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
answeare is that Polydore speaketh not of the ancient Fathers of the new Testament but of those of the old whom therefore he nameth veteres patres the old Fathers and in particular nameth Moyses and Ezechias the reason indeede why they did condemne the worship of images was feare of idolatry but the reason of that feare was as he saith because noe man hauing seene God they knew not what shape to giue thim and discoursing of the brazen serpent which was a figure of Christ vpon the crosse he saith a long tyme after God put on humane sharpe and being made man was seene and knowne by mortall men and in that humble shape by his owne power wrought miracles beyond credit the same whereof made men come flocking vnto him who did soe behold and reuerence his face without doubt shining with the brightnes of diuine light that they thē first beganne to paint and carue his effigies now already imprinted in their minds And there telling to that purpose the story out of Eusebius of the hemorrhoisse and 2. pictures of our Sauiour made by himself one sent to Abagarus the other giuen to Veronica he also saith thus it is a constant opinion that S. Luke did paint in certaine tables the figure of our Lady which to this day are in some places kept most holily and worshipped most religiously Then relating out of Eusebius how the images of the Apostles were framed and kept by Christiās citeth the words following out of him Insignia etenim veterum reseruari ad posterorū memoriam illorum honoris horū vero amoris iudiciū est For the reseruing of the signes markes or thing belonging to the aunciēts to the memory of posterity is a signe of honor to thē loue in these Hēce saith Polydore is growne worthily a custome of placing in the Churches reuerencing the statues as well of our Sauiour as his SS But because by the memory of Saints as it were an exāple or sample set before our eyes which the images represent men are stirred vpp to vertue imitatiō the honour of the image passeth to the honour of the original as S. Basil saith therefore the Fathers haue not onely admitted that custome but by the authority of the 6. Synod at Cōstantinople vnder Constātine Iustinian the 2. his sonne it was decreed as may appeare by the canonical decrees that the holy images of SS should be had in Churches worshipped with great veneration being to ignorant people in place of the holy Scripture whereto also Frankincense is offered and tapers are lighted and there adding 2. or 3. Councels more decreeing the same againe he concludeth thus Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tantaque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitue dubitare seu aliter somniare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe sanctissimorum patrum decreto constitutum What man is there therefore so disolute and endewed with soe much boldnes who will or can doubt or otherwise dreame that I may not say iudge or thinke of the worship of images then at last hath beene approued by the Decree of soe many most holy Fathers Thus farr Polydore to whose demaund why may not I answeare that Sir Humphrey Linde is the man soe dissolute and audacious that dares not onely dreame but waking with all his witts and sences that he hath about him and speaking and writing dares I say not onely doubt of but absolutely deny the lawfulnes of the worship of images And not onely this but euen to bring thee ô Polydore Virgil to witnesse with him against the Romane Church that all the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church condemned the same What would this authour say to you Sir Humphrey if he were aliue to see himselfe abused by you and which is yet more euen after Dr. White was conuict of this dissolutenes and audaciousnes yet you would be at it againe Heereby a man may see there needes noe other confutation but onely right citing of your owne authours 17. For Peresius his words are nothing against vs for they touch onely vpon a schoole point whether the picture be to be adored with the same worship as the prototype or thing represented or with an inferiour worship the former opinion onely he denieth because saith he there is neither proofe out of scripture tradition of the Church common consent of Fathers or determination of a general Councel which very saying of his is enough to condemne you who will not acknowledge sufficient authority in tradition Fathers or Councel to belieue a thing which you like not But to make it plainely appeare how much you wrong Peresius in bringing him against the worship of images I will bring a place 2. leaues before that which you cite out of him it is this Manifeste habes c. Peres de tradit cap. de imag It is manifest that the vse and worship of images hath beene vniuersally in the Church from the tyme of the Apostles and that the dis-esteeme of them began from forlorne and infamous men 500. yeares after the Church was planted and truely if the worship and reuerence be done deuoutly and sincerely this institution is holy and profitable which both Apostolique tradition hath introduced the vse of the vniuersal Church affirmed the consent of very famous and generall Councels both in the East and West being added thereto which also euen natural reason doth dictate Thus farre are Peresius his owne words whereby any man may see whether Sir Humphrey you deale well with him or not to pretend his authority against our vse and worship of images Agobard de pict imaginib in bibl PP 18. Now for Agobardus whō you seeme to make great acount of if you consider him a little better you will find little cause he writeth indeede a booke de picturis imaginibus the whole drift whereof is onely against the idolatrical vse or abuse of images against which he speaketh very much by occasion of some abuses in his tyme as it is meete hee and euery good man should And for the same end he bringeth many authorityes of the ancient Fathers all which speake plainely against idolatry and likewise he bringeth that canon of the Councel of Eliberis which you bring out of him that noe picture should be painted on the walls vnderstanding it in the same sense which I alleadged in my second answeare to that Canon before to wit for auoyding superstition in some young and vnexperienced Christians conuerted from gentility But for those words which follow in your citation of him to wit these There is noe example in all the scriptures or Fathers for adoration of images I doe not find them in him this I am sure of that they are not ioyned with the former as you heere ioyne them Thus indeede he saith in a certaine place habuerunt antiqui Sanctorum imagines vel pictas vel sculptas sed causa historiae ad
obscurely that posterity may reioyce at the cleare knowledge of that which antiquity did reuerence euen before it came to be soe knowne that in fine he must soe theach which he hath learned that though he deliuer it in a new manner yet hee deliuer not any new matter And then asking a question by way of obiectiō whether Christia religiō doe not receiue any increase or profit hee answeareth yes verily but in such manner as it may bee truely called increase not change For increase importeth an amplification or enlargement of a thing in it self Change importeth a turning of one thing into an other And soe he saith the vnderstanding knowledge and wisedome both of euery man in particular and of the whole Church in general may receiue increase but soe as to persist in same doctrine sense and iudgment which hee declareth by the similitude of a man's body which though it be greater when he comes to be a man then when hee was a chile yet all the parts and limbs are the same soe as though it receiue increase yet noe change the same hee declareth by another similitude of a graine of wheate cast into the ground which though it multiply in the growth yet it multiplieth onely in the same kind of graine Wherevpon he concludeth that the Church being a diligēt and wary keeper of the doctrines committed to her custody doth not adde diminish or any way change doth not cut of what is necessary nor adde any thing superfluous but with all industry soe handle all ancient doctrines as if any haue not receiued their full shape and perfection to polish and perfect them if any be throughly searched and expressed to cōsolidate and strengthen thē if any be cōfirmed and defined to keepe them adding withall that the Church hath neuer endeauoured any thing els by her decrees of Councels but onely that which was simply that is without questioning beleeued before should after bee more diligently beleeued that which before was preached more slackly should after bee preached more earnestly that wich before was more securely reuerenced should after be much more carefuly garnished or adorned and that the Church being excited by the nouelties of haeretiques hath done noe more but consigned to posterity in writing that which before she had receiued from her ancestours by tradition onely and for more cleare vnderstāding thereof many tymes expressed the ancient sense of faith by the propriety of a new appellacion that is by a new word then inuented to expresse the ancient beleife 11. This is the discourse of this Holy Father which I haue sett downe the more fully in reguard it containeth the cleare decision of this whole matter For out of it together with what hath beene hitherto said it may bee gathered first that the Church createth not any new articles of faith but onely that she deliuereth vnto vs those articles of ancient faith which she hath receiued from them by whom she was first plāted and taught that faith Much lesse doth she deliuer vnto vs any new faith For though she should haue new distinct reuelations yet would it not follow that the faith were new soe long as those it followeth that he that denieth the explication doth deny the article and consequently frame vnto himselfe a new beleefe 12. And that the absurdity of Sir Humphrey's argument may yet appeare more manifestly I add that any haeretique that euer was may by the very same maner of argument chalenge antiquity to himselfe and accuse vs of nouelty For he may say such a thing was not de fide before such a Councel ergo it is new and that he beleeues onely that which was beleeued before that Councel ergo he beleeueth the ancient Faith Which argumēt if it be good in Sir Humphrey is good in them and cōsequently he must disallow the decrees of all Councels as nouelties and approue all haeresies for the ancient beleefe Which being soe great and manifest an absurdity he will not sure for shame admitt and consequently must allow of Vincentiu's his authority and the answeare out of him to wit that Councels in defining matters of faith doe not coyne a new faith but declare explicate and define the old Which that Sir Humphrey may the better conceiue I shall heere in a word vrge him with an example of his owne Church thus The Church of England admitteth of diuers books of the new testament for canonical whereof there was doubt for three or fower hundred yeares togeather in the Church of God as the Epistle to the Hebrewes the second Epistle of S. Peter the Ep. of S. Iude the Apocalypse of S. Iohn and some others which were after admitted for Canonical Now I would know of him whether vpon the admittance of them there were any Change of faith in the Church or whether euen those books haue receiued any change in themselues hee cannot say they did and there by he may answeare himself and see plainly that the change which seemeth to be is not in the things to be beleeued but in vs that are to beleeue them because vpon such definition or declaration of the Church we are obliged to beleeue them which it may be we were not before And this may suffice for this matter of new articles of beleife which Sir Humphrey would faine father vpon vs. 13. Another thing which hee much buildeth vpon and whereby he thinketh to preuaile against vs in the authority of some particular Doctors or Schoolemen of the Church differing among themselues in some points not defined by the Church at such tyme as they did dispute thereof though afterwards they were But any man of iudgment will presently see that this is but to delude the simpler sort of people of his owne side whom he thinketh to make beleeue any thing For who doth not know that Catholiques binde themselues onely to defend the Catholique faith which neyther doth nor can depend vpon the iudgment of any one priuate Doctor how learned soeuer for neyther is any thinge counted faith till it bee taught by the authority of the Catholique church or common cōsent of Doctors Vinc. Lerin cap. 4. for soe saith Vincentius Lerinensis expressely that wee are to beleeue without doubt not what one or two Maisters teach but what all with common consent hold write and teach planely frequently and perseuerantly Vinc. Lerin cap. 39. And this as he saith els where Non in omnibus diuinae legis questiunculis sed quidem certe praecipuè in fidei regula Not in all small questiōs of the diuine Law but cheifely in the rule of faith Which Sir Humphrey cannot be ignorant of but onely that he lifteth still to be limping and wilfully dissembling the truth For if he had taken notice of this he would haue had lesse to say though he say not much euen now with all the dissembling he can deuise 14. Neyther will it serue his turne to say that we vrge him and his Ministers out of their
owne authors and why may not he doe the like to vs for the reason is cleane different They haue noe publique authority which can define what is Faith and what not but that is left not onely to euery priuate Doctour or Minister but to euery priuate Lay man and Woman And though it be true that it is noe conuincing proofe to vrge one particular Protestant Doctor 's authority against another there being not two among them of one opinion wholy much lesse one bound to answeare for the other Yet we are faine and may with good reason vse it because they haue noe certaine rule of Faith wherewith we may vrge them Authority of Church they haue none Scripture they haue indeede but soe mangled corrupted peruerted by translation and misinterpreted according to their owne fancies that as they haue it it is as good as nothing Traditions they haue none Councels they haue not any among themselues nor will stand to ours Consent of Fathers or Schoolemen they care not for Consent of Doctors they haue not among themselues nor can haue without an heade neyther if they had would any man thinke himself more bound by that then by consent of Fathers what then is left but to vrge them with the authority of such as they acknowledge for their brethren But with vs the case is farre different for we haue diuers infallible rules of faith though all with some reference to one principal rule As Scripture in the plaine and literal sense which is out of controuersy tradition or common beleefe and practize of the whole Church Councels either general or particular confirmed by the See Apostolique the authority of that Holy See it self defining ex cathedra though without either generall or particular Councel the common and vniforme Consent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoolemen deliuering any thing vnto vs as Matter of Faith 15. All these six rules of faith we acknowledge wherewith let this Knight or any Protestant in the world vrge vs we flinch not wee doe not deny the authority but are ready to make good whatsoeuer is taught anie of these wayes What folly then is it for a man to stand vrging vs with the authority of any one priuate man who may straggle out from the rest though to goe farther then we neede in such great liberty as wee giue Protestants wee giue them leaue to vrge vs with the authority of any one single Doctour in a point wherein hee is not contradicted by other Catholique Doctours or which other Catholiques doe not wholy disauow What more can a man desire And yet againe though the Knight or any other Protestant should bring such a single author for his opinion yet is there such a maine difference betweene him and them that noe Protestant can iustly pleade that single Catholique author to be wholy of his opinion or beleife in that point to say nothing of others wherein they differ For the Protestant holdeth his doctrine stifly not meaning in any case or for any authority to change or leaue it which is it that that maketh a man properly an Haeretique Whereas the Catholique euer holdeth it with indifferency ready to leaue it whensoeuer the Catholique Church shall determine otherwise Which if Sir Humphrey will be but content to doe wee will beare with all his errours because then they will be soone amended What little helpe then is hee like to haue from Catholique authors or what likelyhoode is there for him to make good his paradoxes or rather his most absurd heresies out of our owne Cardinals Bishops Doctors Schoolemen c. whom he putteth all in the plural number as if the number were to bee very great Whereas God knoweth they come very poore and single as shall appeare and some bee Cardinals of his owne creating only as I shall after shew but this hee doth for credit of his cause though it bee with losse of his owne 16. And all this which heere I say is to bee vnderstood supposing that indeede he cite Catholique authors and cite them truely as heere hee promiseth which promise for as much as concerneth true citing how hee performeth I shall afterwards make manifest heere onely I shall adde a word concerning his authors who he promiseth vs shal bee Catholiques Whereas indeede for the most part they are either knowne Haeretiques or some such men as though with much adoe they may passe for Catholiques as Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Cassander and the like yet they gaue themselues soe much liberty in they writings as they came to bee noted for it and their works forbidden Of which I will not therefore make any account as noe other Catholique doth But when I come to such authorityes as there be many in this booke I meane to make noe other answeare but that the author is condemned or booke forbidden in the index librorum prohibitorum the table of forbidden bookes Wherein I cannot but note Sir Humphrey's ill fauoured and dishonest dealing in pretending to cite only our owne Doctors and Schoolemen and yet afterwards obtruding such as he knoweth to bee subiect to soe mayne exception and soe to bee by vs disauowed and reiected as incompetent Iudges or witnesses 17. But there is noe other to bee expected at such a man's hands and therefore I will neyther looke for better nor say more of it but by this occasion adde a word or two concerning the Index expurgatorius which soe much troubleth the consciences of these men Which being rightly vnderstood noe man of reason and iudgment can be offended with it For it is nothing but a continuance of the same care which hath beene euer obserued in the Church of God for preseruing of the Catholique fayth and integrity of life from the corruption of Haeretiques and other wicked men who by bookes bring great preiudice both to Faith and manners vnlesse special care be vsed for praeuenting thereof Of the necessity and iustnes of which course there be whole books written by diuers learned Catholique Doctors neyther can any body dislike thereof but onely Haeretiques who indeede find themselues mightily aggreiued therewith as being by this course depriued of a chiefe meanes of spreading their wicked doctrine by books though indeede they haue noe more cause to complaine then Necromancers Iudiciary Astrologers Southsayers Witches Magicians and euen bad Catholiques who publish naughty and lasciuious books for this care of the Church doth extend to all whatsoeuer may be offensiue or hurtfull eyther to faith or good manners 18. But because Sir Humphrey will needs haue it that the bible is also forbidden and the Father's writings appointed to bee corrected and rased I answeare that for the Bible indeede it is not permitted in the vulgar language to euery body without any reguard or distinction of persons as it neuer was nor ought to bee as is well proued by authority of Fathers and reason in the preface of the Rhemes testament But yet it is not soe forbidden but that it
And therefore all your labour is lost when by similitudes you labour to proue that we are not to putt you to the proofe of our errours by naming the authors tyme and place for vpon these circumstāces dependeth the knowledge whether it bee a disease or noe which is our questiō Neither is that authority of S. Aug. to your purpose for he speaketh of a man fallen into a pitt of whom it is euident that he is fallen into it And though you would haue it soe that the Romane Church is fallen into an errour as it were into a pitt we say otherwise and of this is the question And this we would haue you proue by assingning the author tyme place of this Change for till you can shew that we say according to S. Aug. rule that whatsoeuer the Catholique Church doth generally beleeue or practize soe as there can bee noe tyme assigned when it began it is to be taken for an Apostolical tradition Such we say are all these things which you are pleased onely because they please you not to call errours And it stands you therefore vpon to proue when they began els they must passe for Apostolical traditions not for errors as you would haue them Tert. praescrip cap. 31. 3. Besides it is Tertullians rule for discerning of heresy from truth to see which goeth before which cometh after that which goeth before is truth that which cometh after is errour Wee say then that in all these things wee goe before because wee haue antiquity they are things that haue beene euer taught and practized we pleade prescription from the beginning and wee say and proue that you come after we assigne you persons tymes places who haue begunne the Chāge it followeth thē that ours is true till you can shew vs tyme person and place when it begāne as we shew yours not to be true by the same rule Neither is it enough for you to say we are in errour you must disproue vs by shewing our prescription not to hold good which you can neuer doe without assigning of persons tymes c. If you should haue a sute against a man in Westminster-hall for land which he pleadeth to haue beene his and his ancestors for soe long tyme as is required by the Law to make prescription and that you should goe about to disproue it without assigning the tyme and manner but onely by your owne bare word would not euery man laugh at you How much more in this case and yet you thinke you haue spoken wonderfull wisely and learnedly all this while 4. Which may yet appeare more by that which followeth of your comparison betwixt heresy and apostacy In which you attribute this later vnto vs but it seemeth heereby you little know what Apostacy is Wherefore to helpe you out Apostacy is a defection or forsaking of the name of Christ and profession of Christianity as all men vnderstand it Whereof sure you cannot taxe vs soe long as we beleeue the Apostles Creede which you call the common cognizance of Christianity and which you confesse vs to beleeue How then can we be Apostata'es In no wise certainely but if we erre we erre as Heretiques if we be Heretiques you confesse you must assigne the person who first taught our heresyes the tyme place where when they were first taught For soe you say in plaine termes that heresy because it worketh openly it may be discerned the tyme and persō knowne though you bee somewhat various in this for you say a little before that whē there was any heresy that did endāger the foundation or openly disturbed the Church supposing heerein that there be some secret heresyes which doe not soe the Fathers gaue warning thereof by letters But your supposition is false and foolish False in that you thinke any heresy not to endaunger the foundation of Faith for the least heresy that can bee imagined ouerthroweth all diuine faith Foolish in that you suppose some heresies to be soe secrett as not to disturbe the Church For if they bee secret how come you to know them and to know they are heresies seing they come to haue the name of heresy onely by condemnation of the Church As for your last point of the Fathers giuing warning by letters it is true indeede and thereto you might also haue added if you had soe pleased that the Fathers did forbeare absolutely to condemne things for haeresies or to censure the authors for haeretiques V. Ep. Cyrill Alex. ad Caelest P P. in Conc. Ephes. p. 1. cap. 14. to 1. Concil ed. Post Binii and consequently to send such letters till they had acquainted the Bishops of Rome and had his iudgment As is clere by S. Cyrill of Alexandria in the case of Nestorius 5. But we haue this at least out of your discourse that seing you can produce noe such letters against any point of those which you condemne vs for that they doe not endanger the foundation of faith If not what needed you make this huge breach from vs vpon pretence of Reformacion in things of noe more moment or at least not of necessity in your iudgment but we are not to require more reason of your doings then your sayings and therefore to come to the parable of scripture wherein the enemy is said to haue ouer sowed his cockle in the night Which parable you are pleased to expound of Apostacy I answeare that this parable is vnderstood noe lesse of haeresy then Apostacy V. Tert. de praesor cap. 31. nay more For all the Fathers and Interpreters expound it of haeresy none that euer I heard of Apostacy Which therefore must bee verified of all those which you acknowledge for open haeresyes 28. 6. And therefore you are much out of the way when you thinke by that that you are not to be forced to name the person place and tyme when where and by whom our Doctrine began because as you say the seede was sowne in the night and the person not knowne For in that parable you are to know that as Christ is the Goodman of the howse who sowed the good seede soe the enemy that soweth his cockle in the night is the Diuel who indeede worketh in the night and inuisibly and he is the one singular and principall enemy of Christ and all Mankind And hee it is that soweth all the seuerall seeds of diuers haeresyes the field wherein he soweth it is the World Then it groweth vpp and appeareth when that seede of erroneous doctrine being sowed in the harts of wicked men and there taking deepe roote breaketh forth at last by their preaching and teaching thereof or this cokle are Filij mali as the Scripture it self saith euill Children then the Seruants of the Goodman who are the Pastours and Doctours of his Church presently beginne to complaine thereof and wonder how it should come c. Soe S. Aug. lib. q. Euāg in Math. cap. 11. to 4. This
is the true explicacion of this Parable not according to my priuate sense but according to the sense of the holy Fathers and our Blessed Sauiour himself who voutsafed to explicate this Parable vnto vs wherein as you see the Goodman's seruaÌ„ts marke the growing of the cockle soe must you tell vs what Pastors or Doctors did euer note any such thing in any point of our doctrine But heere Sir Humphrey what is to be thought of you that take vpon you to interprete Scripture at your owne pleasure and for your owne ends euen then where our B. Sauiour himself doth explicate his owne parable and meaning thereof What I say may men thinke by this that you will doe els where soe your chiefe gappe or euasioÌ„ for not assigning the person tyme place when our Doctrine began is stopped and the exception remaineth still in full force to wit that you must assigne the tyme place persons or els we acknowledge noe error 7. But you say it is an vndeniable truth that some things were condemned in the primitiue Church for erroneous and superstitious which now are established for articles of Faith this you proue by a place of S. Aug. saying that he knew many worshippers of tombes and pictures whom the Church condemneth and seeketh to ameÌ„d Which yet you say is now established for an article of Faith But by your leaue Sir this your vndeniable truth is a most deniable vntruth For first S. Augustine's tyme was a good while that is about one hundred yeares after the primitiue church Secondly that which S. Aug. condemneth to wit the superstitions and heathenish worshipp of dead and perhaps wicked men's tombes and pictures vsed by some badd Christians is not approued by the Nicene and Trent Councels but the religious worshipp of Saint's images reliques which S. Aug. himself practized Bell. de reliq lib. 2. cap. 4. as you may see in Bellarmine with whoÌ„ alsoe you may find other good solutions of this place which I suppose you cannot but haue seene and consequently you cannot but know that your vndeniable truth is flatly denied by him and all Catholiques 8. Diuers other things as the Primacy of S. Peter Prayer for the dead Iustification Masses Monasteries Caeremonies Feasts Images You say are otherwise now vsed then at first instituted Which for these fiue last to wit Masses Monasteries c. You proue out of one Ioannes Ferus a fryer a man much in your bookes and the books of all your Ministers but not in any of ours but onely the Romane Index of forbidde books And therefore of noe authority or accouÌ„t with vs. For the rest of these points wee haue nothing but your bare word surmize which is but a bare proofe not worth the answearing 9. After this the knight thinketh to come vpon vs another way saying that our owne authors who haue sought the tymes and beginners of our errours as he is pleased to call them confesse an alteration though they doe not finde when it beganne For restraint of Priests marriage he saith that Marius cannot finde when it came in Yet after he bringeth Polidore Virgill saying that Priests marriage was not altogether forbiddeÌ„ till the tyme of Gregory the 7. And this doctrine our knight is pleased to make all one with that absolute forbiding of marriage which S. Paul reckoneth amoÌ„g the doctrines of Diuels For S. Paule's authority it hath beene answeared more ofteÌ„ then the knight hath fingars and toe's and euery child may see the difference betweene forbidding of Marriage generally to all sorts as a thing euill in it self and vnlawfull and forbidding marriage in one particular state or profession to which noe man is bound but is left free whither he will embrace it with this condition or not And this not because it is a thing euill in it selfe but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercize of Priestly function For Polydore Virgil it is true he saith as the Knight telleth vs and eueâ— as much more besides as any haeretique can say of that matter but it booteth not that worke of his de rerum inuâ—n â—oâ—â—â—â— being a forbidden booke Conc. Nic. can 3. Carthag 2. can 2. V. Bell. lib. 1. de cler cap. 19. and the thing which he saith most euidently false as appeareth by infinite testimonies but particularly by a Canon of that great Nicene Councel 800. yeares before Gregory the 7. his tyme. And the 2. Councel of Carthage which testifieth it as a thing taught by the Apostles and obserued by antiquity The Knight may find more in Bellarmine for proofe of this point Heere I onely aske how he maketh his authours hange together Marius cannot find the beginning Polydore findeth it and yet both for the Knights purpose forsooth But for Marius his authority it is nothing against vs but for vs. For it followeth by S. Augustines rule that because it is practized and taught in the Catholique Church with out being knowne when it beganne that therefore it is an Apostolicall tradition 10. Another errour as he saith is Prayer in an vnknowne tongue wherein it is to bee wondered saith Erasmus as the Knight citeth him how the Church is altered But Erasmus is noe author for vs to answeare he is branded in the Romane Index Neither neede I say more of the matter it self in this place A third error of ours as he pretendeth is Communion in one kinde for which he citeth Val. twice once saying it is not knowne when it first gott footing in the Church another tyme that Communion in one kinde began to be generally receiued but a little before the Councel of Constance Which I see not to what purpose they are if they were right cited as the former is not For Val. hath thus much When that custome beganne in some churches Val. de leg vsu Euch. cap. 16. it appeareth not but that there hath beene some vse of one kinde euer from the beginning I shewed before Soe Valencia What doth this make for the knight nay doth it not make against him why els should hee corrupt and mangle it Doth not Valencia say he made it appeare that this kind of Communion was somewhat vsed from the beginning and that which he saith of the not appearing when it beganne is not of the Church in general but of some particular Churches Besides for a final answeare I say it is noe matter of doctrine but practice the doctrine hauing euer beene and being still the same of the lawfulnes of one or both kinds as the Church shall ordaine though vpon good reasons the practize haue changed according to the diuersity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that euer he can doe he can not refute that argumeÌ„t which wee make against him and his that our doctrine is not to be taxed of errour soe long as they cannot shew when where and by whom it beganne as wee can and doe euery day of
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
wind INDVLGENCES §. 8. 1. Wee are now come to the last § of this chapter which is Indulgences which you Sir Humphrey beginne after your wonted manner with the tenth article of our Creede as you call it and the Decree of the Councel of Trent teaching that Christ hath left that power of granting Indulgences in his Church and that the Church hath vsed the same from most ancient tymes and that therefore they are to be retained in the Church condemning also whosoeuer shall terme them vnprofitable or deny authority in the Church to grant them Which doctrine you allow not of as not being agreable to Christ institution nor the practize of the primitiue Fathers You confesse indeede that in the Primitiue Church there was a power in the Bishops to remit or mitigate the seuerity of the punishment which by the Canons men were to vndergoe for certaine great crimes which mitigation you allow to haue beene called by the name of Indulgence and in that sense you take that relaxation of the incestuous Corithian by S Paul Thus farr you goe well with vs but now you say the Indulgence of the Roman Church is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ his Saints termed the treasure of the Church Which treasure you say is applyed to the soules in Purgatory and that which was formerly vsed for mitigation of punishment is now reduced to priuate satisfaction and that which was formerly left to the discretion of euery Bishop in his Diocesse is transferred wholy to the Pope and this not onely for some few yeares in this life but for many thousāds in Purgatory after death 2. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Which though you seeme to take to be a very good and substantiall one yet is it nothing soe For first it neither proueth any thing nor ouerthroweth our doctrine of Indulgences though that were true which you say of the difference betweene our Indulgence of these tymes and those of the primitiue Church for the vse of those tymes is not our onely ground for this point of doctrine but wee haue others both of scripture tradition vndoubted practice of the Church for aboue a thousand yeares at least and this of the practise of the Primitiue church in relaxation of the punishment of the poenitential canons is not vrged by vs at lest by some of our Diuines as an euidēt conuincing proofe but onely as coniectural and probable Suar. to 3. in 3. pars disp 49 sect 2. n. 4.5 s◠q. it is not then to the purpose for you to stand soe much vrging the difference betweene the Indulgences of our tymes and those of other former tymes as if by doeing that you had done all that was to be done 3. But besides to answeare Secondly you haue not done euen that for you doe but onely make shew as if you would haue men thinke they were different without shewing wherein the difference consisteth Nay euen out of that which you graunt of those ancient Indulgēces you may be disproued in what you deny of ours for to begin with the very word Indulgence you graunt it to haue beene in vse in those tymes But you say ours is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ Which though alleadged as a difference yet doe I not see wherein the difference is For theirs was an absolution because it was an vnloosing or vntying For whereas by the Canons for certaine great crimes men were bound or tyed to vndergoe such penance for example to fast with bread and water soe many dayes in a weeke for soe many moneths or yeares not to be admitted to the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Masse and the like By this indulgence or pardon which you grant they were vntied or loosed from soe much or soe little as by that pardon they were freed from and soe is it in our Indulgence wherefore the difference is not in the absolution which is nothing but loosing or vntying It can not be also in the guilt which must needs be remitted in your indulgēce as well as in ours For a man is not free soe long as he is guilty if then they were freed by that pardon the guilt was taken away thereby It is not likewise in the temporal punishmēt which is alike remitted in the one and other For it was temporal punishment or penance which men were freed from in those tymes by indulgence and soe it is temporal punishment which wee are now adayes freed from by our indulgence Wherefore I doe not vnderstand what you meane Sir Humphrey when you seeme to make a difference in this saying that Indulgences which were first vsed for mitigation of punishments are now reduced to priuate satisfactiōs For what were not those Indulgences giuen to priuate men for satisfaction or in lieu of that satisfaction which they were to make by the Canons and are not ours mitigation of the same vnlesse you put the force in this that there the punishment was onely mitigated or lessened that in our Indulgence all is taken away which yet is false on both sides for neither in ours is all the punishment taken alwayes away and in those sometymes all was taken away as we see by the example of the Corinthian whom S. Paul doth forgiue without limitation besids this I do not imagine what you cā meane in these words 4. The difference also is not in the authority or power whereby this pardon is graunted for then it was granted by the Bishops and soe it is also now For euery Bishop in the Catholique Church hath this power But you will say Humphrey not soe much now as then be it soe that is against your selfe for that is your complaint that it is more vsed now then in those tymes But you say againe the Pope hath more now then he had then and that all is transferred wholy to him To which I answeare that this later part is false all is not soe wholy transferred but that euery Bishop hath his part of this power ouer his owne subiects though with some limitation and though the Pope should take it wholy to himself and from other Bishops what is this against Indulgences doth it alter the nature of them because the Pope giueth them either more by himself or more liberally then he did heeretofore by others The power was in many before now it is in one that one then hath more power then he had before but is it not the same kind of power wherefore the difference cannot consist in this but thinke not Sir that I grant you the Popes power to be more now then at that tyme it was nor lesse then thē now it is It was the same of this power as of all other his power of binding loosing whereof this is one branch which did euer extend ouer the whole Church ouer all pastors and all and euery one 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
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 suppose he doe know thē to be good yet they haue not that goodnes from him or as they are his but as they are from almighty God and by his grace And yet more we teach that he may fall againe and loose all his labour which doth exceedingly diminish confidence of a man's selfe soe as we leaue nothing for a man to trust to of himselfe but that he must giue all to God as S. Paul did in saying 1. Cor. 15.10 non ego sed gratia Dei mecum not I but the grace of God with mee qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur That he that doth glory may glory in God and to shew that we haue nothing of our selues we say againe with the same Saint quid habes quod non accepisti What hast thou which thou hast not receiued Now on the other side examine you your owne doctrine a little better and see whither it doth not teach the contrary vaine cōfidence in most of these points as that a man must assure himself that his sinnes are forgiuen that he must assure himself of his saluation that he cannot fall from grace and the like Which ground supposed how can he worke his saluation with feare trembling as S. Peter teacheth And soe we haue answeared 3. points of Safety which you begin withall out of your owne inuention Now you come to other points of Safety which you proue by authority of other men 5. The first of these and fourth in order is Communion in both kinds which you say is better then in one kinde alone you proue it out of Cassander Vazq Hales and Valencia I answeare that for Cassander you know he is noe author to be alleadged against a Catholique For Vazq it seemeth you are not so well skilled in him as to cite him out of his owne works but out of the frēch Minister Chamier who is another great mā with you But for the matter it is true some few Catholiques as Vazq Hales p. 4. q. 11. m. 2. ar 4. § 3. for Valencia I shall tell you more anone are of opiniō that it is of greater merit and fruit to receiue in both kinds then in one But I aske you why it should be more safe to follow those two then 10. 20. 30. or 40. Other Diuines to the cōtrary For my part I doe not see any reason for it if you waigh the matter by reason or by number and authority of Doctors Secondly neither of these two doth acknowledge any danger in our practice of one kind but allow it for good and lawfull For soe saith Hales quia Christus integrè sumitur sub vtraque specie bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum sicut fere vbique fit a laicis in ecclesia Because Christ is receiued entirely vnder each kind it is very lawful to receiue the body of Christ vnder the kind of bread onely as it is vsed almost euery where by the Layity in the Church And Vazq employeth a whole disputation in the proofe of the same Truth out of Scripture and tradition shewing withall that the Latine Church did with very good reason forbid Communion in both kinds and soluing all the arguments of the Haeretiques against it Soe as he acknowledgeth not your doctrine to be either safe or the same with his but a cleane different haeresy For his is a Schoole opinion not of the safety but of the fruitfulnes of Communion in One or both kinds Yours is an haeresy denying the sufficiency of one kind and vrging both as a matter of necessity for the integrity of the Sacrament and fulfilling of Christ's praecept and denying also the authority of the Church for dispensing therein And though in speculation Vazq rather allow both kinds to be more fruitfull yet all circumstances considered he deemeth Communion in one kind absolutely better for many great reasons pertayning to the reuerence of the Sacrament and common good which doe not onely counteruaile but farre surpasse the want of that fruit which is giuen more by the other kind all necessary grace being giuen by one alone as he teacheth And for Hales besids that he holdeth it very lawfull to communicate in one kind onely which is directly against you I thinke a man that would goe about it might easily puzle you out of him euen for soe much as pertaineth to the perfection of the spiritual fruit p. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar 1. For thus he saith to that which is said that he that receiueth vnder the forme of bread onely receiueth the Sacrament perfectly and entirely I answeare that this Sacramēt is receiued two wayes spiritually and sacramētaly Wherefore I say that quantum ad spiritualē sumptionē perfectè accipit for as much as pertaineth to the spiritual receiuing he receiueth it perfectly but not so for the Sacramētal receiuing Now this perfection of a Sacrament he explicateth before to consist in the representation which saith he is not soe perfect in one kind as both Which we also grant though we say the fruit to be the same in One and both kinds See Sir Humphrey how you can get out of this brake Now for Valencia your third author whom you cite in the margent saying that he affirmeth the same to wit with Hales and Vazq let any man see whether you doe not play him a Lindy-tricke For these are his words in the very same chapter by you cited Val de leg vs. Euchar. cap. 6. Hoc sacramentum tam est per se fructuosum efficax in altera specie quam in vtraque specie This sacrament is of it selfe as fruitfull and effectual in one kind as in both and soe your doctrine in this point is as safe and comfortable as your citation of this author is true 6. The fift of your safe and profitable points is of your communion of Priest and people together the safety you proue not by any thing but your owne bare word For the profitablenes of the Sacrifice indeede you proue it is more when the people communicate with the Priest out of the Councel of Trent Harding and Bellarmine but Sir that is not the controuersy between you and v◠but this whether the Priest may not say Masse vnlesse he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether it be more profitablenes for the Priest that he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether the Sacrifice be lesse perfect in it selfe in that case or not Of this you say not a word as neither doe your authors which you bring for they speake onely of the fruit which would redound to the people which we grant to be greater when they communicate with the Priest then when not But of the forme or matter of controuersy they all determine absolutely against you their whole drift in those places being none other but to disproue you as may easily appeare to any man that will looke in them and I haue partly shewed before