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
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
not much short of idolatry For Tertull doubteth not to aequal them Nec dubitare quis debet neque ab idolatria distare haereses Tertul. de praeser cap. 40. quum auctoris operis eiusdem sint cuius idolatria Neither ought any man to doubt that heresies doe not differ from idolatry since their author and worke is the same which idolatry Nay in some respects haeresy goeth beyond idolatry as S. Thomas well sheweth and S. Hierome saith absolutely and without limitation 2.2 q. lib. 7. in Esai Nemo tam impius est quem Haereticus impietate non vincat There is noe man soe impious whom an Heretique doth not surpasse in impiety Therefore your comfort is vanity since your profession is impiety And soe much for that matter 16. Now if any man will but lend an eare he shall heare a fine conceit of yours whereby to proue your Faith ancient vniuersall and what not That is by answearing our question where your Church was before Luther in this manner Of the foure Creeds to wit of the Apostles of Nice of Athanasius and Pius 4. You beleeue 3. which were beleeued before Luther of the 7. Sacraments you beleeue 2. which we confesse also to haue beene instituted by Christ of Scriptures you acknowledge 22. books For canonical which we allow which were soe beleeued before Luther's tyme. why rather 7. Councels then 17. or 19. Of the 7. generall Councels 4. are confirmed by Parlament in England not called by Luther The traditions vniuersally receiued and which we confesse to bee Apostolicall are deriued from the Apostles to you as you say not from Luther The prayers in your common prayer booke are the same Say you in substance with our ancient liturgies not broached by Luther the ordination of Ministers is from the Apostles not from Luther If therefore say you the 3. creeds the two principall Sacraments the 22. books of canonicall scripture the fower first generall Councels the Apostolique traditions the ancient Liturgies the ordination of Pastors were anciently vniuersally receiued in all ages in the bosome of the Romane Church euen by the testimonyes of our aduersaries is it not a silly and senselesse question to demand where our Church was before Luther all this is your discourse Sir Knight and most part your very words wherein you seeme to thinke you haue soe satisfied our question that in your iudgment it is silly and senselesse to demaund it any more But it will easily appeare on the contrary side what a silly senselesse thing it was for you to frame such a discourse to your selfe and much more soe to publish it to other men as if any body els had soe little witt as to be pleased therewith For be it soe that these points of doctrine were ancieÌ„tly taught as they are now taught by the Romane Church what followeth that you had a Church before Luther nothing lesse For a Church consisteth not of points of Doctrine or faith onely but much more of men professing such and such Sacraments rites such a faith religioÌ„ If therefore you will shew vs a Church you must shew vs such a company of men which till you can shew the question remaineth vnansweared If you say they were the same men of which the Romane Church did then consist which you seeme to say in that you tell vs your Church was in the bosome of the Romane Church I answeare that is not to the purpose For as now since Luther's tyme you are a distinct company making a Church such as it is by your selues soe you must shew a company of men in like manner distinct in former tymes from ours and your antiquity is onely to begin from such a tyme as you began to bee a distinct company from vs You must not thinke to stand and contend with vs for antiquity and then pretend our antiquity to bee yours But you must shew a distinct Succession of Bishops a distinct common wealth or people professing that Faith onely which you beleeue practizing those rites ceremonies and Sacraments onely which you haue when you haue done this you may better demand what a silly senselesse question it is to aske where your Church was before Luther 17. But because you mention your being in former ages in the bosome of the Romane church not onely heere but els where often in this your treatise as if thereby you would make your Church seeme one and the same with ours or at least to descend from ours Tertull. de praesâ—r cap. 36. and soe to participate of our Visibility and Vniuersality I will alleadge you a saying of Tertullians which doth soe fully answeare the matter that you will take but little comfort in the manner of your descent Thus it is Tertullian hauing alleadged for his eight prescription against Haeretiques the authority of the Apostolique churches which then kept the very authentical letters written To them by the Apostles and especially of the Romane Church which he calleth happy for that to it the Apostles powred forth all their whole doctrine together with their bloud and there putting downe a briefe summe of some speciall points thereof concludeth in theis words Haec est institutio non dico iam quae futuras haereses praenunciabat sed de qua haereses prodierunt Sed non fuerunt ex illa ex quo factae sunt aduersus illum Etiam de oliua nucleo mitis opimae necessariae asper oleaster exoritur Etiam de papauere fici gratissimae suauissimae ventosa vana caprificus exurgit Ita haereses de nostro fructificauerunt non nostrae degeneres veritatis grano mendacio siluestres This is the institution I doe not say now which did foretell Haeresies to come but out of which haeresies haue come But they were not of it from the tyme that they became against it Euen out of the kernel of the mild fatt and necessary or profitable oliue the sower bastard oliue groweth From the seede alsoe of the most pleasant and sweete figtree ariseth the windy and vaine or empty wild figtree And soe haue haeresies fructified out of ours but they not ours degenerating from the graine of truth and becoming wild by vntruth or lying Thus farr Tertullian Acknowledging indeede that haeresies haue their beginning from vs that is that the men that broach them come out of our Church but that they are noe more ours when they beginne once to be against vs. And that the dishonour thereof redoundeth not to vs but to themselues hee declareth by the two similitudes of the oliue and figgetree comparing vs to the true and fruitfull trees and them to the bastard vaine and wild trees issuing out of the former All which if you consider well Sir Humphrey you will find it but a small honour for you to haue come out of the Romane Church though you haue layen neuer soe long in the very bosome thereof as you
Ghospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of the Church then the bare words of scripture and proueth it by this that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and vse of the Church noe man can be able to proue that any Priest now in these tymes doth consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Masse that is Masse in these tymes Not saith hee that this matter is now doubtfull but that the certainty thereof is had not soe much out of the words of the Ghospel as of the interpretation of the Fathers and vse of soe long tyme which they haue left to posterity For saith hee againe though Christ of bread made his body and of wine his bloud it doth not follow by force of any woord there sett downe that wee as often as wee shal attempt any such thing shall doe it which vnlesse it bee soe said we cannot hee certaine thereof These are his very words where you see how together he deliuereth two points of Catholique doctrine the one of the real presence the other of tradition for vnderstanding of the Scriptures Neither doth he say that the reall presence in our Masse now a dayes is not proued out of Scripture but not out of it alone without the interpretatioÌ„ of the Fathers which wee acknowledge generally necessary in the exposition of Scriptures neither doe you therefore rightly argue the real presence is not proued soe much out of the bare words of Scripture as out of the interpretation of Fathers and Tradition of the Church ergo not out of scripture This I say is an idle argument For the Father's interpretation Tradition of the Church Doth but deliuer vs the sense of the Scripture 17. What then haue you heere out of Bishop Fisher to proue any of your 4. points not one word For if his words did proue any thing they should proue against the real presence not against transubstantiation which is your coÌ„trouersy And for those other words which you bring out of this same holy Bishop and Martyr for a conclusion thus non potest igitur per vllam Scripturam probari it cannot bee proued by any scripture they discouer your dishonesty most of all For by breaking of the sentence there you would make your Reader beleeue they had relation to the words next before by you cited as if the Bishop did say that it could not bee proued by any scripture that Christ is really present in our Masse whereas there is a whole leafe betweene these two places but the onely bare recital of the Bishops words shall serue for a coÌ„futation which are these Non potest igitur per vllam ScripturaÌ„ probari quod aut Laicus aut Sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguineÌ„ atque Christus ipse confecit quum necâ—stud in scripturis contineatur It cannot therefore bee proued by any Scripture that either Lay man or Priest as often as hee shall goe about that busynes shall in like manner of bread and wine make the body and bloud of Christ as Christ himselfe did seeing that neither that is contained in Scriptures By which it is plaine that his drift is onely to proue that there is noe expresse words in scripture whereby it is promised that either Priest or Lay man shall haue power to coÌ„secrate that though Christ did himself coÌ„secrate coÌ„manded his Apostles soe to doe in remeÌ„brance of him that yet he did not adde any expresse promise that the same effect should alwaies follow wheÌ„soeuer any man should offer to consecrate Which is not against vs. For we gather that power to pertaine to the Apostles Successors in Priesthood out of the words Concil Trid. Sess 22. q. 1. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem not barely but as they haue beene euer vnderstood by the Church which is so farre from being against vs that wee might rather vrge it against you vpon the same occasion that Bishop Fisher doth to wit for proofe of the necessity of traditions and authority of the Church for vnderstanding of scriptures And soe by this it is manifest how much you haue abused this holy Bishop's meaning as you doe other two Bishops that follow 18. The one is Gul. Durandus Bishop of Maunde out of whom it seemeth you would proue the words This is my body not to bee of the essence of this Sacrament For what els you would haue with him I see not but specially because hauing cited him thus in English Christ blessed the bread by his heauenly benediction and by vertue of that word the bread was turned vnto the substance of Christ's body Then you putt these words in Latine tunc confecit cum benedixit them he made it when hee blessed it Whereby you seeme to put the force of this testimony in those words as if by them you would proue out of Durandus that Christ did not consecrate by the words this is my body but by that blessing But Durand himself shall disproue you Sir Knight For thus he saith Benedixit benedictione caelesti virtute verbi qua conuertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM He blessed it by the heauenly blessing and power of the word by which the bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ Durand rat cap. 41. n. 14. to wit THIS IS MY BODY Hoc est corpus meum Which last words I would gladly know Sir Humphrey why you cut of but I neede not aske for any man may see it was because you would not haue that powerful benediction whereof this authors speaketh to consist in those sacred words but Durand both in this very senteÌ„ce and often in the same place attributeth most plainely that power to those very words not to any other blessing as may appeare in that he saith that wee doe blesse ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis By that power which Christ hath giuen to the words 19. Odo Caemeracensis is the other Bishop that followeth whom for the same purpose you cite and as much to the purpose his words are these as you bring them Christ blessed the bread and then made that his body which was first bread and soe by blessing it became flesh for otherwise hee would not haue said after he had blessed it this is my body vnlesse by blessing it he had made it his body Which words you putt in the margent in Latine imperfectly and translate euen them corruptly Benedixit suum corpus You translate Christ blessed bread qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro which in true English is thus That which was bread before by blessing is made flesh You translate otherwise as may appeare by your words though I see not to what end you should soe
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
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
you see his meaning to be absolutely to condemne idol-worship and approue image-worship Neither doth your noting of the greeke word in the margent in proofe that S. Peter speaketh of idol-worship auaile you For Val. speaketh onely of the Latine word which is more indifferent and in some authors signifieth the same that imago and euen the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be now by the vse of Fathers Councels and Doctours determined to signify an empty or vaine image of a thing which is not according to that of S. Paul idolum nihil est in mundo an idol is nothing in the world Cor. 7.4 yet if a man respect the primitiue signification or etymology it might perhaps be taken more indifferently for it cometh from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth species or forma the seeming shape or beauty of a thing or person but it is true that in the signification of words we must follow the ecclesiastical rule Neither doe I allow Valencia his vse of the word Simulachrum and explication of S. Peter's text or euen his argument drawne from thence though the point of doctrine which he defends be true to wit image-worship But this is to shew you how he might vse the word harmelesly especially declaring himselfe plainely by other words though for you to stād trifling cōtēding about words when you see his meaning is a signe of your want of matter But heere by the way I cannot but note how to vrge the matter more against Valentia you runne your selfe vpon the rockes for you obserue that the word vsed by Saint Peter in that place signifieth idol-worship not image-worship Wherein you seeme plainely to confesse that image-worship and idol-worship and consequently an image and an idol are not all one Whereby as you thinke to aduantage you self in this place against the Iesuit soe you doe not marke that herein you contradict your selfe and the whole currant of your owne Doctors whose chiefe argumēts against images are certaine places of Scriptures against idols which you also bring before For if an image an idol be not all one then are all your arguments nothing worth or if they be then is Valentia's argumēt good choose which you will And therefore if you cast vpp your counts aright you will find you haue lost more then you haue gained by this citation of Valencia 15. A fift point of vncertainty you deliuer in these words Concerning the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist it is most euident saith Bellarmine but cōcerning the rest of the Sacramēts it is not soe certaine And out of Canus you say the Diuines speake soe vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony that they doe not resolue whether it giueth grace or noe thus you Sir Humphrey to which I answeare that for the place of Bellarm. you are conuinced before of manifest corruption For whereas Bellarm. saith it is certaine Cap. 9. §. 4. in fine but not soe manifest you leaue out not manifest and change certaine into not certaine besids what is that which Bellarmine saith is not manifest but certaine that these two are Sacraments the rest not noe such matter Sir Knight it is their signification which he speaketh of yet not their signification of grace which they cause but their signifying of the passion of Christ which is the beginning and aeternal life which is the end of the grace giuen by the Sacraments this signification he saith is certaine but not so euident in the rest of the Sacraments For Canus you corrupt him as fowly also For first you ioyne two seueral places together as if they were but one in Canus himself then make him say that the Diuines doe not resolue whether it that is Matrimony giues grace or noe which is most flatly false For as I shewed before he granteth it with all Diuines to be properly a Sacrament his two places seuerally are thus the Diuines speake soe diuersly of the matter forme of Matrimony that it were folly for a man to resolue any thing certaine this is one whereof I spake more before shewed that his meaning is not to say that it is not certaine whither it be a Sacrament or not or whither it haue a matter and forme Cap. 9. §. 4. for that I shewed to be most certaine and by most expresse words of his owne but that noe man can say determinately which is the matter and which the forme Which as Bellarmine saith well is not soe necessary for vs to know but that without it we may and ought to acknowledge a true Sacrament it is enough to know what is requisite for celebrating a true Sacrament and what those things are without which it is not a Sacrament though we doe not know which of those things is the matter which the forme For exāple if a Priest in baptisme vse true water and the right words he doth administer a true Sacramēt though he should not know which is the matter and which the forme nay though he should thinke the words to be the matter and water the forme though the cleane contrary be truth The other place of Canus is that he saith that Matrimony contracted without a Priest is noe Sacrament because in his opinion the words which the Priest speaketh are the forme and of that kind of Matrimony he consequently denieth it to giue grace but of Matrimony absolutely and as it is vsed in the Catholique church he neuer made doubt See before his words 16. The last matter of vncertainty is of our traditions which you say you are vncertaine whereas the Scripture is written to giue vs certainty For this saying you alleadge noe Catholique truely nor falsly and therefore it is not to be counted of being soe manifestly false For whence haue we the certainty of the very Scriptures themselues but by tradition and much more of the sense and meaning of the Scriptures Besids as I haue often said and shewed this your prime principle is not onely false but contrary to expresse Scripture and contrary to the common consent of all Fathers which the Reader may see in whole treatises written heereof Wherefore to come to an end of this your Section of certainty we find nothing in matter of faith vncertaine in the Catholique church nothing certaine on your side but onely that you are alwaies and euery where Sir Humphrey Linde Of the 11. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 11. The testimonies of our aduersaries touching the greater Safety comfort and benefit of the Soule in the Protestant faith then in the Romish CHAPTER XI 1. FROM certainty you come to Safety whereof you needed not haue made soe distinct mention and proofe it following necessarily and manifestly that that faith which is most certaine in it selfe is also most safe for men to follow as also it cannot be Safe without certainty Wherefore as you were not able to proue it certaine in your former
that it was the image of a man he knoweth not who Which if it had beene Christ's or any Saint's he would haue knowne whose it was neither would he haue called the image of Christ or any Saint the image of a man and then he maketh a comparison or likenesse betweene the hanging of that picture and the picture of Christ or some Saint Which sheweth plainely both that it was not Christ's nor any Saint's and also that it was the custome to hang the images of Christ and his Saints in the Church It is also an idle senselesse expression of yours when you say a vaile representing the image of Christ For the vaile was not the picture of a picture and therefore did not represent the image but represented the man You leaue alsoe out those words nescio cuius erat I know not whose it was By all which is discouered both your corruption and the probability of this answeare suppose these words were Epiphanius his whereas indeede they are not and this is the third answeare which you onely take notice of but without taking notice or answearing any of the reasons alleadged by any man for the same Whereas Bellarmine alleadgeth noe lesse then 9. all very good and substantiall ones and some of them moral demonstrations as that those words are a peece added at the end of the epistle put to noe man knoweth how nor with what connexion another is that S. Hierome hauing translated that Epistle whereto these words are added maketh noe mention at all of them or any such vaile a third is that in the 7. general Councel where the Iconoclasts or image-breakers alleadged all that euer they could out of any author they neuer mentioned any such authority as this of Epiphanius which sheweth that either the words were not there or at lest that they had not any shaddow of probability against the images of Christ and Epiphanius the Deacon in that Councel proueth two such places to haue beene corrupted by Haeretiques and inserted in the works of S. Epiphanius more may be seene in other authors for this shall serue to discouer your honest and vpright dealing with Epiphanius Sir Humphrey and shew what cause you haue to cōplaine of our eluding or reiecting the Fathers 8. But yet I shall discouer the same more going thorow with the rest of the Father's testimonies the next of which is S. Cyprian's touching tradition thus From whence is this tradition for the Lord commanded vs to doe those things which are written to which you say Bellarmine maketh answeare that S. Cyprian wrote thus when he thought to defend his owne error and therefore it is noe meruaile if he erred in soe reasoning it is true Sir Humphrey Bellarmine maketh this answeare and it is a very good one and of it selfe doth serue the turne For it is most true that S. Cyprian there writt in defence of rebaptization which he maintained and because he saw it could not be impugned by the written word but onely by vnwritten tradition which S. Stephen Pope then vrged against him he reiected that tradition and fled to Scripture wherein the badnes of his cause put him to that hard shift For proofe whereof I will but onely aske you whether you thinke S. Cyprian was then in an error or not I presume you will not deny but he was otherwise you must grant that we may baptize such as haue beene baptized in your Church and are conuerted to ours or that you must baptize such of ours as fall to yours because you may say yours is noe haeresy but rather ours But whether soeuer you say of these two you I suppose will not nor indeede can grant rebaptization for it is contrary to your beleife practize Well then it is an error Likewise this error is not otherwise maintained but by denial of vnwritten tradition and cannot be ouerthrowne but by holding them and therefore it must follow of necessity that it is an error to deny tradition Or thus if this rebaptization be an error and that it follow of that principle of holding to the written word onely then is that principle false For it is an ordinary rule in Logicke that if a conclusion be false or impossible the premisse or principle from whence it followeth must of necessity be false or impossible and this rule is grounded vpon a certaine axiome that ex vero nihil sequitur nisi verum Of truth there followes nothing but truth Soe rebaptization being an errour as you cannot deny that principle of the onely written word from whence it followeth and wherevpon it dependeth must needes be false Whereby you may see Bellarmines argument to be good and your owne to be of noe force Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. But besides Bellarmine added some authority to his reason thereby giuing it a great deale of credit which is that S. Aug. doth answeare and confute that whole Epistle of S. Cyprian's out of which these words are taken Soe that you might haue said that S. Augustine doth elude and reiect S. Cyprian's authority as well as Bellarmine but that for shame me you could not be soe bold with S. Augustine as you might be with Bellarmine though both said but the same thing 9. The 8. testimony is S. Chrysostomes touching priuate Masse in these words It is better not to be present at the Sacrifice then to be present and not to communicate Bellarm. say you maketh this answeare that Chrysostome spake this as at other tymes by exceeding the truth when he would onely incite men frequently and worthily to communicate Where first you wrong Bellarmine in strayning his words to the worst sense and as I may say truely mis-translating them For whereas he saith that S. Chrysostome spake this by excesse per excessum are his words you say by exceeding the truth which is false For it is not all one to say that a man speaketh by excesse and by exceeding the truth For there is a figure in Rhetorique called hyperbole or excesse Which whosoeuer vseth is not said presently to exceed the truth or speake vntruelly as you would make Bellar. say of S. Chrysost but onely to speake by hyperbole or excesse wherein the intent of the speaker is not to be taken soe precisely to the vtmost of his words but with a graine of salt as we say because by that manner of speach a man intendeth onely to signify the greatnes of the matter of which he speaketh whither it be commending or discommending And it is certaine some men vse this figure more then others and specially those who are more eloquent and who are to frame their discourse to the mouing of a popular or vulgar auditory such as S. Chrysost was therefore for answeare of the matter Bell. saith well that this Saint being greatly moued with his peoples coldnes in deuotion and backwardnes in coming to the holy mysteries spake by excesse to make them more apprehend the illnes thereof as we
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
the doctrine of iustification and doctrine of merits as they are deliuered in the Councel of Trent euery Catholique is bound to giue his life as occasion is offered For adoration of images whereas he asketh whether any of these 33. were canonized for it it is an idle question for men are canonized not for matters of beleife onely but for practize of Faith Hope Charity and all vertues together which belong to an holy and Christian life in general and to their owne particular State and vocation and though there be noe special mention of any of those 33. their adoration of images yet defined which before was not and which then men were not soe certaine of nor soe bound to beleiue as after soe consequently men might be lesse bound to suffer death for it then then afterwards and yet be of the same faith with those that came after Soe long as they acknowledged the same Church and liued in the vnity thereof acknowledged the same power and authority to determine matters of faith as it is certaine those ancient Martyrs did as appeareth both by their owne writings yet extant and their deeds recorded by other men in good authentical history These holy Martyrs therefore are truely ours which if this Knight will disproue he must shew which of them did teach otherwise that is against that vhich we now beleiue Which till he can doe we shall still be in possession of our Martyrs and of their faith our faith testifying that wee are their Children and their bloud giuing testimony to the truth of our faith Of the 17. Sect. entituled thus Chap. 17. Our aduersaries coÌ„mon obiection drawne from the charitable opinion of Protestants touching the saluation of professed Romanists liuing and dying in their Church answeared CHAPTER XVII 1. THis section is nothing but a little of the Knight's owne natural language and therefore will soone be answeared He beginneth with a saying of Costerus that a man dying a Lutheran cannot be saued Wherevpon he falleth in to a great rage against the Roman Church and telleth vs there is a Woman a Church a Citty which reigneth ouer the Kings of the earth and hath multitudes of nations at her Command but he thanks God his Church is not such an one Neither doe Protestans as he saith account Vniuersality of nations and people to be a marke of their Church and from thence he falleth to reckon vpp diuers particular points of his Churches doctrine as disclayming of merits Communion in both Kindes reading of Scriptures and bringing a place of Scriptures for each of these he asketh very rhetorically after euery one whether they be accursed for holding them and on the other side asketh whether we can be blessed that forbid marriage meates that haue prayer in an vnknowne tongue adore images adore Saints adore the elements of bread and wine wee that add traditions to the Scriptures and detract from God's commandments and Christ's institution in the Sacrament Which discourse of his being soe foolish as it is a man may thinke it folly for mee to stand answearing particularly therefore I answeare briefly and in general first that though it take vpp half his section yet it is wholy from his purpose which he pretends by the title of his chapter which is to answeare our obiection Secondly I answeare that for those things which he obiecteth vnto vs they are all answeared before and proued some false for the things wherewith he chargeth vs all absurd if we consider the proofs of Scripture which he bringeth for example he telleth vs we forbid marriage and meats both which are most grosly false For how many Catholiques be there in England men and women married and what meate is there that Catholiques are forbidden to eate in dew tyme and season is it all one to forbid marriage to some men to wit such as haue voluntarily promised the contrary and some meates at some tymes all one I say as to forbid marriage and meates neither marriage nor meats being forbidden in these cases as ill in themselues in which sense onely Saint Paul termeth it the doctrine of Diuels but for higher ends But to make him yet a little more capable of this answeare I will vrge him with one ordinary instance which is this I presume his Father had some apprentice bound not to marry during his apprenticeship I would then know of him whither his father in that case did forbid marriage and teach the doctrine of Diuels 2. Against prayer in an vnknowne tongue he saith it is written with men of other tongues and other lipps will I speake vnto this people and soe they shall not heare mee and in the margent saith it was a curse at the building of Babel for them that vnderstand not what was spoken But by this alleadging of Scripture a man may see what a good thing it is to haue it in the vulgar tongue for euery man to read and abuse it at his pleasure when such a right learned man as this Knight doth soe strangely apply it He would make men beleiue Esay the Prophet spoke against Latine in this place but the man is quite wide of his marke but it is enough for him that there is mention of a strange tongue there for as for the sense he careth not or rather his reading reacheth not to the meaning of the place which is but this that whereas the people laughed at the Prophets that came to them with commands from God repeating their words scoffingly manda remanda Isa 28.11 expecta reexpecta c. God sendeth them word by the Prophet that because they would not heare those words nor follow the good counsel which he gaue he would speake another word vnto them that they should fall be catched crushed and carried into captiuity and there heare a language which they did not vnderstand this is the plaine and literal sense of the Prophet S. Paul indeede vseth it in another sense to perswade the Corinthians that prophecy is to be preferred before tongues because as he saith the guift of tongues is a signe for infidels that is to speake to infidels for their conuersion but prophecy that is exhortation or interpretation is for the faithful or those that beleiue already Wherein I would know according to either explication what any man can find against prayer in the Latine tongue and for the tower of Babel the Knight surely speaketh by contraries For whereas at Babel men fell from vnity of language to speake euery man a seueral language Soe as noe one man vnderstood one another by that meanes they were all dispersed into seueral nations the Catholique Church doth quite contrary drawing seueral nations to vnity of language making all to speake one and the sâ—me tongue Whereas haeretiques in seueral places by vse of other languages vnderstand not one the other and therein most perfectly resemble the Babel-builders as well in the very diuersity of tongues as in the diuersity of