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
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
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
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
this proue Succession of Pastours in his Church Chap. 4. without which noe Church can bee Visible Yt is cleare it doth not But because this is a generall fault throughout his whole booke I will not stand noting it in euery Section apart but this generall note may serue for all To beginne heere with the title of this Section if by Popery he vnderstand as I suppose he doth that Faith which we Catholiques professe vnder the Pope as our supreme Pastour then it is foolishly said of him that some haue renounced the same in part For noe man can renounce the Catholique Faith in part it being indiuisible but hee that ceaseth to beleeue one point ceaseth to beleeue any one as he should that is by way of true Diuine Faith 2. Now to proue what he pretends hee hath about againe with his reformacion and telleth vs that were it not for endangering of the Romish religion we would come neerer them in all the fundamentall points which their Church teacheth For example he saith the Councel of Basil did allow the Bohemians the vse of the cupp Aeneas Syluius afterward Pope Pius 2. saith of the Marriage of Priests that as vpon weighty reasons it was taken away soe vpon weighty consideracions it were wished to be restored For priuate Masse as he calleth it he saith that Doctour Harding saith the faithfull complaine The translation of scriptures was as he telleth vs out of Causabon to Peron and Causabon out of those of Doway importunitate Haereticorum Besides he saith out of my Lord Cook 's reports that for the first eleuen yeares of Q. Elizabeth all Catholiques did frequent their Church and which is more he will needs haue Bishop Gardener Bellarmine and Albertus Pighius dye Protestants He hath two more both Bishops to wit Paulus and Iohn Vergerius brothers which he will needs haue dye of his religion of whom because I haue not heard much nor doth hee cite any author but Sleidan and Osiander most notorious fellowes both for lying and haeresy in whom I list not soe much as to looke what they say of these two I giue him leaue to take them and make the best hee can of them Sur. comment rerum in orb gest anno 1567. onely for that Paul Vergerius I finde in Surius that when hee came to dye hee did cast forth an horrible stench and roared most fearefully like an oxe besides other things soe strange and fearefull that one Venerandus Gablerus a famous Physician and then an earnest Protestant who was with him at his death being strucken into horrour and amazement there vpon returned to the Catholique Church againe But because this knight standeth soe in neede of people as it seemeth to make vpp number and soe would faine borrow some of ours there be Apostataes enough and too many of seuerall sorts and in seuerall countries which would make a iolly shew and make his booke swell handsomely I wil giue him leaue to take them all 3. And for the rest I answeare thus first noting his fundamental points what they are to wit the Cupp the Marriage of Priest priuate Masse as hee calleth it and the translation of Scriptures into the vulgar tongue Which for all that if the Knight had wel considered he might haue found not to bee soe fundamental being matters more of practize then beleife Secondly it seemeth that for a man to incline in iudgment à little towards the Protestant's side in any one of those points is enough to make him of Sir Humphrey's Church though in all others he bee of a quite contrary opinion as we shall see The Counsel of Basil is the first that cometh neere his Church in matter of the Cupp allowing the vse thereof to the Bohemians vpon this condition as the knight himself saith out of Genebrarde that they should not finde fault with the cōtrary vse nor seuer themselues from the Catholique Church How neere then doth the Councel come to you Sir Humphrey You condemne the vse of one kinde the Councel will not haue it condemned is this neere the Councel will not haue you seuer your self from the Catholique Church you doe is not this also neere but besides these two conditions the Councel requireth a third to wit that they shall beleeue that there is noe more receiued vnder both kinds then vnder one You teach the quite contrary how neere then are you Now ouer and aboue al this you know the Councel of Basil is of litle or noe with Catholiques as being reproued by the See Apostolique 4. Your second point is of the Marriage of Priests which I see not why you should make soe fundamentall vnlesse it bee to gaine the good will of the Ministery with whom I confesse it is of great account You proue it by a saying of Aeneas Syluius whom being à Pope you would be gladd if Iou could make come neere you But he cometh as neere as the Councel of Basil For first his authority as you cite it in this place is but a saying of his related by Platina without citing any worke where out it is taken but you repeating the same againe with some little addition in your eleuenth section note in the margent his bookes de gestis Concilij Basileensis which you cannot but know to haue beene reuoked and condemned by himself in bulla retractationis and there excused by him in that hee writ it in tyme of that Councel being then a young man neyther Priest nor Diuine but onely a Grammarian and Poet and coming then newly from those studies and therefore he will haue those works counted not Pius his works but the works of Aeneas Syluius as hee saith expressely in the same Bull. Verendum saith hee Pius 2. in Bull. retracta 〈◊〉 4. Concil ne talia nostris aliquando successoribus obijciantur quae fuerunt Aeneae dicantur Pij It is to be feared least sometymes heereafter such things may bee obiected to our Successours and those things which were Aeneas his be said to bee Pius his Which therefore he reuoketh wishing others not to rely vpon or giue creditt vnto them in those things quae supremam Sedis Apostolicae authoritatem quouis pacto elidunt aut aliquid astruunt quod sacrosancta Romana non amplectitur ecclesia Which any way dash against the supreame authority of the See Apostolique or affirme any thing which the holy Romane Church doth not embrace Which yet your conscience can serue you to conceale taking the obiection which he foresaw but leauing the answeare which he made that thereby you might better deceiue men with making them beleeue as if there had beene a Pope a Protestant this is good Dealing Sir Humphrey and like you 5. Doctour Harding cometh next whom in like sort you abuse notably citing his words by halfes and making him to say the faithfull haue since the primitiue Church much complayned of priuate Masse as you call it whereas he saith onely that the godly and
Gentiles doe Doth not this answeare you Sir Humphrey Doe you not heere find a difference betweene that worshipp and ours betweene idolatry and religion betweene their adoring the creature of wood and colour in place of the creator and our adoring the creator represented by the creature betweene their adoration of idolatrous damned Philosophers and our worshipp of the blessed Saints and Seruants of God liuing with him in glory This is too too grosse for such a subtile knight as you are Now for proofe of your doctrine by Succession from the 2. commandement it is ridiculous to call it Succession though you tooke the place of scripture in the true sense as you doe not For how doth your doctrine succeede the commandement a man may proue his doctrine out of scripture but not deriue the Succession thereof out of that proofe For this Commandment it is neither the second but an explication of the first nor is it truely translated for there is not the word Image in that place of scripture 9. A fift point is Communion in one kind which hee saith wee haue from the Manichees and from the Nazarites who it is not like as Bellarmine saith did drinke of the Chalice against their Vow nor yet like that they did wholy abstaine from the Communion Out of which hee gathereth that they did communicate in one kinde onely And heere saith the Knight is their best Succession from Haeretiques and an vncertaine example of the Nazarites Whereas his doctrine he saith is taught by Christ himself Drinke yee all of this This is the Knight's discourse But to answeare him I say that before euer there was Manichee in the world the B. Sacrament was administred sometymes in one kind sometymes in both The Manichees abstained indeede from receiuing the chalice out of one haeretical principle as now our Haeretiques stand to haue it for another like principle against which as in that tyme the Church forbad the vse of one kind soe now it forbiddeth the vse of both kinds and may againe giue way when it shall seeme conuenient for the vse of both kinds the doctrine euer remayning the same as vpon another occasion I said before For that word of our Sauiour Drinke yee all of this from whence the Knight draweth the Succession of his doctrine it was spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests not to the Layity Of which I shall haue occasion to speake againe afterwards 10. But to come to an end of this matter the Knight draweth our inuocation of Saints and Angels from the Angelici our Works of Supererogation from the Cathari our Worship of the B. Virgin from the Collyridians our Forbidding Priests to marry from Tatianus and the Manichees who he saith Forbad it in their Priests Putting downe the Latine words in Sacerdotibus As if those special words were in S. Epiphanius whom hee citeth But this serueth for nothing V. Gual chron but to shew the man's shamelesnesse more and more For the Angelici they were Heretiques swaruing from the rule of the Catholique faith by excesse that is honouring Angels more then their dew or more then creatures as Heretiques of these tyme doe by defect that is not honouring them soe much as is dew nor as creatures specially honoured imployed by God for the good of mankind The Cathari or Puritans as he interpreteth the word himself a man would thinke should belong more to him that is either a Puritane or a Brother or at least a Reformer then to vs Catholiques But the Cathari were Noâ—atians who out of pride and self conceit as if they were more cleane and holy did condemne Catholiques for admitting men to pennance though they sinned neuer soe often soe grieuously whereas they Saints forsooth if a man did for feare deny his faith they would haue nothing to doe with him any more Now what is in this like our works of Supererogation that is works which a man is not bound vnto The Collyridians exceeded the measure of honour dew to our B. Lady for they did offer sacrifice vnto her as the Antidico Marianitae did erre contrarily denying her dew honour whom the Knight did forbeare to name lest he might seeme to name his owne sect Now Catholiques goe in the midle they doe not offer sacrifice vnto her that honour being dew to God alone but they giue her all the honour that can belong to a pure creature Tatianus and the Manichees disallowed all marriage but that they did disallow it specially in Priests I doe not find in Epiphanius as the Knight would make men beleeue by putting the words in Sacerdotibus in Latine and in a distinct letter Though indeede it be lesse allowable in Priests then in other men 11. It being then soe that of these haeresies which heere the Knight reckoneth whereof he would make vs guilty there is not one of them that any way coÌ„cerneth vs but rather as a man might easily proue that he his Church are guilty of almost all of them how vainely and fondly doth hee conclude this Section by saying these and the like errours taught in the church of Rome are either lineally descended from the aforesaid Haeretiques or at least haue neere affinity with them how vaine I say and fond is this saying of his how neere they come any man may iudge by what I haue heere said as also of the linealnes of the discent of our Doctrines from former Haeretiques or of his from the Apostles For whereas the line should be drawne along by a continued Succession from the beginning to the end hee nameth sometymes one onely man or tyme for the whole 1500. yeares sometymes not soe much as one man but onely a bare place of scripture corrupted or misinterpreted Which what Succession it may make let any indifferent man be iudge Wherein it seemeth the very guiltines of his owne conscience doth make him misdoubt a little that he hath not sufficiently performed his promise as may bee gathered out of these words of his If I haue failed in calculating the right natiuity of their ancient doctrine c. but for all that he saith he is sure that wee are vtterly destitute of a right Succession in person and Doctrine from the Apostles and ancient Fathers as hee saith shall appeare by many testimonies of the best learned among vs. But the knight hath soe ill performed his promises past that hee cannot looke any man should giue him credit for those that are to come And for that which hee is sure of that we haue noe Succession in person and doctrine that is soe false and soe apparantly false as that it is not to bee doubted but he that shall auerre it will make noe scruple of any lye how lowd soeuer For doe not our catalogues of Popes sold and printed in London testify the contrary for Succession in person what clearer testimony can there be in the world of personal Succession then to haue two hundred and odd
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
may looke in Poss bibl select lib. 8. cap. 32. Nor doe I see what that meaneth that you say of men that liue for outward things in the vnity of the Church where they dwell For if it be soe that they may make shew of one thing outwardly and meane an other inwardly as I see not what you cā meane els then I say it is the most damnable dangerous dissimulation of all other the most sure way not to be saued in any religion For neither the outward profession of a religion without the inward beleife nor inward beleife with an outward contrary profession can saue a man What then is it you would say a man may see you are in straights faine you would not goe absolutely against that which many Protestants say that a Catholique may be saued in his religion yet that will not stand neither with your owne iudgement as it seemeth nor bitter speeches which you haue spoken of the Catholique church as calling it Babylon the Seate of Anti-christ and such like nor drift of your booke which is wholy to draw men away from the Catholique faith and therefore you would faine find some ignorant people who should be Catholiques and noe Catholiques liue Catholiques and dye Protestants in outward shew Catholiques in inward beleife Protestants Which are two great and grosse absurdities and withall doe not serue the turne For in neither of these two cases is that proposition verified that a man dying a Papist may be saued for he doth not dye a Papist Neither can that ignorance which you speake of alleadging the place of saint Paul saue men noe more then it could doe him who doubtlesse should neuer haue found such mercy as to be saued had he not first found the mercy to be drawne out of that his ignorance wherein he was This I doe not say that it is absolutely impossible to find one soe inuincibly ignorant as may not be saued without a distinct and particular profession of the Catholique Faith and abrenunciation of the Protestant but I say it is a metaphysical and morally impossible case For how shall a man receiue pardon of his sinnes be enabled to walke the way of God's commandments while he liueth or be armed against the combats of the Deuil at his death without receiuing the Sacraments of the Church which is a sufficient profession of faith wholy distinguishing him from the Protestant or any other sect Therefore the Knight's chiefe answeare to the argument is a plaine denial that a Papist can be saued especially in England or in any Protestant State where there is a course taken to bring him to the knowledge of the contrary though yet he doe not pronounce damnation on our persons as he saith we doe on his But wherein doe we pronounce damnation vpon their persons more then he on ours he and others of his opinion say our doctrine is damnable and consequently that noe man can be saued by it we say the same of his doctrine and that noe man can be saued by it for this or that particular man we doe not take vpon vs to giue any absolute iudgment but that we leaue to God 6. But now for that which he saith of vs that we cannot be saued and that it is farre from the thoughts of good men to thinke the points of controuersy betweene Catholiques and Protestant to be of an inferiour alloy soe as a man may hold either way without peril of saluation I will appeale onely to his owne men and to such as I presume he will not deny to be good men at lest chiefe men of his owne Church For the points therefore in controuersy as frewill prayer for the dead honouring of reliques reall presence transubstantiation communion in one or both kinds worshipping of images the Popes primacy his being Vicar of Christ and head of the Church auricular Confession and the like they are all acknowledged some by one some by another not to be material points soe as a man may without perill beleiue either way and one maine point to wit the real praesence is said by some to be but as it were the grudging of a little ague The seueral authours are Perkins Cartwright Whitgift Fulke Penry Some Sparke Reynolds Bunny Whitaker Iohn Frith in Fox in his acts and other English writers beside Melancthon Luther and other Latine writers whose names may be seene in the Protestants apology where their very words are sett downe Protest apolog tr 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. and places of their works exactly cited which therefore for breuityes sake I omitt heere to doe and shall onely content my self with citing some for the other point which the Knight denieth to wit that we may be saued First noting by the way that heere is a full iury of good men and true in the iudgment of any Protestant who giue vpp their verdict against our good Knight Sir Humphrey as honest a Middlessex Iuror as his father was and as great a freind of Iuryes as he is confessing the points in controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy to keepe his owne word of art And which is specially to be noted whereas a mayne reason why our Knight is loth to yeild the points in controuersy to bee matters of indifferency is because the fresh bleeding wounds of the Martyrs of his Church witnesse the daunger of our religion among these authours there is one Iohn Frith a famous Foxian martyr who acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth noe man of necessity to saluation or damnation whether he beleiue it or not and the like the same man also saith of prayer for the dead which Mr. Iohn Fox relating and not disapprouing he is to be presumed to approue and so both the Martyr Frith and Fox the martyr-maker whose authority me thinks should be more worth then an hundred of his Martyrs are against our Knight and notwithstanding all their bleeding wounds and sufferings will giue him leaue to thinke his points of controuersy to be of an inferiour alloy and many of them not onely soe but euen absolutely condemne his very beleife and doctrine as a man may see fully proued in the examen of Iohn Fox his Calender to which I remit him contenting my self with one onely Martyr whom I presume our Knight will acknowledge for a great one to wit V. Protest apolog tr 2. cap sect 5. Iohn Husse this man Luther saith did not depart one fingars breadth frō the Papacy Iohn Fox saith he held Masse transubstantiation vowes freewill praedestination informed faith iustification merit of good works images of Saints And indeed of the haeresies now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants he held onely one to wit Communion in both kinds in all the rest he held with vs this Martyr then must needs sooner allow vs to be saued then Protestants but heere is enough of this idle matter 7. Now therefore to the other point whether we liuing
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