I take you in earnest as you seeme to meane it and aske what certainty you or any Protestant hath or can haue that you are Christians if you thinke that your Christianity dependeth vpon the Sacrament of Baptisme If you thinke it doe not as it is the doctrine of the Puritans indeede that Baptisme is not any cause of grace but onely a signe or seale of the adoption which they receiue by carnal propagation from their faithfull parents and it seemeth also yours by what you say both heere and before in your 4. § of Sacraments in the definition of a Sacrament if I say you thinke soe then I confesse you neede not feare the Minister's want of intention but that pertaineth to another disputation but yet you haue as little certainty or lesse of your christendome still for what know you whither your Parents were of the faithfull or noe that is whither they did beleiue there was a God or what they did beleiue of him and soe of your owne Children if their christendome depend vpon yours or your wiues faith it may be they may bee much more vncertaine thereof then we are by depending vpon our Priests intention for noe man can know your inward beleife but find you what you will we shall still find some man's intention or other that shall make your faith or Christendome vncertaine vnlesse you can proue you were Christned by God himselfe which sure you will not goe about to doe 8. But howsoeuer you extenuate the force and necessity of Baptisme for Matrimony I suppose you will not wholy abrogate it though you put it out from among the Sacraments and of it I aske what certainty you can haue of the lawfulnes of your owne Marriage or legitimation of you children You cannot say but the validity of that contract dependeth vpon the intention and consent of the partyes though not of your Minister as wee alsoe say it dependeth not vpon the intention of our Priest but of the partyes which marry which we say commonly are the Ministers in this Sacrament Wherefore if for example your wife had no intention when she spake the words of Marriage it is noe Marriage but fornication and consequently your Children are bastards nay though the matter should haue depended wholy vpon your owne intention in your marriage and that you be a great deale more sure of it then you can be as it is now depending vpon your wiues intention also yet is that surety farre from the certainty of diuine faith and soe you are in noe better case for that matter then wee For Order I might likewise instance the same among you but a small deale of Order serues your turnes for I see not any thing done by vertue of your Ordination which any man or woman may not doe without it Therefore for vs I answeare it is cleane a different thing of the certainty of the Catholique faith which we maintaine and of euery man's priuate or particular beleife of his owne iustification or saluation which we deny to be soe certaine the one being grounded vpon the authority of God's diuine truth and reuelation the other vpon humane knowledge or rather coniecture it is one thing to say there be 7. Sacraments and that these Sacraments doe giue grace where they are duely administred with all things requisite on the part both of the giuer and receiuer and another to say they are soe to me that is that in my receiuing of any one of them all things haue concurred both on the Priests part and myne the former is reuealed by God and propounded by his Church the later is not reuealed in any scripture and therefore by your owne rule can be noe matter of faith For the inconuenience therefore which you say may follow though any way that you can inuent I doe not thinke but there wil be two for one and farre greater I answeare that though in matter of Baptisme Ordination c. there may happen some defect in this or that particular case for want of intention matter forme or the like yet it belongeth to the prouidence of almighty God not to permitt any vniuersal or euen great defect to happen and soe though we be not certaine by certainty of diuine faith that this or that man in particular is truely baptized and ordained a Priest yet we are certaine by the certainty of diuine faith that not onely there be such Sacraments but that they are also truely administred in the Catholique Church soe as there can be noe danger of the fayling of either or of any danger which may ensue therevpon to the notable praeiudice of faith and saluation of soules and withall though we be not certaine by certainty of faith of euery particular yet wee haue moral certainty that is as much certainty as there can be of any humane thing which dependeth of the action or intention of any man which as we see it is enough for men to rest themselues secure in all worldy matters concerning their liues and goods which most men prize aboue their soules soe it may also giue a man sufficient security in matters of his soule especially since as we say if he be not wanting to himself almighty God will not of his goodnes suffer him through another man's fault to want any thing necessary for his saluation but will incite him to contrition for forgiuenes of his sinnes or to make doubt and seeke whether he haue those necessary thinges or noe But yet with this security there remaineth a place for an holy feare which may keepe downe our pride and make vs shake of all torpour exercizing our selues in good workes and working our saluation with feare and trembling But of this kind of faith it is not that wee meane when wee dispute with haeretiques of the certainty of true faith but of faith as it is a beleife and doctrine deliuered in general abstracting from this or that man whether he beleeue aright or be certaine of his beleife that is that he beleeueth wherefore Sir Humphrey in changing the question herein you committ a notable grosse aequiuocation of termes which is a fowle fault in a Scholler as you are forsooth 9. But from this you passe to another point of vncertainty or rather an other kind of proofe of our vncertainty thus You say we are vncertaine whether the Saints heare our prayers or not and whither some that we pray vnto be Saints in heauen or diuels in hell the later you proue out of Caiet because he saith that the miracles whereon the Church groundeth the canonization of Saints cannot be infallibly knowne and out of Saint August and Sulpitius the one saying some were tormented in hell which were worshipped on earth the other saying that the common people worshipped for a Martyr one that was damned and who appeared and told them soe the former vncertainty to wit whether the Saints heare our prayers Gab. in can lect 31. Mag. in 4. d. 45. you proue out
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
by office As for Succession in doctrine to speake properly and clearely the Succession is not to be considered in the doctrine it selfe for that must be alwaies the same but it is to bee considered in the Men. Soe that they succeede one another not onely in place and office but also in the same Doctrine that is holding the same Doctrine which their Predecessors haue held as they hold the same place 3. This premised which cannot be denied I thinke noe man wil be able in all that the Knight saith in this Section to finde soe much as a shaddow of Succession either in person or Doctrine either against vs or for himself Wherefore I shall endeauour onely to discouer his falshood and corruptions in charging vs with ancient haeresies For Latine seruice then that it should be first brought in by Vitalian it is a most strange absurdity for this knight to auerre such a knowne falshood vpon noe other authority then Volphiu's a professed haeretique and who can haue noe other ground but because that Pope liued about the yeare 666. which number is the name of the beast in the Apocalypse though if he that is Wolphius would make a mystery of the yeare wherein S. Vitalian liued I see not why he should take the 666. which was the eleuenth of his Popedome rather then the yeare 655. or 669. which were the first and last yeares thereof which being soe ridiculously false I will forbeare to bring proofes against it least I may giue occasion to any man to thinke that there is any the least likelyhood in it For during those 600. and odd yeares what other Liturgies were there in the Latine Church but Latine of which the very name of Latine Church giueth sufficient testimony if not Latine lett this Knight or his freind Wolphius say what Language was in vse before 4. As for the Osseni whom our Knight would place vpwards towards the Apostles yet after their tyme for he goeth ascendeing vpwards as he saith he is notably mistaken in the tyme. For Epiphanius maketh them one of the seauen Sects which were among the Iewes before Christ's coming For thus hee saith Post relatas Samaritarum superius Graecorum indicatas Sectas septem fuerunt haereses apud Iudaeos ante Christi in carne aduentum In principio cap. 14. Hauing related and pointed out the Sects of the Samaritans and Graecians there were seauen heresies among the Iewes before the coming of Christ in flesh And then reckoning and treating of the heresies in order in the 19. chap. he cometh to this of the Osseni the very title being this Contra Ossenos Sextam Iudaism◠haeresim Against the Osseni the sixt heresy of Iudaisme Besides for the matter I onely say that reading that 19. heresy of Epiphanius which hee citeth the title whereof is Of the Osseni twice ouer and the second tyme yet more attentiuely then the first I could not find any such word as the Knight citeth out of him to wit that there was no neede to make a prayer in a knowne tongue Indeede it was one of Elxais heresies who liued long after in Traian's tyme and whom S. Epiphanius ioyneth with the Osseni that men must not pray towards the East as then was the generall custome of the Church Which error is not to bee compared with the least of a hundred which our Heretiques now adayes maintaine and yet they forsooth make noe matter of because they are not fundamentall 5. For the place of S. Ambrose if a Catholique should vrge him or his Ministers with an authority out of that worke they would make answeare it were not S. Ambrose his and they would fill their margents with citations taken out of our authors Which exception though I might in like sort make yet I doe not because the author is ancient though not knowne nor his doctrine in all things soe currant But for this place the Knight hath soe mangled glossed it yet putting all in a different letter as if they were the author's words that when I came to reade the author and see him soe chāged I beganne to thinke whether that were the place But finding that there could be noe other and that it is like in some words I concluded that this must be it The author then commenting vpon the 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where S. Paul speaketh of some that did vse the guift of tongues for ostentation saith thus Hi ex Hebraeis erant qui aliquando Syra lingua plaerumque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus vtebantur ad commendationem gloriabantur enim se dici Hebraeos propter meritum Abrahae These were of the Hebrews who sometymes vsed the Syriack but most part the Hebrew in their treatises that is speaches or exhortations or Oblations for ostentation For they did boast that they were called Hebrews for the merit of Abraham These are the words of the author truely reported and truely translated Whereas the knight put this praeface that there were certaine Iewes among the Graecians as namely the Corinthians which words are not in this author Then he goeth on thus who did celebrate the diuine Seruice and Sacraments c. Whereas in the author there is neither the word celebrate nor the word diuine Seruice much lesse the word Sacraments all that hath any shew of a thing like is that word oblationibus which signifieth offering whereof some may be made by Lay men and women as the Puritane Ministers finde full oft to their profit without any celebration or Sacraments the word tractatibus signifieth speaches or exhortations by word or writing and soe S. Aug. calleth the expositors of Scriptures tractatores de doct Chr. Vinc. Lirin aedu haere cap. 27. Lastly whereas the author declared the end for which they vsed those tongues to wit for ostentation bragging that they were Hebrewes for the meritt of Abraham this knight leaueth all that out and putteth in these words of his owne which the common people vnderstood not as if they were the author's words Now though this authority doe not import much either one way or other yet a man may by it see the honesty and fidelity of this knight who in all this sentence which he maketh 9. lines in his booke he hath not one word right cited but onely these Sometymes in the Syriacke and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue which being taken alone what sense can they haue and yet how many lines a man is faine to write to lay open his naughty dealinge 6. Another point of our doctrine to wit transubstantiation hee draweth from the Haeretiques Heliesaitae which fained a twofold Christ one in heauen another in earth out of Theodoret. And from one Marcus an Haeretique who by his inuocation ouer the Sacramental cupp as the knight saith caused the wine to appeare like bloud out of S. Irenaeus And lastly from the Capharnaits in Christ's tyme out of his owne braine and soe cōcludeth our Succession in
the words the presence of Christ depēding vpon their efficacy which they haue by the institution of Christ as they are the forme of this Sacrament which might bee separated frō the signification though de facto it be not Caiet in com 3. p. q. 75. a. 1. And soe Caietane though hee thinke not the bare signification of the words without the authority of the Church sufficient to proue the presence of Christ's body in the Sacramēt yet he doubteth not to affirme with the Councell of Florence alleadging the very words thereof quod ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi substantia vini in sanguinem conuertuntur That by the power of the very words the substance of the Bread is turned into the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into his bloud Soe as Caietan is nothing for you but very much against you 14. But yet you goe on confidently telling vs that you will produce Cardinals Bishops and Schoolemen to testify that there are noe words in scripture to proue transubstantiation Secondly that those words This is my Body are not of the essence of the Sacrament Thirdly that the ancient Fathers did not beleeue the substance of the Sacramental bread to bee conuerted into Christ's real flesh Fourthly that transubstantiation was not beleeued de fide aboue 1000. yeares after Christ Which fower points how well you proue I must now see Sir Humphrey First noting by the way that though you sett them downe seuerally as if you meant to proue them in order one after another bringing one Cardinal one Bishop and one Schooleman at least for euery one yet you neither obserue order nor soe alleadge authors as shall appeare Though for the first of your 4. points you neede not many authors if you adde the word expresly thus that there bee no words in scripture to proue transubstantiation expresly Which word if you putt in your proposition may passe for true if not it is false and without author For though all Catholiques saue onely Caietan agree that the words of consecration of themselues proue the reality of Christ's presence yet all doe not soe agree that of themselues they proue Transubstantiation For some thinke they might bee verified though the substance of bread should remaine together with Christ's body Yet all agree that out of the words as they are vnderstood by the Church transubstantiation is also proued You might therefore haue spared Gabriel's authority which you beginne with in these words How the body of Christ is in the Sacrament is not expressed in the canon of the bible Which I would haue spared also but because I meane to lay open your falshood in alleadging the same by halfes Cab. lect 40. For thus hee saith Notandum quod quamuis expresse tradatur in scriptura quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur a fidelibus sumitur tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi an per conuersionem alicuius in ipsum an sine conuersione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non inuenitur It is to be noted that though it bee expresly deliuered in Scripture that the body of Christ is truely contained vnder the species of bread and receiued by the faithfull yet is it not soe expressed how the body of Christ is there whither by conuersion of any thing into it or whither it beginneth to bee there without conuersion or turning the substance and accidents of bread remayning In which saying of Gabriels as you left out the former part because it made clearely against you soe you might also haue left out the later as making nothing against vs as is euident of it selfe without farther declaration 15. Your next author is Cardinal de Aliaco who you tell vs thinketh it possible that the bread might remayne with Christ's body and that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue Whereto I answeare what then what is this to your purpose if you were a Lutheran you might haue a little colour but seing you are a Caluinist or Protestant or some such I know not what it maketh nothing at all for you not euen in shew But bee you Caluinist Protestant Lutheran or what you will it maketh not for you Suppose that may be possible more easy c. What is that to our purpose that is not matter of faith for Faith doth not stand teaching metaphysicall possibilityes or impossibilityes what may bee or not bee but what is or is not and which is chiefly to bee considered though this author thinke that way more possible and more easy to be conceiued according to humane capacity yet euen heerein hee preferreth the iudgment of the Church before his owne as his very words by you cited doe testify For he saith that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceiue if it could accord which the determination of the Church But what is this authority to you Sir Humphrey Which of your 4. points doth it proue Doth it say that transubstantiation is not proued out of Scripture or that the words THIS IS MY BODY is not of the essence of the Sacrament and soe of the rest not a word of all these By which it is plaine you onely looke to say somewhat but care not what 16. After this Cardinal you bring Bishop Fisher whom you might better haue called Cardinal Fisher then some others whom in this booke you call Cardinals For he was created Cardinal indeede though hee had the happines to receiue the Lawrel and purple Robes of Martyrdome in heauen before he could come to receiue the honour of his capp and Scarlet robes of his Cardinalship heere on earth But you say out of him that there bee noe words written whereby it may be proued that in the Masse is made the very presence of the body bloud of Christ You cite him in English and though in the margent you put the Latine a little more truly whereas you say in the English in the Masse the Latine is in nostra Missa in our Masse wherein you shall find some difference in this place yet you putt the whole sentence soe lamely that a man would thinke the Bishop by your citing him to be quite of another mind then hee is For you would make one thinke he did not beleeue the real presence could bee proued out of scripture Io. Roffen cont captiu Babylo c. 4. Whereas the 4. Chapter of the Booke heere cited is wholy imployed in proofe thereof against Luther out of the very words hoc est corpus meum this is my body by which hee destroyeth Lutheran companation and consequently establisheth our transubstantiation and teacheth plainely both there and throughout this whole booke that Christ himselfe did change the bread into his owne body and this out of the very words of scripture but in this 10. chapter which you cite he proueth that the true sēse of the
say mention the story there is not one that maketh any mention of changing the Church-Office into Latine vpon it but onely they alleadge it by occasion of the secret reading of the Canon of the Masse which was the thing they had in hand 15. Now for the story it self you cannot but know that it is answeared by Bellarmine it being obiected formerly by Kemnitius Bell lib. 2. de Miss cap. 12 his answeare then is that there is such a story related by good authority in Pratum spirituale but there neither the bread nor wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heauen nor the shepheards strucken dead but onely layd for dead 24. howers after which they came to themselues againe which is neither impossible nor improbable Now for these three authours that you cite none of them doth relate it out of any author or with any special credit but onely out of a report which they expresse by the word Fertur and therefore some of them as Honorius and Belethus might be mistaken in some of the circumstance though Innocentius be not Innoc. 3 lib. 3. de Miss cap. 1. for he saith noe more of it but this that it is reported that when certaine shepheards did sing the words in the fields they were strucken from heauen which is true Now this supposed as the story doth not make any way against vs for we grant that the words were anciently pronounced alowd in some place Soe it maketh against you who deny that any where they were spoken softly for the author of this story giuing a reason how the boyes came to learne the words saith thus Prat. Spirit cap. 196. Quoniam verò quibusdam in locis alta voce consueuerant presbyteri sancti sacrificij orationes pronunciare pueri vt propius astantes saepius eas audiendo didicerant Because in some places the Priests were wont to pronounce the prayers of the holy sacrifice with a lowd voyce the boyes as standing neerer by often hearing had learned them Loe Sir Humphrey it was but in some places that they did say those prayers alowd Soe that withall this labour you haue proued nothing but against your selfe Well then you haue failed in the proofe of your doctrine in this as in the rest withall the corruption and tricks you can vse let vs see what you doe in the next §. 7. Worship of Images 1. This 7. § of Image-worshipp our Knight beginneth after his ordinary manner with an article as he calleth it of our Romane Creede wherein we professe that the Images of Christ our Lady and the Saints are to be had and retained and that dew honor and Veneration is to be yeilded vnto them and then bringeth the Decree of the Councel of Trent Sess 25. for the same point in these words We teach that the images of Christ the Virgin mother of God and other Saints are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and that dew honour and worshipp is to be giuen them Which Decree he might haue translated a little better and more clearely by saying that those images are to be had and retained especially in Churches the Latine word being praesertim and his translating thereof chiefly and placing it soe oddly giueth cause to thinke he had an euill meaning therein as if he would haue his Reader thinke that the Councel taught that these Images were the chiefe things to bee had in Churches which is not the Councel's meaning as is plaine the words being very cleare in Latine But this is but a note by the way not as a thing that I stand vpon 2. This our Doctrine of image-worship he doth absolutely deny and condemne as a wicked and blasphemous opinion first because it not onely wants authority of scripture which he saith an article of faith ought to haue but because the scripture doth flatly and plainely forbid it and in the margent citeth Leuit. 26. Ex. 20. Deut. 4. Esay 40. This censure is somewhat deepe Sir Humphrey vpon such sleight ground because forsooth we haue noe proofe of scripture for though you thinke it necessary to haue expresse proofe of scripture to make a matter of faith yet as I said before you are much mistaken wherefore you ought not to stand still vrging it in such manner as if it were a certaine and vndoubted principle yet this I graunt you that though expresse Scripture be not necessary to make a matter of faith yet if you haue expresse scripture against it it is true it can be noe matter of faith but by your leaue none of those places which you note make any mention of image-worship but idol-worship which you cannot but know to be a different thing hauing beene soe often told it as you haue beene by vs therefore your first proofe fayling all failleth for though you put a First yet I see noe second and soe much for that 3. But because heere had beene an end too soone of soe good a matter you tell vs Vazq saith all images were forbidden soe farr forth as they were dedicated to adoration and Cornelius Agrippa saith the Iewes did abhorr nothing more then images to the same purpose you alleadge Philo the Iew speaking of the Iewes of those tymes and Sir Edwin sands of the Iewes that are now adayes Wherevpon you conclude that it is agreed vpon on both sides that the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of images for 4000. yeares and from thence you descend to the new Testament wherein you say the same law remayneth because it was morall for though some Catholiques teach that it was a positiue caeremonial law yet others say it was natural and for that you alleadge Bellar. wherefore the law being not abrogated you would haue some exāple or precept in the Ghospel for adoration of which you say Mr. Fisher acknowledgeth there is not any expresse but that there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawful Soe as from the light of nature say you an article of faith must be declared Well this is your discourse Sir Humphrey which in a word is but this The Iewes might not haue nor adore images ergo we may not For asweare whereof I might say in like sort the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things ergo we may not but because you may say these precepts are caeremonial therefore not now in force the other natural therefore in force for the present I will onely make this argument to shew the connexion of your antecedent and consequent the Iewes might not make any similitude or likenesse of any thing in heauen or earth to adore it for a God ergo we may not make or haue the images of Christ and Saints to reuerence and honour them as the pictures of Saints onely and not Gods is not heere a good and a substantiall argument trow you and yet it is yours Sir Humphrey 4. But say you there was such a command of
not making any images in the old Testament which is still True I graunt there was such a command then but whether it be still in force or noe or how farr it is in force there is the question for resoluing whereof it is to be considered that there be two opinions among our Diuines as you take notice of which some say it is moral others caeremonial according to both I answeare you two wayes one according to Vazq and his authours who say that there was such a commaund indeede but that it was but for that tyme onely and is now expired being but temporall and caeremonial made and obserued then in reguard of the pronesse of the Iewes to idolatry Which if it were not soe then but that it were yet in force as you would haue it then could not you how haue your wiues picture nor she yours without breach of that command therefore in that sense you cannot vrge it more against our pictures then we against yours Neither can you saue your selfe by saying that your pictures are not dedicated to adoration as ours are For in Vazq his sense they are euery iott as much as is plaine by his very words which are these that follow Lib. 2. de â—dor disp 4. cap. 3. n. 76 cap. 6. n. 98. â—q Modus accommodatus adorationi est cum imago depicta aut sculpta est per se non veluti appendix additamentum alterius rei in ornatum illius c. The manner accommodated or fitted for adoration is when a Picture is painted or carued by it selfe not as an appeÌ„dix or addition to another thing by way of ornameÌ„t By which rule your pictures are in state of adoratioÌ„ or so that they may be adored because they are whole and compleate pictures of themselues not additions ornaments or appurtenances ioyned or belonging to another thing as the Cherubins in the temple were which he saith therefore were not in state to be adored because they were not there as compleate of themselues but onely by way of appendix or appurtenance for ornament of the arke for hence he inferreth that all manner of pictures were forbidden euen out of the Temple Wherefore euen in Vazq his opinion whose authority you alleage you must acknowledge this commandement to be onely caeremonial and but for that tyme of the old law For by it in this sense all making or hauing any image or picture whatsoeuer was forbidden which certainely is not now in force and soe not against vs any way 5. Now according to the other opinion also I may answeare that the praecept was moral and therefore doth bind still but that by it were not forbidden all images but such as were made to represent false Gods and were to be soe adored and that therefore it is noe distinct praecept or commandment but onely an explication of the first of the ten commaundements which is that we should haue noe other Gods but him to wit that we should not make a God to our selues of anie thing els either in heauen or earth making any Idol or likenesse of any of all those things to adore it So that whether with Vazq we deny the very making or hauing of pictures or whether with Bell. we allow the making and hauing them deny onely the adoring them with diuine honour the diuersity of opinions helpeth you not one whit Both standing very well with the Catholique faith and both against yours for euen Vazq though he deny the making of pictures and consequently all adoration of them yet he graunteth and proueth euen out of the old testament that honour and reuerence might and was giuen to things insensible and as little deseruing reuerence in themselues as pictures soe it were with reference to almighty God as for example the arke and Temple vnderstanding that place of the Psalme adorabimus in loco vbi steterunt pedes eius Psal 131.7 We will adore in the place where his feet stood Psal 5. v. 8. of the arke as it is indeed to be vnderstood and that other of the Temple adorabo ad templum Sanctum iuum in timore tuo I will adore at thy holy temple in thy feare Vazq de ador disp 4. cap. 4. and proueth that ad which I interpret at to be a spare particle according to the Hebrew phrase and that the true meaning is I will adore thy Temple You may find his proofes out of the hebrew yf you haue wherewithall to vnderstand him Whereby it is cleare his authority is nothing for you 6. Now for Philo his authority it maketh not against vs for he saith nothing but that the Iewes were not wont to admitt any image into their Temple and that their ancestours did account it a wickednesse to paint the invisibâ—e God or faine a representation of him and that the worke of Painters and Caruers are the images of material Gods this I say is not against vs for neyther doe we paint the invisible God or faine a representation of him that is any picture representing his nature or deity What is this to the decree of the Councel of Trent allowing the pictures of Christ and his Saints we may not make a picture of the invisible God therefore not of a visible man a good consequence Sir Humphrey and fitt for soe good a Scholer and soe wise a man as you are the former part of the same sentence is as much to the purpose You say they were not to haue images in their temple I say also not in their howses therefore must you haue none or if you deny the consequence I inferre vpon you againe If notwithstanding that practise command or be it what you will of the Iewes you haue your freind's picture in your house may not I haue the picture of God's freind in myne may not a man by being Gods freind haue a much priuiledge as by being yours beside what pictures could the Iewes haue in their Temple not the picture of God for he cannot be painted not of any Saint for there was none as yet might haue that honour to haue their pictures in the temple themselues being not yet admitted into the heauenly temple of God all other pictures are profane vnfitt for such a place the people withall were grosse carnal and prone to idolatry none of which reasons haue place with vs. Touching the last part of Philo his saying that the works of Painters and Caruers are the images of material Gods it is true if it be vnderstood that the material Gods are the worke of men's hands but if he say that all the works of Painters and Caruers are material Gods it cannot be true For suppose Sir Humphrey some of your Ministers or other your deuoted ClieÌ„ts out of the opinion they haue of your worth and great desert in writing this booke of your should erect you a statua in the corner of two high wayes pointing out your fingar to shew a trauailler the
stands single by themselues in opinion For I would know what Church is that wherein there be two sides to agree or disagree or what Church that is that doth not stand single in opinion by it self if it be a Church of a different faith as we speake heere of a Church a Church must haue vnity it being a company of men all professing the same faith and religion therefore it is plaine there is no sense in this principle of his as it is his or as he putteth it downe but as the Catholiques put it it hath very good sense thus that whereas there be seueral professions and churches the question being which of these is the safer way we Catholiques say the Catholique church is the safer way and this we proue because not onely we our selues say it adding withall that all our ancestours haue beene saued therein and that therefore we may doubtlesse be saued in it as they were but also for that our very enemyes who are of a different profession graunt we may be saued therein But as for the Protestants noe man saith they can be saued in that faith but onely themselues Whereby it is plaine that our is the safer way for both sides agree in the possibility of saluation among vs and both sides doe not soe agree in possibility of saluation among them But though his principle haue no sense as he putteth it yet because I see by his ensuing discourse what he would be at I come to that also His meaning then is this that it is safer to hold those points of doctrine onely which both sides hold then those wherein they differ because in them both sides agree and in these one side standeth single by it self and the holding of those former points our Knight counteth all one as to persist in a Church where both sides agree But he is much deceiued for the holding of those points alone doth not make a man of any Church at al. For a mā to be of any Church he must hold all the points that are taught of Faith in that Church be vnited with those of the same professiō in Sacrifice also Sacraments which are things essentiall to a Church Wherefore the holding of those points wherein both sides agree precisely neither make a man Catholique nor Protestant But to be a Catholique a man must beleiue all thing els whatsoeuer the Catholique church teacheth as necessary to saluation and to be a Protestant besides the beleife of those things wherein we agree he must stand to the deniall of those which are in controuersy betweene vs. 3. In which case I would aske him whether he doe not stand single as well as wee by affirming of what we deny or denying what we affirme or rather whether he and his church be not soe much more single then we as they haue not one on their sides for euery milliō which we haue haue had on ours In this singlenes of opiniōs thē the question remaineth the same still as before whither of these single sides is to be embraced for of the rest there is not any doubt Soe as in this Sir Humphrey hath alsoe altered the question for whereas the question was of the matters in controuersy which side was truer he hath altered it thus whether the things in controuersy or out of controuersy be safer Which is but a slippery cunning tricke of his and which will not serue his turne to make good the title of his booke For we by holding the points which are out of doubt are as safe as he for we hold them as much as he and for the rest we are vpon euen termes with him thus farre that he is as well single in those things wherein he dissenteth from vs as we in those wherein we dissent from him though in this we be Safer that his men confesse wee may be saued holding those things wherein we differ from them and noe man of ours holdeth that they can be saued holding obstinately whatsoeuer they differ from vs in Soe as euen by this is answeared all this maine argument whereof the Knight was soe confident as therevpon to ventute his reconciliation with the Church of Rome and creeping vpon all fower to his Holinesse for a pardon to creepe vpon all fower indeede is a very fitt gate for men soe deuoid of reason as to make such discourses and vse such malicious insinuations as if men vsed to creepe vpon all fower to the Pope But good Sir Humphrey since you talke soe much of creeping and like it soe well you may remember that it is the proper punishment of pride as you may see in Nabuchedonozor whose Pride which he tooke in his great citty Babylon seemeth farre short of that which you take Dan. 4. not onely in this great worke of your Safe Way counterposing and preferring it before the knowne way of the Catholique Church but euen in this contemptuous and sacrilegious gest of God's holy anointed and contempt of his Church And for Pardon as light as you make of it it were penance little enough for you indeede to creepe on all fower to Rome holy men haue done very neere as great penance for farr lesse faults and for your reconcilement to the Church though we be glad of the saluation of any poore soule whosoeuer he bee yet we would not haue you mistake you self soe farre as to thinke that wee make any such special account of your particular person aboue other men 4. Now that this rule of yours as you propound it may leade and Secure a man in any haeresy or euen in Iudaisme and Turcisme as well as in your Protestant faith I proue thus Arius may say he agrees with vs Catholiques in all things saue onely in the Diuinity of the second person of Trinity whom he acknowledgeth with vs to be an holy man and that we stand single by our selues in the assertion of his Diuinity Macedonius may say the same of the Holy Ghost Nestorius of the plurality of persons in Christ Eutyches of the Singularity of Natures Sergius Pyrrus and the Monothelytes of the vnity of Will in Christ Ebion Cerinthus Marcion and almost all Haeretiques in their seueral heresies as Anabaptistes Brownists and who soeuer els may say as you doe of the points controuerted that we stand single by our selues in them and soe that it is the safer way to beleeue onely that wherein they and we agree Nay as I said he Iewes may make the same argument thus that they agree with vs that there is One God creator of heauen and earth that there be 22. books of canonical Scriptures the Law and Prophets iust as you doe for the rest we stand single and the Turke may say he agreeth with vs that Christ is an holy man and a Prophet for the rest we stand single and that therefore he is in the Safer way What can you say Sir Humphrey for defence of your argument for though Iewes and Turks