacrament doth signify And he saith it is certaine that they doe soe signify But withall that the signification of these three is not soe expresse and alike apparent or knowne in all But most apparent in Baptisme and the Eucharist not soe apparent in the rest Which last words being in Latine thus De alijs Sacramentis non estita notū Of the other Sacraments it is not soe knowne to wit that they signify all these thing you translate or rather corrupt them thus Of the other 5. it is not soe certaine Notum with you is certaine And whereas the oppositiō in Bellarmines saying is betweene knowne and not knowne Bell. de sacr in gen lib. 1. cap. 9. you make it betwene knowne or apparēt and certaine which are not opposite For a thing may be certaine though not manifest as all matters of faith are And then you leaue out that which Bellarmine saith of the certainty thus Tamen certum est saltem implicite illa omnia significare quia cum omnia significent gratiam consequenter etiam significāt principium finem eiusdem gratiae But it is certaine that they signify all these things at least implicitely Because seing they signify grace they consequently also signify the beginning and end of the same grace That is the passion of Christ which is the cause and aeternal life which is the effect of grace Whereby it is euident how shamefully you abuse this good Cardinal and soe I end this § Communion in both kinds §. 5. 1. In this § Sir Humphrey beginneth with the 6. article as he calleth it of the Romane Creede I confesse that vnder one kind onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is receiued And the Decree of the Councel of Constāce which saith that notwithstanding Christ did institute in both kinds yet the Laity are to communicate in one kind Which word notwithstanding the Knight is pleased to glosse thus As it were in despite of God and Man with which he ioyneth the Councel of Trent saying thus Although our Sauiour did exhibite in both kinds yet if any mā shall say the holy Catholique Church was not induced for iust causes to communicate the lay people and the non-Conficient Priest vnder one kind to wit of bread onely and shall say they erred in soe doing lett him bee accursed Against this he bringeth two places of scripture the practize of the primitiue Church and soe concludeth the antiquity and vniuersality of his Church This goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humphrey But now you must take vs along with you and giue vs leaue to comin with you a little vpon the matter 2. This you say is the 6. article of our Creede by which a mā may see I said true in the beginning when I told you if it had beene your good pleasure soe to doe you might haue deuided this Creede into 24. articles as well as into 12. for this is but a little libbet in the very later end of that article as you haue put it downe in the beginning of your booke Which peece also you translate out of the Latine falsely and absurdly the Latine being thus Fateor etiam sub altera specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentū sumi I confesse also vnder one kind onely to be receiued Christ whole and entire and a true Sacrament Whereas you say all and whole Christ as if the Councel had said omnis totus Christus where the word all is improper for who speaketh thus all Peter all Paul and it importes as if Christ had many things pertaining to him which were himselfe but yet did not make one and the same thing with him which is not imaginable how it can be whereas totus Christus doth signify One whole Christ And Omnis Christus and totus Christus to any man that vnderstandeth Latine are two wery different things And in your translation you confound totus and integer making them both to signify the same whereas in the Councel they haue a seueral signification totus pertaineth to the integrity of Christ as consisting of essential parts of body and soule and of his personality and Diuinity and integer pertaineth to the integrity of all the parts of his body as head hands feete c. which the Philosophers call partes integrantes By this then you see how a man that were disposed to stand about you might trouble you when in such a small thing as this there may bee found soe many faults 3. For the Councel of Constance which you are soe displeased withall for contradicting the word of Christ as you conceiue me thinkes there might be found a meanes to appease your displeasure if you would but remember that at the same tyme and in the same decree it was also declared that notwithstanding that Christ did institute the Bl. Sacrament after supper yet men should now receiue it fasting which decree I presume you will not condemne Neither will you I dare say glosse the words notwithstanding soe fauourably in your owne behalfe as you did in ours as in despite of God and Man you would receiue your communion fasting though Christ did receiue it not fasting but euen after supper and bid vs doe what hee did in remembrance of him and notwithstanding also that it is not to be doubted as you tell vs out of Bellarmine but that is best fittest to be practised which Christ himselfe hath done Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey how you may be made freinds with the Councel of Constance seing it hath done you as good a turne as it hath done to vs. But because I see not how you could but know this before and therefore haue erred as I may well say wittingly this is too freindly language to talke to you therefore I answeare you plainely in bringing this Decree this you haue brought a staffe to beate your selfe withal For the
practize to be more for aedification of the people Nay doth it not in the Canon expresly condemne it saying anathema to whosoeuer shall condemne the practize of the Romane Church in reading some part of the Canon softly or to whosoeuer shall say that the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue 4. Now for the place of Scripture which you bring to wit that wee must shew forth the Lord's death till his Coming which you say is not intended to the walls as we doe it sheweth sufficiently how well you vnderstand Scripture and consequently how well the common people betweene whom and your self you I dare say thinke there is a great deale of difference would vnderstand them when you being euen a writer soe little vnderstand them For that place of announcing our Lord's death is not vnderstood by words as you vnderstand it but by deeds as it is most plaine by the circumstances wherein they were spoken to wit by consecrating and changing the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord as we doe daily in the Masse in memory of our Sauiours passion For soe S. Paul hauing spoken of the institution and manner to be obserued in the consecration expresly saith as often as you shall doe this you shall announce the death of our Lord. The doing therefore is the announcing not the Saving Besides these words at least in the māner of speaking doe not import any cōmand For you shall find the word annuntiabitis is the indicatiue moode and future tēse if you looke well into your Accidence Sir Humphrey And withall it is somewhat conditional to wit that as often as we shall doe that we shall announce the death of our Lord. Besides Sir Humphrey I neuer heard before that it was all one to speake Latine and to speake to the walls if a man should speake a word of Latine to you were that to speake to a wall You see then you doe not marke what you say 5. But now you haue spoken soe well of your selfe lett vs heare what you can say out of other men And first for Haymo whom you cite for your purpose asking this vnanswearable question as you call it If a man that knoweth onely his Mother's tongue stand by or make a Sermon or giue a Blessing how shall hee say Amen since he doth not know what thou saist Soe you To which I answeare it is true Haymo hath a question to this purpose but not soe much to yours if you marke him well nor soe vnanswearable if you take him altogeather with what he saith before and after your question For soe you shall find he doth not require that all that are by shall vnderstand but that he that supplieth the place of the Idiot or lay man in answearing for the people shall vnderstand for before that Question of yours he maketh this other first quis supplebit vel quis adimplebit locum illius qui te audit non intelligit verba tua who shall supply or who shall fulfill the place of him that heareth thee and doth not vnderstand thy words Which sheweth that he doth not speake of the idiot or ordinary bystander but of one that is to supply his place or make answeare for him which appeareth yet more by that which followeth immediatly after your question thus Si non aderit alius pro illo sciens quid tu dicas qui respondeat Amen 1. Verum est quod tu dixisti vel fiat ita If there shal be none other for him that is in place of the ignorant man who knowing what thou saiest may answeare Amen That is to say it is true which thou hast said or bee it soe done Which plainely sheweth that in Haymo his iudgment it is sufficient if there be one vnderstander to answeare for the rest or for him that doth not vnderstād Nay he doth not seeme to require soe much as that this answearer shall vnderstand all soe perfectly but onely soe farre as to be able to answeare Amen for this is the inconuenience which he maketh to follow therevpon if the answearer doe not vnderstand the language that he doth not know where the prayer endeth for him to answeare Nescit quippe saith he vbi sermonis clausula firmatur For he knoweth not where the cōclusion of the speach is ended For which truely there doth not neede any such great vnderstanding of Latine Soe that though Haymo thinke that the Apostle speaketh in that place of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest as some few other Doctors doe though not soe rightly nor soe conformably to the true intent and drift of the Apostle yet he requireth noe more but that there be one to answeare Amen which surely may be more easily had then for want thereof to be faine to change the whole office of the Church in to English And soe Haymo his vnanswearable question is without any such great adoe answeared Now for S. Paules meaning though your obiection require it not and that it require also a longer disputation yet not to leaue the Reader wholy vnsatisfied thereof I say in a word that S. Paul his meaning in that place where he asketh how he that vnderstandeth not the prayer shall say Amen is not of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest which noe man can doubt of either for the truth or goodnes and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them but of priuate prayers or prayers made by priuate and Lay men ex tempore and on the suddaine not in Latine Greeke or any ordinary knowne tongue but in an extraordinary vnknowne tōgue such as men spake by the guift of tongues which guift was giuen in those beginnings not onely to the Apostles and Preachers but euen to Lay people and to many among the Corinthians which they it seemes grew prowd of and vsed for ostentation For correcting of which abuse the Apostle writeth heere vnto them preferring Prophecy that is exhortation before tongues and giuing many reasons therefore among which this is one that others that heare that prayer in a strange Language are not the better nor can say Amen to it And this to be the Apostles drift the circumstances of the text and persons to whom he writeth plainely shew 6. After Haymo cometh Iustinian the Emperour who say you made a constitution that Bishops and Priests should celebrate the Lord's supper and prayers in Baptisme not in secret but with a Lowd and cleare voyce to this Bellarmine maketh two answeares Bell. lib. 2 〈◊〉 Miss cap. 12 one that Iustinian being a meere secular man had nothing to doe to make Lawes in such matters as it is most true and you cannot but know he is ordinarily taxed for too much taking vpon him in that kind The other that euen that Law doth command nothing more but onely that Bishops and Priests shall pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne
most stronge argument of antiquity that it is the practise of the Catholique Church tyme out of mind and of consent that noe man is found to haue spoken against it but onely knowne Haeretiques such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 1 therefore you are still out of your bias when you thinke to proue the nouelty of our doctrine by our want of testimony of antiquity For though we haue such testimony for superaboundant proofe yet it is enough that such a thing is thaught and practized in Catholique Church without any memory when it beganne for that is S. Augustines rule continually to proue a thing not onely ancient but euen Apostolical 10. But now to come to your authours in particular you bring Durand in the first place saying that there can be little said of certainty concerning Indulgences ap Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 2. Whereto I answeare that it is true Durand doth not speake soe constantly and resolutely of the threasure of the Church in as much as it consisteth of the satisfaction of Saints whereon Indulgences are partly grounded but he is farr from any haeretical and pertinacious denial thereof much lesse of Indulgences for supposing them as a thing most certaine he disputeth Theological questions of them as other Diuines of his tyme did and making this the first question Dur. in 4. dist 20. q. 3. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae whether Indulgences auaile any thing after the manner of Schooles he putteth two arguments against them in the first place and then cometh with his argument Sed contra agreeing for the most part with his conclusion and agreeing expresly in this place he saith thus In contrarium est generalis consuetudo doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de poena peccatori debita On the contrary is the general custome and doctrine of the Church which would containe falshood if some thing of the punishment dew to a sinner should not be forgiuen by indulgences and then hauing sett downe his resolution that there cannot be much said of certaine because neither the Scripture maketh mention of them nor some holy Fathers whom he there nameth yet he concludeth that in speaking of Indulgences the common manner is to bee followed and soe goeth on with other questions per quem modum valeant ex qua causa vaeleant quis eas possit concedere in what māner they auaile out of what cause who cā graunt thē c. nay and for the treasure of the Church though by way of theological dispute in one place he make some doubt of it yet in others he speaketh plainely and clearely in these words Dur. 4. dist 20. q. 3. Est in ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spiritual Treasure of the Passion of Christ and the Saints who endured much greater torments then their sinnes deserued and therefore the Church may out of this treasure communicate to one or more what may bee sufficient to satisfy for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as shall please the Church to communicate this treasure more or lesse which are nothing els but the communication of the paine of Christ and the Saints to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherefore indulgences auaile by way of solucion or payment in as much as by Christ and his Saints the paine dew to vs is payd So farr this author most clearely truely Catholiquely though after againe he somewhat doubt of this treasure as I said before in as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of Saincts Now for the very place which you alleadge you committ a fault in making it seeme as if he said the ancient Fathers in general did not make any mention of Indulgences and that he did name S. Ambrose S. Hilar. S. Aug. and S. Hierome onely for examples sake whereas it is farr otherwise For presently after he nameth S. Greg. and saith of him that he did institute indulgences at the Stations in Rome Soe as it is plaine he spoke onely of those 4. not of all the Fathers in general And soe much for Durand 11. As for Alphōsus à Castro another of your authors he denieth not all testimony of Scripture as none of the rest doe but onely plaine expresse testimony and though he also confesse the vse of Indulgences not to haue beene soe much in those ancient tymes as since yet he alloweth of them soe farr as to condemne any man for an Haeretique that shall deny them these are his words Alph. a Castr de haeres lib. 8. verb. Indulgent Verum etsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione S. Scripturae testimonium apertum desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam ecclesiae Catholicae vsus a multis annorum centurijs tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur But though there want open testimony of Scripture for approbation of Indulgences they are not therefore to bee contemned because the vse of the Catholique church for many hundreds of yeares is of soe great authority that whosoeuer contemned the same is worthely esteemed an haeretique And againe in the same place Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum to wit indulgentiarum vsus vt ex Stationibus Romae frequentissimis vtrumque colligi potest Among the Romans this vse of Indulgences is said to be most ancient as may be somewhat gathered by the most frequent Statiōs at Rome Looke you Sir Humphrey what a witnesse you haue brought for your selfe Doe you not see how new he maketh this Doctrine of Indulgences Confessing euen the vse of them to be most ancient and of many hundred yeares standing nay doth he not in the same place acknowledge that S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name did graunt some Indulgences which is aboue a thousand yeares Doe you not heare how much he giueth to the Church acknowledging the practise thereof to bee of soe great authority that whosoeuer denyeth the truth of a thing soe practised is worthily to be counted an Haeretique What thinke you now of your selfe to be called haeretique out of your owne mouth as it were that is out of your author's mouth whom you bring for you For Castro his authority then though it had beene more for you then it is in this matter of Indulgences yet you had beene better haue let it alone then to haue it with such a condition The like a man may say of euery author you bring heere for the same purpose but that it is needlesse to stand soe long vpon examining euery one in particular 12. Now after such good authorityes as you bring against Indulgences you thinke you may with authority prate very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences and bringing money to his owne coffers by them but to that I neede make noe other answeare but that it is such
this very place which you soe often repeate out of S. Paul to himself he answeareth it by expounding the word praeter in the same sense with contra Which standeth very well also with the propriety of the Latine word and for the Greeke it the same both heere Gal. v. 8. and Rom. 16.17 Where there is a like sentence of S. Paul's wishing the Romanes to marke auoyd such as putt scandals and stumbling blocks contrary to the doctrine which they had receiued The word I say is the same 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusatiue case which doth signify as well if not better contra then praeter and in your owne bibles you translate it in that place to the Romanes contrary to the doctrine I see not therefore why you should not vnderstand it alike in both places But to retourne to S. Augustine the thing being soe I may iustly aske of you Sir Humphrey whether you haue not soe often affronted this holy Father as you haue repeated this sentence soe contrary to his meaning in your owne most false and absurd sense to the subuersion of your Readers drawing his words from their true Catholique sense which he hath soe often and soe seriously inculcated vpon seueral occasions to the establishing of your peruerse and haeretical principles soe much by him euer detested But there is a countinge day Sir Humphrey as litle as you thinke of it for this all other matters wherein also this Saint will reckon with you in particular you are like to feele the heauy doome of him and all others whom you haue soe freely affronted in this kind But meane while I trust in the goodnes of God by the prayers of this holy Saint that those well meaning people that shall take the paines for their owne soules good to peruse this answeare wil be able thereby to discouer and proclame to others soe much of your dealing as that any thing you haue said or shall euer say will be able to doe little harme to any but such as shall wilfully runne vpon their owne ruine And soe Sir Humphrey I shall make an end of this § and Section wherein is contained the cheife matter of your whole booke soe as I hope there wil be lesse to doe with that which followeth Chap. 10. Of the 10. Section entituled thus The testimonyes of our aduersaryes touching the infallible certainty of the Protestant faith and the vncertainty of the Romish CHAPTER X. 1. SIr Humphrey hauing in the two former Sections proued the antiquity and Vniuersality of his faith both in general in particular as he would haue vs thinke cometh now to proue the certainty thereof and vncertainty of ours Where a man would expect he should bring some new thing either reason or authority but he doth neither but onely vpon the rotten ground which he supposeth he hath laid very soundly in the precedent Sections he goeth on very confidently with the certainty of his faith and making a short preface how he hath out of our owne authours proued that the faith doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome was not knowne informer ages and that though the Priests especially Iesuits are bound by oath to maintaine the Papacy yet that it can not be denied but that we haue testified against our selues in behalfe of his doctrine and howsoeuer we excuse the matter yet we are diuided among our selues and soe want vnity of faith After this preface I say he maketh a short reuiew of our confessions for him in matter of Iustification transubstantiation priuate Masse Sacraments Communion in one kinde prayer in an vnknowne tongue Worshipping of Images and Indulgences Vpon which he calleth men Angels to witnesse that we haue noe antiquity vniuersality and that consequently we haue resolued the grand question touching their Church before Luther to wit that it was in Christ in the Apostles in the Fathers in the bosome of the ancient Church before Luther's tyme. This is the summe of almost halfe this Sectiō in all which I must appeale gentle Reader to thy indifferent iudgment Whether there be a true word or noe For supposing that thou hast read what is gone before thou wilt easily see that though it were not my taske heere to proue the antiquity of the points of our Faith or vniuersality or any thing els but onely to answeare the fond obiections of Sir Humphrey Yet I haue accidentally and by the way proued the same in most points and by the same authours and places which he bringeth against vs and his fayling in his proofes of our nouelty is sufficient proofe of our antiquity and his owne nouelty 2. What a shameful boast then is it for him to say that most of our points now taught were vnknowne to antiquity For though some might perchance not haue beene soe anciently defined and consequently doubted of by some yet to say they were not commonly beleiued and much more to say they were not knowne cannot come frome any man but such a blinde but bold Bayard as Sir Humphrey Linde For if one man or two doubt of a thing must it therefore be vnknowne when not onely one or two on the other side but two for one or rather ten nay a hundred for one say the contrary Now lett him name that one of his points of faith heere by him disputed wherein not onely since it was defined which is enough for our purpose but euen before that we shall not bring him a great many that held that way which it was defined for euery one of those that held the other way How then could it be vnknowne The next thing in his praeface is of an Oath which our Priests especially Iesuits take to defend the Papacy and doctrine of the Church of Rome But if a man should aske him where he findeth this Oath he would not be able soe readily to tell vs though if he could I see not why any man should be ashamed of it nay why he should not glory of soe heroical an act as is an oath whereby he bindeth himself to the defence of the authority whereon the waight frame of the whole Catholique Church and saluation of all soules from Christ his owne tyme to the very end of the world hath doth and still shall depend But this I onely note for the Knight's ignorance for I beleeue the thing he would be at is the fourth vow of the Iesuits Whereby they specially bind themselues in Obedience to the Sea Apostolique to goe in Mission to any part of the world whether infidel or haeretique which is a little different at least from that which he talketh of an oath to defend the Papacy 3. The third thing in his praeface is want of Vnity wherewith he chargeth vs. Whereof I onely say that as we confesse there may be difference of iudgments before a definition of faith soe lett him shew the diuision after such definition Lett him name that man and we
saith thus It is not incredible that some such thing should be after this life but whether it be soe or noe it may be a question You say also for the place where it is or how long soules continue there whither there be fire or water or whither material fire or noe there is nothing certaine among vs You cite Sir Thomas More Bishop Fisher and Bellarmine whose words I passe ouer as needlesse and then you tell vs that S. Greg. who gaue the first credo to Purgatory saith some are purged by fire some by hott bathes and vpon certaine apparitions and reuelations related by him and S. Bede you say it is come to be an article of faith but you conclude with a place of S. Aug. quite against Purgatory Lib. de vaâ—it Saecul â—ap 1. where he saith that when the Soule is separated from the body presently it is either placed in paradice for its good works or cast into hell for its sinnes I answeare that you still goe abusing S. Aug. who is soe plaine for Purgatory that noe Catholique now liuing can be more plaine and in this very booke of his Enchiridiâ—n and place by you cited he is soe plaine that one Mr. Anthony Alcocke a zealous disciple as it seemeth translating it into English is faine to write certaine animaduersions vpon the 110. chapter wherein he confesseth S. Aug. his opinion heere for Purgatory but he laboureth to obscure his meaning or reconcile him by fetching other places as wisely and well to the purpose as you are wont to doe but to be brief with you that which S. Aug. saith may be a question is not of purgatory or the being of Purgatory as you say most Linde like but of the manner of paine as whether euen as men are heere troubled in this world more or lesse with the losse of worldly things as they more or lesse loued them which trouble or tribulation S. Aug. explicateth to be that fire whereof S. Paul speakes saying that those that build hay straw stubble c. shal be Saued as it were by fire whether I say men be soe punished in Purgatory this S. Aug. doth not determine but whether there be a Purgatory or noe Enchir. cap. 110. let any man iudge since he saith there Neque negandum est defunctorum animas c. Neither is it to bee denied that the Soules of the dead are relieued by the piety of their freinds liuing when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them or almes giuen in the Church Note heere 3. or 4. controuersies decided in this one sentence of S. Aug. Satisfactions Masse Purgatory Prayers for the dead and there he also distinguisheth 3. sorts of dead people some in heauen that neede noe such helpe others in hell that cannot be helped by them a third of those that are not soe well as not to neede them nor soe ill but that they may be the better for these helpes This S. Aug. speaketh certainely and more we doe not say certainely of Purgatory the particulars of place manner of punishment durance c. are things disputable among Diuines which you haue nothing to doe with and if for such vncertainties you will reiect the beleife of Purgatory by the same reason you may deny that there is an hell as it is like you doe in your hart for els you could not say and write as you doe Now for S. Greg. who you say gaue the first Credo to Purgatory that is answeare enough which I alleadged last out of S. Aug. by which it appeareth he gaue it an vndoubted Credo long before for he died neere 200. yeares before S. Greg. but for founding the beleife thereof vpon apparitions of dead men reuelatioÌ„s of this Saint S. Bedes relation it is most false by the same argument still For how could the faith of S. Aug. his tyme be grounded vpon the reuelations of men lyuing two or three hundred yeares after or indeede vpon any reuelation of any man faith is grounded vpon the reuelation of God alone deliuered vnto vs by his Church Therefore to the last place of S. Aug. I say it is vnderstood that presently as soone as the soule departeth it receiueth the doome either of Paradice or hell that is whether it is to goe finally and that is both true and his meaning as appeareth by what he saith of the same matter els where thus Tempus quod inter hominis mortem c. The tyme betweene the death of a man and the general resurrection containeth the soules in hidden receptacles as each is worthy either of ease or paine according as it deserued whiles it liued For it is not to be denied that the soules of the dead are helped by the piety of their liuing freinds This place is soe plaine as not only not to admitt any tergiuersation but alsoe to explaine any other that may seeme obscure 12. A third point of vncertaine doctrine as you obiect is Indulgences for which you alleadge Durand and Gerson For Durand looke in the § of Indulgences in Bellarmine Lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 2. and there you shall find him not to doubt of Indulgences but of that which wee call thesaurus ecclesiae for as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of the Saints And as for Gerson who saith that whether the power of the keyes extend onely to such as are on earth or also to those in Purgatory the opinions of men are contrary and vncertaine it is most friuolous to obiect him For what doth this pertaine to faith or doth it pertaine onely to Indulgences is not the question common to other acts of iurisdiction vnderstood by the power of the keyes this is your argument Diuines dispute whether the Popes power extend to the soules in Purgatory ergo the doctrine of Indulgences is vncertaine This might be answeare enough but to display you a little more I will say a word or two more of Gerson and first euen in this point of extending the Popes power ouer those that are in Purgatory euen to the remission of paine absolution from venial sinne or excommunication before incurred he is soe fauourable in this place by you cited as to graunt the opinions on both sides probable which is more theÌ„ other Diuines graunt and is more then needeth for applying Indulgences to the dead Soe as in graunting that probable he maketh this certaine and this for Indulgences in as much as they pertaine to the dead Now for the liuing or power of Indulgences in general thus he saith â—rs 2. p. de â—â—ulg con â— 11. 12 Indulgentiarum concessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectenda in fide spe charitate Domini nostri IESV CHRISTI qui potestatem talium claurum ecclesiasticam dedit hominibus The graunting of Indulgences is not to be little esteemed or contemned but to be embraced in the faith hope and Charity of our Lord IESVS
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
in the § of priuate Masse and els where 7. A sixt point of your safe doctrine is the Marriage of Priests whereof you say it is better to liue chastely in Matrimony then by single life to hazard their soules by incontinency This you proue by the authority of Aeneas Syluius Panormitan and Cassander Of which three the last is noe author to bee reguarded the first is answeared before The second onely remaineth to bee answeared heere to wit Panormitane whom indeede I find inclined in opinion for the Marriage of Clergymen Panor cap. Cum Plini de Cler. coning yet farre otherwise then you For first he putteth the question whether the Church can giue way that a Clarke may marry as the Graecians doe to which he answeareth affirmatiuely and this he saith is out of doubt with him for soe much as pertayneth to them that are not obliged by tacite or expresse vow And then he proueth it by reason and sheweth that it is not de iure diuino as we also grant And therevpon saith that he doth not onely beleeue it to be in the Churches power but he thinketh it would be a wholesome statute for the good and safety of Soules to lett such as will containe themselues and such as cannot to marry since experience saith hee teacheth the contrary effect to follow of that Law of continency seing men doe not now liue spiritually nor are cleane but are spotted with vncleanesse to their grieuous sinne This is Panormitanes discourse wherein first he acknowledgeth this whole matter to depēd vpon the Churches authority plainely sheweth by his discourse that the law of continency doth bind that it is a grieuous sinne to goe against it For which cause though his opinion indeede be that they should haue liberty to marry yet he would not haue thē marry against the Law standing in force but he would haue the Law taken away which is a farre different doctrine from yours Secondly he alloweth the obligatiō of a Vow tacite or expresse seemeth not indeede to speake of such as are soe tied now with you your Ministers that is all one wheter Chastity be vowed or not vowed nay you disallow all such vowes Thirdly he saith that where a man is bound by expresse or tacite vow the Pope cannot dispense without a great and vrgent cause which is against you who require noe dispensation nor any such cause Fourthly he doth not speake of such as are already ordained for they haue a Vow either expresse or tacite but of those that are to be ordained whereas you would haue it as free for one as for another Lastly this opinion of Panormitane pertaineth not to the point of doctrine but onely to the point of prudence or conueniency wherein he differeth from the common iudgment of Catholiques and is therefore worthily noted by other Catholique Doctors Soe as he concurreth not with you in opinion of the lawfulnes of the Marriage of Priests against the lawes of the Church but onely in this that he would haue it made lawfull by taking away the contrary law But now though it be his opinion that it is better to lett such men marry why should you thinke it safer to follow his iudgment being but one single man against the iudgment of all the other Doctors of the Catholique Church against all Fathers against all authority of Councels against the continuall practize of the Church from the very beginning Bell. lib. 1. de Cler. c. 18. 19. 20. c. lib. 2. de mona cap. 21. 22. c. Of all which you haue aboundant proofe in Bellarmine and which was neuer contradicted by any but knowne wicked men Why I say should you thinke it safer What reason or colour haue you But perhapps you will strengthen Panormitane by S. Paul who saith It is better to marry then to burne but that giues no strength for it is not safety of doctrine which S. Paul speaketh of but practical safety for matters of life or manners 1. Cor. 7.9 of this or that particular man supposing his disposition occasions and dangers and soe it is free for euery man to choose what he will doe Noe man is forced to it at first in the Catholique Church but if he take vpon him the office of a Priest or obligation of a religious state he is then forced to make good what he hath promised and to render his Vowes to God which the law of nature and moral honesty requireth Neither is it soe out of question that it is alwaies safer euen in that kind of safety for a man to marry For there is noe lesse difficulty perhapps and consequently danger for married men to containe thēselues with in the bounds of wedlock then for Priests to containe themselues within the bounds of perfect chastity as both reason and experience teach besids that though Saint Paul say it is better to marry then burne yet he saith it is better not to marry supposing euidently that a man may forbeare Marriage yet not be forced to burne Lastly in our case though the difficulty may be greater For as the prouerbe saith difficilia quae pulchra high things are hard Yet considering the helpes of almighty God's grace which are proportionable and I may also say superaboundant to the dangers of an office or state being vndertaken for his sake it becometh more easy and more safe For soe it is that the euangelical Law is more easy safe and comfortable then the old law of Moyses though the things that are required therein be farre more hard then those in the other For it is the vnction of the holy Ghost which God hath powred forth aboundātly in the new Law that makes our Sauiours yoake sweete and his burden light which because your Ministers want Chastity seemeth vnto them an intolerable burden Your way Sir Humphrey then is not more safe euen in this kind of safety nor more easy nor more comfortable Lett vs see whether it be soe in the next point which is of Prayer in a knowne tongue 8. Of this you say S. Thomas of Aquin saith it is manifest that he receiueth more benefit which prayeth vnderstandeth what he saith for the mind of him that vnderstandeth not is without fruite You bring also Lyra to the same purpose saying that people are better brought to the knowledge of God answeare Amen with greater deuotion when they vnderstand the Priest as also Caietan saying that it is better by S. Paul's doctrine for the edifying of the Church that publique prayers were made in a vulgar tongue to be vnderstood indifferently by Priests and people then in Latine With two authorityes more one of Gabriel another out of the Rhemes testament To all which I answeare that first you are mistaken in the whole matter For the question betweene you and vs is not soe much whither publique prayers in Latine be more or lesse profitable as whither they be lawful or not lawful we
what then what is this to many other points which we say cānot be knowne by onely scripture Were this a good consequence the Church is knowne by onely Scripture ergo all things els and euen Scripture it selfe is knowne onely by scripture surely noe and yet this consequence must be good or els Sir Humphrey your argumēt is not good Besids these words may be vnderstood of the Scriptures compared with other Writings that is that the Church is knowne to vs onely by Scriptures not by other Writings whereof either none speake soe clearely of the Church or none are like therevnto for authority which yet doth not exclude other proofes or markes of the Church And indeede the Church is most knowne and best proued out of Scripture of any point of our faith as may appeare by this that S. Aug. proueth the same soe notably out of Scriptures onely gainst the Donatists in a particular booke of that matter De vnit eccles Aug. in Psal 30. and in another place he saith the Scriptures speake more plainely of the Church then of Christ himself because the holy Ghost foresaw it was more to be contradicted and what might not these words be taken somewhat in the same sense but this shall serue for that place 3. You come next with two places of Saint Aug. whereof one was answeared before and it is onely where you tell vs he saith that many are tormented with the Diuel who are worshipped by man on earth to this Bellarmine say you answeareth that perhaps it is not S. Augustines making you Reader beleeue as if Bell. neither gaue other answeare nor any reason of this answeare Whereas he doth both his reason why he thinketh it not Saint Augustines is both because he could neuer find any such place in him it is like he should find it if it were there he hauing beene soe diligent a reader of S. Augu. as appeareth by his works he was Bell. de Sanct. beat lib. 1. cap. 9. as alsoe because noe Haeretique that obiecteth it doth note the place where it is to be found as they are wōt to doe in their other obiections and it is like would doe in this if they could find it but because Sir Humphrey you are a man soe well read in S. Aug. and stand soe vpon answeare of this place Doe you but tell vs where it is and you shall then see what we will say vnto you meane while looke a little better in Bellar. againe and tell vs whether there be not 3. or 4. other answeares See also before cap. 10. The other place of Saint Augu. is as you say touching the Popes supremacy because S. Augu. in those words of our Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church taketh not Peter and this rocke to be all one but the Rocke to bee our Sauiour himself and Petrus to bee a deriuatiue onely of Petra to which you tell vs Stapleton makes answeare that it was lapsus humanus for want of knowledge of the Greeke and caused by the diuersity of the two languages Latine and Greeke Which answeare though you relate in a slight fashion as if you tooke it to be in sufficiēt yet you neither doe nor indeede can say against it if you know Greeke and Latine or if you doe not goe but to some of your Ministers and get them to looke in their owne Greeke Lexicons I meane sett out by Haeretiques and see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be an adiectiue and a deriuatiue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be not a substantiue signifying the very same thing and let them looke yet farther into the original tongue it self to wit the Syriake wherein our Sauiour spake Lib. 1. Ro Pontif cap. 25. and see whither they be not more the same to wit the onely word Cephas in both places On the other side it is well knowne Saint Augu. professed noe great skill in Greeke as hee witnesseth of himselfe in many places Aug. in Psal cont Partem Donat ep 165. Besids Saint Augu. doth not bring this exposition to derogate from Saint Peter's primacy which he confesseth in 20. places as may be seene in Bellarmine and where for proofe thereof he vseth the very word Petra which heere he distinguisheth from Petrus calling the Seate of Peter this rooke Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae Reckon saith he to the Donatists the Priests from euen the seate of Peter that is the rocke which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome How then doth he deny S. Peter's primacy and perpetuity of his Sea Againe Sir Humphrey you might finde other answeares for Saint Augu. himselfe in his retractations putteth both the explications wherein the word Petrae is spoken of Christ and of Peter leauing the choise to the Reader allowing both interpretations which you doe not because one is flat against you Whereas we doe not reiect either as being against vs but onely we shew the one not to be soe good because it standeth not soe with the original tongues which that Saint was not soe well skilled in and literal sense of scripture which noe Haeretique can deny 4. The 3. place is out of S. Ignatius for proofe of Communion in both kinds Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 26 One cupp is distributed to all to which you say Bellarmine makes answeare that in the Latine books it is not found that one cupp is giuen to all but for all against which you can say nothing but giue me cause to say much against you For first Bellarmine doth not say one cupp is giuen for all but saith vnus calix totius ecclesiae One cupp of the whole Church Which is the true reading and indeede another thing Secondly though you make as if Bellarmine did onely barely say this without farther reason or proofe yet is it farre otherwise for as for the reading he saith that though the Greeke haue it as the Haeretiques commonly cite that is as you doe heere yet the true reading is as the Latine translation which we follow hath it whereto he saith there is more trust to be had then to the Greeke books of S. Ignatius which wee haue now Whereof he bringeth this proofe that the testimonies cited out of him as we find in the works of S. Anastasius and Theodoret agree better with our Latine translation then the Greeke which is now extant Which is a plaine proofe of the betternes and greater purenes thereof as being taken out of the ancient Greeke editions Besids that Bellarmine proueth this euen out of the Magdeburgians because they cite this very place at we doe Neither doth he answeare this authority onely by the variety of the reading but withall he giueth 2. answeares more one that S. Ignatius putteth all the force in the vnity of the bread and cupp thus that though many eate many drinke
Vncertainety and nouelty of his owne For which end you produce 8. seueral places six whereof I haue answeared before and there also shewed that some are nothing in the world to the purpose others most grosly falsified The 1. place to wit that noe maÌ„ can be certaine of his faith because he cannot bee certaine he receiueth a true Sacrament because that dependeth vpon the Ministers intention is answeared and proued most foolish chap. 10. n. 7.8 c. the secoÌ„d place which is of transubstantiation as if Bellarmine confessed it probable that it could not bee proued out of scripture is answeared in Cap. 9. § 2. n. 22. concerning which I onely note that in this place you haue a new corruption For whereas Bellar. saith onely that yt may be doubted whether there be any place of Scripture soe plaine as without the declaration of the Church to enforce transubstantiation because some learned meÌ„ as Scotus did doubt thereof though Bell. saith to him the Scripture seemeth soe plaine as to enforce it heere you make him say it may be doubted whether the Scripture will beare it which is cleane another thing for to enforce a sense beare a sense are two Seueral things neither did Scotus or any Diuine els euer make question but that the scripture would beare that sense but whither that were soe cleare and obuious a sense as of it selfe to enforce the beleife of transubstaÌ„tiation The 3. Bell. lib. 2. de Miss cap. 9. 10. place which is of Masse without coÌ„municants I passed ouer before as impertinent to the purpose and soe I might doe heere but for the Reader 's fuller satisfaction I answeare Bellarmine saith that Masse is ordained both to offer sacrifice to God and to nourish the people with spiritual food in which respect as it is not vnlawful to offer it to God though there be none to communicate but very lawfull good and holy soe is it more perfect and as I may say in a certaine sort more lawfull where be some to communicate For then it hath both the ends for which it was ordained Now what doth this make for you Sir Knight or against vs as also that which followeth heere to wit that there is not any expresse mention among the ancienâ—s where none did coÌ„municate but the Priest alone but onely coniectures For noe more is there any expresse mention to the contrary that noe Priest might nor euer did say Masse without communicants which vnlesse you can shew in Bellarmine you say nothing against vs neither if you could shew it should you therefore say any thing for your owne sacrificelesse communion which hath noe affinity with our Masse the essence whereof consisteth in being a Sacrifice and communion in being a participation of the same Sacrifice Your Protestant communion being but a bitt of vnblessed bread and noe participation of Sacrifice for you absolutely deny all manner of visible Sacrifice in the Church Now for Bellarmines coniectures it is true he giueth them noe other name but of coniectures but they are such as may with great probability perswade any indifferent man to conclude that many times and I may say much more frequently the Priest said Masse without communicants then with them And the lest of them is such that if you had but halfe such an one for any point you hold you would vaunt it and triumph as if you had an vnanswearable demonstration But be it soe or bee it not of some of the peoples communicating whensoeuer the Priest said Masse what maketh it to our purpose which is whether it be lawful to say Masse without communicants or not they did not will you say in the primitiue Church I aske what then may not we now the people did communicate euery day then must euery body communicate now therefore euery day all gaue their goods away and liued in common must euery body doe soe now I beleiue Sir Knight you will not like that soe well If the peoples deuotion grow soe cold as not to participate sacramentally of the sacrifice must the Priests grow soe cold also as not euen to offer Sacrifice for his owne and the peoples sinnes This is noe good councel Sir Humphrey almighty God reprehendeth it by his Prophet Isay 24.2 that the Priest were growne like the people Sicut populus sic Sacerdos We could be glad Sir if you could helpe to mend the people but not marre the Priest which you would doe enkindle their deuotion not destroy their faith nor take away the holy Sacrifice of the Masse which affordeth many benefits euen to not communicants though not soe much as to them that doe communicate sacramentally But what doe I in this discourse heere it is enough to shew that Bellarmine doth not patronize you nor weaken vs. The two places following touching prayer in a knowne tongue and Communion vnder both kinds in the primitiue Church are also answeared before are onely of the same kind of argument with this the 6. place which is as if Bell. taught your two SacrameÌ„ts is answeared in two places vpon seueral occasions Chap. 9. §. 4 fine and ch 10. fine and in both is shewed your notorious corruption both of words sense 2. Now for your two last testimonies which you brought not before I shall heere examine One you tell vs is touching faith and good works of which say you it is Bellarmines confession Bell lib. 3. de â—ustif cap. 6. that the Protestants doe not deny but that faith repentance are requisite that is a liuely faith and earnest repentance and that without them noe man can be iustified To this I answeare first that you propound the matter very imperfectly and ignorantly in saying thus touching faith and good works it is Bellarmines confession c. not telling vs the particular controuersy for which you bring this saying of Bellarmines there being more controuersies then one betweene you and vs as whither any thing be needful to iustification beside faith or what faith it is that iustifieth and how and whither good works bee necessary or noe and how they concurre for there be all these things and more in question betweene you and vs. And a man would haue thought by your general title of faith and Workes it had beene in proofe of some of these that you had brought Bellarm. But it is for noe such matter Bellarmine in the place cited handling a cleane differeÌ„t question to wit whether a man can be certaine of his owne grace and iustice that is whether he be in the grace and fauour of almighty God or not and for proofe that a man cannot be certaine thereof he bringeth diuers places of Scripture which imply a condition on our part in our iustification as if we turne to God if we seeke him in our whole hart if we doe penance if we beleeue if we doe his will c. God will turne to vs forgiue our sinnes and the like Which condition saith
Bellarmine we cannot be certaine whether we fulfill or not and consequently we cannot bee certaine of our grace and iustice And he saith these places are soe manifest that our aduersaries cannot deny something to be requisite on our parts For though saith he they deny the remission of Sinnes to depend vpon the condition of workes or our penance faith or other act to be the cause or merit of iustification yet they grant them to be requisite and that without them a man cannot be iustified This is Bellarmines discourse wherein he doth neither confesse any good of your haeretiques nor any way allow or approue your saying as you would make one thinke but bringeth your owne confessions against you and euen by soe much as you confesse though that be farre from enough ouerthroweth another error of yours to wit your vaine confidence and certainty of your iustification Now then Sir Humphrey is not this honest dealing in you to take a word spoken by Bellarmine for one purpose and to transferre it to another farre different and againe in fauour of your selfe to alleadge those words out of Bellarmine as his confession which he alleadgeth onely for yours and to take it soe as if his allegation were an approbation or allowance of them whereas he bringeth them but in the nature of an obiection against your selues and there withall plainely declareth the difference betweene your error and our faith that you will not haue faith or works to be any cause or merit of iustification nor iustification to depend vpon works as vpon a condition whereas we teach all the contrary Which though Bellarmine doe not stand to proue there because that was not a place for it yet he plainely sheweth that to be his beleife 3. The second place of Bellarmine you say is touching iustification by faith onely wherein you tell vs he concludeth with the reformed churches saying that either a man hath true merits or hee hath not If he haue not he is dangerously deceiued if he haue true merits he looseth nothing by not respecting them but putting his trust in God onely But in this againe as before and euery where els you still Linde it egregiously For heere you make as if Bellarmine did allow of your iustification by faith onely whereas he confuteth the same largely and learnedly for 13. Lib. 1. de iustif cap. 1. whole chapters together beginning his disputation thus Hominem non sola fide iustificari 5. argumentis principalibus demonstrare conabimur Wee will endeauour by 5. principal arguments to demonstrate that a man is not iustified by faith onely How then doth he conclude with your reformed churches He concludeth against them you tell vs he concludeth with them And this place which you bring out of him is aboue 50. leaues from that where he beginneth to treate of iustification by faith and is an argument for a farre different matter to wit that it is most safe for a man though he may put some trust in his owne good works yet in reguard of the vncertainty he hath of his owne iustice and danger of vaine glory not to put any trust in them but all in God This later part whereof there is noe controuersy betweene vs and Protestants Bellarmine proueth by the reason heere brought Because if he haue not true merits he deceiueth himself but if he haue and yet trust not in them he looseth nothing by not trusting in them And what is all this good Sir Humphrey to your iustification by faith onely and consequently all that you haue said out of Bellarmine in this section to the antiquity and safety of your doctrine or the contrary of ours not one word to any such purpose on either side and therefore all is but vaine bragging wherewith you conclude heerevpon that our best learned confesse that many principal points of their owne religion yea many articles of faith are neither ancient safe nor Catholique Wherein you speake ignorantly in distinguishing principal points of religion from articles of faith for though euery proposition which is de fide be not an article of faith yet euery principal point is and therefore some giue that for the reason why we call a point an article to wit because it is a principal point but this is but to shew that you cannot speake two words soundly without faltering And yet you must be shewing men the WAY forsooth 4. Hauing then said all you can out of Bellarmine you tell vs it is not the name of Catholique which we assume that makes good the Catholique doctrine neither the opinion of learning or multitude of our side that must outface the truth For say your our Sauiour doth specially note the members of his body by the name of a little flocke as if the paucity of true beleeuers were the special character of the true Church And for our learned you bring a saying of S. Paul to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 1.26 Not many wise according to the flesh not many mighty Mat. 11 25. not many noble And another out of S. Mathew I thanke thee Father because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast reuealed them to babes and then you will vs to reflect vpon our owne church and we shall find the marks of a false church foretold that it should be after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders and after a little of this rauing talke you conclude with S. Augustine that miracles are not now to be expected thus you trowle it out Sir Humphrey Where first to beginne with I might aske what all this is to that which the title of your Section promiseth to witt of the truth of your doctrine out of Bellarmine But that it seemes prouing but dry matter you take your selfe the freedome without reguard to the consequence of your discourse to talke of the Church of Miracles stronge delusions and other such stuffe good for nothing but to fill paper But this very discourse for the matter it selfe sheweth your witt for you could haue said nothing more to the aduantage of our cause nor more to the disaduantage of your owne For you shew ours to be the true Church your owne a false one Which to be soe I shall shew not in myne owne words but in S. Augustines who giuing account what it was that kept him in the bosome of the Church reckoneth these very things which you make soe little account of as Miracles multitude of people and the very name of Catholique and I may say also learning Aug. cont ep fundam cap. 4. For answearing that epistle of the Manichees called Epistola fundamenti He beginneth his discourse thus In Catholica ecclesia vt omittam sincerissimam sapientiam c. In the Catholique Church to say nothing of the most sincere wisedome Wherein by mentioning this Wisedome in such manner euery man seeth that to him it was a motiue though he did not soe much vrge
shall send forth the rodd of his power to rule in the middest of his enemyes Psal 109. that is of worldly wisedome and power otherwise it had beene noe wonder besides that though these men were at first weake and vnlearned in worldly learning yet by the holy Ghost they were replenished with all knowledge of heauenly wisedome and indewed with power from heauen Of which their learning S. Hierome hath a large and excellent discourse Hier. ad Paulin. which not to be too long I referre you vnto Now by this is also answeared your other place of S. Mathew of hiding things from the wise and reuealing them to little ones For it is vnderstood of little ones by humility for onely such are apt to receiue heauenly wisedome and such can noe haeretique be that prowdly preferreth his owne iudgment before the iudgment of the whole Catholique church as if God had forsaken his Church and enlightned him alone which is as much to say as that the funne doth not shine to the whole world els but shines in onely at his window but heere is enough of this matter 7. Now for Miracles which you say we make a character of the Church it is true we doe indeede but whereas you call them the working of Satan I answeare it is a saying that can come from none but a child of Satan to attribute the works of God to Satan but our comfort is that our Sauiour foretold vs of it and armed vs against it by his owne words example Si patrem familias Beelzebub vocauerunt Mat. 10.25 quanto magis domesticos eius If they called the Father of the family Beelzebub how much more his family and if the Pharisees attributed our Sauiour's miracles to Beelzebub is it to be thought that Haeretiques who farre surpasse the impiety of the Pharisees will not doe the same of the miraculous works which his Seruants doe in his name that is for his honor and by his power this you doe Sir Humphrey or rather would faine doe making our Miracles to seeme the working of Satan and you would also proue it to be a marke of a false Church and foretold by Christ and his Apostles For proofe whereof you bring something out of S. Paules 2. ep to the Thessal of a stronge delusion and deceiuablenes of vnrightuousnes which God should send 3. Reg. 22. v. 22. because we did not receiue the Loue of truth but remember Sir Humphrey there is one in scripture that started vpp and said ere spiritus mendax in ore omnium Prophetarum I wil be a lying Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets This your discourse sheweth him not to haue beene farr of when you writ this for marke Sir Humphrey how many lyes heere be in a few lynes You say out Sauiour and his Apostles discouered the marks of a false church where I pray you good Sir doth our Sauiour speake of such a false church or where doth he set downe the marks thereof and this among the rest For my part I find it not And as for the Apostles though they speake many tymes of Haeretiques yet doe I not find them to doe them soe much honour as to call them a Church Vnlesse it be in that sense that holy Dauid saith the Church of the malignant or S. Iohn the synagogue of Satan Psal 24. Apoc. 2.9 but yet euen there I doe not find the working of Miracles to bee a token of such a Church From whence then doe you proue it Out of that place of S. Paul which you bring well supposing the proofe to be good that is but one Apostle not Apostles in the plural number But beside Sir Humphrey heere I conuent you before your owne conscience whether it be true that S. Paul speake there of any Church or company of men or whether he doe not speake of one onely man to wit Antichrist you cannot deny but he speaketh of him alone and that most plainely How then doe you make men beleeue he speaketh of a Church was it not that lying Spirit that put this into your head and who are those that the same Apostle saith that God shall send them stronge delusions and that they should beleiue lyes because they receiued not the loue the truth these you say are Catholiques but you may say any though neuer soe absurd and false by the priuiledge of your spirit how els could you say a thing soe euidently false it being most cleare by the Apostles phrase and discourse the persons also to whom he writeth considered that he meaneth that of the same kind of people of whom and to whom our Sauiour spake in a manner the same words Ego venio in nomine Patris mei non accipitis me Io. 5.43 si alius venerit in nomine suo illum accipietis I come in the name of my Father and you doe not receiue mee if another shall come in his owne name you will receiue him These are the Iewes who reiecting Christ shall receiue Anti-Christ neither can it belong any way to Catholiques who though you may say they haue forsaken the faith of Christ yet you cannot deny but they once receiued him whereas both our Sauiour and S. Paul speake of them that would not receiue him It is the Spiritt you wot of that suggested this vnto you as that also which followeth next where you say that the Spirit of God foresaw that our doctrine would consist in forging not onely of Fathers of Councels of Schoolmen but of daily miracles For where doth the Spirit foretel our forging of Fathers Schoolmen Councels c. You charged vs before though falsely of eluding or reiecting counter fayting the Fathers but not a word of forging Schoolmen or Councels till now Whereof if you could haue alleadged any example or shaddow I presume we should haue had it before now I take this therefore to be but an hott fitt of your Spiritt which transporteth you beyond your selfe and surely vnlesse you had some such helpe it were not possible for you soe to ouer Linde it as you doe heere As for that which you bring heere out of Lyra of feigned miracles wrought either by Priests or by their companions for lucre sake it sheweth you would say something if you knew what 1. Cor. 14. be it soe that some naughty Priests or their companions worke Faigned Miracles for lucre sake what then be there noe true Miracles therefore a proper argument like this there is tinn and copper in the world ergo noe siluer or gold some bad men ergo none good a trimme argument Sir Humphrey 8. But to conclude this section you come with a saying of Saint Augustine which will make all sure which is this that as miracles were necessary before the world beleiued to induce it to beleiue soe he that seeketh to be confirmed by wonders now is to be wondered at most of all himselfe in refusing to beleiue what
doctrines 3. For traditions adoration of images Saints c. all is answeared before Soe likewise his Communion in both kind and merit of good works But for that which he saith that he acknowledgeth vniuersality of nations and people not to be a marke of his Church I cannot but wonder at it For what is this but euen in plaine termes to confesse his Church not to be the Church of Christ Isa 2. Isay the Prophet describing the Church vnder the type of a mountaine saith that all nations shall flow vnto it Psal 71. Psal 2. The Prophet Dauid describing the Kingdome of Christ saith that he shall beare sway from sea to sea Dan. 2.3 ◠that God will giue him nations for his inhaeritance and the bounds of the Earth for his possession Apoc. 7 9◠Daniel describeth the Kingdome of Christ like a mountaine growing from a little stone and filling the whole earth S. Iohn seeth a multitude which noe man could reckon of all nations and tribes and people and tongues this being also the thing wherein the Church of Christ is specially distinguished from the Synagogue of the Iewes that that pertained but to one nation this to all the nations of the earth and all the Fathers proclaime nothing more particularly S. Augustine in a whole booke of this argument against the Donatists And a Knight to come and tell vs he doth not account this as a marke of his Church What is this but in plaine termes to acknowledge that his Church is not the Church of Christ Beside I would know what he hath meant all this while by Vniuersality which he hath laboured to proue to belong to his Doctrine the principal thing vnderstood by Vniuersality when we take it for a note of the Church is the Vniuersality of place to wit Mar. 16.15 diuers kingdomes and countries as it is vsed by our Sauiour himself euntes in mundum vniuersum praedicate euangelium omni creaturae and now in denying this marke to belong to his Church doth he not deny it to belong to his doctrine for how can that doctrine be vniuersal that is taught by a few and in a corner of the world and in acknowledging his Church not to be vniuersal doth he not acknowledge it not to be Catholique for is not Catholique and vniuersal all one as all men know in this word then he hath graunted enough to ouerthrow all that euer he hath said or can say of his Church 4. But now to come to the matter which he purposeth in this section which is to answeare our argument that it is safer for a man to take the way of the Catholique Church then the Protestant because euen Protestants agree with Catholiques in this that they may be saued in their religion and Catholiques deny that Protestants can be saued this argument the Knight denieth being sory for his part that a charitable opinion on the Protestants part should giue any Romanist occasion to liue and dye in the bosome of that Church therefore he interpreteth that saying to be meant onely of such as by inuincible ignorance resigne their eysight to their Priests Pastours which men if they hold the articles of Christian beleife without opposition to any ground of religion and liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church such men he saith liuing Papists and dying Protestants in the principal foundation of Faith may find mercy because they did it ignorantly But such Papists he saith as liue in States and Kingdomes where they may come to knowledge of the truth and will not these men dye in their sinnes though yet againe he a little temper the rigour of this doome in saying he will not iudge their persons though he pronounce their doctrine soe damnable as that if he had 10000. soules he would not venture one of them in the Romane Faith and Church For which he taketh God and his holy Angels to witnesse and then concludeth very pathetically thus Farr be it from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points in controuersy betwixt them and vs to be of an inferiour alloy as that a man may resolue this way or that without perill of his saluation And then tells vs the fresh bleeding wounds and sufferings of holy men and Martyrs in his Church doe sufficiently witnesse the great danger in our religion and difference betwixt vs and that we may know that the best learned of his Church were farr from graunting saluation to any Papist liuing and dying in the profession of the now Romane Faith he bringeth a saying of Whitaker who would haue vs take it vpon his word that in heauen there is not one Iesuit nor one Papist to be found this is the Knight's whole discourse in the second part of his section 5. Whereby vpon examination it will appeare hee is as well redd in his owne authors as in our Schoolmen and Fathers And to beginne with him he is sorry the Protestants charitable opiniō should giue any man encouradgment to dye a Papist But by his leaue this opinion doth not proceede from charity but from euidence of truth as all testimony from an enemy doth But whether it be charity or not this Knight will none of this charity and therefore he saith that this is meant onely of some ignorant people whose ignorance may excuse them but yet euen these men though they liue Papists they must dye Protestants in the principall foundation of that Faith This is good stuffe Papists may be saued in their religion but yet they must dye Protestants very right Sir Humphrey where haue you learned this theology that a man may be saued in one religion yet soe as he must dye in another this is a new conceit neuer heard of before that a man may bee saued in a religion but soe as not to dye of it and heere a man might aske at great many pretty questions as what foundation of Faith that is that they must dye in what articles of Apostolique and Christian beleife what grounds these are that may not be opposed all these had beene necessary things to be expressed in such a singular treatise as this of yours which must forsooth beare the name of a SAFE WAY leading men to true Faith And why also a man that holdeth the Apostles Creede and other things common to Catholiques and Protestants not forsaking the Catholique church and indeed not knowing any thing els for heere you speake of a Catholique in a Catholique countrey where it is to be supposed the name of a Protestant or other heretique is vnknowne why I say such a man should be said to dye a Protestant in the principal points of his faith I see not For why doth the Apostles Creede belong more to you then to vs had we it from you or you from vs nay if I would stand vpon it I could shew you not to beleiue a right in any one article thereof Whereof he that listeth to know more
foole can misse it as Esay the Prophet foretold that the way of Saluation should be vpon the coming of our B. Sauiour which because it is most euident that neither you nor any man els can doe out of the Catholique church I could hartily wish that you Sir Humphrey would consider the matter a little more seriously with your selfe and laying aside all vaine and worldly respects should betake your selfe to the onely true Safe and beaten Way of the Catholique Church but because you I feare are soe farre gone haue as I may say lost your selfe in your heretical fancies as that you are more like to laugh at mee for my paines for presuming to tell such a Doctour as you are the right way then follow my Councell I will heere leaue to say more vnto you and conclude onely in a word to the iudicious Reader who I hope vpon consideration of what hath beene hitherto said wil be better aduised then to follow you farther and will rather leaue you to your owne Way saying to you much in the same manner as did that famous Emperour Constantine to a certaine Nouatian haeretique called Acesius vpon the knowledge of whose heresy he said thus to him Acesi Socrat lib. 1. cap. 21. erigito tibi Scalam solus in caelum ascendito ô Acesius rayse thy selfe a ladder and ascend alone into heauen For soe may a man in like sort wel say to Sir Humphrey Linde ô Sir Humfrey find your self a way and goe to heauen alone by it For I will not goe that way with you which to speake with the learned and holy man Vincentius Lerinensis Vincen. Lerin in commonit cap. 33. If it be to bee followed then must the faith of our holy Fathers be violated either wholy or in great part it must of necessity be said that all the faithfull of all nations all the holy all the chast all the continent all Virgins all clerks Leuites and Priests soe many thowsands of Confessours soe many armies of Martyrs soe many cittyes and peoples soe great for renowne and multitude soe many Islands Prouinces Kings Nations Kingdomes Countries Lastly almost all the whole world incorporated to Christ the head of the Catholique faith haue for soe many ages beene ignorant erred blasphemed not knowing what they beleiued Which being soe faire and cleare a testimony of soe holy a man I hope it wil be farre from the hart of any indifferent and well minded man euer to condemne all our Forefathers for soe many foregoing ages of ignorance errour and blasphemy ô what ignorance errour and blasphemy were it soe to doe and yet into such doe they fal whosoeuer approue this new found way of the poore errant Knight Sir Humphrey Linde And with this I end commending the successe of my Labours to him for whose loue I vndertooke them which is Almightie God and submitting my selfe and all I haue heere saied to the iudgement of the most holy Catholique Romane Church which neither hath euer had nor euer shal haue any spot of haeresy nor euen the least wrinckle of error AN APPENDIX TO the Reader GENTLE READER AS this treatise was vnder the print I came to vnderstand of some few thinges whereof I could not omitt heere to giue thee notice One is of another answeare newly come forth to this booke of Sir Humphrey Lind's which at first made me demurre whither I should goe forward with this of mine or not as well for sauinge of charge as also because it might now seeme needlesse Notwithstanding by the aduise of friends I resolued to goe thorough with it for as they tould me it being brought soe neere an end the charge would be little more and as for the needlednesse they said it was neither needlesse nor new to haue seueral answeares to the same booke for that the same thing might be answeared seueral wayes and the iudgments and affections of men being very diuerse one answeare might be more for one man's gust and another for another's Besides that this knight hauing soe triumphed with his seueral editions it could not seeme altogether needlesse for him to haue seueral answeares that men might see there haue not wanted many that could haue answeared him if they had thought him worthy of answeare For these reasōs therefore I haue beene induced notwithstāding that other answeare to lett this of myne see light Another thing is concerning a fourth edition of Sir Humphrey's SAFE WAY which I neuer heard of till now that this answeare of myne was more then halfe printed at the hearing whereof I was in minde againe to let all alone For hauing vsed onely the third edition and a fourth coming out reuised at it saith by the author I presumed there would be some remarkable change or addition the examination and answeare whereof would require longer tyme then I was now willing to spare a fitter place then the end of a booke But finding meanes to get this 4. edition examining it I found by the number of the pages of the whole booke there being but one onely more in the new then the old the very lines of euery page in a manner agreeing that there could be nothing of moment more in the later then in the former Wherefore I resolued heere to add the answeare of whatsoeuer was added or chāged lest he might except that his last corrected edition was not answeared or perhaps that he was falsely charged if there were someting left out of the fourth which was in the third editiō The whole difference then of the two editions is in these places following first whereas in the third edition in his 9. sect he had made 8. paragraphes treating 8. particular points of doctrine in this 4. edition he hath made nine diuiding the second which was of the Sacrament of the Lord's supper these are the words of his title and the doctrine of transubstantiation into two §§ making this the title of the second § The Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lord's supper and this the title of the third Transubstantiation though he haue not one word either more or otherwise in these two new §§ then he had before in that one wherein he playeth much like a man that would change a shilling into two six-pences onely to seeme to haue more money because he had more peeces And as for his Baptisme why he should put it in the title at all I see not for all that he saith of it in either place is onely this that he thinketh noe man soe blinde or stupid as to deny it to be the same substātially with that of the Primitiue church which is a goodly catch to make soe faire a title for The second place is pag. 174. in the 5. § of the third and 6. § of the fourth edition which is of communion in both kinds where hauing said that a man would gladly know what the reasons were why the Romane church did forbid communion in both kinds and withall cited
scripture which they stood vpon he answeareth thus Et etiam si sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset Dialog 2. con Lucifer totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting the consent of the whole world on this side should haue the force of a praecept And soe there is an end of this 5. § Of Prayer and seruice in a knowne tongue §. 6. 1. In this § the Knight speaketh against the practise and doctrine of the Catholique Church in two things One is for vsing the publique seruice in a tongue not knowne to the vulgar people another for saying some part of the Masse with a lowd voyce so as the people cannot heare The practice of which two things though the Knight confound them into one was seuerally and distinctly approued by the Councell of Trent anathema pronounced against whosoeuer should condemne either of them Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Councel's owne authority thinking also euen by it to make good the contrary practise of his Church For saith hee the Councel in saying that the Masse doth containe great instruction of the faithfull people or as he translateth the words of the Councel in the beginning of this § great instruction for the common people And that it is to be interpreted vnto them doth consequently affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the aedification of the Church and this he cōfirmes with an argument of his owne thus And without doubt saith hee the Apostles being cōmanded to shew forth the Lord's death till his coming it was not intended to shew it to the walls or in a silent vnknowne voyce as it is now vsed in the Romane Church but to pronounce it openly to bee heard and vnderstood of the hearers Soe farre our Knight Now to reckon with him 2. Because the Councel of Trent saith that the Masse containeth great instruction of the people and that for that end it is to be interpreted vnto them he saith it consequently affirmes the practize of the reformed Churches to be better for aedificatiō of the Church Doth it soe Sir Humphrey by what Logicke doth this cōsequēce follow or by what figure of Rhethoricke do You take one thing for another the Councel saith that though the Masse containe great instruction yet it doth not follow that it should bee in the vulgar tongue you tell vs the Councel by cōsequence doth affirme it to follow the Councel thinketh it better to retaine the general and long continued practise of the Church of not vsing the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Masse but for instruction of the people to interprete something of what is read you say it approueth the contrary custome of your Church if it had soe had it not beene an easier matter to haue appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue but the Councel knew well that course was not soe fitt neither in respect of the publique good of the Church nor in reguard of the priuate good of the faith-full people for many reasons 3. First for the general practise and custome which hath beene obserued in the Church of God of hauing the Masse and publique office in Latine all ouer the Latine or Westerne Church both in Italy Spaine France Germany England Africke all other places and soe likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent had as much variety of vulgar languages in it as the Latine Church hath Which custome is not to be forsaken especially for Haeretiques out of that their false perswasiō that it is noe good or lawful practice Secōdly for the vniformity which is fit to be vsed in such things and vnity of the Catholique Church which is excellently declared also much maintained by this Vnity of Langage in the Church-office For as lāguage is a thing most necessary for cōmerce amōg men in ciuill matters so also in ecclesiastical and without this vse of Latine in this māner there could not bee that cōmunication betwene men of learning neither would mē of one countrey be the better for the writings of others there would be litle meeting of men of seueral nations in Councels little study of Councels of Fathers others who haue all writtē in Latine or some learned language whereas the vse of the Latine tongue in the Church is the cause of all the contrary effects as we see by experiēce Thirdly the vse of vulgar tongues in the Masse and Church-office would cause not onely great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by soe many seueral translations not onely in seueral countries but by seueral translations in euery countrey of any small extent euen in the same place vpon a litle change of tyme for as we see in euery age the vulgar language reciueth a great alternation of which translations the Church would not be able any way to iudge scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other which therefore for the well trāslating thereof requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost which noe priuate man can promise himselfe Lastly the vse of a vulgar language in such things would breede a great cōtempt of sacred things with prophanes and irreligiosity besids the daunger of haeresy which cometh noe way sooner then by mis-vnderstanding of holy scripture Neither are any more apt to mis-vnderstād it then the simpler sort of people if they once take vpon them to vnderstand These reasons then among others but most of all the tradition of the Church drawne euen from the Apostles by perpetual Successiō and practise might perswade the Councel to thinke that though some benefitt might come to some few particular men by vnderstanding what is written yet it was absolutely better to retaine the same custome still and euen to remedy that inconuenience another way to wit by explaning something of what is read in the Masse which the Councel declareth by a similitude very proper for the purpose to wit by breaking of bread to little ones fort it is euen as necessary for ordinary people to haue the Scriptures soe declared as for children to haue their bread broken and as vnfit to giue such men the Scripture it self whole to reade or to reade it soe vnto them as to giue a little child a whole great loafe Neither if a man marke the Councel of Trent's words well doth it say that the Masse doth containe instruction in that sense as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would bee an instruction but onely that it containeth great instruction that is many things which might be good for the people to learne being explicated which a man might truely say though euen when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be vnderstood without helpe of an expositor how then Sir Humphrey doth the Councel acknowledge your