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
say mention the story there is not one that maketh any mention of changing the Church-Office into Latine vpon it but onely they alleadge it by occasion of the secret reading of the Canon of the Masse which was the thing they had in hand 15. Now for the story it self you cannot but know that it is answeared by Bellarmine it being obiected formerly by Kemnitius Bell lib. 2. de Miss cap. 12 his answeare then is that there is such a story related by good authority in Pratum spirituale but there neither the bread nor wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heauen nor the shepheards strucken dead but onely layd for dead 24. howers after which they came to themselues againe which is neither impossible nor improbable Now for these three authours that you cite none of them doth relate it out of any author or with any special credit but onely out of a report which they expresse by the word Fertur and therefore some of them as Honorius and Belethus might be mistaken in some of the circumstance though Innocentius be not Innoc. 3 lib. 3. de Miss cap. 1. for he saith noe more of it but this that it is reported that when certaine shepheards did sing the words in the fields they were strucken from heauen which is true Now this supposed as the story doth not make any way against vs for we grant that the words were anciently pronounced alowd in some place Soe it maketh against you who deny that any where they were spoken softly for the author of this story giuing a reason how the boyes came to learne the words saith thus Prat. Spirit cap. 196. Quoniam verò quibusdam in locis alta voce consueuerant presbyteri sancti sacrificij orationes pronunciare pueri vt propius astantes saepius eas audiendo didicerant Because in some places the Priests were wont to pronounce the prayers of the holy sacrifice with a lowd voyce the boyes as standing neerer by often hearing had learned them Loe Sir Humphrey it was but in some places that they did say those prayers alowd Soe that withall this labour you haue proued nothing but against your selfe Well then you haue failed in the proofe of your doctrine in this as in the rest withall the corruption and tricks you can vse let vs see what you doe in the next §. 7. Worship of Images 1. This 7. § of Image-worshipp our Knight beginneth after his ordinary manner with an article as he calleth it of our Romane Creede wherein we professe that the Images of Christ our Lady and the Saints are to be had and retained and that dew honor and Veneration is to be yeilded vnto them and then bringeth the Decree of the Councel of Trent Sess 25. for the same point in these words We teach that the images of Christ the Virgin mother of God and other Saints are cheifly in Churches to be had and retained and that dew honour and worshipp is to be giuen them Which Decree he might haue translated a little better and more clearely by saying that those images are to be had and retained especially in Churches the Latine word being praesertim and his translating thereof chiefly and placing it soe oddly giueth cause to thinke he had an euill meaning therein as if he would haue his Reader thinke that the Councel taught that these Images were the chiefe things to bee had in Churches which is not the Councel's meaning as is plaine the words being very cleare in Latine But this is but a note by the way not as a thing that I stand vpon 2. This our Doctrine of image-worship he doth absolutely deny and condemne as a wicked and blasphemous opinion first because it not onely wants authority of scripture which he saith an article of faith ought to haue but because the scripture doth flatly and plainely forbid it and in the margent citeth Leuit. 26. Ex. 20. Deut. 4. Esay 40. This censure is somewhat deepe Sir Humphrey vpon such sleight ground because forsooth we haue noe proofe of scripture for though you thinke it necessary to haue expresse proofe of scripture to make a matter of faith yet as I said before you are much mistaken wherefore you ought not to stand still vrging it in such manner as if it were a certaine and vndoubted principle yet this I graunt you that though expresse Scripture be not necessary to make a matter of faith yet if you haue expresse scripture against it it is true it can be noe matter of faith but by your leaue none of those places which you note make any mention of image-worship but idol-worship which you cannot but know to be a different thing hauing beene soe often told it as you haue beene by vs therefore your first proofe fayling all failleth for though you put a First yet I see noe second and soe much for that 3. But because heere had beene an end too soone of soe good a matter you tell vs Vazq saith all images were forbidden soe farr forth as they were dedicated to adoration and Cornelius Agrippa saith the Iewes did abhorr nothing more then images to the same purpose you alleadge Philo the Iew speaking of the Iewes of those tymes and Sir Edwin sands of the Iewes that are now adayes Wherevpon you conclude that it is agreed vpon on both sides that the Iewes neuer allowed adoration of images for 4000. yeares and from thence you descend to the new Testament wherein you say the same law remayneth because it was morall for though some Catholiques teach that it was a positiue caeremonial law yet others say it was natural and for that you alleadge Bellar. wherefore the law being not abrogated you would haue some exāple or precept in the Ghospel for adoration of which you say Mr. Fisher acknowledgeth there is not any expresse but that there be principles which the light of nature supposed conuince adoration to be lawful Soe as from the light of nature say you an article of faith must be declared Well this is your discourse Sir Humphrey which in a word is but this The Iewes might not haue nor adore images ergo we may not For asweare whereof I might say in like sort the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh nor many other things ergo we may not but because you may say these precepts are caeremonial therefore not now in force the other natural therefore in force for the present I will onely make this argument to shew the connexion of your antecedent and consequent the Iewes might not make any similitude or likenesse of any thing in heauen or earth to adore it for a God ergo we may not make or haue the images of Christ and Saints to reuerence and honour them as the pictures of Saints onely and not Gods is not heere a good and a substantiall argument trow you and yet it is yours Sir Humphrey 4. But say you there was such a command of
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
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
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
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
say you to this Sir Humphrey haue I not iust cause heere to tell you your owne but I forbeare you 23. Extreame vnction is next of which you tell vs that Bellarmine saith that that anoyling which the Apostles vsed Mar. 6. was not Extreame vnctiō that Caietane saith the same of the anoyling which S. Iames speaketh of p. Iacq 5. Likewise of Hugo Peter Lombard Bonauenture Altisiodorensis You say that they held it was not instituted by Christ Well what of all this be it soe that one thinke it not to bee mētioned in S. Marke another not in S. Iames others not to haue beene instituted by Christ What then Doth therefore any one of all these deny it to be a Sacrament nay doe they not all say and maintaine the cōtrary most expresly which is more do not you your self out of your freind Cassander acknowledge that in Peter Lombard's tyme the number of seauen Sacraments was determined though not before as out of the same Cassander you wisely say For Hugo Vict. as I shewed before determines the number of seauen Sacramēts somewhat before Peter Lombard's tyme but to lett that goe if in Peter Lombard's tyme there were seauen Sacraments acknowledged then was Extreame vnction one But you will say that out of that which those 5. anciēt Diuines say to wit that it was not instituted by Christ it followeth that it is noe Sacrament I answeare had you liued in their tymes they would haue denied your consequence But had they liued now in yours they would haue said that Christ did institute it For that is now defined which then was not soe for them you are answeared Now for Bellarmine he saith well it is not deduced out of that place of S. Marke what then out of noe place els or if out of noe place els but by tradition should it bee noe Sacrament What argumēts are these Sir Knight to cōuince a Catholique or any man of learning withall but Catetan you tell vs saith it is not that which S. Iames speaketh of what then Suppose he say well and truely Doth he therefore say it is noe Sacrament noe surely noe more then he denied the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be the true body bloud of Christ though hee thaught the real presēce not to be sufficiently proued out of the very words of Consecration without the interpretation of the Church but as both in one and other he did erre for as much as pertaines to the proofe of those articles out of scripture which is not soe much the matter betweene you and vs soe did he not erre for the things themselues But had he liued to see this sense of the scripture declared and this verity of Extreame vnction defined out of hat place of S. Iames by the interpretation of the Councel of Trent Conc. Trid Sess 14. de extr vnct c. 1. he would haue submitted his iudgment 24. As for the Sacrament of Order you say that Soto telleth vs that Ordination of Bishops is not cruely and properly a Sacrament Well be it soe let Soto say soe Doth he deny the Sacramēt of Order in the Church others deny the fower lesser orders to be Sacraments and some deny Sub-deaconship to be soe what then Doe they deny the Sacrament of Order in the Church to be properly and truely a Sacrament as you doe this is boyes play Sir Humphrey There is a question among Catholiques concerning the Episcopal power and character whither as it is distinct from Priesthoode it be a Sacrament of it self whether there be a new character or the same extended and the like some say I some say noe what is this to you it is not matter of faith whereof wee are not to dispute with you but keepe you off at the staffes end or rather out of doores When you are once receiued into the Catholique Church we may admit you to speake of a Schoole point not till then 25. Lastly about Matrimony you make much adoe First you tell vs Durand denieth it to bee a Sacrament strictly and properly To which I answeare that he saith indeede it is not a Sacrament vniuocally agreeing with the other six which cometh much to one with what you say neyther wil I stand with you for a small matter but looke in Bell. for answeare Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 5. who handleth that matter of Durand largely lib. 1. de Matr. c. 5. I onely say briefly that all acknowledge an errour in him Diuines of his owne tyme did note it for such though then the matter were not soe clearely defined Secondly you say Caietan saith the prudent Reader cannot inferre out of the words of S. Paul Eph. 5. Sacramentum hoc magnum est that Matrimony is a Sacrament he doth not be it so Neither doe we inferre it vpon that word Sacramentum but doth Caietan deny it to be a Sacrament because it is not inferred from that word Noe surely What then doe you bring him for though it be not inferred from this place may it not be inferred from another or if neither from this nor tother may it not bee deduced out of Tradition Thirdly you say that for a conclusion our owne Canus telleth vs that the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that he should bee accounted a foole who in soe great difference of opinions would take vpon him to establish a certaine and knowne doctrine Canus saith rem aliquam certam Which you translate a certaine and knowne doctrine Which you might as well and as easily haue translated any thing certaine and more truely though this bee but a smal matter to stand vpon onely I note it because I see your drift is from the diuersity of opinions which is among Catholique Diuines in assigning the matter and forme of Matrimony wherein Canus saith it were a foolish thing for a man to take vpon him to determine any thing for certaine and cleare Your drift I say is to make your Reader beleeue that Canus saith the doctrine of Matrimony's being a Sacrament or not is vncertaine and vnknowne but this is but one of your ordinary trickes Well to come to Canus He saith true that there is difference among Diuines concerning the matter and forme of this Sacramēt but he himself maketh the chieffe difference by bringing V. Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 7. in a new and singular opinion of his owne By which he saith that the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme of this Sacrament and consequently that if there be a Marriage made without a Priest it is noe Sacrament in his opinion But whither it be true that you Sir knight would make vs thinke that in his iudgment Matrimony is noe Sacrament he shall beare witnesse himself Can. loc lib. 8. cap. 5. Siue nostra opinio vera sit siue falsa nihil moror Si Lutherani de hoc matrimoniorū genere disceptare voluerint intelligant