way would you thinke they made you a material God Philo's authority then is not to the purpose 7. For the Iewes now adayes who Sir Edwin Sands saith are auerted from the Christian faith by hauing the Crucifix shewed vnto them I answeare it is noe wonder they that cannot endure Christ how should they endure his crosse S. Paul preached Christ crucified though he were a scandal or stumbling blocke to their ancestours and must we leaue to preach him though their children stumble at the same blocke noe Sir Humphrey we must not cease to preach Christ nor can we preach him without his crosse They goe both together noe man can loue him and hate his crosse nor hate his crosse and loue him Wherefore you in alleadging their hate of the Crosse as an argument why you should also hate the same you tacitely confesse you loue Christ as well as they doe 8. But now for your conclusion which you inferre heerevpon that it is agreed vpon on all sides that the Iewes in the old law for 4000. yeares neuer allowed adoration of images and this say you was concerning the Images of God the Father I see not what premisses you inferre it vpon nor who agreeth with you in it you name fower authours one Catholique one Iew one Magician one Protestant the Protestant to wit Sir Edwin Sands speaketh not of any picture of God the Father as you say you meane but of the Crucifix or image of Christ vpon the crosse the Magician to wit Cornelius Agrippa saith the Iewes did abhorr images but he is noe man to build vpon be it true or false which he saith all is one coming out of such a fellowes mouth The Iew to wit Philo saith that the invisible God is not painted which we graunt as I said before according to his owne nature The Catholique indeede to wit Vazq saith that Images in state of adoration were altogether forbidden but yet granteth the adoration of other things of the same kind as the arke and temple neither doth his opinion auaile you for euen according to it you must confesse that the example of the Iewes in that is noe President for our tymes but besides others say adoration of images was somewhat allowed euen then and they proue their saying by the example of the Cherubins in the Temple which were adored how then is it agreed vpon on both sides but much more I may aske how you come to say the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of images for almost 4000. yeares when as the people of the Iewes were not such a people aboue 2000. yeares V. Bell. in chronolog Moyses liued about the yeare 2403. Christ was borne anno mundi 3984 nay Moyses liued not past 1500. before our Sauiour soe that of your owne liberality and skill in chronology you haue added 2500. yeares to make your doctrine seeme ancient Lastly you doe not marke your owne impertinency and contradiction in all this which you haue said Your contradiction in that you say that this which you haue said is concerning the images of God the Father whereas your authorityes are to the contrary to wit of other images your impertinency in that you stand bringing these things against the Decree of the Councel of Trent which speaketh not of God the Father his pictures but onely of Christ and his Saints pictures against which they make nothing 8. But bethinking your self a little after you say you will descend to see what order was taken by Christ and his Apostles in the new Testament for representation of him and his Saints and all the order that you find taken or that you your self take is to say that this law of the old Testament was moral which though Vazq and other Diuines contradict yet you say Bellarmine is of that opinion Well be it soe let it be moral as you would haue it what are you the better Doth Christ or his Apostles say soe or is this the order that they haue taken if it bee not you are neuer the neerer For it is but a matter of opinion betweene Diuines in the Catholique Church farr from any such authority as you promise By which a man would haue expected some euident cleare place either of the Ghospel or Apostolical writings to proue that Images were not to be adored at all or noe more then in the old law of the Iewes But whereas this was to be expected at your hands you put vs vpon it to bring some example or precept out of the Ghospell for adoration of images but we say that needeth not for as in the old law notwithstanding that command bee it moral or caeremonial men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple the arke in the Temple and the Temple it selfe soe may wee much more in the new adore the pictures of Christ and Saints and this is enough without any new precept or example 9. Moreouer we are not to be vrged to this considering wee teach many things out of vnwritten traditions and therefore there may be some precept and example both of our Sauiour and his Apostles Io. 20.30 21.25 though not written in Scripture because as S. Iohn saith all is not written or rather a very small part is written as his words import Thirdly we say we haue the example of our Sauiour and his Apostles testified both by good authentical histories and the perpetual practize of the Church against which it is insolent madnes to dispute as S. Aug. saith Many great and graue authours make mention of 3. seueral images made miraculously by our B. Sauiour himselfe V. Durant de rit lib. 1. cap 5. Euseb Eua. Procop. Adr. 1. Damasc Const Porphyragenitus â—onar Nicep Pho. Niceph. Call one was that which he sent to Abgarus king of Edessa who had desired to see him which request of his our Sauiour did in some sort satisfy by sending him his picture another was that of Veronica which he made with wiping his face as he was carrying his Crosse and gaue to that deuout woman that tooke soe much pitty of him as to giue him a handkerchife at that tyme to wipe his face all bedewed with bloud and sweate A third was one which Nicodemus gaue to Gamaliel all which are testified not onely by graue and learned authours but I may say euen by God himselfe though not inscripture yet by great and wonderful miracles whereof there can be noe doubt in reguard both of the number and credit of the authours which report them Wee haue the example alsoe of S. Lukes painting our B. Lady which very pictures are kept to this day and authorized likewise by God himself by many and wonderfull miracles Which though you perhapps may make your selfe merry withall with your Ministers yet I hope the iudicious Reader will more reguard the authority of the lest of these authours who are not in number soe few as 20. I meane for ancient authours then the impious scornes of a hundred such yesterday people as
thou art not to be the author but the keeper not the institutor but a scholler not leadinge but followinge Soe as by Timothee the whole Church being vnderstood as the same author saith or especially the whole body of Pastors it followeth that the Church createth not anie new articles of faith but teacheth onely that which she hath learned of the Prophets and Apostles 6. From which followeth that other thing which I meāt to tell the Knight for his learning which also I touched before in a word to wit that when points of doctrine before in controuersy and vndefined come to bee defined by the Church the doctrine is not therefore new because it is de fide or matter of faith now which it was not before as he most falsely and fondly supposeth for an vndoubted truth and vpon this his owne idle fancy buildeth many goodly arguments like soe many castles in the ayre For out of this hee thinketh it to follow that we vary in our doctrine that because forsooth there be many things now de fide which were not before and whereof Doctors did dispute which seing we may not now doubt of therefore the faith is in his iudgment altered But this sheweth nothing but the poorenes of his iudgmēt For by this he might proue that the sunne as it riseth higher and higher and by spreading his beames giueth light in some places att noone where it did not in the morning that therefore it is changed in it selfe then which what can be more absurd 7. And that it is the same of the Church and the Sunne Cant. 6.9 appeareth by that place of the Canticles Quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens pulchra vt Luna electa vt sol terribilis vt castrorum acies ordinata Who is she that goeth forward as the morning rising faire as the moone chosen as the Sunne terrible as an ordered army of tents Which words noe man euer doubted to be literally vnderstood of the Church Euen then as the Sunne may goe spreading his beames more and more with out increase or change of it owne light in it selfe soe may the Church goe more and more spreading the beames of her diuine faith with out increase or alteratiō of the faith in it self And as the Sunne beame may shine in a valley or roome of a house where it did not shine before soe may the Church spread the light of her faith shewing such or such a point to be a diuine truth which before was not soe knowne to bee or which though it were a diuine truth in it self yet it was not soe to vs. 8. For more declaracion whereof I may yet bring another more scholerly example which is of the principles of seuerall sciēces which are to bee the premisses in demonstratiue arguments of those sciences in which principles or premises are contained diuers truthes which may be drawne out of them by many seuerall conclusions one following of another these conclusions were truthes in themselues before though they did not soe appeare vnto mee till I saw the connexiō they had with the premisses and how they were contained in them And by the many seuerall conclusions which are soe drawne the truth of those principles and premisses doth more shew it self but not receiue any increase or chāge in it self thereby Euen soe we say in the prime principles of our Faith reuealed immediately to the Prophets and Apostles and by them deliuered vnto the Church are contained all truths which any way belonge to our Faith ād whereby the Church hath in succeeding ages destroyed seuerall haeresies as they haue risen without creating or coyning new faith or altering the old but out of the old grounds and premisses drawing those conclusions which destroy new haeresies and shew them to be cōtrary to the ancient faith And in that manner the Church hath growen and increased in knowledge by degrees and shall still goe growing and increasing to the end of the world Greg. moral lib. 9. cap 6. as sheweth S. Greg. his discourse vpon those worde of Iob. Qui facit Arcturum Oriana Hyadas c. Where he saith thus Vrgente mundi fine superna scientia proficit largius cum tēpore excrescit As the world draweth to an end the heauenly knowledge profiteth and with tyme increaseth Wherein also she resembleth our B. Sauiour her cheife Lord and heauenly Spouse who though in grace and knowlegde he neuer receiued the least increase from the first instant of his Conception Luc 2.52 yet the Scripture saith after proficiebat sapientia aetate gratia apud Deum homines To wit because he shewed it more in his words and actions 9. This is farther confirmed by the manner and practize which our Catholique Doctors and Fathers euer obserue in and out of Councells in prouing or defining points of faith to wit by hauing recourse to the authority of scripture and tradition beleife and practize of the Church in the searching whereof the holy Church ioyneth humane industry with God's holy grace and assistāce For when any question or doubt of faith ariseth particular Doctors seuerally dispute and write thereof then if farther neede require it the holy Church gathereth together her Pastors and Doctors in a Councel to examine and discusse the matter more fully as in that first Councel of the Apostles Act. 15.6 whereof the Scripture saith Conueneruntque Apostoli seniores videre de verbo hoc The Apostles ad Ancients assembled to consider of this word The Pastors coming soe together and hauing the presence of our Sauiour according to his promise and his holy Spirit out of the Prophetical and Apostolical Scriptures and Traditiōs ioyning therewith the authorityes and interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors out of praecedent tymes she doth infallibly resolue and determine the matter not as new but as ancient orthodox and deriued from her Forefathers making that which was euer in it self a diuine truth soe to appeare vnto vs that now we may not make farther question thereof 10. Vinc. Lerin cap. 27.28.29 seq And this being the common doctrine deliuered by our Catholique Doctour I thinke it not amisse somewhat farther to confirme and authorize the same by an excellent discourse of that holy and ancient Father Vincentius Lerinensis not reciting his very words because it would bee too long but onely the substance which is this Hauing proued by the word Depositum out of S. Paul that a Pastour Priest Preacher or Doctour there meant by Timothee must onely deliuer the doctrine which is deposited with him or in his hands not found out by him which he hath receiued not inuented whereof hee is not to bee author or beginner but the Keeper or Guardian hee saith that if such a man haue abilityes for it hee may like another Beseleel adorne sett out and grace the pretious iewels of diuine faith by expounding more clearely that which before was beleiued more
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
this point alone Nor did Campian meane that there was neuer any man that did agree with you in any one of your erroneous points but that there was neuer any house village or citty that did agree with you in your whole faith and religion or made the same Church with you And for the mangling and razing one of Aelfrick's latine epistles wherewith you charge vs first Sir it is not like by this that he saith in his Homily wherewith you say the Epistles agree that there is any thing against vs and if there were know you Sir it is not our fashion to deale soe with authors but if there bee any thing contrary to the Catholique faith we doe what is to bee done publiquely as hauing authority and knowing what wee doe correcting moderne authours in what they erre for ancient authours noting onely what is amisse V. reg indi de correct lib. §. 4. but not razing or blotting out any thing that corner correcting we leaue for such corner companions as shunne the light And soe your principall argument being answeared I goe on to the rest 11. First you tell vs wee are diuided among our selues touching the antiquity and Vniuersality of transubstantiation some deriuing it as you say from the words of Christ some from his benediction before the words some from the exposition of the Fathers some from the Councel of Lateran some from Scriptures some from the determination of the Church where to fill paper and make a shew you repeate againe the same things For what difference for as much as pertayneth to this matter is there betweene the determination of the Church and the Councel of Lateran betweene Scriptures and the words of Christ But to let that goe I say first your phrase of deriuing is improper as you vse it For we deriue our Doctrine by Succession from those men that haue gone before vs by degrees to the Apostles tyme shewing that in all ages and tymes it hath beene taught and beleeued but to speake properly we not deriue but proue the truth of our doctrine out of Scriptures Councels Fathers c. though the deriuation be also a proofe but yet different from that of Scriptures and Councels Secondly you speake very generally and confusedly For whereas there bee diuers things in question betweene you and vs as the realnes of Christ's presence in the Blessed Sacrament and Transubstantiation others among Catholiques themselues as whither or how farr these points may bee proued out of Scripture Tradition c. or by what words or actions this change is made you make no distinction at all of any of these things nor speake any thing certainely or constantly of any of them but runne hopping vpp and downe from one to another now forward now backward that noe mā can tell where to find you but though this confusion of yours cause a little more trouble and length in answearing yet in the end it will discouer your ignorance and vanity the more 12. To begin then with you I would know to what purpose you alleadge our authors in things controuerted among themselues onely eyther now because they are not defined or heertofore when other things then controuerted were not defined though they be since and consequently out of controuersy Doth this difference of our authors make any thing for you noe verily but much against you for their modest manner of disputeing of these things with dew submission to the Catholique Church to whose censure they leaue themselues their opinions and writings their silence as soone as She doth speake is a manifest cōdemnation of your haeretical pride that will stand to noe iudgmēt but your owne and euen those opinions of theirs which you take hold of they virtually retract soe farre as either they may bee any way against the authority of the Catholique Church or in fauour of Haeretiques which are the onely things you seeke Therefore in any thing wherein they may dissent from the common beleefe as they doe not binde vs soe they doe not fauour you But of this I said enough in the first Chapter Though in the authorityes which you heere alleadge there be not much neede of this for either they say nothing against vs or you corrupt them as I shall shew 13. And to begin with Caietan in matter of the real presence you say out of Suarez he taught that these words THIS IS MY BODY doe not of them selues sufficiently proue transubstantiation without the supposed authority of the Church and that therefore by command of Pius V. that part of his commentary is left out of the Romish edition Thus you Where first according to your vsuall liberty of falsifying you put in the word supposed of your owne to make the speech sound somewhat contemptibly of the Church Whereas there is noe such word in Suarez his Latine text which you cite in the margent Secondly you putt in the word Transubstantiation which Suarez there speaketh not of as is euident but onely of the real presence which is a distinct thing though you cōfound them And in that Suarez indeede the whole Schoole of Deuines doe worthily condemne Caietane for saying that those words THIS IS MY BODY doe not sufficiently proue the real presence of our Sauiour's body For singularity whereof Caietan is often noted in matters of such moment is very much to bee condemned in a Diuine therefore Pius V. with great reason commanded that to be blotted out agreeably to the rules praescribed in the Romane index for correcting of books Whereof you complaine much as thinking Caietane somewhat to fauour your side yet you are extreamely mistaken and by alleadging Caietanes authority in this you giue your selfe a wound For though hee doe not giue soe much to the bare words of the Scripture as to be sufficient of themselues to proue the Reality of Christ's presence yet hee saith that ioyning the authority of the Churches exposition of them they are sufficient as he saith in expresse words which your self after cite and yet you can alleadge him for you as you thinke heere and which is more impudency you are not ashamed to say that Caietan denieth the bread to bee transubstantiated by those words For where hath Caietan such a word or euen shaddow of a word You thinke perhaps because in his opinion those words doe not sufficiētly of themselues proue the verity of Christ's presence that therefore they doe not sufficiently cause it but if you thinke soe as you seeme you are much mistakē for those are two different things For example in Baptisme the words I baptize thee c. besides the clensing of the soule from sinne original actuall cause also the remission of the temporall punishmēt imprint a spiritual character in the Soule though these effects cannot bee proued out of the signification of the wordes and soe alsoe a man might say of the forme of the Eucharist the proofe depending vpon the speculatiue signification of
he bringeth these which you could not but see Wherefore in this you come short of the very Minister's honesty How little then must you needs haue Lastly I answeare this very authority is against you in the two things in controuersy betweene vs to wit the real presence and transubstantiation both which it alloweth and is against vs onely in one not soe properly in controuersy to wit in that it saith this change is wrought not by the words this is my body but by the benediction that goeth before Which benediction it doth not say whether it were a word or a deede and it is as like to bee some word as otherwise but whether word or deede it is as easy to consecrate by these words this is my body as by any other words or outward deede Soe as herein Sir Humphrey you haue noe helpe from any man eyther Salmeron or the Graecians or euen your freind Chamier for he discouereth your bad dealing 22. After this matter of the Blessing you come backe againe to the proofe of transubstantiation out of Scriptures telling vs that Bellarmine saith it is not altogether improbable that there is noe expresse place of Scripture to proue it without the declaration of the Church as Scotus said for though saith Bellarmine that place which we brought seeme soe plaine that it may compell a man not refractory yet it may iustly bee doubted whether it bee soe or noe seing the most learned and acute men as Scotus haue thought the contrary In which words Bellarmine saith but what we granted before to wit that though the words of consecration in the plaine connatural and obuious sense inferre transubstantiation yet because in the iudgment of some learned men they may haue another sense which proueth onely the real presence without transubstantiation it is not altogether improbable that without the authority of the Church they cannot enforce a man to beleeue transubstantiation out of them What of all this nothing to your purpose Sir Knight though in translating this saying of Bellarmines you haue corrupted it in two places The one that whereas Bellarmine said one scripture or place of scripture which he brought to proue transubstantiation was soe plaine as to enforce a man not refractory You change the singular number into the plural as if Bellarmine had said the Scriptures were soe plaine c. Which is a corruption of yours thereby insinuating as if Bellarmine taught the Scriptures to be plaine and with out difficulty soe as euery body may vnderstand them which indeed is an ordinary saying of you Protestants but as ordinarily denied by vs Catholiques The other is that whereas Bellarmine saith men most learned and acute as Scotus was You say the most learned and acute men such as Scotus Which word the you cannot but know alters the sense much For it importeth as if the better part of learned and acute men went that way which is false and contrary to the Cardinal's words and meaning 23. You tell vs now in the next place that you will proceede from Scriptures to Fathers as if you had said mighty matters out of scripture not hauing indeede said one word out of it either for your selfe or against vs. Well let vs see what you say out of the Fathers Alfonsus a Castro say you was a diligent reader of the Fathers yet after great study and search returnes this answeare of the conuersion of the body and bloud of Christ there is seldome mention in the Fathers But Sir you are noe diligent reader nor faithfull interpreter of Alfonsus a Castro For his words as you your selfe putt them downe in Latine in the margent are thus Alphon a Castro lib. 8. verbo Indulgent De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio That is Of the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is sedome mention in ancient writers Wherein he saith true and you most false For though of transubstantiation there be rare mention yet of the conuersion of bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention as Bellarmine sheweth at large And herein it is that you shew your selfe a faithlesse interpreter de Euchar. l. 3. cap. 20. But if a man consider Castro his meaning he shall find you to haue abused that much more then his words For his drift in that place is to shew that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writes of a thing or plaine testimony of scripture that yet the vse and practize of the Church is sufficient bringing for an example this point of transubstantiation whereof he saith there is seldome mention and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne whereof saith he there is more seldome mention and then maketh his inference vpon it thus yet who but an Haeretique will deny these things you might then as well Sir Humphrey and better too in Castro his iudgment haue denied the holy Ghost to proceede from the Sonne then the bread to be transubstantiated into Christ's body And herein it is that you shew your selfe noe diligent nor vnderstanding reader of Castro 24. After him cometh one Yribarne a disciple of Scotus whose words you also corrupt in the translation which it is enough to tell you of For the matter he saith it was of the substance of faith in the primitiue Church that Christ was really present vnder the formes of bread and wine yet was it not soe of transubstantiation wherein he seemeth to hold with his Master Scotus Who was of opinion that transubstantiation was not a point of faith till the Councell of Lateran For which you your self confesse he is censured by Bellarmine and Suarez which were answeare enough For as I told you in the beginning wee doe not bind our selues to defend euery singular opinion of one or two Doctors contrary to the common opinion of others But besides I answeare that Scotus plainely auerreth transubstantiation and proueth it out of the ancient Fathers who vse the very word of conuersion which is all one with transubstantiation For thus he saith in a certaine place Respondeo quod nec panis manet contra primam opinionem nec annihilatur vel resoluitur in materiam primam Sâ—â—t 4. dist 1â— 9.3 contra secundam opinionem sed conuertitur in corpus Christi Et ad hoc multum expresse videtur loqui Ambrosius cuius vndecim authoritates supra adductae sunt plures habentur de consecrat dist 2. I answeare that neyther the bread remayneth against the first opinion nor is annihilated or resolued in to materia prima against the second opinion but is changed into the body of Christ And to this purpose S. Ambrose seemeth to speake very expresly out of whom 11. authorityes are brought before and more are to bee had de consecr dist 2. S. Amb. de iis qui myst initiant cap. 9 de Sacrament lib. 4. cap. 3. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1.
conueniret sub vtraque specie fieri communionem quam sub altera tantum hoc enim magis consonum est eius institutioni integritati refectioni corporali exemplo Christi c. that is If wee reguard the Sacrament and the perfection thereof it were more conuenient to haue the communion vnder both kinds then vnder one For this is more agreeable to the institution thereof and the integrity and corporal resection and the example of Christ c. Where first you leaue out in your English translation those words habito respectu ad Sacramentum though you put them in Latine in the margent Which words are the life of the sentence and plainely shew that Tapper doth not speake of the conueniency absolutely and all things considered but in some respect to wit in respect of the Sacrament or in respect of the signification of our Sauiour's passion which is more expresse in both kinds then in one in respect of the institutioÌ„ which was in both in respect of the integrity because as the Diuines say both the Species are partes integrantes as two peeces of bread in one loafe though both together haue noe more essential perfection then one alone And in respect of corporal refectioÌ„ which as it requireth meate and drinke soe the spiritual refection is more expresly signified by both though noe lesse effectually performed by one Soe that this while Tapper speaketh not of the absolute conuenieÌ„cy but onely in some respects wherein I appeale to the Reader whether you haue kept your promise of not wilfully or wittingly mis-citing or mistranslating any author For heere it appeareth how you haue mis-traÌ„slated leauing out as a maÌ„ may say the principal verbe which shall yet more appeare by that which followeth immediatly in the same author which is this Alia tamen consideratione reuerentia vz. Quae huic Sacramento dbetur vtque in eius vsu vitemus omneâ—â—â—reuerentiaÌ„ minus conuenit atque etiam malun est nulloque modâ— expediens ecclesiae vt populus Christianus sub vtraque specie communicaret Bâ—â— in another consideration to wit of the reuerence which is dew to this Sacrament and to the end we may auoid all irreuerence it is lesse conuenient and euen it is ill and noe way expedient for the Church that the Christian people should communicate vnder both kinds Loe you Sir Humphrey was it honestly done of you to leaue out this being the other halfe of the sentence answearing to the former which of it selfe was imperfect and which was the authors absolute iudgment and determination Can any man euer giue you credit more but because Sir I will not leaue any scruple in any mans minde concerning this authors meaning and that by the perfection and integrity which he spoke of in the former part of the senteÌ„ce he did not meane the want of any spiritual fruite I will adde one word more out of him which is this In omissione calicis nulluÌ„ interuenit peccatum aut periculum nec aliquod gratiae spiritualis iactum in the omitting or leauing of the Chalice there is noe sinne or daÌ„ger or losse of any spirituall grace What could hee say or we desire more 10. Wherefore to come to your coÌ„clusion which you draw out of that that because many Fathers and learned men doe agree in saying that the Communion in both kinds was most frequent in the Primitiue Church therefore they giue testimony of your doctrine it is most foolish for we also agree with them in the former and yet deny your doctrine which is that all men are bound to receiue in both kinds consequently that it is not lawfull for theÌ„ to receiue it in one kind and that soe to receiue it is to receiue but an half Communion and such like absurdityes This is your doctrine for proofe whereof you haue not brought one word out of any author but brought some that say absolutely and expresly the contrary as Val. Tapper Bell. c. Nay what will you say if a man shall shew you out of your owne statute Lawes made now in this your tyme of Reformation some approbatioÌ„ or allowance of the CommunioÌ„ in one kind 1. Edw. 6. cap. 1. which is the thing you exclaime soe against vs for See in the Lawes of K. Edw. 6. reuiued and coÌ„firmed by Q. Elizabeth whether they doe not say onely that the CoÌ„munion is to bee commonly deliuered ministred to the people vnder both kinds 1. Eliz. ca. 1. vith this exception also vnlesse necessity otherwise require Looke you Sir Humphrey is it not heere allowed vpon necessity though the necessity be not expressed what or how great it must be but hence it followeth that if particular necessity may excuse in a particular case if the necessity shall proue great vniuersal it may be also sufficient for abstayning from one kind vniuersally or generally and howsoeuer it sheweth Communion in both kinds not to bee so strictly commanded by Christ For if it were noe necessity could excuse it in one Kind 11. And soe this might serue for this matter but that I am loth to lett passe a worthy saying of yours in the very end of this § Which is this And as coÌ„cerning the halfe Communion which is receiued in the Romane Church for an article of faith as it wants antiquity and consent of Fathers by their owne confession soe likewise it wants a right foundation in the Scriptures which an article of Faith ought to haue Thus you where with your worships good leaue a man may tell you you haue as many faults as words we teach all the coÌ„trary to wit that it is not halfe communion but that Christ is receiued whole and entire and a true Sacrament and as much spiritual fruit necessary to saluation in one kind as both as the Councel of Trent by your confession defineth We say it neither wanteth antiquity nor consent of Fathers as you may see in Bellarmine and many others We say it doth not want a right foundation in the Scriptures for as I said before we proue it out of the scriptures V. Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. both of the old new testament the doctrine and example of our Sauiour And his Apostles expressed in scripture Wee say also to conclude therewith that it is most false of all which you take euery where for a very truth as if it were agreed vpon on all sides to wit that an article of faith must haue sufficient and expresse proofe of scripture Whereas the cleane contrary is truth and as generally concluded among all Diuines and Fathers as you boldly affirme yours which assertion therefore of yours I heere absolutely deny once for all and though I neede not stand prouing it being euery where in all our authors yet for the Readers sake I will cite one place of S. Ierome coming first to my memory who hauing proued a point of faith against the Luciferian Haeretiques out of
scripture which they stood vpon he answeareth thus Et etiam si sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset Dialog 2. con Lucifer totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting the consent of the whole world on this side should haue the force of a praecept And soe there is an end of this 5. § Of Prayer and seruice in a knowne tongue §. 6. 1. In this § the Knight speaketh against the practise and doctrine of the Catholique Church in two things One is for vsing the publique seruice in a tongue not knowne to the vulgar people another for saying some part of the Masse with a lowd voyce so as the people cannot heare The practice of which two things though the Knight confound them into one was seuerally and distinctly approued by the Councell of Trent anathema pronounced against whosoeuer should condemne either of them Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Councel's owne authority thinking also euen by it to make good the contrary practise of his Church For saith hee the Councel in saying that the Masse doth containe great instruction of the faithfull people or as he translateth the words of the Councel in the beginning of this § great instruction for the common people And that it is to be interpreted vnto them doth consequently affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the aedification of the Church and this he cōfirmes with an argument of his owne thus And without doubt saith hee the Apostles being cōmanded to shew forth the Lord's death till his coming it was not intended to shew it to the walls or in a silent vnknowne voyce as it is now vsed in the Romane Church but to pronounce it openly to bee heard and vnderstood of the hearers Soe farre our Knight Now to reckon with him 2. Because the Councel of Trent saith that the Masse containeth great instruction of the people and that for that end it is to be interpreted vnto them he saith it consequently affirmes the practize of the reformed Churches to be better for aedificatiō of the Church Doth it soe Sir Humphrey by what Logicke doth this cōsequēce follow or by what figure of Rhethoricke do You take one thing for another the Councel saith that though the Masse containe great instruction yet it doth not follow that it should bee in the vulgar tongue you tell vs the Councel by cōsequence doth affirme it to follow the Councel thinketh it better to retaine the general and long continued practise of the Church of not vsing the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Masse but for instruction of the people to interprete something of what is read you say it approueth the contrary custome of your Church if it had soe had it not beene an easier matter to haue appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue but the Councel knew well that course was not soe fitt neither in respect of the publique good of the Church nor in reguard of the priuate good of the faith-full people for many reasons 3. First for the general practise and custome which hath beene obserued in the Church of God of hauing the Masse and publique office in Latine all ouer the Latine or Westerne Church both in Italy Spaine France Germany England Africke all other places and soe likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent had as much variety of vulgar languages in it as the Latine Church hath Which custome is not to be forsaken especially for Haeretiques out of that their false perswasiō that it is noe good or lawful practice Secōdly for the vniformity which is fit to be vsed in such things and vnity of the Catholique Church which is excellently declared also much maintained by this Vnity of Langage in the Church-office For as lāguage is a thing most necessary for cōmerce amōg men in ciuill matters so also in ecclesiastical and without this vse of Latine in this māner there could not bee that cōmunication betwene men of learning neither would mē of one countrey be the better for the writings of others there would be litle meeting of men of seueral nations in Councels little study of Councels of Fathers others who haue all writtē in Latine or some learned language whereas the vse of the Latine tongue in the Church is the cause of all the contrary effects as we see by experiēce Thirdly the vse of vulgar tongues in the Masse and Church-office would cause not onely great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by soe many seueral translations not onely in seueral countries but by seueral translations in euery countrey of any small extent euen in the same place vpon a litle change of tyme for as we see in euery age the vulgar language reciueth a great alternation of which translations the Church would not be able any way to iudge scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other which therefore for the well trāslating thereof requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost which noe priuate man can promise himselfe Lastly the vse of a vulgar language in such things would breede a great cōtempt of sacred things with prophanes and irreligiosity besids the daunger of haeresy which cometh noe way sooner then by mis-vnderstanding of holy scripture Neither are any more apt to mis-vnderstād it then the simpler sort of people if they once take vpon them to vnderstand These reasons then among others but most of all the tradition of the Church drawne euen from the Apostles by perpetual Successiō and practise might perswade the Councel to thinke that though some benefitt might come to some few particular men by vnderstanding what is written yet it was absolutely better to retaine the same custome still and euen to remedy that inconuenience another way to wit by explaning something of what is read in the Masse which the Councel declareth by a similitude very proper for the purpose to wit by breaking of bread to little ones fort it is euen as necessary for ordinary people to haue the Scriptures soe declared as for children to haue their bread broken and as vnfit to giue such men the Scripture it self whole to reade or to reade it soe vnto them as to giue a little child a whole great loafe Neither if a man marke the Councel of Trent's words well doth it say that the Masse doth containe instruction in that sense as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would bee an instruction but onely that it containeth great instruction that is many things which might be good for the people to learne being explicated which a man might truely say though euen when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be vnderstood without helpe of an expositor how then Sir Humphrey doth the Councel acknowledge your
practize to be more for aedification of the people Nay doth it not in the Canon expresly condemne it saying anathema to whosoeuer shall condemne the practize of the Romane Church in reading some part of the Canon softly or to whosoeuer shall say that the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue 4. Now for the place of Scripture which you bring to wit that wee must shew forth the Lord's death till his Coming which you say is not intended to the walls as we doe it sheweth sufficiently how well you vnderstand Scripture and consequently how well the common people betweene whom and your self you I dare say thinke there is a great deale of difference would vnderstand them when you being euen a writer soe little vnderstand them For that place of announcing our Lord's death is not vnderstood by words as you vnderstand it but by deeds as it is most plaine by the circumstances wherein they were spoken to wit by consecrating and changing the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord as we doe daily in the Masse in memory of our Sauiours passion For soe S. Paul hauing spoken of the institution and manner to be obserued in the consecration expresly saith as often as you shall doe this you shall announce the death of our Lord. The doing therefore is the announcing not the Saving Besides these words at least in the māner of speaking doe not import any cōmand For you shall find the word annuntiabitis is the indicatiue moode and future tēse if you looke well into your Accidence Sir Humphrey And withall it is somewhat conditional to wit that as often as we shall doe that we shall announce the death of our Lord. Besides Sir Humphrey I neuer heard before that it was all one to speake Latine and to speake to the walls if a man should speake a word of Latine to you were that to speake to a wall You see then you doe not marke what you say 5. But now you haue spoken soe well of your selfe lett vs heare what you can say out of other men And first for Haymo whom you cite for your purpose asking this vnanswearable question as you call it If a man that knoweth onely his Mother's tongue stand by or make a Sermon or giue a Blessing how shall hee say Amen since he doth not know what thou saist Soe you To which I answeare it is true Haymo hath a question to this purpose but not soe much to yours if you marke him well nor soe vnanswearable if you take him altogeather with what he saith before and after your question For soe you shall find he doth not require that all that are by shall vnderstand but that he that supplieth the place of the Idiot or lay man in answearing for the people shall vnderstand for before that Question of yours he maketh this other first quis supplebit vel quis adimplebit locum illius qui te audit non intelligit verba tua who shall supply or who shall fulfill the place of him that heareth thee and doth not vnderstand thy words Which sheweth that he doth not speake of the idiot or ordinary bystander but of one that is to supply his place or make answeare for him which appeareth yet more by that which followeth immediatly after your question thus Si non aderit alius pro illo sciens quid tu dicas qui respondeat Amen 1. Verum est quod tu dixisti vel fiat ita If there shal be none other for him that is in place of the ignorant man who knowing what thou saiest may answeare Amen That is to say it is true which thou hast said or bee it soe done Which plainely sheweth that in Haymo his iudgment it is sufficient if there be one vnderstander to answeare for the rest or for him that doth not vnderstād Nay he doth not seeme to require soe much as that this answearer shall vnderstand all soe perfectly but onely soe farre as to be able to answeare Amen for this is the inconuenience which he maketh to follow therevpon if the answearer doe not vnderstand the language that he doth not know where the prayer endeth for him to answeare Nescit quippe saith he vbi sermonis clausula firmatur For he knoweth not where the cōclusion of the speach is ended For which truely there doth not neede any such great vnderstanding of Latine Soe that though Haymo thinke that the Apostle speaketh in that place of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest as some few other Doctors doe though not soe rightly nor soe conformably to the true intent and drift of the Apostle yet he requireth noe more but that there be one to answeare Amen which surely may be more easily had then for want thereof to be faine to change the whole office of the Church in to English And soe Haymo his vnanswearable question is without any such great adoe answeared Now for S. Paules meaning though your obiection require it not and that it require also a longer disputation yet not to leaue the Reader wholy vnsatisfied thereof I say in a word that S. Paul his meaning in that place where he asketh how he that vnderstandeth not the prayer shall say Amen is not of the publique prayers of the Church offered by the Priest which noe man can doubt of either for the truth or goodnes and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them but of priuate prayers or prayers made by priuate and Lay men ex tempore and on the suddaine not in Latine Greeke or any ordinary knowne tongue but in an extraordinary vnknowne tōgue such as men spake by the guift of tongues which guift was giuen in those beginnings not onely to the Apostles and Preachers but euen to Lay people and to many among the Corinthians which they it seemes grew prowd of and vsed for ostentation For correcting of which abuse the Apostle writeth heere vnto them preferring Prophecy that is exhortation before tongues and giuing many reasons therefore among which this is one that others that heare that prayer in a strange Language are not the better nor can say Amen to it And this to be the Apostles drift the circumstances of the text and persons to whom he writeth plainely shew 6. After Haymo cometh Iustinian the Emperour who say you made a constitution that Bishops and Priests should celebrate the Lord's supper and prayers in Baptisme not in secret but with a Lowd and cleare voyce to this Bellarmine maketh two answeares Bell. lib. 2 〈◊〉 Miss cap. 12 one that Iustinian being a meere secular man had nothing to doe to make Lawes in such matters as it is most true and you cannot but know he is ordinarily taxed for too much taking vpon him in that kind The other that euen that Law doth command nothing more but onely that Bishops and Priests shall pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne
apostasy and future damnation to each other this poore Frier repented himself and therevppon came backe to his monastery and did penance rather choosing to suffer a little outward austerity then to carry about in the bottome of his soule such an inward assured testimony and beleife of his aeternall damnation as he saw these two did I might say more of the man's fine feates but there be bookes in dutch particularly of them as I heare and soe I say noe more but that in this your learned Buxhorne whom you Sir Humphrey of Licentiate make a Doctor as in all your other learned men that blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian hit the right veyne and discouered the true cause of their apostasy when he told the Vniuersity men it was not any Charks or Hammers that held them backe as I may say also it was not any razing of euidences that made Boxhorne fall from his faith but that there were certaine Lutheran baites where-with many of them were catched which were Aurum gloria delitiae veneres Gold glory delights and Venus of which some are catched with one some with another and soe you see this your learned Professor had soe deepely swallowed the last of the fower baites that it made his stomacke turne at the Catholique faith which exhorted him to contemne some of them as gold glory and forced him to forbeare others as his base and bestial delights and soe forsaking all obedience to humane and diuine lawes at one clapp became a rebell to his Prince an Apostata to religion and enemy to the Catholique faith therefore of such fellowes there is noe other account to bee made but let them goe as the Scripture saith of one of their chiefe Leaders Act. 2.25 Vt abiret in locum suum That hee might goe into his owne place Of the 14. Sect. the title whereof is this Chap. 14. Our aduersaries conuicted of their defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture it selfe CHAPTER XIV 1. TO this section the Knight giueth a beginning by occasion of Boxhornes words in the last section of an idol in the temple Wherevppon he very wittily tells vs that when we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place we must flye to the mountaines of the Scriptures as S. Chrysostome saith but yet he thinks we will not come to triall of scriptures because saith he are we not all eye witnesses that Christ and his Apostles are called in question at the Popes assizes and there arraigned and condemned of obscurity and insufficiency in their ghospel is not the sacred bible saith he ranked inter libros prohibitos in the first place in the catalogue of forbidden books then he bringeth Corn. Agrippa complayning of the Inquisitors that they will not admitt men to proue their opinions by scriptures This is the Knight's discourse which vpon examination will proue as foolish as he thinks it witty I answeare therefore that though Catholiques hold for most certaine that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith nor that out of it alone all controuersies can be decided as for example that in particular which bookes be canonical Scripture which not Yet for most things now a dayes in controuersy many Catholiques haue offered to try the matter by onely scripture some hauing also written books of good volume Anker of Faith to shew the Scripture in the plaine and obuious sense to make positiuely for vs our Doctrine in most points against vs in none Whereof a man may also haue a briefe tast in the defence of the cēsure in the praeface in these points following of Supremacy real presence iustificatiō absolutiō Vowes traditions obseruance of the cōmandements satisfaction prayer for the dead prayer to Saints c. in which respect therefore I may aske you Sir Humphrey how you come to be soe sure that we will not come to the triall of Scriptures for though we ground many points vpon tradition and practize of the Church yet doe not we ground others vpon plaine and expresse authority of Scripture from which you are faine to fly running into this or that corner of I know not what figuratiue or tropical interpretation or euen denying the very bookes of Scripture nay what point is there that we doe not bring better proofes out of Scripture for it which yet we neede not then you can bring against it which yet is absolutely needfull on your part you standing soe vpon Scripture as you doe 2. As for that which you say of the Popes questioning Christ his Apostles at his Assizes for obscurity and insufficiency this is a speach vttered I suppose by you onely in the feruor of an haereticall spiritt wherein therefore a man is not to looke for much truth but yet I may aske wherein I pray you doth the Pope question or condemne Christ of obscurity insufficiēcy what hath Christ left written to be questioned or condemned his Apostles Euangelists indeede haue left some things in writing of which some are hard euen by the iudgmēt of Scripture it selfe 2. Pet. 3.16 for soe saith S. Peter of the Epistles of S. Paul which saith he the vnlearned and inconstant doe abuse as they doe others Scriptures to their owne perdition Aug. Conf. lib. 12. c. 14. and S. Augustine findeth soe much difficulty in the first verse of the whole Scripture which to a man seeming is as easy as any other verse what soeuer that hee is faine to acknowledge the wonderfull profoundnes thereof it is S. Peter and S. Aug. therefore that call to their assizes if you will needs haue it soe and there arraigne and condemne S. Paul Moyses of obscurity not the Pope soe for insufficiēcy if any body condemne it it is S. Iohn in saying that 2. Thess 2.14 all things are not written S. Paul in willing the Thessaloniās to hold the traditiōs which they had learned whither by speach or letter by word of mouth or writing they are the Apostles Doctors of the Church that acknowledge that hardnes of Scripture or what soeuer it is which your Worship is pleased to call insufficiency What impertinent flaunting is this then in you Sir Humphrey to tell vs the Pope questioneth Christ and his Apostles To talke thus of Assizes and arraigning as if you would haue vs know you are the Sonne of a Grand-Iuror whom it is pitty you did not succeede in the place since you haue the termes soe ready in your mouth 3. But to lett that passe I likewise answeare you for our ranking the bible in the first place of prohibited bookes as you say we doe that it is false and false againe For it is not in the catalogue of such bookes onely in the rules which concerne the index there is mention how the free vse of vulgar translations is not to bee permitted Reg. 4. but for the Latine vulgar translation there is noe manner
Index expurgatorius you will acknowledge the nouelty of your Church and submitt your selfe with an implicite faith to the Romane Church Soe you for your counterchalleÌ„ge Sir Humphrey had you marked the challenge well you might haue spared it for the Iesuit required you to performe nothing but that which many on the Catholique part haue performed ready to your hand that is that you should bring such a Catalogue of succession for proofe of the Visibility of your Church as we did many of ours as Sanders Bellarmine Gualterus others You aske by what authority we impose new articles of beleife vpon men this question is not to the purpose but I answeare by denying your suppositioÌ„ for we doe not impose new articles vpon men but defend the old against new faÌ„gled fellowes neither is this the proper place for you to require or for vs to bring proofes out of Fathers Scriptures of particular points whereof you cannot but know that many great and learned men in the Catholick Church haue written great volumes which noe haeretique hath euer yet durst venture to answeare how then can you soe brasenly say that our owne best learned confesse that the articles of the Trent-Creede as you call them are vnknowne to antiquity what point is there defined in the Councel of Trent which is not proued by way of authority of scriptures fathers by Iudocus Coccius by way of reason and solution of arguments by Bell. by way of history by Baronius to say nothing of others some may perhaps say that some points there defined were not before defined by any general Councel but to bring any Catholique to say that they are new or that they were not anciently nor commonly beleeued I dare say Sir Humphrey is more then you can proue but suppose any one may say that there is noe proofe extant in any ancient author of this or that point must it therefore follow that it is new noe surely for all things are not written as S. Iohn verifyeth of our Sauiour's owne words and deeds how much lesse then other things which yet are generally taught and practized in the Catholique Church which very practize without farther proofe S. Augustine maketh to be an argument of antiquity Aug cont Don. lib. 4.24 but of this newnesse of faith whereof you soe ignorantly complaine and likewise of implicite faith I shall say more afterwards 10. Now for our leauinge out the second commandement wherewith you tax vs and changing the fourth from sanctify the Sabboth to Sanctify the holydayes it is pitty you are soe hard driuen as when you are called vpon to proue your Succession and Visibility of your Church to fall vpon vs for the commandements a thing of soe different nature and soe triuiall For first it is false that we leaue out that which you call the second commandment Looke in our bibles and see whether you find it not there in all Editions and translations as well English as Latine or any other language whatsoeuer How then doe we leaue it out you will say we leaue it out in our catechismes true but to leaue a thing out of a catechisme is not absolutely to leaue it out as long as it is els where But besids to answeare you another way wee leaue out many other things as that God is a iealous God that hee reuengeth the Sinnes of the Father to the 3. and 4. generation and the like though they goe intermingled with the commandements in the text and this we doe without blame because they eyther pertaine not precisely to the commandement or are sufficiently expressed in the very words of the commandement it self Soe wee say of this that it is either contayned in the first commandement being onely an explication of the same or if it be a distinct precept as some Deuines say then is it ceremoniall onely and consequently abrogated with the whole Law 11. Soe likewise for the other commandement of Sanctifying the Holy-dayes I answeare that in our bibles or text of scripture we keepe the word Sabboth and in most and best catechismes also as for example Canisius Bellarmines large catechisme and others but specially in that of the Councel of Trent sett out by authority of Pius V. Which were answeare enough to shew we make noe such mystery of it since sometymes we say Sabboth sometymes Holydayes as indeede we well may the sense being the same and we may better vse this liberty in catechismes where we stand not soe much to cite the very words of scripture as to declare the meaning of them though in the text it selfe we keepe precisely to the very words Where yet we explicate it in the same sense following therein the example of Scripture it self which vseth those words indifferently as may appeare Leuit. cap. 23. Where other Holydayes beside the Saturday or Sabboth are called Sabbata 3. or 4. tymes in that one chapter and in the beginning thereof those dayes which are called Sabbata are called twice Feriae sanctae Holydayes Soe as you Sir Humfrey in making such a deale of difference betweene Sabboth and Holyday shew your self to be but shallowly read in scripture Besids I may answeare to this as to the former obiection that this coÌ„mandment was partly ceremonial to wit for as much as pertayneth to that particular day of saturday and partly natural to wit soe farre as it obligeth to the obseruing of some daye or tyme holy indeterminately 12. But if we be such great offenders for changing â—â—e word Sabboth in some of our catechiâ—mes into Holyday what are you for changing the very commaÌ„dement while you stand working vpon Saturday and rest vpon Sunday soe changing the Sabboth it self but what stuffe is this for you to trouble your gentry Readers withall in the very beginning of your booke and in your Epistle dedicatory forsooth and not onely to touch vpon it heere but to print the commandements faire in a leafe by themselues with a marginal note of Ledaesma's catechisme of 2. or 3. editions as if you would make your Reader stand at some goodly gaze but by this a man may easily guesse what matter hee is like to find in the booke it selfe I could haue noted a thing of the same kind of yours in this Epistle in the first leafe where you say truth is iustifyed of her Children whereas the text of scripture is Wisedome is iustified c but that I did not count it worth speaking of 13. Touching your great boast that if we can shew one good author in euery age for this 1500. yeares who hath held our Trent articles as you call them de fide you will confesse our Doctours Schoolmen c. to be mistaken and to neede an index expurgatorius and that you will submitt your self to the Romane Church acknowledging the nouelty of your owne church Forasmuch as this your promise seemeth by the manner to be but a proud vaunt to delude the simple reader to make him more confident
such as meant to bee counted Catholiques Wherein I would farther know of him what other difference there is but onely that the Creede of Nice was made for declaration of the Catholique faith in the point of the Diuinity of our Sauiour and this of the Councel of Trent for declaration of all these points controuerted by the Haeretiques of these tymes And yet in one thing more they agree that is that as the Arrians of those tymes cried out against that Creede as being new and hauing words not found in Scripture for example Consubstantiation Soe our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of Faith for the same reasons of nouelty and words not found in scripture as for example Transubstantiation 3. But to come neerer vnto them They allow of the Nicene Creede they will not then I suppose say the Faith therein taught eyther now is or then was new though it were then first declared by authority of any Councel Which if they doe not as indeede they cannot then say I in like sort the profession of Faith sett downe by the Councel of Trent and Pope Pius 4. is noe new Faith but the old Faith of late particularly declared and defined against the haeresies of these tymes I could also in proofe of the same vrge Sir Humphrey with the 39. articles appointed by the authority of the Church of England to bee vniformely taught by all Ministers and which they are to sweare vnto Which articles though they be indeede new coyned as the foundation of a new Church Yet Sir Humphrey being his Mother's Champion will not I suppose yeild her or her doctrine to be new as yet on the other side he cannot deny but those articles receiued some kind of force whereby Protestants were more bound to beleiue and teach them then before From whence I might euidently inferre that a new definition or declaration doth not make the Doctrine new but that ancient doctrine may be newly defined according as new springing heresies shall giue occasion 4. Which being soe it is plaine that all his insulting speeches against the Councel of Trent and Catholique church are but verie smoke and may bee as easily blowne backe vpon Himselfe and his church and that by them hee doth but furnish vs with weapons against himself therein also bewraying his ignorance For whose better instruction if hee be not too wise to learne hee is to know two things in this matter First that we Catholiques doe not call all points of faith howsoeuer taught declared or defined articles as hee seemeth to thinke and the ground of this his errour may bee in that those great maine points of his Churches doctrine called the 39. articles are called by that name of articles But wee call that onely an article V S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 1. ar according to S. Thomas which containeth some speciall reason of difficulty in it self whereby it requireth a particular and distinct reuelacion because it cannot bee inferred or deduced out of any other reuealed truth as for example the point of our Sauiour's resurrection is cleane a different point from that point of his death and passion and this againe from that other of his Natiuity and soe of the rest because each of them requireth a distinct and seuerall reuelacion from the other For Christ might haue beene borne and yet not dye vpon the crosse and hee might haue died and yet not risen the third day from death to life but those other truthes defined by the Church as the vnity of Christ's person against Nestorius the distinction of his two natures against Sergius Pirrhus c. are not to bee called articles because they are sufficiently contained in others and deduced out of them Other Diuines giue other definitions of an article of faith which may also well stand with this of S. Thomas which I follow as the more common but all agree in this that though euery article bee a proposition of Faith yet euerie proposition is not an article of Faith 5. And heerevpon we teach that for articles of faith the Church can make none as she cannot write a canonical booke of scripture but that belongeth onely to the Prophets and Apostles or rather hath beene fully and perfectly performed by them to whom those articles were immediately reuealed by God whereof they deliuered part by writing and part by word of mouth to their posterity the Church Soe as now there neede not any new and particular reuelacions but out of those already made to the Apostles and Prophets which are all laid vpp in the treasury of the Church as a pawne or depositum as S. Paul calleth it other truths are drawne the holy Church and true spouse of Christ euer keeping this pretious treasure with continuall care and vigilancie and dispensing the same faithfully to her Children as neede requireth Whensoeuer any haeretique or other enemy endeauoureth to corrupt or peruert she calling her Pastors and Doctors together to examine the matter being infallibly assisted by that Spirit of truth which our Sauiour promised to bee allwayes with his disciples that is with his Church she declareth what is true and what false as agreeing or disagreeing with or from that doctrine which she hath receiued from her fathers that is Prophets and Apostles vpon whom as vpon a spiritual foundation she is strongly built according to that of S. Paul superedificaii supra fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum Ephes 2 20. Built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The very words Fundamentum foundation also shewing that her doctrine is not of her owne inuention or framing but grounded on them from whom she receiued it and that she hath not any which she receiueth not from them For as in a howse or building there is not the least stone or peece of timber which resteth not vppon the foundation Soe in the doctrine of the Catholique Church there is not the least point which is not grounded or contained in that which was deliuered by the Prophets and Apostles Commonit aduer haer cap. 27. Which truth Vincentius Lerinensis in like sort deduceth out of the word Depositum vsed by S. Paul to Timothee Quid est depositum saith hee id est quod tibi creditum est non quod a te inuentum quod accepisti non quod excogitasti rem non ingenij sed doctrinae non vsurpationis priuatae sed publica traditionis rem ad te perductam non a te prolatam in qua non auctor debes esse sed custos non institutor sed Sectator non ducens sed sequens What is a depositum it is that which thou art trusted with not that which is found by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast sought out a thing not of wit that is not of thine owne inuenting but of learning that is which is learnt not of priuate vsurpation but publique tradition a thing brought to thee not brought forth by thee wherein
to vs or euer saying word in proofe that the case is the same I might with as much reason out of this story of Redwalde say as much of Sir Humphrey Linde that hee and his Protestants haue built a new Church a new faith erected an altar against an altar c. 3. But as I was saying of his authors they are not many as you see much lesse haue they any part among Catholiques For Cassander Michael de Caesenas and Philip Morney are in the Index of forbidden books Camden and his English Canon writers are Protestants but which is more strange not a man of these such as they are that saith any thing of that which hee pretendeth in the title of his Chapter but onely Cassander who after the fashion of Haretiques speaketh of the Pompe and pride of the Clergy and that they will not hearken to the admonitions of some godly men aduising reformation these godly men he meaneth such as himself that is Haeretiques or next doore to them though Sir Humphrey please often to call him a Learned Romanist Soe that all the cause that euen this man alleageth of the contention is because the ecclesiastical persons will not yeild themselues to Haeretiques and lett them haue the ordering and disposing of all things at their pleasures therefore they breake away and fall into contention with the Church What cause doe Clergy men giue of contention in not submitting themselues to their inferiours and to men that haue noe authority ouer them or euen if the counsel of these people were good as it is not and that Clergy men thinke not good to follow it must they therefore presently fall to schisme and haeresy tearing and renting the Church By what Law are Clergy men bound to obey such fellowes if in a ciuill commonwealth some great man should dislike the gouernment eyther because his enemyes haue the managing of matters or that he thimketh he could doe it better then they and presuming to giue counsell to the Prince and his counsel they shoull not follow it and that therefore hee should goe from court make head and raise a rebellion in the common wealth who should bee counted cause of this contention the Prince and his Counsel or hee if Sir Humphrey be iudge he must say the Prince and his Counsel if he will make good his man Cassander's discourse 4. As for Michael de Caesena whom the Knight also calleth a learned Friar it is true he was a Friar and General of his Order but for his learning I neuer heard any such commendation of it but we know why the Knight prayseth him Well be it soe but the man being excommunicated and deposed by the Pope for his disobedience and rebellion he said that particular man which was Iohn 22. was an Apostata and an Heretique and therefore noe true Pope But that he made two such Churches one of the wicked vnder the Pope another of the good without any heade as Morney makes him make and this Knight out of him I find not in any good author but rather that hee allowed of the authority of the Romane Church for he appealed from the Popes sentence to it as may be seene in Coquus his answeare to Morney's mystery of iniquity pag. 205. to 2. and in the table verbo Michael de Coesena Neither was he euer taxed with any such haeresy 5. His English Church-Canon commandeth nothing to be taught as matter of faith but what is agreable to the Old and new testament and is collected out of the ancient Fathers and Catholique Bishops but what is that to the purpose how doth this proue vs to giue the cause of Contention hee will say this proueth his men to giue none I answeare that if all the rest of their Canons and proceedings were answearable to the saying of this Canon there would perhaps bee somewhat lesse to doe Though it be not any way conformable to the Scripture and doctrine of fathers for lay authority to make Canons for Clergy men and therefore the practise shewed in this Canon is contrary to the words And soe the 2. section is answeared 6. The third section is of corruptions both in faith and manners which the Knight saith we confesse and yet deny to reforme He proueth it out of the Councel of Pisa where Alexander the 5. Concil Pisan sess 20. promised to attend to the reformacion of the Church and out of the Councel of Trent acknowledging many things amisse in matter of indulgences Masse c. To this I answeare that for matter of manners we willingly acknowledge reformacion to be needfull and such it is that these two Councels speake of and haue performed as is to beseene by their Decrees though the former be not of any great authority Concil Trident sess 22. Decret de reformat And for the later it complaineth indeede with great reason of the auarice of such as had the gathering of moneys giuen in almes by occasion of indulgences Whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors though the Councel speake not of the Pope But he out of his loue to the Pope would faine bring him in vpon al such occasions This is true but false it is which he saith that the Councel complaineth of indulgences an article of the Romane faith as his words are For as it reformeth the corruption of the officers soe doth it establish the truth of the Doctrine as appeareth by a particular decree thereof which is also acknowledged and cited els where by this Knight himself whereby hee is conuinced of wilfull corruption The same Councel likewise complaineth of many things crept in in the celebration of Masse by the fault of the tymes or carelesnesse and wickednesse of men which are farre from the dignity of soe great a sacrifice The words of the Councel are right cited by him in Latine in the margent perhaps to saue his credit by sincerity soe much promised in his Epistle dedicatory but in the English which goeth in the text he fouly corrupteth them they are thus in Latine Cum multa irrepsisse videantur Which in English is this Seing many things seeme to haue crept in which the Knight translateth thus there were many errors and corruptions crept in to the Masse which is a grosse error and corruption in the Knight the Councel speaking onely of abuses which were crept in not of errours in matter of faith The Councel likewise seemeth to acknowledge the auarice of Priests making such bargaines for the saying of Masse as was not far from Simony or at least filthy lucre It speaketh of the vse of musique where with some wantonesse was mixed as alsoe of certaine Masses or candles vsed in certaine number that number proceeding rather from superstition then true religion this is true soe farre 7. But that is not true which the Knight saith that we deny a reformation of these things for to what other end are they recounted there but to be reformed nay they are not
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
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
Ghospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of the Church then the bare words of scripture and proueth it by this that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and vse of the Church noe man can be able to proue that any Priest now in these tymes doth consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Masse that is Masse in these tymes Not saith hee that this matter is now doubtfull but that the certainty thereof is had not soe much out of the words of the Ghospel as of the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of soe long tyme which they haue left to posterity For saith hee againe though Christ of bread made his body and of wine his bloud it doth not follow by force of any woord there sett downe that wee as often as wee shal attempt any such thing shall doe it which vnlesse it bee soe said we cannot hee certaine thereof These are his very words where you see how together he deliuereth two points of Catholique doctrine the one of the real presence the other of tradition for vnderstanding of the Scriptures Neither doth he say that the reall presence in our Masse now a dayes is not proued out of Scripture but not out of it alone without the interpretatioÌ„ of the Fathers which wee acknowledge generally necessary in the exposition of Scriptures neither doe you therefore rightly argue the real presence is not proued soe much out of the bare words of Scripture as out of the interpretation of Fathers and Tradition of the Church ergo not out of scripture This I say is an idle argument For the Father's interpretation Tradition of the Church Doth but deliuer vs the sense of the Scripture 17. What then haue you heere out of Bishop Fisher to proue any of your 4. points not one word For if his words did proue any thing they should proue against the real presence not against transubstantiation which is your coÌ„trouersy And for those other words which you bring out of this same holy Bishop and Martyr for a conclusion thus non potest igitur per vllam Scripturam probari it cannot bee proued by any scripture they discouer your dishonesty most of all For by breaking of the sentence there you would make your Reader beleeue they had relation to the words next before by you cited as if the Bishop did say that it could not bee proued by any scripture that Christ is really present in our Masse whereas there is a whole leafe betweene these two places but the onely bare recital of the Bishops words shall serue for a coÌ„futation which are these Non potest igitur per vllam ScripturaÌ„ probari quod aut Laicus aut Sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguineÌ„ atque Christus ipse confecit quum necâ—stud in scripturis contineatur It cannot therefore bee proued by any Scripture that either Lay man or Priest as often as hee shall goe about that busynes shall in like manner of bread and wine make the body and bloud of Christ as Christ himselfe did seeing that neither that is contained in Scriptures By which it is plaine that his drift is onely to proue that there is noe expresse words in scripture whereby it is promised that either Priest or Lay man shall haue power to coÌ„secrate that though Christ did himself coÌ„secrate coÌ„manded his Apostles soe to doe in remeÌ„brance of him that yet he did not adde any expresse promise that the same effect should alwaies follow wheÌ„soeuer any man should offer to consecrate Which is not against vs. For we gather that power to pertaine to the Apostles Successors in Priesthood out of the words Concil Trid. Sess 22. q. 1. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem not barely but as they haue beene euer vnderstood by the Church which is so farre from being against vs that wee might rather vrge it against you vpon the same occasion that Bishop Fisher doth to wit for proofe of the necessity of traditions and authority of the Church for vnderstanding of scriptures And soe by this it is manifest how much you haue abused this holy Bishop's meaning as you doe other two Bishops that follow 18. The one is Gul. Durandus Bishop of Maunde out of whom it seemeth you would proue the words This is my body not to bee of the essence of this Sacrament For what els you would haue with him I see not but specially because hauing cited him thus in English Christ blessed the bread by his heauenly benediction and by vertue of that word the bread was turned vnto the substance of Christ's body Then you putt these words in Latine tunc confecit cum benedixit them he made it when hee blessed it Whereby you seeme to put the force of this testimony in those words as if by them you would proue out of Durandus that Christ did not consecrate by the words this is my body but by that blessing But Durand himself shall disproue you Sir Knight For thus he saith Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua conuertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM He blessed it by the heauenly blessing and power of the word by which the bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ Durand rat cap. 41. n. 14. to wit THIS IS MY BODY Hoc est corpus meum Which last words I would gladly know Sir Humphrey why you cut of but I neede not aske for any man may see it was because you would not haue that powerful benediction whereof this authors speaketh to consist in those sacred words but Durand both in this very senteÌ„ce and often in the same place attributeth most plainely that power to those very words not to any other blessing as may appeare in that he saith that wee doe blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis By that power which Christ hath giuen to the words 19. Odo Caemeracensis is the other Bishop that followeth whom for the same purpose you cite and as much to the purpose his words are these as you bring them Christ blessed the bread and then made that his body which was first bread and soe by blessing it became flesh for otherwise hee would not haue said after he had blessed it this is my body vnlesse by blessing it he had made it his body Which words you putt in the margent in Latine imperfectly and translate euen them corruptly Benedixit suum corpus You translate Christ blessed bread qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro which in true English is thus That which was bread before by blessing is made flesh You translate otherwise as may appeare by your words though I see not to what end you should soe
bee changed into the whole body of Christ he doth not say it confidently and certainely but doubtfully and with dew submission to better iudgment and especially to the Church Saluo meliori iudicio existimari potest c. are his words 4. dist 11. q. 3 Sauing better iudgment it may bee thought c. and in answeare of an argument to the contrary wherein was obiected the common consent of others against him he saith that that notwithstanding yet soe long as their saying is not confirmed by the Church it is lawfull to thinke the contrary In which words he sheweth two things one that his Opinion was contrary to the common current of the Catholique Doctors of his owne tyme. Which is contrary to that which you said that hee and his fellow Schoolemen professed that doctrine openly for you see he acknowledgeth all others to bee against him neither doth he himself professe it soe openly for he speaketh it doubtfully and with submission to better iudgment The other thing is that hee plainely acknowledgeth the authority of the Church to bee such as that it is not lawfull for any man to hold opinion against it But though hee should haue said nothing thereof in this place it is sufficient that in the praeface of his Commentary vpon the Maister of the Sentences hee submitteth all his works to the correction of the holy Romane and Catholique Church to which hee acknowledgeth the interpretation of all doubts of the holy Scripture to belong Which profession without more may serue to excuse and free him from the crime of haeresy either in this or any other point wherein hee may haue chaunced to erre as Bellarmine doth therefore iustly excuse him 37. Now for Gaufridus and Ostiensis our owne Proctors as you call them as you haue the obiection soe you shall haue the answeare alsoe out of Durand Durand in 4. dist 10. q. 1. Thus then hee obiecteth against the praesence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament Ostiensis and Gaufridus note 3. opinions concerning the manner of being of the body of Christ vpon the altar of which one saith that the bread is the body of Christ another saith that the bread doth not remaine but is changed and that the accidents alone doe remaine Which seemeth to be approued by that text of Cap. firmâ—ter The third opinion saith that the substance of bread doth remaine and is together with the body of Christ vpon the altar Behold that they call it an Opinion of the remanency of the substance of bread neither doe they say it is reproued nay rather they referre it to the confession of Berengarius which was approued by the Councel Thus the obiection sett downe and vrged by Durand not cited out of them Now his answeare is this For that which is afterwards said of Gaufrid Ber. and Hostiens Glossers vpon the Chap. firmiter it is to be answeared that though they recount three opinions they approue none for true but onely that of the body of Christ's being vpon the altar by transubstantiation of the bread and wine And if they doe not expresly call any of them erroneous it followeth not therefore that it is not erroneous For they did not know all the passages of holy Scripture from which the fore said opinion doth differ Thus the obiectioÌ„ answeare in the very words as they lye in Durand Out of which first it is cleare these men are onely Canonists noe Schoole Diuines such as you pretend heere to alleadge Though you alsoe insinuate the same somewhat in as much as you call them our Proctors Wherein yet you mistake your termes the word Proctor being not soe fitt for soe great Doctors of the Canons as they were for how thinke you vould your Ciuill or Canon Doctors of the Arches take it at your hands to be called Proctors or your great Lord Sir Edoward Cooke and Doctor as I may say of your common Law to be called an Attourney at Law SecoÌ„dly heereby appeareth also your corruptioÌ„ in saying that they taught that this opinion was not to be reiected for thus you putt it in a different letter This opinion say they was not to bee reiected whereas they say noe such thing But onely Durand enforcing the obiection to the vtmost as Diuines are wont to doe the more fully to answeare taketh hold that they call it an opinion and likewise taketh hold that they doe not say it was reproued or that it ought to be held for an error Thirdly hence it appeareth that both they themselues did not allow of it in that they held onely that middle opinion of traÌ„substantiation for true and that though they did not soe expresly coÌ„demne it of error yet it doth not follow but that it was error for they knew not all the passages of scripture Scripture being not their study Thus then all your Schoolemen are answeared and consequently this whole § of Transubstantiation PARAGRAPH 3. OF PRIVATE MASSE 1. In this third § Sir HuÌ„phrey preteÌ„deth to make good the doctrine and practize of his Church and ouerthrow outs in point of priuate Masse as he calleth it beginning with the curse of the Councel of Trent against such as coÌ„demne it for vnlawfull And then bring an article of Ireland to the coÌ„trary which saith that for the Priest to receiue the Eucharist without a coÌ„petent number of Communicants is against the institution of Christ practize of the primitiue Church For proofe of this his doctrine he bringeth the words of Christ 1. Cor. 11.1 Take yee eate yee And those of S. Paul Be yee followers of mee euen as I am alsoe of Christ As likewise those other When you come together tarry one for another And the cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the CoÌ„munion of the bloud of Christ and heere the knight saith out of Hugo de S. Victo whom hee of his owne free goodnes is pleased to create a Cardinal both heere and els where to make vp the number of his Cardinals Bishops c. that it is called a Communion because the People in the primitiue Church did coÌ„municate together And he saith of himself that it is soe called because the Priest and people communicate together After this he bringeth a Canon of the Councel of Nantes forbidding Priest to say Masse alone For to whoÌ„ saith the Canon doth the Priest say The Lord bee with you to which he addeth 12. or 13. of our authors in proofe that anciently the people did communicate euery day witnessing therein as he saith the antiquity of his Doctrine and intimating the nouelty of ours and he telleth vs also that the Councel of Trent concludeth with a well-wishing to his Doctrine in saying that it wisheth that the people would communicate not only spiritually but also sacramentally adiudging his communion to be more fruitfull This is the summe of this whole § 2. To which I answeare beginning with this last of the Councel of Trent that the Rearder
you must doe before your communion Annotat. after the order of administringe the communion neyther will it serue the turne to haue one or two to beare the Minister company but there must bee a competent number for example saith your booke if the Parish consist of 20. persons there must be 3. or 4. at least otherwise the Minister must not communion it And by this rule a man may say proportionably if the parish haue twenty hundred or 20000. there should be 3. or 4. thousand to communicate at once And if a sicke body would receiue he may not receiue alone but hee must haue some body to beare him company and not onely one or two but many or a competent number as your booke saith which therefore is to bee considered according to the number of Parishioners This and much more may bee said of the prettines of your seruice and good fellow communion but heere is enough of such an idle subiect and soe hauing answeared your third Paragraph of priuate Masse as you call it I come to the 4. PARAGRAPH 4. OF THE SEAVEN Sacraments 1. In this 4. paragraph which is of our Seauen Sacraments the Knight hoyseth vpp all the sailes of his eloquence and putteth to all the force of his witt as if both by wind and oare he would goe quite beyond vs in this point of our faith wherein for that cause he doth enlarge himself beyond the ordinary measure of his paragraphs and filleth his margents with citations of Fathers and of Schoolemen laying first for a foundation a wise discourse of his owne Which I will alsoe beginne with without longer prefacing with him He setteth downe first the Canon of the Councel of Trent accursing whosoeuer shall say the Seauen Sacraments of the new Law were not instituted by Christ Sess 7. caâ— 1. de Sacr. in gen or that there bee more or fewer then Seauen or that any of them is not properly and truely a Sacrament Which decree saith Bellarmine ought to suffice though we had noe other For if we take away the authority of the present Church and present Councell the decrees of all other Councels and the whole Christian Faith may be brought into doubt Which canon of the Councell and authority of Bellarmine he cryeth out against and saith it is a foundation of Atheisme for in his iudgment the word of Christ alone is sufficient for all Christians which hee proueth by those words of S. Paul I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsel of God Act. 20. And that wee may know he speaketh of the written Word he bringeth Bellarmines authority saying that those things are written which were by the Apostles preached generally to all And hee is soe confident against this point of the Seuen Sacraments that hee is content the curse shall light vpon him if any learned man shall shew it out of any Father of the Primitiue Church or any knowen author for about a thousand yeares after Christ This is his beginning whereat I will make a stay and answeare not to take too much at once Hee thinketh it then a foundation of Atheisme to say that if wee take away the authority of the present Church and present Councel wee may call in question the whole Christian Faith And why soe good Sir Humphrey What Atheisme is it to say that there is one Faith that that Faith is to bee found onely in the Church that that Church cannot fayle or erre at any time and consequently that that Faith which it teacheth cannot faile or erre and especially that then the Church can least erre when it is gathered together in a General Councel and defineth matters of Faith with approbation of the Supreme Pastor of God's church and that if such a Councel may erre the Church may erre that if the Church may erre the Faith which that Church teacheth may faile and consequently that there can bee noe certainty is this the way to Atheisme to teach that there must be some certaine meanes to learne true faith and beleife in God and that if there bee none such there can bee noe certainty would a man thinke that it should euer enter into any man's mind to say that the affirming of this infallibility were the way to Atheisme Whereas the denyall thereof is the most direct way that can be imagined vnto Atheisme For take this infallibility away and there is noe rule of faith if noe rule noe faith if noe faith noe right beleife in God which is the height of Atheisme 2. But because you Sir Humphrey are not capable of this Discourse as euident and demonstratiue as it is I will goe about with you another way I would know of you whither if wee should take away the holy Scripture or written word it would not follow in you iudgment that the whole Christian faith might bee called in question I say in your iudgment for whether it would or would not in myne I doe not say any thing heere certainely it would For some rule men must haue and that is your onely rule Now againe doe not you know that S. Gregory the great did often say write that he did hold the fower first Councels in the same honour that he did the 4. Ghospels which was the same as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Ghospels Why may it not then follow that vpon deniall of the authority of those 4. Councels the authority of the ChristiaÌ„ faith may be shaken as well as by deniall of the Ghospell V. Bâ—ll lib. 2. de Concil cap. 3. and this which I say of S. Gregory I may say of many other Fathers in reguard of all or some of those 4. Councels and particularly of that of Nice which whosoeuer should haue denyed was noe lesse to haue bene counted an Haeretique then if he should haue denied the Ghospell 1. Eliz 1. you your selues in your Parliament Lawes giue great authority to those 4. first Councels euen as much if you vnderstand your selues well speake consequently as S. Gregory doth for you are coÌ„teÌ„t to acknowledge for heresy whatsoeuer is condemned for such by any of them Which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith coÌ„sequently of infallible authority you ioyne theÌ„ in the same ranke with the canonical Scriptures You giue also the like authority to other general Councels but with this lymitatioÌ„ that these later must haue expresse scripture whereby to coÌ„demne a thing for heresy but which is most of all to bee noted in the same statute you giue power to the Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Conuocation to adiudge or determine a matter to bee heresy Which is the very same as to giue it power to declare faith or to bee a rule thereof which if it may agree to such an assembly or Court of a temporal Prince and Kingdome I see not why it may not agree to a
General Councel as being the Parliament of Christ his Church to which he hath promised his speciall assistance But this is by the way 3. Now out of this authority which you graÌ„t to those ancient Councels I goe a little farther with you and aske what you can say more against the present Church and present Councel of Trent then against the Church of that tyme Councels of those tymes whatsoeuer you can say of the Church now that it may erre may as wel be said of the Church of that tyme. For our Sauiour's promise for the perpetuity infallibility thereof is as much for one tyme as another for our tyme now as for those then What you say now of the Councel of Trent that it is disclaymed by a great part of the ChristiaÌ„ world may be said much more of the Councel of Nice which was gaine said both by more other maÌ„ner of men then the Councel of Trent the same may bee also said of some of the rest soe forth of any thing els that you can obiect Wherefore to conclude if it were not atheisme to say then that by questioning the authority of the Nicene Decrees the authority of the whole Christian faith might bee questioned I see not why it should bee Atheisme to say the same of the Councel of Trent But you thinke it is Atheisme to deny the Scriptures alone to be sufficient For that is the sense of your inference But it is farre otherwise For all Catholiques say they are not soe and yet they beleeue that there is a God and honour and worshipp him as their God But this of the alone sufficiency of Scriptures is a seuerall matter of it selfe Onely for your place of S. Paul it is plaine you peruert it For he speaketh not of the written word but of the doctrine of Christ by him preached as is manifest by his owne very words there Which are these Act. 20.20 Vos scitis quomodo nihil subtraxerim vtilium quominus annunciarem vobis docerem vos publice per domos testificans c. You know how I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable but that I preached it vnto you and taught you openly and from howse to howse testifying to Iewes and Gentils penance towards God and faith in our Lord IESVS CHRIST For neyther had S. Paul then writteÌ„ his Epistle to the Ephesians to whom he there spoke For he wrote it out of prison from Rome and euen the second tyme of his imprisonment which was many yeares after this speach Whereas at the tyme of this speach he was but going to HierusaleÌ„ where being takeÌ„ after some tyme of imprisonmeÌ„t hee was sent to Rome And you might as wel haue aleadged those words of our Sauiour to his Disciples All that I haue heard froÌ„ my Father I haue made knowne to you Io. 15.15 As these of S. Paul and yet is well knowne our Sauiour did not deliuer any one word in writing to his Apostles Neither doth Bellarmines saying helpe you any thing for though those things which are necessary for all in generall to know which are but few be written there bee yet many more not written which are necessary to bee knowne by some in the Church though not by all Now for the curse which you are content shall light ypon you if wee shew the number of Seauen Sacraments to haue beene the beleife of the Church for a thousand yeares after Christ bee not too forward to draw malediction vpon your self it will come fast enough to your cost It is an heauier thing then you are aware of to haue the curse of a Mother and such a Mother as the Church which doth not curse without cause nor out of passion For as the Scripture saith Maledictio Matris eradicat fundamenta Eccle. 3.11 The malediction of a Mother doth roote out the foundatioÌ„s 4. Hauing thus praefaced against the authority of the Councel of Trent you come neerer to the matter giuing vs a new definition of a Sacrament to wit that it is a seale witnessing to our consciences that God's promises are true For as you say God by his word declareth his mercie and sealeth and assureth it by his Sacraments and in the word we heare his promises in the Sacraments we see them Out of which you inferre Baptisme and the Lord's Supper to bee proper Sacraments because in them the element is ioyned to the word and they take their ordinance from Christ are visible signes of an inuisible sauing grace In which words is contained another farre different definition of a Sacrament hauing noe manner of connexion or dependence vpon the former Out of which againe you inferre that the other 5. beside Baptisme and the Eucharist are noe Sacrements not CoÌ„firmation because it was not instituted by Christ not Pennance Order because they haue noe outward element not Matrimony because it was before Christ's tyme and is common to Turks and infidells neither doe you see forsoothe how it can be a holy thing and yet forbidden as it is to Priests And from this you tell vs that if the curse of the Councel take place then Woe to all the ancient Fathers of whom you name these following Ambrose Austin Chrysostome Bede Isidore Alexander of Hales Cyprian Durand and Bessarion This is your discourse 5. To which I answeare That for your formet definition it is a senselesse one without ground in any father Lib. 1. de Sâ—tâ—r in gen cap. 14. 16. or other author but onely Kemnitius and Caluin and which is largely refuted and proued most absurd by Bellarmine to whom I remit you For how can the Sacraments be seales or giue vs aâ—â—urance of his words when all the assurance wee haue of the Sacraments is his word this is idem per idem Besides what promises are these that are sealed or if they bee seales what neede we more seales or Sacraments then one or if there may bee more why not seauen as well as two Againe how doe we see the promises of God in the Sacraments when a man hath receiued the Sacrament of Baptisme what other assurance hath hee that his sinnes are forgiuen or that he is the Child of God and heyre of his kingdome then the word of God promising that vertue to the Sacrament or how can any man see by the SacrameÌ„t that he is soe these are but foolish fancies bredd in haeretical braines and soe to be contemned For your other definition it is not much better being Melancthons Vbi supra related and refuted by Bellarm. which therefore I leaue and answeare onely that which you say that two Sacraments haue the word and element and ordinance of Christ The other 5. not For Confirmation and Extreame Vnction you cannot deny the element and word to wit oile and the forme but you deny the ordinance of Christ For proofe of which and other particulars it wil be too long to stand vpon it
it as you translate is farre otherwise to wit that there be but onely two Sacraments in all For first you leaue out the demonstratiue pronoune haec makeing the speach more general as if Bessarion did say there were but two Sacraments whereas he doth not speake any thing that way in these words of the number of SacrameÌ„ts in general but restraineth his speach to these two in particular which rather importeth that there be other Sacraments For if one should say these two men came this way or these two horses belong to mee would not any man gather that there were more men besides those two that came this way and more horses besides those two that I say belong to mee For otherwise it were needlesse to adde this determining or distinguishing pronoune these vnlesse there were other things of the same kind from which they are to bee distinguished SecoÌ„dly the word Sola you place in a certaine odd and craftie manner to make the sentence sound as if there were two Sacraments and no more For you put it before the word Sacraments whereof it followeth that the negation included in the word Sola falles vpon the word Sacraments as if there were but two Sacraments or two and noe more whereas it is to fall vpon the words expressè tradita expresly deliuered that is to say that these two Sacraments and none other are expresly deliuered which is another thing Neither will it serue your turne to say you place it in English as it is placed in the Latine for the placing of words iust soe in English as they are in Latine may many tymes alter many tymes also make noe sense at all and in translation the sense is chiefly to be reguarded Thirdly you putt in the pronoune relatiue which of your selfe and change the participle tradita in to the verbe traduntur whereby of one proposition you make two in this manner we reade of two only Sacraments that is of two and noe more which two are expresly deliuered in the Ghospell Whereas Bessarion maketh but one proposition in which one alsoe his intention is not soe much to affirme these two SacrameÌ„ts to be expresly deliuered as you make it as to deny the other Sacraments to be expresly deliuered as shall farther appeare by his owne words Here then in this little senteÌ„ce of not past a line in length you coÌ„mitt 4. faults besides one which I passe ouer as not soe much altering the sense One in leauing out haec Another in putting in quae a third in changing the word tradita into traduntur thereby making 2. propositions of one A fourth in soe placing sola in the English as quite to alter the sense thereby making affirmatiues of negatiues and negatiues of affirmatiues The least of which in as much as it alteres the sense cannot be excused from corruption especially seeing it is by you expresly intended for you say that Bessarion coÌ„cludeth with the Protestants and for proofe you bring his words thus translated which sheweth that you intended his authority should sound soe as if there were but two Sacraments as you teach whereby you would leade your Reader into an errour Which yet you doe in such a maÌ„ner that I cannot say but that a wary carefull Reader may picke out or at least guesse at Bessarion's true meaning But that is your cuÌ„ning to haue a double sense the one to deceiue the simple and another to excuse your selfe against the obiectioÌ„s of the learned But you should remember Sir Hum. there is a Woe in store for such cunning men Eccles 2 14. Vae duplici corde labijs scelestis et manibus malefacientibus peccatori terraÌ„ ingredienti duabus vijs Woe to the double of hart and wicked lipps hand ill doing to a Sinner going on the earth two wayes In which last word of going two wayes is touched this your cunning in this place Though if you examine your conscience well you may find your self guilty of all the particulars of this sentence 18. But now to Bessarion I answeare that in saying that the two Sacraments of Baptisme and Eucharist are the onely Sacraments expresly deliuered in scripture he comes not neere the curse of the Councel For that canon doth not command vs to beleeue that these two or more or lesse are deliuered plainely or not plainely in Scripture it leaueth that to the disputation of Diuines onely it will haue vs beleeue there bee 7. Sacraments that they were instituted by Christ that they are all properly Sacraments against which Bessarion hath not a word but rather much for it For writing that Oration in defence of the Romane Church to shew that the consecration in the Eucharist is performed by words he proueth it by the example of other SacrameÌ„ts thus Bessar de verb. conse Hunc modum Apostoli a Saluatore vt crâ—dendum est ab Apostolis Sanct Patres postea sumentes in singulis ecclesiae Sacramentis quemadmoduÌ„ materiam propriaÌ„ sine qua nullo modo fieret quod proponitur ita etiam propriam formam statuerunt Quod manifestum est si quis ad Chrismatis SacramentuÌ„ mentem conuerterit This manner the Apostles receiuing from our Sauiour as it is to bee beleeued and our holy Fathers from them as in each Sacrament they haue appointed a proper matter without which that cannot be done which is purposed soe also a certaine forme Which is manifest if a man turne his mind to the Sacrament of Chrisme By which words it is manifest that besides the two Sacraments which you speake of he acknowledgeth not onely the Sacrament of Confirmation in expresse tearmes but the other Sacraments of the Church which you cannot but know to be the same 7. which now wee hold But what neede any man more argument for Bessarion's beleife in this point then the Councel of Florence wherein he was a great man and wherein was deliuered that Decree of Eugenius the 4. to the Armenians wherein the Seauen Sacraments are precisely and distinctly taught with the vniforme consent both of the Latine and Greeke Church soe as impiety it self cannot find what to obiect against it 19. Thus then hauing deliuered Bessarion also froÌ„ your Worship 's imaginary curse I come to the Schoolemen among whom you are not ashamed to promise your Reader that he shall find as little vnity as amoÌ„g the Fathers which as you say in an euill seÌ„se as though there were not vnity amoÌ„g the Fathers soe doe I yeild to you in a good sense to wit that as there is vnity among the Fathers in this point noe lesse then in others of our faith soe also the Schoole Diuines their childreÌ„ succeeding them haue maintained this point noe lesse then others with the same vnity and consent as I shall shew by answearing your fond cauills Though some Schoolemen out of the common ignorance and infirmity of mankind in some poiÌ„ts not throughly discussed nor defined by the Church did
seuerall places you offend in another kind For whereas the Councel saith that though Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrament in both kinds and soe giue it to his Apostles you leaue out that of the last supper and that of the Apostles both which were putt downe there for very good reasons and to our purpose That determining of the tyme of the last supper leaueth it free for vs to thinke that Christ might at some other tyme after his resurrection communicate some of his Disciples in one kind as some Fathers thinke he did his two Disciples at Emmaus or at least thereby did foreshew the lawfulnes of Communion in one kind as Suarez sheweth out of S. Aug. and others Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 71 sect 1. That word of the Apostles is likewise put downe to shew that that particular fact of Christ and command did pertaine onely to the Apostles who were then ordained Priests and in them to such as should succeede them in that office whereas you by leauing out that word would faine haue it seeme as if that of both kinds did pertaine to all Thus much then for the Councel of Trent 7. Now lett vs heare what you say against this Communion in one kind First obseruing your strange folly in saying that one that shall heare two Councels one accursing another condemning for Haeretiques such as shall deny the lawfulnes of one kind would gladly know the reasons whereas you your self note in the margent a treatise of Gersons against the haeresy of the Lay communion in both kinds acknowledging that he shewes the causes For if he shew cause why doe you call for 〈◊〉 as if there were none giuen if he doe not why doe you say he doth But to lett that passe with the rest of your non sequiturs You bring the two places of scripture before cited Drinke yee all of this and doe this in remembrance of mee Which places you may see answeared in Bellarmine with all the enforcement and vrging that Luther Caluin Kemnitius Melancthon Bell. de Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. Brentius and all the rable of them can bring The answeare in a word is this that the former words were spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Priests as appeareth more plainely by S. Marke who sheweth all which our Sauiour meant of Mar. 14.23 when he said Drink yee all of this For saith S. Marke and they did drinke all thereof The later words import onely the distribution in one kind being spoken as appeareth by S. Luke immediatly after the consecration of the bread Luc. 22 19. before the consecration of the Chalice And though they should haue beene spoken after both How will you proue to which action of our Sauiours for he did more then one at that tyme that pronowne Hoc had relation or which it did demonstrate The sense therefore and explication thereof is to be taken from the Fathers and Church who vnderstand noe such precept in those words as is the giuing of both kinds 8. Another argument of yours is the practise of the Primitiue Church for which you bring ten or eleuen authors which needed nâ—t For we would haue granted you that without all that labour but what proueâ—â— out that that all must doe soe now You must first proue it a practize grounded vpon some diuine praecept indispensable or els it followeth not but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practize in the vse and administration of the Sacraments as it was to change the Sabboth into the Sunday though the obseruing of the Sabboth were a diuine praecept Nay you must proue that it was general soe as none did or might doe otherwise but that you caÌ„not doe For Bellarmine euen in the place heere cited by you teacheth that euen then all did not receiue in both kinds and heere by the way I note two things One is that whereas Bell. in the place heere cited saith he proued before that all did not receiue in both kinds that of the prouing you leaue out putteing a little line which might giue a man some notice of something wanting which yet is a litle better dealing then commonly you vse though not soe good as you promised vs at first Another that whereas Bell. bringeth six maine reasons deduced out of scriptures partly out of the figures of the old testament and partly out of the doctrine and examples of our Sauiour and his Apostles in the new and in one of those reasons which is deduced out of the practize of the Primitiue Church he bringeth six seueral rites or practices which our aduersaryes cannot deny euidently conuincing the frequent vse of one kind you in your 7. Sect. heere before bring but one coniectural place which I there promised to answeare as if Bellarmine had noe more nor noe better proofs euen which coniecture you neither doe nor can impugne For it is grounded vpon two places of scripture thus Bellarmine saith it is a probable coniecture that the Nazarites among the first Christians in Hierusalem did communicate in one kind Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. He proueth it thus one scripture saith of these first Christians in Hierusalem that they were all perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles and breaking of bread which is the receiuing of the Eucharist as all agree Among these there were many Nazarites as it is most probable for there were many continually among the Iewes Which being soe there was another scripture that did forbid a Nazarite to drinke wine or euen eate a grape raisin or soe much as the stone it was not like then that they did receiue in both kinds For either they must make the former scripture false if they did not communicate at all or they must breake the command of the later by communicating in both kinds This Bellarmine doth not say is a conuincing proofe for such he hath a great many others but onely probable and such noe man can deny it to bee Why then should you stand geering at it without once saying what is false or improbable 9. Touching the rest of your authors which you bring for proofe that it was the common practise of the Primitiue church for the Layty to communicate in both kinds I allow of their authority they affirming onely that it was the practise not any command But for as much as you bring one authority to proue the more conueniency of Communion in both kinds quite contrary to the author's meaning I meane heere to haue a saying vnto you for it this author is Ruardus Tapperus whom you cite thus It were more conuenient the communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone for this were more agreeable to the institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and the Fathers of the Primitiue church Râ—ar Tapp 〈◊〉 15. the Latine being thus habito respectu ad Sacramentum eiusque perfectionem magis
Church was to be spoken aloud For saith Bell. there were many as may be gathered out the very constitution it self who to hide their owne ignorance did contrary to the receiued custome pronounce those things softly which should haue beene pronounced alowd And this to be soe may appeare plainely by the Law it selfe which you doe not seeme to haue read for you cite it onely out of your Cassander who serueth you to great steed for most of your citations 7. You haue in the next place a text out of the Canon law the former being out of the Ciuil to shew your learning in all sciences Cap. QuoniaÌ„ in plaerisque de off iud Ord. you cite it thus We command that the Bishops of such Cittyes and Diocesses where nations are mingled together prouide meete men to minister the holy seruice according to the diuersity of manners and languages The words are these in Latine Pontifices huiusmodi ciuitatem siue dioceseon prouideant viros qui secunduÌ„ diuersitates rituum linguaruÌ„ diuina illis officia celebreÌ„t ecclesiastica SacrameÌ„ta ministrent instruendo eos pariter verbo exemplo in English thus Letâ— the Bishops of such cittyes ordiocesses prouide meete men who according to the diuersity of rites and languages may celebrate vnto them the diuine offices and administer vnto them the ecclesiasticall Sacraments instructing them both by word and example Whereby you see Sir Humphrey you might haue cited the place more truely though that be not soe much the matter I cite it fully for but for another purpose as you shall see when I haue told you Bellarmines answeare to this obiection which is this that this decree speaketh onely of the 2. languages Greeke and Latine for it was made by Inno. 3. in the Councel of Lateran because CoÌ„stantinople hauing beene taken not long before by the Latines and then there being a Latine Emperor and Patriarch and many Latines by that occasion being mingled with the Grâ—cians in the same citty they made a propositioÌ„ in the Councel that they might haue 2. Bishops one Latine another Greek to this the Pope and Councel make answeare that it is not fit to haue 2. Bishops of one citty but that the Bishops of the citty should substitute another in his roome to celebrate the diuine office and administer the Sacraments according to their owne rites and language and this Bellarm. proueth to be the true meaning of this decree not onely out of the story but also by the effect For if this decree had concerned the Latine Church any way it should haue beene put in practise in some place thereof and most of all in Italy in the Popes sight but there is noe signe of any such thing but plaine proofe to the contrary Which answeare is cleare and solide But besides this answeare of Bellarmines a man may answeare also that the Councel speaketh of two things heere to wit of celebrating the diuine offices and administring Sacraments and then putteth two things more answearing vnto those two to wit rites and languages rites answearing to diuine offices and languages to Sacraments as if it had said let such Bishops prouide men who may celebrate the deuine offices according to the diuersity of their rites and administer the Sacraments according to the diuersity of their languages For indeede it is a matter of necessity in administration of some Sacraments to vse the vulgar language as in marriage Penance but it is not soe of other things For this reason then I cited the place as it is and though you may cauill at this answeare yet I see not though there were noe other why it might not serue for as good an obiection as yours 8. But now you say you will not stand prouing this point any more by citing the particular Fathers but you will bring our owne men confessing that Prayer and Seruice in the vulgar tongue was vsed in the first and best ages according to the praecept of the Apostles and practize of the Fathers And then you bring Lyra Ioannes Belethus Gretzerus Harding Cassand and 2. or 3. more To which I answeare that it is true as these authors say that in the beginning it was soe but what thinke you was the reason euen because those three holy Languages Hebrew Greeke and Latine were most vulgar and common the Hebrew in Hierusalem and the parts adioyning the Greeke in Greece where S. Paul preached most and Latine at Rome other parts subiect to the Romane Empire For if you marke it Sir Humphrey most of your authors which you bring speake this of prayers and benedictions being wont to be made in the vulgar language by occasion of that 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where Greeke was the vulgar And indeede that it was the vulgarnes or commonesse of the tongue that the Apostles reguarded most in their writing of scriptures and the like it is plaine by that that S. Paul of his 14. epistles which he writ to soe many seuerall Nations and persons he writ onely one in Hebrew to wit that to the Hebrewes the other thirteene in Greeke euen that to the Romanes though Greeke were not their vulgar or natural Language and soe did all the rest of the Apostles and Euangelists saue only S. Mathew who writ his Ghospel in Hebrew and as some say S. Marke who writ his in Latine though many doubt of that and say rather that he writt it in Greeke Whereof what other reason could there be but the vniformity which the Apostles would haue to bee obserued in the Church by vsing for scriptures and diuine Offices those languages which were more vniuersal and common to most nations thereby to draw all to vnity Which though it could not be soe absolute as to come to the vse of one onely language yet they restrained it to those few most vniuersal languages Hebrew Greeke S. Hillar ap Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dâ—i c. 15. and Latine Which were dedicated vpon the crosse our Sauiours title being written in those three languages by mystery as holy Fathers note to signify that by them Christ his name and faith was to be most published and preached ouer the whole world And for proofe hereof we say it hath not beene euer heard of that any part of scripture was originally written in other language or that there was any Liturgy of the Apostles or neere their tymes or any translation of Scriptures in other language much lesse was it euer heard that the Scriptures were reade in the meetings of Christians or celebration of the diuine Mysteries in other language then that wherein they were ordinarily had and read to wit in some one of those languages Of later tymes we confesse there hath beene vse of other languages as Arabick Chaldaick and the like but yet soe as that the Church hath euer made choyce of some one language which hath beene very common to many kingdomes and Nations not proper to any particular
prouince or country 9. And heere it is to be noted further for answeare of your authorityes in this point Sir Humphrey that whereas some of our authors are of opinion that S. Paul in that 14. Chap. of the 1. to Corinth where he speaketh of prayers in a knowne tongue is to be vnderstood of the publique prayers of the Church that explication is contradicted by most of our other authours and there be many reasons out of the very text and circumstances against it as namely that the men which are heere reprehended for their ostentation of languages are the People not the Priests as appeareth by the whole epistle as I noted heere before § 3. n. 5. vpon another occasion as also because this pertaineth to women also who it seemeth did vse to speake among the rest which S. Paul therefore reprehendeth as an abuse and forbiddeth Thirdly S. Paul speaketh of the infidells coming in and being present at those their meetings and conferences Which therefore could not bee of the Church office and Sacrifice of the Masse to which Infidells were not admitted Wherefore it cannot be of the publique prayers of the Church which belonged onely to Priests to make publiquely for others in the Church But though it were soe and that some doe put themselues to more straits then they neede in interpreting S. Paul of publique prayers yet doth it not auaile you Sir Humphrey For euen those men giue a reason of difference why now it needeth not to wit because now as S. Thomas of Aquine saith People are sufficiently acquainted with the ecclesiastical rites and men know very well what is done by being present and seing though they doe not vnderstand the particular epistles and Ghospels which are seueral according to the Sundayes and holy dayes but the rest of the Masse being the same continually they vnderstād it sufficiently for exercise of their deuotion though not to satisfy the vaine curiosity of such people as you breed vp in the pride of an heretical spirit to beleeue nothing but what they see and contemning whatsoeuer they doe not see or vnderstand our people know sufficiently what the Priest meaneth by turning to them saying Dominus Vobiscum Oremus Orate Fratres and the like I say sufficiently to lift vpp their minds to Almyghty God to ioyne in their harts minds with the Priests in that prayer which he maketh publique for them as well as any learned Clarke that vnderstandeth the English of the words Soe as our authours by you cited helpe you not a whit in this matter 10. But now because you say this prayer in the vulgar tongue was vsed by the praecept of the Apostles and practise of the ancient Fathers I would know of you where this precept is expressed either in scripture or out of scripture in any author of credit I doe not find soe much as any shaddow of a praecept in scripture S. Paul in that epistle to the Corinthians which your men for the most part stand vpon doth not condemne that Prayer in an vnknowne tongue as you doe for he both saith it is good though he preferre the guift of Prophecy before it and also he alloweth the vse of it but wishing withall that some other should interpret it as you see the Councel of Trent wisheth Pastours and Curats to doe of the Masse and mysteries therein contained Where then is the precept commanding a knowne tongue or forbidding an vnknowne tongue and this I say supposing for disputations sake two things which are neither of them soe to wit that S. Paul there speaketh of publique prayer of the Church-office and that the Latine Greeke or Hebrew tongues are rightly called vnknowne tongues or any way comprehended vnder that appellation in S. Paul 11. Now for the practice of the Fathers which you speake of but name none I would gladly know Sir Humphrey what Father you haue whose authority or example you can bring for your selfe in this matter name him if you can We shew you Fathers and learned men of many seuerall nations and of different tymes vsing the Scriptures onely in some one of these 3. holy languages For example Italians Spaniards French German English Polish Africans and others vsing the Latine and diuers ancient Fathers of seueral countries as S. Cyprian S. August in Afrik S. Ambrose in Italy S. Prosper in France Others in other countries citing the very words which we to this day vse in our Masse Duran de ritib. lib 2. cap 31. Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. 16. as Sursum corda Habemus ad Dominum and the like whereof you may see more in our authors And yet being soe destitute of all proofe for your selfe and soe ignorant of ours which we haue in aboundance you can talke soe cōfidently of the praecept of Apostles and practize of Fathers But you will say you bring Lyra Belethus Gretzerus c. to proue what you say Whereto I answeare noe such matter for first they speake not a word of any praecept Secondly some witnesse only the practise of that tyme yet withall giuing the reason why it neede not be soe now others speake nothing that way for example Io. Belethus euen as you cite him saith onely that in the Primitiue Church noe man was to speake in tongues vnlesse some body were to interprete from whence he saith is growne our custome when the Ghospell is read to expound it which is quite against you for he acknowledgeth speaking of languages which you deny and expounding which according to you will not be needfull Others againe speake but doubtfully as S. Thomas of Aquine Dicendum forte saith hee It is to bee said that it may be that in the Primitiue Church Benedictions were vsed in the vulgar language whom yet you make to speake absolutely and certainely Thirdly though some say the prayers of the Church were vsed in a language vnderstood by the people yet noe man saith that that language was any of the ordinary vulgar languages or indeede other then Hebrew Greek or Latine Wherefore all the authors you can bring though you should bring ten for one in this manner will nothing auaile you 12. Now for your citation and translation of such authours as you bring I could find many faults but I passe them ouer onely Bellarmine I cannot lett passe because you abuse him somewhat more grosly for you bring an obiection of his out of one place and an answeare out of another there being noe connexion or correspondence betweene the answeare and obiection as you make it thus It may be obiected say you out of him that in the tyme of the Apostles all the people in diuine seruice did answeare one Amen And this custome continued long in the East and West Churches as appeare c. Which is true but nothing to the present purpose for men may answeare Amen to the publique prayers of the Church without their being in a vulgar language Neither is it the thing
recordandum non ad colendum The ancients had the pictures of Saints painted or carued for history to remember not to bee worshipped this it may be is it you would be at but I answeare that both these and those of yours if there be any such are to be vnderstood in the sense of his whole discourse to wit that there is noe example in the Scriptures or Fathers of such idolatrial adoratiō as he speaketh against there which is true Which to be his meaning I shall by and by demōstrate more plainely Now for the last words to wit that images ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight not to instruct the people I doe not also find them but these Aspiciamus picturam quasi pictura sensu ratione carentem pascatur hac visione oculus Deū vero veneretur animus Let vs behold the picture as a picture wanting sense reason Let the eye be sedd which this sight but let the minde worship God which is very true Catholique doctrine for we teach men to make a difference betweene the wood colour of the picture or the picture in it selfe and the thing which is by it represented but heere is not that which you say out of him that images are not to be vsed to instruct the people but the contrary for in the words heere next before cited he saith they are to be vsed for history which is all one as to say for instruction Wherefore I wonder how it should come into your head to father soe fond and senselesse a thing vpon so wise and learned a man soe cōtrary to the light of nature euen to your owne practize For if pictures may not be vsed for instructiō of the people why do your painters drawe the King Prince Lords in the parliament howse the siege of Rochel Berghen op Zoome Bolduc Breda the like but for instructiō reliques of S. Polycarpe and withall he relateth with applause and commendation how the people of Alexandria hauing destroyed their idols and being conuerted to Christ soe great feruour of Christianity inflamed their harts that euery one painted the signe of the Crosse on their posts doores windowes walls pillards and to cōclude telleth of S. Gregory the great how he reprehended the Bishop of Frioly for beating downe out of his Curch the images of the Apostles Peter and Paul in reguard of the superstition of the vulgar sort adoring them contrary to the rule of faith as also for that he did not rather by his authority correct their error letting the pictures stand for the memory of posterity then by indiscreete zeale beate them downe wherein then is Agobardus different from S. Gregory and other Fathers nothing at all but rather his authority ioyned heere together with S. Gregories in the last place may serue for answear to all the rest of your friuolous obiections which you bring to the paragraph of the abuse and danger of images 20. As for the abuse it is not such as you talke of but suppose it were that is to be taken away as the Councel of Trent in it the whole Catholique Church doth teach the good must not For if euery thing should be presētly takē away because it is ill vsed by mē what would become of this world You must therefore learne an axiome of the Law De reg iur n 6. Vtile per inutile non vitiatur the profitable is not vitiated or spoiled by the vnprofitable Separate that which is vnprofitable from the profitable and keepe the later that is the profitable or good Which I dare boldly say is farr better to counsell thē that which you giue to wit that images should be absolutely forbidden till some conditions sett downe by Bellar. or rather by the Councel of Trent for they are the same be performed which as you thinke though falsely are not performed to wit that images be honoured onely for them whom they represent without placing cōfidence in thē or requesting any thing of them or cōceiuing any diuinity in thē For where shall you find soe simple a soule one among 10000. in the Catholique Church that doth not performe the forenamed conditions or if there should be one such silly old woman must the other 10000. be debarred of all that fruite God his Saints of all that honour that cometh by hauing seeing adoring them in their images as we all doe this Councel I say of myne or not myne but of the holy Catholique Church you shal find to be better by the very testimony of Gabriel whom you bring in reprehending the blockishnesse of some people for not obseruing the foresaid conditions in the worshipping of images in his 49. lect which is the place by you cited though you Sir Humph. falsely cite it lect 14. but that may be your printers fault the title whereof is Of the veneration of the most diuine Sacrament of the Eucharist In which he treateth largely of three kinds of worship Latria Hyperdulia and Dulia as our Diuine doe Which he saith belong properly to a rational nature improperly to irrational eyther in reguard of representation or connexion which may haue with the rational or reasonable nature and then reprehending the foolishnesse of some who neither know themselues nor will with humility learne of others the true nature of adoration concludeth at last thus Nec tamen propter hoc imagines proiiciendae sunt c. Neither for this are images to be throwne away or thrust out of oratories by occasion or pretence of auoyding idolatry or pilgrimages to certaine pictures or certaine places either consecrate or not consecrated to be reproued Soe Gabriel which words you could not but see if you saw the other which you cite for they follow immediately and therefore it had beene more honesty for you to haue forborne the citing of the former if you did not meane to cite the later as it seemeth you did not For that which you conclude with comparing vs to Demetrius in the scripture that made a liuing of making siluer shrines for Diana's temple as if we maintained images to bring money to our purses it is Lindinge Sir Humphrey you know my meaning you and such as you that perhaps haue had your shares in pulling downe of images and siluer shrines this last hundred yeares are more like to be drawne with the loue of gaine to the pulling downe of images then we that loose all for maintaining and setting them vpp for what we and our ancestours haue parted with from our selues and out of our owne purses for the honour of God and his Saints you or men of your religion pull backe from God his Saints to bestow vpon your backs and bellyes and vpon you Ministers their wiues and bratts Werefore you might haue held your peace of that matter And soe now I conclude this § where I hope I haue made it appeare that all your great words against Images are but
riffe raffe stuffe as your Ministers are wont to eeke out their books and sermons without being able to shew any bull of Pope or testimony of good author of any Indulgence soe granted which though you or they could yet were is not to the purpose noe more then your prophane iest out of Guiciardin of playing a game at tables for an Indulgence For what suppose that were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their potts haue made soe bold with almighty God himself as to drinke an health vnto him and were not this a fine argument to proue that there is noe God besids Guiciardin's history translated by Coelius Secundus Curio which I suppose you to cite for it is most like you are noe Italian is forbidden in the Romane Index that Curio being an Haeretique of the first classe But passing from your merriments you tell vs seriously that you will not say it was a strange presumption for a Councel to determine an vncertaine Doctrine vpon the Popes infallibility and opinion of Schoolemen but you venture to say it is a weake and senselesse faith that giueth assent to it without authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers Your meaning is by a fine rhetorical figure to say it is presumption by saying you will not say soe but Sir Humphrey I will goe the plaine way to worke with you and tell you it is intolerable presumption for you suppose you were a man of learning to take vpon you to censure of presumption soe great a Councel as that of Trent wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour whereof was so great that your night owle Haeretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited and promised to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish and for such a fellow as you to make your selfe iudge thereof what intolerable presumption is it it is presumption with you forsooth for a Councel to define a point of faith vpon the perpetual and constant beleife and practize of the Catholique Church vpon the common consent of Doctours being both of them sufficient rules of faith of themselues there being withall sufficient testimony of Scripture in the sense which it hath euer beene vnderstood by Catholique interpreters and yet it is not presumption for you without Doctour without Father without Councel without Scripture without any manner of authority to goe against all this authority 13. Now whereas you say it is a senselesse and weake faith that giues assent to doctrine as necessary to be beleeued which wanteth authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answeare you doe not know what you say it sheweth plainely you haue not read one of those Fathers of whom you soe much bragg who all agree that there be many things which men are bound to beleeue vpon vnwritten tradition whose authorities you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. but for consent of Fathers it is true it is requisite because we haue not the tradition but by consent of Fathers but this consent of Fathers is noe more required to bee by their expresse testimonies in writing then in the Scripture it selfe For where doe you find that the holy Fathers did know beleeue or practize noe more but what they did write or that any one did write in particular all the whole beleife of the Catholique Church the Fathers did in their writings as the Apostles did in theirs that is write of this or that particular matter as the particular occasion of answearing some Haeretique or instructing some Catholique did require and therefore mentioned noe more then was needfull for that end But the consent of Fathers is most of all proued by the practize of the Catholique Church of the present tyme seing that practize being without beginning cannot otherwise haue beene but from those that haue gone before from tyme to tyme and though you make a difference yet certainely it is the same of the consent of Catholique Doctours in the present tyme as it was of holy Fathers in former tymes who were the Doctors of those tymes and as they were Fathers not soe properly in respect of those tymes wherein they liued as of succeeding ages soe the Doctors of these tymes are Fathers in respect of those that shall come after them Neither can the consent of Doctors in the Catholique Church more erre in one tyme then another the auctority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwaies the same noe lesse in one tyme then another Tert. de praescr cap. 28. And Tertullian's rule hauing still place as well in one age as another to wit Quod apud multos vnum inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is the same amongst many is noe error but a tradition The common consent therefore of Doctors and particular Churches is alwaies a sufficient argument of tradition and antiquity and consequently a sufficient ground for a Councel to define a matter of faith against whatsoeuer nouel fancy of any Haeretique that shall take vpon him to controll the same This I doe not say that wee want sufficient proofe of antiquity for any point but to shew that we neede it not soe expresse in ancient authors but that the very practize of the Catholique Church is sufficient to stopp the mouth of any contentious Haeretique noe lesse then in ancient tymes when that proofe of foregoing Writers could haue noe place For soe S. Paul thought he answeared sufficiently for defence of himself and offence of his contentious enemy 1. Cor. 11. when he said Si quis videtur contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei If any man seeme to be contentious we haue noe such custome nor the Church of God And soe much more may we now say of our long continued customes of many hundreds of yeares Wherefore your exception Sir Humphrey against the Councel of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences without such testimony of scripture antiquity as you require is vaine as that is also false which you heere againe repeate that an article of faith cannot be warrantable without authority of scriptures For faith is more anciēt then Scripture for to say nothing of the tymes before Christ faith was taught by Christ himself without writing as also by his Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written and soe it hath beene euer the common consent of all holy and learned men that as noe lesse credit was to be giuen to the Apostolical preaching then Writing soe noe lesse creditt is still to be giuen to their words deliuered vs by tradition then by their writings the credit and sense euen of their writings depending vpon the same tradition among whom the cleane contrary principle is as certaine and vndoubted as this of yours is with you
and yours Ministers 14. See Tert. de praescr cap. 21. Epiph. Chrisost Basil The particular testimonyes you may see in Bellarmine to whom I remitt you onely for S. Aug. I cannot omitt to make more particular mention of him in this place by reason of a certaine sentence which you haue brought in the end of this § as alsoe of euery one of the 6. Damascen alios ap Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. foregoing §§ still coÌ„cluding with this saying of that holy Father Siue de Christo fiue c. Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church or concerning any other thing that pertayneth to our faith I will not say we who are noe way to bee compared to him that said but if an Angel from heauen shall preach vnto you beside what you haue receiued in the legal and euangelical scriptures lett him be anathema And in the end of euery one for the most part adding the particular controuersy of that § as for example in this of Indulgences you say if wee or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you any thing concerning the faith of Indulgences besids that you haue receiued c. and soe in euery of the other particular points Whereby you would perswade your Reader that Saint Aug. would haue nothing beleiued but what can bee proued by expresse words of Scripture Wherein I appeale to your owne conscience as bad as it is whither this be not damnable dishonest dealing both towards S. Aug. and towards your Reader For if you haue read S. Aug. as you pretend how can you be ignorant how many points of faith he doth defend against seueral Haeretiques either onely or chiefly by the tradition and Practise of the Catholique Church De Bap. câ—nt Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7. lib. 5. cap. 23. as single Baptisme against the Donatists Consubstantiality of the sonne Diuinity of the Holy Ghost and euen vnbegottenesse of the Father the first person in Trinity against the Arrians and the Baptisme of Children against Pelagius to say nothing of prayer for the Dead Cont. Maxi. lib. 3. cap. 3. ep 174. de Genes ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. De cura pro mortuis ep 118. Obseruation of the Feasts of Easter Ascension Whitsuntide and the like nay this truth was so grounded with him that he counted it most insoleÌ„t madnesse to dispute against the common opinion and practize of the Catholique Church Which is of soe great authority with him as that he saith in one place that when we follow it we follow the truth of the Scriptures these are his words Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus c. Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 33. The truth of the Scripture is held by vs when we doe that which seemeth good to the whole Church which Church the authority of the Scriptures themselues doe commend that because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue whosoeuer is afraid to bee deceiued by the obscurity of this questioÌ„ may haue recourse to the Church the which the holy Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate vnto vs soe he there and that it may farther appeare that to deny this authority and practize of the Church is not onely to deny the authority of Scripture but euen of Christ himselfe I cannot heere omitt to note a place of the same Saint his booke de vnit ecclesiae Where hee treateth this very point very particularly and excellently soe as to take away all doubt of his opinion therein For heere he doth of purpose intend to shew that where plaine proofe of Scripture is wanting we must haue recourse to the Church prouing it thus by occasion of the question of rebaptization and supposing that there is noe proofe of Scripture either way Puto si aliquis sapiens c. I thinke saith hee if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony to wit Aug. de Vnit. eccles cap 22. of his wisedome and that he should be asked in this question we should not doubt to doe what he should say lest we should seeme to gainesay not him soe much as Christ by whose testimony hee was commended Now Christ beareth witnesse of his Church And a little after againe he saith that Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practize of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himself Who by his testimony commendeth the Church By which discourse and comparison any man may see that in S. Augustines iudgment the Churches word is warranted by Christ as much as if he should haue named any one man in particular whose words he would make good and whom consequently we should follow that by refusing or leauing him we should leaue Christ himself Soe as nothing can be more plaine and euident to declare this holy Fathers opinion in this point of the Churches authority in the beleife and practize euen of things not expressed in Scripture And this may sufficiently coÌ„uince you Sir Humphrey of malicious deceipt in alleadging that other place of this holy Father soe contrary to his meaning declared in soe many places and soe plainely 15. But because you may yet make difficulty in this testimony which you alleadge as though it alone should stand against all other that can be alleadged out of him and that noe interpretation of any man els can be able to satisfy you I will alleadge his owne words interpreting the meaning of S. Paul's words which he alleadgeth vseth in this testimony to shew that the word beside doth not import that a man must not beleeue any thing but that which is expressed in Scripture but that a man must not beleeue any thing contrary For thus he saith The Apostle did not say if any man euaÌ„gelize to you more then you haue receiued Aug. to 98. in Io. but beside that which you haue receiued For if he should say that he should praeiudicate that is goe against himselfe who coueted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith But he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was c. These are the Saint's very words in that place By which it is plaine that he taketh the word praeter beside not in that sense as to signify more then is written as you would vnderstaÌ„d it but to signify the same that contra against or coÌ„trary to what is written For otherwise there would be noe sense in his saying or opposition coÌ„sisting of two members with difference of the one from the other Which to be his meaning is yet more plaine by his whole discourse which is to shew what maÌ„ner of knowledge or priuate reuelation is to bee admitted indeede there hee alloweth of such as it not against the rule of the Catholique faith contra regulam Catholicae fidei reprehends only in Haeretiques such kind of knowledge as is also contrary or against the rule of faith and then obiecting
will giue him leaue to take him for his owne to encrease his Church and make vpp his number of learned men for noe man but an haeretique can dispute against what is once defined Catholique Doctors may indeede differ in opinion soe long as a thing is vndefined For soe long it is not faith but when it is once defined they must be silent and concurre all in one because then it is matter of faith Which agreement and concurrence of opinion in such a case sheweth there was still before a kind of radical vnion that is a praeparation of mind or promptnes to submitt to Authority of the Church when it should shew it self Wherefore whatsoeuer hee or any man els shall say of our differences are but arguments for the vnity and certainty of our beleife 4. Now for his reuiew of all his 8. points it is but a reuiew indeede wherein he taketh all that he said before for true as if he had carried all smooth before him which prouing quite contrary all this reuiew and discourse builded thereon falleth to the ground Neither will I stand examining them all heere againe but remitt the Reader to what is said particularly of each one in his owne place Onely heere I will reflect vpon his conclusion which is a witnessing of men and Angels that we haue noe antiquity and Vniuersality for proofe of our articles For his protestations and witnessings there are many examples gone before which shew how foolish false and hypocritical they are of this therefore I say noe more but that it may goe with the rest But I aske him how he proueth we haue noe antiquity For his first point he laboureth to proue against our Iustification by words out of a Ritual in S. Anselmes dayes some fiue hundred yeares since that the sicke party was to putt all his trust in Christ's merits Which thing I shewed to be nothing against vs. Wherein then hath he derogated from the antiquity and Vniuersality of our Doctrine and though that proofe had beene good that is to say against what we teach of iustification what could the bare authority of soe late a worke haue preiudiced our antiquity which we maintaine 1000. yeares before that tyme Or what could that doctrine taught in such an obscure booke of I know not whose writing nor of what authority and but in a corner of the world praeiudice the Vniuersality of our doctrine taught in all tymes in all countryes by Fathers and Doctors in their seueral tymes and in general Councels or doth it shew his doctrine to be ancient because it was taught 500. since or Vniuersal because it was taught in England noe such matter In his second point of transubstantiation he bringeth one man saying the words of consecration doe not of themselues without the explication of the Church proue the realnes of Christ's praesence in the Sacrament another man saying they doe not proue transubstantiation or that it was defined but in the Councel of Lateran about 500. yeares agoe to which We answeare againe that those one or two say nothing against vs in the points of controuersy with haeretiques and euen in that which they teach contrary to the common consent of Diuines though in matters not defined we say they are reproued not by one or two but by all the whole current of Catholique Diuines what is this then against the antiquity of our Doctrine or doth it proue his Doctrine to be ancient or vniuersall nay doth it proue it any Doctrine at all For what can any man tell by this what he beleeues much lesse whither it be true or noe which he beleeueth may not another man that denieth the Protestant-Lord's-Supper proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his doctrine or rather his denyal of doctrine as the Knight doth his and by the same argument Because a man denieth one point of ours doth he presently allow all his may not he find a third way of his owne different from both and if the Reader please to marke it all the knights proofe of antiquity is the denial or doubt made by some one of our Writers though that one of ours be much more against him in other things as a man may see both in Caietane Scotus and the rest as I said before His discourse then in this is as deuoyd of reason as his Doctrine is of antiquity 5. In his â— point he bringeth a great many authorityes to proue that anciently the people did communicate euery day with the Priest which we grant and aske againe what this derogateth from the antiquity of our Doctrine or how it proueth that a Priest is bound to forbeare saying Masse if there be noe body to communicate or that it is ill and vnlawfull for him to say Masse in that case or how it proueth the antiquity or vniuersality of his doctrine that denieth all Masse nay doe not we moreouer ex abundanti proue that the custome of the peoples daily Communion did cease euen in the Primitiue Church and yet that some Priests did say Masse daily Doe not wee then proue our antiquity not onely by disproofe of his erroneous nouelty but euen by positiue proofes drawne from antiquity Concerning the number of Sacraments he saith some teach there be 3. some 4. some 5. some 6 that some say of this Sacrament it was not instituted by Christ others of that some say this Sacrament is not proued out of this place of Scripture another not out of the other Now suppose all this were true as I haue disproued him almost in euery word he saieth and shewed his folly Doth this proue the antiquity or vniuersality of his Doctrine is not the number of 5. or 6. as farre from his number of two as from ours of 7. and the number of 3. or 4. as incompatible with his number of two as with ours of seauen What madnes is it then in a man to thinke by this disprouing of our number to thinke his owne to be soe presently proued as if a man could not deny 7. but hee must affirme onely two For as for his proofe out of some Fathers naming of two he confesseth others name three others 5. some more some lesse which he bringeth to disproue our seauen but how doth it stand with his two Soe of his Communion in one Kind he saith out of many of our authors it was anciently vsed in both and we grant it but we say it was also vsed in One many tymes and might haue beene more and may also be now in One or both as it shall seeme good to the Church according to diuers circumstances in whose power is the administration of the Sacraments How doth the affirming of the former part or denying of the later proue the antiquity of his doctrine which is that it is not lawful to administer in one kind For publique Prayer he saith out of some of our authors it was vsed in a knowne tongue in the Primitiue Church We grant it and say
section soe are you not able to proue it Safe in this Wherein notwitstāding wee must heare a little what you say And first I wonder you talke still soe much of prouing the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors when you cānot name that man that saith any such word For suppose you find one author or two of ours that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine doth hee presently say the Protestant faith is Safe For example one saith communion in both kinds of it selfe giueth more gtace doth he therefore say your faith is safe noe verily but the same man doth condemne your doctrine for most vnsafe and dangerous and leading to the very pitt of hell For euen those things which of themselues might perhaps seeme indifferent your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable to eate is a thing indifferent but yet to eate with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith Rom 14.20 Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum It is ill for a man that eateth by giuing offence and if the offending and scandalizing of one of the little ones which our Sauiour shewed speaking of this matter of Scandal be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill how much more is Scandalizing of the whole Church and rebellious stifnes able to make a thing otherwise indifferent or perhaps in some respect good to become not onely ill but damnable But leauing that I come to the point 2. You proue the Safety of your doctrine aboue ours because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture that it is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeuing and soe also say we but what then wherein is your faith more safe then ours wee rely vpon the same ground of Safety as much and more then you how then are we lesse safe You say we rely vpon the Pope and Church which is but the authority of Man Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man if it were soe that we did leaue the authority of Scripture sticke onely to the Pope and Church it were somewhat then you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reuerence the authority of Scripture as much nay much more then you and ioyne therewith the authority of the Pope and Church for exposition of the same though it should be but humane how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture or make it lesse safe A man in his right witts would thinke it would rather helpe then hinder But what if this authority bee more then humane as indeede it is are we not then much more safe I say nothing of vnwritten traditions which come not short for authority euen of the written word it self and which in two resspects seeme euen to surpasse it One respect is that traditions extend themselues to more things then the written word and euen to the authorizing expounding of the same For by tradition we receiue both the books of Scripture vnderstand the sense thereof The other that they are lesse subiect to the cutting kniues of haeretiques which maketh them soe madde at them For they cannot soe corrupt them by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the writtē Word And this indeede seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his dayes for he being desirous to learne how he might discerne Catholique truth from haeretical falshood receiued this answeare from euery body as he saith that if he would auoide the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remaine sound in faith he should strengthen his faith two wayes to wit by the authority of the diuine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholique Church Whereby you see the iudgment of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours 3. Againe you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father then to adore the Sacramental bread I aske how you proue it for say I againe it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament as to Christ in heauen For hee is as surely in the Sacrament as in heauen the same Catholique faith teaching vs both verityes and to make you study a little I may say in some sort more sure For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sitt at the right hand of his Father because his Father hath neither right nor left hand Wherein for answeare you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which saieth it and therein you shall find as much to doe as we doe in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEVM Besids doe not we adore him in heauen too as well as you How are you more safe then wee Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too It is true wee doe indeede and to suppose it doubtfull for the present whether hee be there or noe I aske wherein are you more safe then we if hee be not there we are in danger of adoring him where he is not if he be there then are you in danger by not adoring him where hee is and it is as much danger not to adore him there if he be there as not to adore him in heauen Wherein I say then are you more safe though there were noe more certainty of beleife on our side then yours 4. Thirdly you tell vs out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholy in God then partly in God partly in our selues Soe we say also and soe we doe Wherein then are you more or we lesse safe you say we trust in our good works it is true thus farre that we teach that men by good worke may cooperate to iustification meriting grace and glory but that is but conditionally if a man doe such good works but yet we are farre from nourishing your confidence which you speake of which is not grounded soe much in that general principle of good works as in the particular that I for example doe these and these good works Wherefore I say it is false in your sense For we doe not teach any man to perswade himself that he is iust and holy but teach him to feare and doubt himself continually and in all his works according to the example of Iob. Verebar omnia opera mea I did feare all my works and if a man doe good works we teach that hee cannot be sure that they are good as they are done by him that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by helpe of supernatural grace and that therefore noe man can bee sure of his owne iustification according to that alsoe of Iob. Iob 9.28 Etsi fuero simplex hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea Although I shal be simple that is good the selfe same shall my soule be ignorant of Iob 9.21 Againe we say
what merit but it is true Walden as Suarez well noteth though he speake not of this controuersy but against the Pelagians is somewhat too strict V. Bell. lib. 5 de iustif cap. 16. and though he acknowledge the thing yet he doth not soe well like the manner of speaking of merit as alsoe some other Diuines doe not soe approue the word meritum de condigno though in the thing it selfe they all agree to wit that aeternal life is giuen to men as the reward of their good works which is all that others meane by condigne merit Your last authority is a place of Bell. which hath beene answeared before to wit that it is most safe to trust wholy in the merits of Christ Which I wonder why you should alleadge for your doctrine against ours For it is ours as well or more then yours neither doe we cōdemne you for not trusting in your works Chap. 12. or trusting wholy in Christ if so be you doe not deny the necessity and efficacy of good works for purchasing grace and glory And that is your doctrine which you should shew to be Safe but that you cānot nor doe not soe much as goe about Wherefore to come to an end of this Chapter all your proofes sayling in euery point your vaunting cōclusion of the Safety profitt and Comfort of your beleife vanisheth into smoake as the rest doth Of the 12. Sect. the title whereof is this Our aduersaries conuicted by the euident testimonies of the Ancient Fathers either ridiculously elude them or plainely reiect them CHAPTER XII 1. IT cannot be vnknowne to any man of learning or that hath but any the lest acquaintance with the controuersies of this age what great aduantage we Catholiques haue by the writings of the ancient Fathers how highly we esteeme them what confidence we place in them and how we appeale to them for decision of our controuersies and how small respect on the other side Haeretiques shew either to their persons or writings as being in their opinions but men and subiect to errour or rather how contemptibly they speake of them For proofe whereof a man neede not goe farther then that little treatise of Campians 10. reasons the 5. of which is of the Fathers Where a man may see what the Haeretiques say of them they call one an old doting man another they call a childish writer a third they call a dolt and forsaken of God a fourth they call a fabler that knoweth not what he saith a fift they say is bewitched by the Diuell a sixt they say is as damned as the Diuell iniurious to the Apostle blasphemous wicked impious and what Fathers are these thincke you that they name thus who but Denis the Areopagite Hippolitus Cyprian Gregory Nazianzene Ambrose and Hierome and for the writings of the Fathers they say this man's are like dreames and most pernitious another hath foule wennes another writeth like a madd or frantique man another bringeth forth darnel and dreggs others haue left blasphemies to posterity and the like One haeretique preferreth one Caluin before an 100. Augustines another careth not for a thousand Augustines Cyprians Churches whose very words and places are quoted by F. Campian And yet heere is a Knight of the same broode that vndertaketh forsooth in a particular Section to proue that we establish the antiquity of his doctrine decline the certainty and safety of our owne by saying that we auoide the proofe of Fathers wherein he sheweth himself more more impertinent the farther he goeth For whereas there hath beene sometymes one father that hath erred or held some singular opinion different from the common of other Fathers one or two ancient writers that haue euen become Haeretiques because our authors note those things soe as noe Haeretique can but acknowledge that to be true which we say nay and he himself cannot tell what to say against vs he accounteth this forsooth to bee eluding of the Fathers or reiecting their euident testimonyes Neither doth he in all this Section bring one argument or one word of authority to disproue any thing that any authour of ours hath said nor doth hee alleadge euen the reasons which our authors giue of their saying whereas they giue very many solid reasons Soe that for my part I cānot tell what the man meaneth in this manner of dealing nor what to say to him for euen the words of our authours which he bringeth are very sufficient answeares soe as I see not well what more he neede to haue but because in the fashion or sleight manner of speaking he may delude some of his Readers and make them thinke the answeares insufficient I must a little more discouer his impertinency in leauing out some of the answeares and extenuating others and euen in bringing some nothing at all to this purpose 2. And soe to beginne with him he saith in the first place that touching the all sufficiēcy of Scriptures S. Chrysostome saith the Church is knowne tantūmodo onely by the Scriptures heerevpon he askes this question what say the Romanist to this authority Bell. saith hee answeareth it is probable the authour was a Catholique but it seemes to be none of Chrysost thus hee To which I answeare first that I find not this place obiected in Bellar. whereto to giue any answeare at all but there is another place not much vnlike and to that he answeareth that the worke out of which it is taken is not Chrys but another's commonly cited by the name of author imperfecti who Bell. saith was either an Arrian himself or his worke was corrupted by Arrians and this he doth not barely say neyther in his cōtrouersies nor in his booke de Scripto eccles De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. Which is the booke heere cited by Sir Humphrey where Bellarmine saith the thing but not by way of answeare as he makes him I say he doth not onely say it but also proue it by a plaine example or two of Arianisme Verb. Io. Chrysost but because he findeth Catholique doctrine in other places of the same worke and in the same points he rather thinketh the authour to be a Catholique and his worke onely to haue beene corrupted and this is most true and euident Which had the Knight but sett downe thus plainely what had there beene more to be obiected or answeared but he curtails it as if Bell. had said onely it is none of Chrys Which is also soe true plaine as he himselfe cannot gainesay it and yet he is not ashamed for the creditt of his obiection to call it Chrysostomes But the place it selfe is soe farre from prouing the all sufficiency of Scripture as it proueth nothing at all but the insufficiency of Sir Humphreys wit For how many wayes may it be answeared euen supposing that the words were S. Chrysostomes or some other good authour's being but these that the Church is knowne onely by scriptures For I aske him
what then what is this to many other points which we say cānot be knowne by onely scripture Were this a good consequence the Church is knowne by onely Scripture ergo all things els and euen Scripture it selfe is knowne onely by scripture surely noe and yet this consequence must be good or els Sir Humphrey your argumēt is not good Besids these words may be vnderstood of the Scriptures compared with other Writings that is that the Church is knowne to vs onely by Scriptures not by other Writings whereof either none speake soe clearely of the Church or none are like therevnto for authority which yet doth not exclude other proofes or markes of the Church And indeede the Church is most knowne and best proued out of Scripture of any point of our faith as may appeare by this that S. Aug. proueth the same soe notably out of Scriptures onely gainst the Donatists in a particular booke of that matter De vnit eccles Aug. in Psal 30. and in another place he saith the Scriptures speake more plainely of the Church then of Christ himself because the holy Ghost foresaw it was more to be contradicted and what might not these words be taken somewhat in the same sense but this shall serue for that place 3. You come next with two places of Saint Aug. whereof one was answeared before and it is onely where you tell vs he saith that many are tormented with the Diuel who are worshipped by man on earth to this Bellarmine say you answeareth that perhaps it is not S. Augustines making you Reader beleeue as if Bell. neither gaue other answeare nor any reason of this answeare Whereas he doth both his reason why he thinketh it not Saint Augustines is both because he could neuer find any such place in him it is like he should find it if it were there he hauing beene soe diligent a reader of S. Augu. as appeareth by his works he was Bell. de Sanct. beat lib. 1. cap. 9. as alsoe because noe Haeretique that obiecteth it doth note the place where it is to be found as they are wōt to doe in their other obiections and it is like would doe in this if they could find it but because Sir Humphrey you are a man soe well read in S. Aug. and stand soe vpon answeare of this place Doe you but tell vs where it is and you shall then see what we will say vnto you meane while looke a little better in Bellar. againe and tell vs whether there be not 3. or 4. other answeares See also before cap. 10. The other place of Saint Augu. is as you say touching the Popes supremacy because S. Augu. in those words of our Sauiour Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church taketh not Peter and this rocke to be all one but the Rocke to bee our Sauiour himself and Petrus to bee a deriuatiue onely of Petra to which you tell vs Stapleton makes answeare that it was lapsus humanus for want of knowledge of the Greeke and caused by the diuersity of the two languages Latine and Greeke Which answeare though you relate in a slight fashion as if you tooke it to be in sufficiēt yet you neither doe nor indeede can say against it if you know Greeke and Latine or if you doe not goe but to some of your Ministers and get them to looke in their owne Greeke Lexicons I meane sett out by Haeretiques and see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be an adiectiue and a deriuatiue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be not a substantiue signifying the very same thing and let them looke yet farther into the original tongue it self to wit the Syriake wherein our Sauiour spake Lib. 1. Ro Pontif cap. 25. and see whither they be not more the same to wit the onely word Cephas in both places On the other side it is well knowne Saint Augu. professed noe great skill in Greeke as hee witnesseth of himselfe in many places Aug. in Psal cont Partem Donat ep 165. Besids Saint Augu. doth not bring this exposition to derogate from Saint Peter's primacy which he confesseth in 20. places as may be seene in Bellarmine and where for proofe thereof he vseth the very word Petra which heere he distinguisheth from Petrus calling the Seate of Peter this rooke Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae Reckon saith he to the Donatists the Priests from euen the seate of Peter that is the rocke which the proud gates of hell do not ouercome How then doth he deny S. Peter's primacy and perpetuity of his Sea Againe Sir Humphrey you might finde other answeares for Saint Augu. himselfe in his retractations putteth both the explications wherein the word Petrae is spoken of Christ and of Peter leauing the choise to the Reader allowing both interpretations which you doe not because one is flat against you Whereas we doe not reiect either as being against vs but onely we shew the one not to be soe good because it standeth not soe with the original tongues which that Saint was not soe well skilled in and literal sense of scripture which noe Haeretique can deny 4. The 3. place is out of S. Ignatius for proofe of Communion in both kinds Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 26 One cupp is distributed to all to which you say Bellarmine makes answeare that in the Latine books it is not found that one cupp is giuen to all but for all against which you can say nothing but giue me cause to say much against you For first Bellarmine doth not say one cupp is giuen for all but saith vnus calix totius ecclesiae One cupp of the whole Church Which is the true reading and indeede another thing Secondly though you make as if Bellarmine did onely barely say this without farther reason or proofe yet is it farre otherwise for as for the reading he saith that though the Greeke haue it as the Haeretiques commonly cite that is as you doe heere yet the true reading is as the Latine translation which we follow hath it whereto he saith there is more trust to be had then to the Greeke books of S. Ignatius which wee haue now Whereof he bringeth this proofe that the testimonies cited out of him as we find in the works of S. Anastasius and Theodoret agree better with our Latine translation then the Greeke which is now extant Which is a plaine proofe of the betternes and greater purenes thereof as being taken out of the ancient Greeke editions Besids that Bellarmine proueth this euen out of the Magdeburgians because they cite this very place at we doe Neither doth he answeare this authority onely by the variety of the reading but withall he giueth 2. answeares more one that S. Ignatius putteth all the force in the vnity of the bread and cupp thus that though many eate many drinke
are wont also to say a man were better not heare Masse at all then not to heare it deuoutly or a man is better not to doe such or such a thing then not to doe it well or willingly and the like though indeede in our iudgment we thinke it better the thing be done though with some imperfection then not at all But this we say to signify the desire we haue to see it well done or that we doe not receiue that content by the slender or sleight manner of doing it And this is the very truth of S. Chrysost saying Bell. de Miss lib. 2. cap. 10 as Bell. maketh it to appeare plainely both by an example out of scripture and by other argument's out of S. Chrysost himselfe which you may looke better vpon againe and consider well with your selfe whether you haue dealt well with Bell. in alleadging his bare words soe as if he had giuen noe reason for his saying Besids I doe not find that S. Chrysost speake the very words which you alleadge soe crudely and harshly as you make him For he doth not say plainely that it is better not to be present at the Sacrifice then not to communicate but to shew the indignity of it bringeth a similitude of a man that should inuite a freind to a feast and that freind coming should onely sitt there and not eate a bitt of meate Chrys hom 3. in ep ad Ephes he asketh whether in soe doing he doe not putt an affront vpon his freind that inuited him and were it not better saith he that he had not appeared at all wherein he saith most truely Which for all that being but a similitude doth not hold soe rigourously in euerie particular Lastly I see not what colour there is in this place to disproue that which you call priuate Masse For if Saint Chrysostome had said it had beene better for the Priest not to say Masse then not to haue some to communicate with him it had beene something but to say of the people that it was better for them not to be there then not to communicate I doe not see by what consequence it can be drawne against the Priests saying Masse without communicants especially seeing it is euident V. Durant de rit lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5. that this Saint did say Masse euery day and many of his people did not cōmunicate past twice or thrice and many also not past once in a twelue moneth 10. The 9. ancient authour is Prudentius whose words you cite not but onely say thus if we cite Prudentius Bellarmine answeares I say noe more of him but that he playeth the Poet but what I pray you Sir is the reason you forbeare to cite Prudentius his words or sense any man may easily guesse there is something in the wind something that you thinke better concealed then discouered but I shall for once supply your want heerein First putting you in mind that in the beginning of this section you told vs you would shew how we elude or reiect the testimonies of the Fathers or to vse your owne words the records and real proofes in Fathers and other learned authours touching the chiefe points in controuersy betwixt vs. Now let vs see whither that for which Prudentius is obiected in Bellarmine be such or not The question in Bellarmine is whether the damned soules in hell feele any benefitt by the suffrages of the liuing or noe For the affirmatiue he bringeth some sayings of Fathers which may seeme to insinuate as much and among others two verses out of Prudentius thus Sunt spiritibus saepe nocentibus Paenarum celebres sub styge feriae The English whereof is that the wicked spirits haue often tymes holydayes that is some ease of their paines to which Bell. maketh noe other answeare indeede but that hee played after the manner of Poets now I aske you whither this be a chiefe point of controuersy betwixt you and vs it should seeme you take it soe because you seeme in all this Section as if you alleadged onely such as make for you in your controuersyes against vs and your very words which you vse heere thus if we cite Prudentius c. import as if you did cite Prudentius for your selfe in that matter whereto Bellarmine answeareth yet it is plaine on the other side that there is not any difference betwixt you and vs in that matter For I neuer heard that any haeretique of this tyme said any such thing as that the damned find any release or ease of their paines by the prayers of the lyuing What say you then Sir Humphrey doe not you alleadge Prudentius to very good purpose doth not this shew a strange contentious spirit in you that care not what you say whether it be to the purpose or not soe it may seeme somewhat against vs though indeede it be not But now for Bellarmines answeare it is true and good and it is well knowne that Poet's words are not allwaies to be soe strictly interpreted nor truth to be altogether soe exacted at their hands as at other men's the restraint which they are faine to vse in the number of their verse giuing them a little more liberty in the matter 11. The 10. Tertullian Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 6. whose words you doe not alsoe cite but onely say that if you obiect him Bellarmine answeares his authority is of noe great account when hee contradicteth other Fathers and when it appeareth he was noe man of the Church His words I say you doe not cite but yet in saying if wee obiect him and indeede in naming him you seeme as if you had some controuersy with vs in that point for which he is cited which is of the Virginity of our B. Lady in our Sauiour's birth that is whether she were a Virgin in the birth alsoe or not But though the haeretiques of this age generally speake very meanely and contemptibly of this most sacred Virgin yet I doe not find that your Protestants are soe earnest against her Virginity as to make the contrary a point of your beleife much lesse a chiefe point as you make all that you bring ancient authors for in this place But for the matter it is this Bellarmine speaking of an authority of S. Ambrose his which might seeme at first sight to make against the same then saith that Origen and Tertull. haue something like also and soe answearing altogether he sheweth of Origen S. Ambrose that they are not against vs by expounding those places which seeme against it by other plaine places out of them For Tertullian he saith his words are obscure nor much to be reguarded when he contradicteth other Fathers and when it appeares he was noe man of the Church Which last words you translate falsely and withall leaue out an authority of special moment the words falsly translated are these Cùm constet since it appeareth Whereas you say when it appeareth Which is a different
sense for aske any schoole-boy whether cùm with the subiunctiue and indicatiue moode be all one the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine alleadgeth thus Seing saith he it is euident as Saint Hiero. speaketh that hee was noe man of the Church these being Saint Hierom's very words heere then you see againe that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reiect Tertullian nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him but almost all the Fathers Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many Vinc. Lerin cap. 24. Hilar. in comment in Math. cap. 5. and Saint Hilarius saith there that Tertullian's later errours did detract a great deale of authority from his approued writings Soe then it is noe wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers And soe you may say that S. Hierome Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reiect and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine 12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you say that if you cite him Canus makes answeare Hierome is noe rule of faith Can. de locis lib. 2. cap. 11. but you tell vs not where or vpon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome noe more then you doe the three former Fathers though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of which is the Canon of Scripture you haue Saint Hierome a little more fore you in shew then in any thing els or more then you haue any other of the Fathers yet I dare say you wil be loath to stand to his iudgment euen in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament according to the Canon of the Iewes which you also follow if a man should vrge you with S. Hieromes authority euen in this point I beleeue you would say the same or more then Canus doth to wit that he is noe rule of faith for S. Hierosme alloweth the booke of Iudith to be canonical Scripture Proef. in Iudith though it bee not in the Iewes canon which yet you reiect and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle à plaerisque reijcitur it is reiected by most Descript eccles Verb. Petrus Apost wherein yet you doe not follow him this is for the matter Now for the words you doe not cite Canus right for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is noe rule of faith though that be true as I shall shew presently but thus hauing alleadged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus For neither is it true saith Canus that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in determining the canonical books Which is most true S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church but the Church is his rule Hier. praef in Iudith as appeareth in that he reckoneth Iudith among the Canonical books vpon the authority of the Church Neither is it all one to say S. Hierome is noe rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture which not and to say he is noe rule of faith Besides if Canus had said S. Hierome is noe rule of faith he had said most true and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome and speaking euen of his writings thus Aug. ep 19 Solis eis scripturarū libris c. I haue learned to giue that feare and honour to those onely bookes of scripture which are now called canonical as to beleeue most firmely that noe author or writer of them hath erred any thing in writing but others I reade soe that though they excell neuer soe much in any holinesse learning I doe not therefore thinke it true because they thought soe but because they haue beene able to perswade either by those canonical authors or by probable reason that they say true and there he goeth on specifying euen S. Hierome himselfe and saying vnto him that he presumeth he would not haue him soe wholy approue of his writings as to thinke there is no error at all in them The like he hath in another place shewing plainely that any priuate Doctor may erre Lib. 2. de Bap. cont Donat. cap. 3 and consequently can be noe rule of faith Yet for all that the authority of any such is very great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others or is not by them gaine said For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradition and beleife of the Church which is a sufficient rule Is this then to reiect and elude the Fathers to say that one is noe rule of faith if it be then doth S. Aug. reiect and elude them it is plaine therefore you doe but cauill for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth 13. After S. Hierome you come to Iustin Irenaeus Epiphanius and Oecumenius whom say you if you cite Bellarmine answeares I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from errour Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6 Heere againe as else where you forbeare to tell vs the matter for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them For this would haue discouered your falshood and vanity The matter then is concerning the damned spirits whether they suffer anie punishment for the present tyme before the day of iudgment or not these fathers thinke not the common consent of all other fathers and of the whole Catholique Church is against them in it How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error but I pray you Sir Humphrey bethinke your selfe well and tell vs againe whether this be any point controuerted betweene you and vs I know it is a thing which you might better maintaine then most or perhaps any one point of your faith hauing these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein but yet I doe not find by your 39. articles or any other sufficient authority that you hold that error much lesse as a chiefe point of your faith Wherefore it is false that you say when you cite these Fathers For you doe not cite them neither is their errour in a matter of controuersy betweene vs I note heere also in a word that whereas Bellarmine saith onely he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of Iustin Irenaeus c. from errour you make him say the opinion of these men as if he did speake but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong For though he doe not in all things and alwaies approue the opinion of euery particular man yet doth he allwaies speake with great reuerence of the holy Fathers as all Catholiques doe 14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Salmeron the Iesuit makes answeare weake is the place which is
followed curiosities becoming Christians confessed their deeds and burnt their books Soe we see afterwards the books of Arius were commanded to be burnt and men forbidden to keepe them vnder paine of death Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 6. and soe of others which I will not heere stand vpon onely contenting my selfe with one exāple of this kind which for the antiquity and authority may be both proofe and warrant for the practize of the Catholique Church now at this tyme wherein the Haeretiques doe soe much cry out against the Inquisition and index expurgatorius 2. This example is that of Gelasius 1. Pope about the yeare 490. who in a Councel at Rome gathered for that end made a Decree to declare what Scriptures were canonical what Fathers and Doctours might be safely read and what not whereof hauing made a catalogue he addeth these words in the end Item opuscula atque tractatus omnium orthodoxorum c. Also we decree to be read the workes and treatises of all the orthodox Fathers who in nothing haue strayed from the company of the holy Romane Church nor haue been separated from the faith and preaching thereof but by the grace of God haue held with the same euen to the last day of their life and then before he come to make a catalogue of the haereticall books which he forbiddeth he saith thus Coetera quae abhaereticis c. Other things which haue beene written or preached by Haeretiques or Schismatiques the Catholique and Apostolique Romane Church doth noe way receiue of which some few that come to mind and are to be shunned by Catholiques we thinke good to sett downe heere and soe there setteth them downe Now I would know of the Knight or anie man els that crieth out soe bitterly against our Index expurgatorius what he can say against it that he may not say against this decree and Councel of Gelasius and against which we may not defend our selues by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts 3. But of this matter therefore I neede not say more it being euident by the light of nature that supposing there be a certaine rule of faith to which all men must cōforme their thoughts sayings and writings and that the swaruing from it is a declining to haeresy it pertaineth to the Catholique Romane Church which must of necessity be this rule of faith For it hath neither spot nor wrinckle as Gelasius saith which cannot be said of any Church els what soeuer to preuent the danger that may come by such books forbidding the vse of them and a more dangerous and vnnatural part it would be in her not to vse this care then it were in a Mother that should see sugar and ratts-baine lye together and seing her child going to tast thereof should forbeare to warne it but leaue the choice thereof to the child But of this matter I said somewhat in the beginning and there being diuers learned treatises of this subiect particularly I neede say noe more but remitt such as desire satisfaction to them or euen to the very rules sett downe in the beginning of the Index expurgatorius which are grounded vpō soe good reason as I presume noe indifferent man that readeth them can disallow of them I will not therefore stand particularly to examine euery particular authour and iustify the Inquisition for it would be both a long needlesse labour Onely I cannot omitt one authour called Bertram whom to turne my speech to you Sir Humphrey me thinks you among all men liuing should neuer soe much as name considering how much disgrace you haue sustained by translating his booke and venturing your owne credit and the credit of your Church vpon the faith thereof and for him I answeare that though his booke were proued plainely to containe good Catholique doctrine in the matter of transubstantiation yet because it was obscure in many places and thereby gaue occasion of erring and indeede was of vncertaine authority this onely being certaine that it hath beene in this last age published by Haeretiques we know not out of what records with some errours of their owne inserted therefore it might well be forbidden by the Inquisition but I say you should of all men liuing most labour to haue the memory thereof blotted out therewith to obliterate your owne shame 4. Another thing which I am also to note is concerning your coting of a Canon of the Councel of Laodicea in this section whereat I wonder that the inquisition hauing said nothing to it why you should reckon it heere among such authours as you say are razed or clipped by the inquisition But let vs heare what it is that you say to it you cite the Canon thus in English onely We ought not to leaue the Church of God and inuocate Angels saying withall that in the same Councel published by Merlin and Crabbe by change of a letter Angelos is turned into Angulos Angels into Angles and Corners thus that we must not leaue the Church of God and haue recourse to Angles or Corners and this say you lest soe faire an euidence of an ancient Councel should be produced against inuocation of Angels V. Bin. to 1. Concil thus you Sir Humphrey wherein first is to be noted your error in chronology concerning the tyme of this Councel which you make to be the yeare 368. which was 43. Con. Laodien can 35. yeares after the 1. Councel of Nice whereas it was celebrated before that Councel Secondly your corruption in the translation and cutting of of the Canon which is thus Non oportet relicta ecclesia ad Angelos abominandae idolatriae congregrationes facere quicunque autem inuentus fuerit occultae huic idololaetriae vacans Anathema sit quoniam relinquens Dominum IESVM Christum filium Dei accessit ad idola Noe man must leauing the Church of God make congregations to the Angels of abominable idolatry and whosoeuer shal be found exercizing this secret idolatry let him be anathema because leauing IESVS Christ the Sonne of God he hath come to idols Now where in this Canon doe you find the word inuocation of Angels Which is the thing that you pretend to be forbidden and much lesse doe you find such inuocation of Angels as we vse For in this Canon is onely forbidden such idolatrical inuocation as the Simonian and other haeretiques did vse praeferring the Angels before Christ and making them the creatours of the world and the onely or chiefe mediatours without whose helpe there was noe accesse to be had to God which is the same wicked haeresy which Saint Paul speaketh against Coloss 2. as all interpreters vnderstand him By whose words it is plaine that those Haeretiques left Christ and had recourse to Angels in this sense Nemo vos seducat non tenens caput c. Let noe man seduce you not holding the head that is not holding by Christ Now where doe you finde that we by inuocation of Angels forsake Christ
of restraint though if there had beene we might very well haue warranted it by the authority of S. Hierome who did noe way admitt such free vse euen of the Latine bibles for hauing spoken largely and learnedly out of Scripture of the hardnes and obscurity of scripture Ep. ad Paulin he complaines that euery body did presume to take reade and teach it before they learned it themselues disallowing that euen such as himself should goe from saecular learning presently to the holy Scriptures and interpret them at their pleasure S. Hierome then thought them hard and was not soe free in allowing the reading of Scriptures as you are For if he doe not allow the reading thereof in Latine to men and Scholars how much lesse would he haue allowed it in English to womē and Children Besides it is noe such cryme to forbid the reading of scripture to some sorts of people as may appeare by this testimony of this holy Father who in the same place also saith moreouer that the beginning of Genesis with the beginning and end of Ezechiel were not to be read by the Iewes till they came to 30. yeares of age which kind of forbidding is noe derogation but a great commendation of the holy scripture And I call it but a kind of forbidding for it is farre different though you make it all one from the forbidding of haereticall bookes For these are forbidden as wicked detestable of themselues dangerous the other out of reuerence and honor dew vnto them and in reguard of the danger which may come by them not of thēselues but in reguard of the weaknes of the Reader for want of necessary learning humility both which a man that is to handle the Scriptures must come well prouided of 4. For Cornelius Agrippa it maketh noe more matter what he saith then what you say for it is but aske my brother if I bee a theife but it is fine that these fellowes cannot be inuited by a generall Councell with promise of all security that can be desired to come and propound what they can say out of scripture or any way els and yet when they come before a Iudge they will dispute forsooth and by disputing auoide the rigour of the Law Indeede I cannot blame them but if this seeme reason to you why doe you deny Catholique Priests the like liberty of Disputation How often and earnestly haue they desired it but could neuer obtaine it But neither euen in that case with vs are people denied any conuenient liberty neither is there any credit to be giuen to Cornelius Agrippa For being a Magitian he may very well be said to haue shaked hands with the Diuell the father of lies Which you your selfe it seemes knowing and suspecting that his testimony would not passe for currant you tell vs we shall heare our owne authors how they speake of the Scriptures For you tremble to speake it as your words are You tell vs some say they are dead characters a shell without a kernel a leaden rule a wood of theeues a shop of Haeretiques imperfect doubtful obscure ful of perplexities with many more epithets which I let passe these being of the very worst and especially the last 4. for which you alleadge Lessius alleadging likewise for euery one of the rest a seuerall authour Whereto not to stand answearing euery one seuerally the matter being the same of one and all I say in generall that these things are spoken not of the Scripture as it is in it selfe that is consisting of both words and meaning as it were life and soule together but of the bare words and letters onely which Haeretiques still doe and euen haue abused as the Diuell himselfe did to our Sauiour and in this sense it is a wood of theeues For as theeues runne into a wood to escape thereby soe doe Haeretiques runne in all controuersies to the letter of the Scripture leauing the true sense and framing a false one according to their owne fancy Tert. de praes cap. 17 Which is that that Tertullian saith that there is noe good to be done with haeretiques by Scriptures for that either they deny the booke or peruert the sense and whatsoeuer wee say they deny or what we deny they defend and so a wood of theeues and shop of haeretiques dead characters and the like are all one the meaning of all being soe as these speeches are not meant of the Scripture properly in it selfe as I saied before but as it is yours or as it is made by you and other Haeretiques and yet alas good man you tremble to heare the words that doe but expresse your owne deeds Alac for you that your stomacke is soe queasy that it cannot endure to heare that which you are bold and hardy enough to doe by your daily practize 5. But because you are soe dainty that your stomacke turneth at what our moderne authors say of you let vs see whether it wil brooke any better what that ancient learned Father S. Hierome saith Let vs see whether your tender conscience wil be soe scandalized at his words as you seeme to be now at ours Hierom. 1. Gal. Marcion Basilides saith he caeterae haereticorum pestes nō habent Dei Euangelium quia non habent Spiritū Sanctum sine quo humanum fit Euangelium quod docetur Nec putemus in verbis Scripturarum esse Euāgelium sed in sensu non in superficie sed in medulla non in sermonum folijs sed in radice rationis Dicitur in Propheta de Deo Michae 2. Sermones eius boni sunt cum eo Tunc Scriptura vtilis est audientibus cum absque Christo non dicitur cum absque Patre non profertur cum sine spiritu non eam insinuat ille qui praedicat alioquin diabolus qui loquitur de scripturis omnes haereses secundum Ezechiel inde sibi consuunt ceruicalia quae ponant sub cubito vniuersae aetatis c. Grande periculum est in ecclesia loqui ne fortè interpretatione peruersa de euangelio Christi hominis fiat euangelium aut quod peius est Diaboli Marcion Basilides and other plagues of Haeretiques haue not the Ghospel of God because they haue not the Holy Ghost without whom it becometh the ghospel of man which is taught Nor let vs thinke that the ghospel is or consisteth in the words of scripture but in the sense not in the superficies or barke but in the pith not in the leaues of speach or word but in the roote of reason It is said in the Prophet of God His speeches are good with him then the Scripture is profitable to the hearers when it is not spoken without Christ when it is not brought without the Father when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the Holy Ghost otherwise both the Diuel who speaketh out of Scripture and all haeresies according to Ezechiel make themselues pillowes out of it to
put vnder the elbowes of all ages It is a great danger to speak in the Church lest perchance by peruerse interpretation of the ghospel of Christ there be made the ghospel of man or which is worse the Ghospel of the Diuel Thus farre Saint Hieromes words which mee thinks without more adoe may easily answeare your whole argument for in them this holy Father sayth as much or more as all those Epithets which you bring out of our seueral authours put togeather and withall sheweth in what sense they are to be taken Soe as if you will say any more of this matter you must vndertake the quarrel against Saint Hierome You may doe well also to note the very first words Marcion Basilides caeterae haereticorum pestes among whom you haue your part 6. Now for the 4. last epithets which you bring out of Lessius though they seeme not such strange termes as some of the rest yet they are farr worse and more derogatory from the holy Scripture if they be there as you say I haue therefore more particularly examined him whither he say soe or noe Less Consul Quae sit fides c. rat 11. and whereas the words being all put downe by you heere as it were seuerall epithets a man would haue thought they had beene all soe together in the authour himselfe I say first that there be neither any such words lying togeather nor any such a part nor any one word of those that I can find in that whole place or reason which I may call a chapter for it is in manner of a chapter much lesse any of them vttered of the holy Scripture though the whole Chapter or discourse in that place be onely of the Scripture and to proue that it alone and of it selfe can not be a rule of faith Which he proueth by many reasons one is because by it we can not iudge of the Scripture it selfe and soe the very rule shall remaine vncertaine which ought to be most certaine And in this place he hath the word incerta which though it signify the same with some of the words heere alleadged yet is it not the same word But yet heere Lessius is farre from saying that the Scripture is vncertaine in it self that is that the doctrine thereof is doubtfull but onely that our rule wil be vncertaine to vs or rather we vncertaine of the rule because we cannot know the Scripture by it self For example that this booke is true scripture not suppositions or feigned or that this is the true meaning and sense thereof And this kind of vncertainty is noe derogation to the Scripture Lessius his second reason is that that cannot be a certaine rule which may be accommodated or fitted to contrary doctrines as he saith Scripture is by seuerall Haeretiques for establishment of quite different opinions His 3. reason is this that cannot be a iudge that cannot clearely determine on which side sentence is giuen but leaueth it soe that the partyes may still contend one affirming the sentence to bee for him another for him And soe he saith is the scripture laying aside the exposition of the Church and Fathers Whereto he there bringeth also an example of two men who going to law would admitt noe other iudge but the Law booke one bringing one Law cleerely for him as he thinketh the other another Law as cleerely for him in his iudgment of which suite there could neuer be an end soe Fourthly he sheweth by experience that this rule of Scripture is not sufficient for ending of Controuersies because the Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists are alltogether by the eares yet euery one alleadging Scripture for himselfe Lastly he saith that the Scripture it self in noe place sendeth priuate men to seach the Scriptures in doubtfull matters but to the Church and Pastours praesiding therein 7. This is the whole substance of Lessius his discourse in that place wherein I would gladly heare what word there is derogating from the dignity of holy Scripture or any way condemning it of imperfection doubtfulnes ambiguity and perplexity some of these things might bee truely said and in a good sense as the doubtfulnes or ambiguity in the same sense that I spoke of the vncertainty not in it selfe but to vs-ward But for the imperfectiō because that is a great matter with you I absolutely deny it for neither doth any Catholique say either that or any thing els from whence it may be gathered For it is not all one to say that it alone is noe sufficient rule and to say it is imperfect for though you imagine that the all sufficiency or contayning of all things expresly is a necessary point of perfection you are deceiued for then would it follow that the ghospel of S. Mathew S. Marke and other particular books should be imperfect and specially that of S. Iohn wherein he saith expresly that all things are not written neither if all the Scripture did containe all things in that manner as you would haue it and soe were perfect in your sense yet would it not euen then be a sufficient rule of faith of it selfe alone for it would still bee a booke or vriting the very nature whereof doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of fayth or iudge of controuersies for a Iugde must be able to speake to heare answeare c. whereas the nature of a booke or writing is as it were to leaue it selfe to be read and expounded by men for in case two men should expound it differently the nature thereof doth not require that it should say whether of the two expoundeth it right The perfection therefore of it doth rather cōsist in the truth fulnesse of wisedome profoundnes maiesty grauity efficacy authority and certainty then in contayning all things expresly as you require soe long as it hath those perfections cōtaining withall the principal matters pertayning to faith and teaching vs a certaine and infallible way whereby we may come to the knowledge of the rest which is the Church it cannot be said to be vnperfect or to wāt any perfection dew therevnto And this may be answeare sufficient to the rest of this Section which is nothing but a litle more of such wise stuffe for you tell vs we decline Scriptures as vnperfect the fathers as counterfect the Protestants as haeretiques our owne authors as erronious Of which there is not one true word but this that we decline Protestants as haeretiques for soe we doe indeede but for the rest it is most false For what Catholique did euer decline the authority of our Schoole Diuines or ancient fathers much lesse call the one erronious or the other counterfect Some one may haue strayed a little from the common opinion of the rest in some one particular point or perhaps haue beene corrupted by haeretiques and soe we may decline that particular author in that particular point but call him erroneous or counterfect we doe not nay we giue you leaue
to name that Father or Catholique Doctor to whose iudgment we will not stand for trial of the controuersies betweene you and vs and if hee be for you in one I will vndertake he shal be against you in 5. or 10. others for that one With what face then can you say we decline them but because I imagine you reflect most in this saying vpon this worthy worke of your owne I leaue it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader whether I haue soe declined one author either moderne or ancient or whether I haue not shewed euery one which you haue brought to be quite against you Now for the Scripture because you say wee decline it as vnperfect I challeÌ„ge you to name the man that saith it is vnperfect for that reason declineth it You fathered indeede that terme vpon Lessius but I shewed it to be most false for that he hath not the word at all in that chapter much lesse doth he say it of Scripture and lesse againe doth he decline the trial thereof in reguard of the imperfection but onely in reguard that it being a written word noe haeretique can be conuinced by it as I shewed also euen now out of Tertullian who saith it is but lost labour to dispute with an haeretique out of scripture But because I see your drift in the often repetition of the word imperfect is onely to beget in men's minds an hard conceit of vs De prâ—â— cap. â— as if we made small account of scripture I would know of you who they be that haue preserued the Scripture with such care for soe many ages who they bee that haue translated commentend and expounded them who they be that haue made soe many decrees in particular and general Councels for the preseruation authority reuerence and dew vse of them who they bee that haue filled libraries with learned works not onely expounding the particular passages but frequently and largely declaring their necessity dignity vtility and other perfections Veu B. 2 â—p Sr. â—p Let any man by these effects iudge who reuerenceth them most Catholiques or Protestants Let him compare the labours of the one with the labours of the other and then he shall soone find the truth of this matter 8. But because you still talke of our declining of Scripture besids that it is false as I said before for we are content to admitt any kind of triall with you to take that alsoe out of your mouth I answeare you farther that in this we coÌ„descend more vnto your infirmity being willing to try all wayes to gaine you then we neede or you can of right challenge For we acknowledge that saying of Tertullian's most true Whereby hee as it were stoppeth this gapp against you Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus non admittendos eos ad vllam de scripturis disputationem sihae sunt vires eorum anne eas habere possint dispici debet cui competat possessio Scripturarum ne is admittatur ad eas cui nullo modo competit We stopp vp this entrance chiefly that they that is haeretiques are not to be admitted to the disputation of Scriptures if in these their force consist we must see whether they may haue them to whom the possession belongeth lest he be admitted therevnto to whom it in noe wise belongeth as also that other place wherein conformably to the question which heere he maketh this being an important point hee defineth de praesc cap. 15. 37. Non esse admittendos haereticos ad incundam de Scripturis prouocationem quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere That haeretiques are not to be admitted to the challenge of Scriptures whom without Scriptures we proue not to pertaine to Scriptures that is not to haue any thing to doe with them For saith he if they be haeretiques they cannot be Christians and not being Christians they can haue noe right to Christian writings Wherefore Sir Humphrey while you stand bragging of Scriptures and chalenging vs we may say vnto you as the same Tertullian saith consequently in the same place Qui estis quaÌ„do vnde venistis quid in meo agitis non mei quo denique Marcion iure siluam meam caedis c. Who are you when and whence haue you come what doe you in my ground you that are not mine by what right ô Marcion dost thou fell my wood by what leaue ô Valentine dost thou turne my fountaines by what authority ô Apelles dost thou remoue my bounds It is my possession what doe you others heere sowing and feeding at your pleasure It is my possession I possesse it of old I possesse it first I haue the Originals from the owners whose the thing was I am the heyre of the Apostles as they haue bequeathed vnto mee by will as they haue committed to my custody as they haue adiured mee soe I hold For you truely they haue euer dis-inherited you and cast you of as strangers and enemyes This is Tertullian's discourse and wordes wherein it is but changing the names Marcion Valentine and Apelles into Luther Caluin Beza or if you will into Sir Hum. Linde and it will fitt as well as if it were made for you or spoken in answeare of what you say heere that if you bring Scripture we decline it for heereby you may see how much you are mistaken We doe not decline it but we decline you from it telling you it is none of yours you haue nothing to doe with it the Scriptures were committed to the Church by the Apostles to be kept they are the Churches euidences therefore noe man out of the Church as you are hath to doe with them as Tertullian telleth you heere ep dedic n. 6. and as I told you in my dedicatory epistle out of another place of his that we must first seeke out where that faith is to which the Scriptures belong where the men to whom Christian discipline was deliuered You must first shew your selues to be these men to haue this faith before we can admitt you to the Scriptures You must first shew your selues owners of the land before you can claime the writings and euidences which belong vnto it and which make good the title Therefore Sir Humphrey I cannot lesse admire your impudency in this which you say of Scriptures then in any thing els which in all this Lindy treatise you haue said though indeede as you goe drawing towards an end you shew you self still more like your self in this kind as shall appeare by the following Sections Chap. 15. Of the 15. Sect. the title being this Our chiefest aduersary Cardinal Bellarmine testifieth the truth of our doctrine in the principal points of controuersy betwixt vs. CHAPTER XV. 1. IN this Section your drift is to proue the truth of your doctrine out of Bellar. who you say is inforced to confesse the antiquity and Safety of your doctrine and plainely to acknowledge the